2001-08-2939110REPS3046502001-08-29—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills30465R138430465Bill presented by Mr Anthony, and read a first time.3046509:32:0030465Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme was to meet welfare and rural adjustment objectives by providing an opportunity for low income, pension age farmers and their partners to gift the farm to the younger generation without affecting their access to social security payments. The legislation provides for the scheme to finish on 30 June 2001. There are however some farmers who, while otherwise eligible under the scheme, had not finalised the transfer of their farm by 30 June 2001. The purpose of the bill is to provide those farmers with extra time in which to take advantage of the scheme.In effect, the bill allows an extra period of time to finalise transfers for those farmers who contacted Centrelink prior to 1 August 2001 to inquire about their eligibility and who are subsequently advised by Centrelink that they would attract the benefits of the scheme if the transfer was undertaken. These farmers can still qualify for assistance under the scheme provided the transfer is finalised within three months from when Centrelink responded to their inquiry.The bill also provides for similar arrangements in respect of farmers applying for Department of Veterans' Affairs income support pensions and who wish to take advantage of the scheme. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills30465R139930465Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.3046509:34:0030465Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Abolition of Compulsory Age Retirement (Statutory Officeholders) Bill 2001 proposes to abolish legislative provisions in Commonwealth acts that set compulsory retirement age limits, commonly 65 years, for statutory office holders. If enacted, it will significantly enhance the ability of statutory appointees to continue to serve the community beyond the usual retirement age.One of the most important challenges facing Australia in the coming years will be retaining the experience and expertise of older Australians in the work force. The coalition government places great importance upon the economic and social contribution that older Australians can play in our community in a wide range of activities. It is also committed to ensuring that the expertise of older Australians is not unnecessarily lost to the community. A large part of this contribution will depend upon ensuring that older Australians are able to participate or continue to participate in the work force should they choose to do so.Statutory office holders are selected on the basis of their specialist expertise or knowledge. This bill will ensure that people above the age of 65 will be able to be considered for appointment to Commonwealth statutory positions or will be able to continue their important contribution to the Australian community past that age.These amendments will provide greater flexibility and choice not only to the government in selecting potential appointees but also to the office holders themselves. It will assist in changing attitudes about the abilities of older workers and will remove artificial and archaic boundaries between work and retirement. The repeal of retirement age limit provisions also brings statutory office holders into line with staff in the Australian Public Service, following the enactment of the Public Service Act 1999.The bill does not propose to alter a range of age based restrictions relating to Australian Defence Force personnel. These restrictions are primarily based on considerations of operational effectiveness and the government considers that there are sound reasons for those restrictions to be retained.Constitutional limitations prevent the abolition of retirement age provisions for High Court judges whose retirement age is currently 70 years. It is not proposed to amend the retirement age provision for judges of other federal courts.The bill will also not affect other office holders appointed with tenure until a certain age. This is because removing age limits on these office holders would, inappropriately, create positions with life tenure.The bill reflects this government's commitment to providing greater flexibility and choice to older Australians. It is an important recognition of the valuable role older Australians can play in serving the Australian community through a variety of statutory positions.I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills30466R139430466Bill presented by Mr Bruce Scott, and read a first time.3046609:37:0030466Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Defence Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 proposes to apply the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code) to all offence creating and related provisions in acts administered within the Defence portfolio, and to make all necessary amendments to those provisions to ensure compliance and consistency with the general principles of the Criminal Code.This bill advances the government's overall program to harmonise offence creating and related provisions in Commonwealth legislation with the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code will codify offences under Commonwealth criminal law and establish a cohesive set of general principles of criminal responsibility.The bill will similarly improve the efficient and fair prosecution of offences by clarifying the physical elements of offences and amending inappropriate fault elements.On 1 September 1993, the government agreed to develop a national uniform Criminal Code by 2001. The Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 was enacted as part of the development of this nationwide system. Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code standardises the principles of criminal responsibility applicable to all Commonwealth offences. The Criminal Code also seeks to clarify or replace common law principles of criminal liability, which now apply to many offences created by Commonwealth legislation.All Commonwealth agencies are required, as a matter of law, to review their legislation with a view to harmonising affected statutes with the Criminal Code. The harmonisation process is intended to achieve a balance between updating the principles of criminal responsibility in Commonwealth statute law and ensuring that existing offence creating provisions operate as intended by parliament.The Criminal Code affects defence legislation containing criminal offence creating provisions. Amendments have been proposed for 10 defence statutes, as follows:· Approved Defence Projects Act 1947;· Control of Naval Waters Act 1918;· Defence Act 1903;· Defence Force Discipline Act 1982; · Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973;· Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948;· Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952;· Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991;· Naval Defence Act 1910; and· Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act 1995.The bill amends those acts among the identified Defence portfolio legislation, which specify the physical elements of an offence and corresponding fault elements (where these fault elements vary from those specified by the Criminal Code). The bill also amends those acts among the identified Defence portfolio legislation which specify whether an offence involves elements to which strict or absolute liability applies— that is, where the prosecution does not need to prove fault on the part of a defendant in respect of an element.The Criminal Code is particularly relevant to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (DFDA), which is the statutory basis of the discipline and military justice system of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The DFDA is a key mechanism by which service discipline is maintained. The DFDA is used predominantly by ADF personnel who are not legally qualified. These ADF summary authorities, prosecuting officers, defending officers and discipline officers conduct approximately 7,000 summary trials per annum and some also conduct committal proceedings for matters referred to courts-martial and Defence Force magistrates.Consequently, the bill sets out the offence creating provisions in the DFDA in a consistent format to ensure that they may be easily understood and applied by the non-legally qualified ADF personnel who must implement the DFDA. The bill has resulted in significant changes to the wording of some provisions of the DFDA, but it achieves a balance between the requirement of the Criminal Code to update the principles of criminal responsibility in Commonwealth law and the continuing consistent operation and effect of existing DFDA offence creating provisions. Accordingly, the bill will ensure a smooth transition for the military justice system, as represented by the DFDA, in harmonising with the Criminal Code and will guarantee that a consistent set of principles is maintained in the administration of military justice.Under the Criminal Code, where it is intended that strict liability will apply to a further particular offence, this must be expressly stated in the provision in question. In all other cases, the prosecution will be required to prove fault in relation to each element of the offence. In the absence of the proposed amendments, offences previously interpreted as strict or absolute liability would be interpreted as not being of strict or absolute liability. Consequently without the bill, offences that would have been interpreted as offences of strict liability prior to the introduction of the Criminal Code would have become more difficult for the prosecution to prove.There are two specific aspects to the bill. First, the bill reflects the requirements of chapter 2 of the code that comes into effect on 15 December 2001. From a defence legislation perspective, these requirements are: · the replacement of common law notions of a criminal act or a guilty mind with physical and fault elements; · the requirement to expressly state those elements of offences that are elements of strict liability and absolute liability; and· the preservation of the legal burden of proof on the balance of probabilities in respect of statutory defences. Second, the bill proposes the amendment of all offence-creating provisions in defence legislation, particularly the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. The Defence Force Discipline Act reflects and incorporates common law notions of a criminal act and a guilty mind. The Criminal Code will replace these concepts with physical and fault elements. The physical element of an offence may be conduct, a circumstance in which conduct occurs, or a result of conduct. A fault element, or a description of the state of mind of the offender at the relevant time, may be intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, or another factor if specified; for example, dishonesty. The reason for the breadth of the amendments proposed for the Defence Force Discipline Act is because it establishes an internal disciplinary system, implemented by military tribunals that are required to act judicially, applicable to defence members and defence civilians. At summary level, the level at which most hearings occur, these service tribunals are staffed by lay Australian Defence Force personnel, who generally do not have legal officers appearing before them. While the higher tribunals, namely Defence Force magistrates and courts martial, are conducted or assisted by legal officers, they have no original jurisdiction and may hear and try matters only on referral from summary tribunals. The bill does not change the effect of the criminal law provisions contained in Defence portfolio legislation. Rather, it preserves current law following application of the Criminal Code. The proposed amendments will ensure that the relevant offences continue to have much the same meaning and operate in much the same way as they do at present. The bill is consistent with a number of other bills that have been prepared in relation to criminal offence provisions administered by other portfolios. The bill will modernise and improve defence legislation. In particular, it will generally bring the operation of the Defence Force Discipline Act into line with the civilian criminal law. This harmonisation of offence-creating and related offences in defence legislation with the Criminal Code is an important step in the government's program of legislative reform that will achieve greater consistency, clarity and cohesion in Commonwealth criminal law. It can also confidently be expected that these improvements will save valuable military tribunal and court time.This bill is one of the steps in a process that will give Australians greater certainty, protection and confidence under the criminal law.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills30468R139830468Bill presented by Mr Tuckey, and read a first time.3046809:49:0030468Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.It is with great pleasure that I introduce, for the third time, the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001. The bill commits the Commonwealth unequivocally to the outcomes achieved in the regional forest agreements process and provides the basis for an internationally competitive and sustainable forest and wood products industry.For too long, conflict and division characterised the so-called debate on the management, use and conservation of Australian forests. Conflict engendered an uncertain investment climate and community doubt as to whether environmental values were being adequately protected.In 1992, the Resource Assessment Commission reported the outcome of a three-year forest and timber inquiry. The commission found an overriding national need for improved intergovernmental institutions and decision processes that would support comprehensive forward planning for forest use. This finding, and the commission's recommendations, was the basis for the national forest policy statement of 1992.The national forest policy statement provided a nationally agreed—every state Premier and the Prime Minister are signatories to it—policy framework for a long-term and lasting resolution of forest industry, conservation and community interests and expectations concerning our nation's forests. It set in motion the regional forest agreement process. The statement committed the Commonwealth and all states to the ecologically sustainable management of forests and a balanced return from all forest uses. It was sometimes referred to as the triple bottom line, with an equal accent on the ecological, the economic and the social impact factors. The RFA process saw Commonwealth and state governments jointly conduct comprehensive regional assessments of the environmental, heritage, economic and social value of our forests. These then formed the basis for the negotiation of RFAs between the Commonwealth and individual state governments. This government recognised the need to increase our wood resources through plantation development and took action by funding value-adding projects across the entire native forest hardwood sector that will result in security for forest workers and a substantial improvement in Australia's economic circumstances. That concentration on value adding was an initiative of this government, and it involved a change of direction from the closing of businesses and the sacking of workers to providing additional jobs through taking a piece of green sawn timber and turning it into valuable flooring or many of the products that are seen in this Parliament House; in other words, substantially increased value and employment opportunities or, put simply: more from less. Clear evidence of this government's commitment to the long-term future of the native forest industry is the continuation of the Commonwealth government's Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program, otherwise known as FISAP. The government has facilitated value-adding investment in the native forest industry through targeted and exclusive—and I underline the word `exclusive'—FISAP grants in RFA regions; in other words, funding specifically targeted to native forest activities. I make that point because there have been some questions raised about the government's commitment in that regard in recent times. The amount of money the government is spending would certainly not be happening if there were any doubt about its long-term commitment to that sector of the forest industry. Around $70 million in consultations or applications is currently under offer, and this underpins hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in the native hardwood timber industry that has resulted from the RFA process.Our target from the growth and extension of the pulp and paper sector under the forest and wood products action agenda includes adequate protection for this developing sector from any unfair trading practices arising from competitor nations. With regard to that sector, recent advice from one of the world's most respected consultants in the forest products industry, a firm known as Jaakko Poyry Consulting, is that Australia would be seen as a highly internationally competitive provider were it to enter into large scale forest products and pulp and paper activities.The government has now published the discussion draft of the national forestry standard, which will improve community confidence in forest management domestically and overseas. The participants in the preparation of that document include representatives of certain non-government organisations.Above all, our policies have been consistent and not party politically motivated, with good science and the practical advice of long time industry participants prevailing in our decision making process. To use my own words, I think the future of our forests and those people involved is more important than some other party's preferences. I have never run my department on those principles, and I never will.The government's position stands in stark contrast with the ever changing position of our opponents in the Labor Party. Notwithstanding their authorship of the bipartisan national forest policy statement in 1992, they quickly abandoned any pretence of proceeding to the formal protection of forests and industry available through regional forest agreements. By 1996, when they lost office, not one RFA had been signed. This task has been concluded by the Howard government and its commitment reinforced by the introduction of this legislation once again. Labor's state colleagues in Queensland refused to comply with the basic RFA arrangements, choosing instead their own deal which includes the legislated phase out of all native forest activity over 20 years. The Queensland state government are the only government to take that action; in other words, to deny the industry access to native forests over the next 25 years. They paid large sawmillers to close, resulting in massive and unnecessary job losses. One of the most astounding examples of that was the town of Cooroy, a very small town: 100 employees were the substantial bread and butter of that particular town, and the firm was bought out with the instruction that they sack the workers. Promised compensation and assistance from the Queensland government to small sawmillers is yet to materialise, while the Howard government has distributed funding offers in line with its original promise but without the RFA it expected. Queensland's promise of 100 extra jobs in forest management, due of course to their very large increase in reserves, in fact materialised as 97 redundancies of existing forest department employees. In New South Wales, the Carr government has constantly unilaterally legislated for overrepresentation of reserve areas, resulting in reduced resource. Only in the southern region, when it became apparent I would not release federal funding without adequate sustainable resource, was a sensible outcome achieved. Now they have turned upon the private sector resource through excessive bureaucratic requirements.In Victoria, the government agency, the Department of National Resources and Environment, otherwise known as DNRE, produced figures guaranteeing adequate resource, but the Bracks government has commenced a fear campaign to sustain a review of the resource available, with threats of a 20 per cent reduction. No compensatory proposals to resource log supply from overrepresented reserves appears to be being considered. The Labor member for McMillan has gone as far as to conduct a large public meeting designed to soften up workers for job losses. Further I have been advised in writing by one group, known as the A-team, representing timber industry workers, that the same minister has refused to see them because they are not part of his union faction.In WA, the newly elected Gallop government has completely turned its back on the principles of the RFA signed with that state. The result is a further 60 per cent reduction in wood supply. Over 400 jobs have been lost already, with thousands more to come. The WA government has also refused to pay redundancy to the employees who have lost their jobs purely as the result of a political decision.The Howard government has delivered on its commitment and its bipartisan support of the 1992 national forest policy statement and has achieved balanced outcomes for the sustainable use and conservation of Australia's native forests for all Australians.Regional forest agreements now cover 11 regions in Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australia. Taken together, they have produced:· Nearly 10.4 million hectares of comprehensive, adequate and representative, CAR, reserves, adding 2.9 million hectares to existing reserves, or around 40 per cent.· An increase of around 41 per cent in the area of old-growth forest in reserves, to 3.4 million hectares, representing some 68 per cent of the total area of old-growth forest.· Increased employment in the plantations industry.· Improved resource stability—20-year certainty in resource supply—and a more secure future for some 80,000 people directly employed in the forest industry.· Provided Commonwealth funding under the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program, FISAP, to assist business development and create regional employment opportunities.· Improved prospects for further investment in domestic processing.Let me say that these grants under FISAP are, of course, very substantially leveraged by the investment of the private sector, typically three or four to one. Let me highlight some of the new investment flowing from RFAs.In Victoria, an estimated $358 million of investment is directly or partially linked to the signing of two RFAs. In Tasmania, Neville Smith and Co. has spent $1.5 million on high-tech kilns, new moulders and other equipment at its Mowbray mill. The security provided by the Eden RFA in NSW was responsible for the opening of the Blue Ridge Hardwood sawmill development on the outskirts of the NSW coastal town. We have recently received applications for FISAP support to underpin $75 million in investment and over 180 jobs in NSW alone. These investments in rural areas, where there are often few other skilled job opportunities, are vital to the wellbeing of those communities. Honourable members will recall that an earlier version of the bill was debated extensively in this place in 1999. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. The number of RFAs has increased from three to 10. New environmental legislation has come into force. The forest and wood products agenda has been launched. The Forest and Wood Products Council has been established and has held two meetings. The bill I bring forward today recognises these developments.Considering the evidence of the actions of the Labor opposition with regard to their own policy, what confidence can the industry and its work force have in agreements that represent at this moment a virtual handshake? What is to stop future Commonwealth governments from just walking away from these exhaustively and comprehensively negotiated agreements? These are certainly the questions I would be asking, and it is clear that industry and timber communities are concerned about this as well.There are three main objectives of the bill. The first is to give effect to certain obligations on the Commonwealth under the RFAs. These obligations involve ensuring that forestry operations in regions subject to RFAs are excluded from Commonwealth legislation relating to export controls, the environment and heritage. They draw a line in the sand for future political or bureaucratic interference or goal shifting. The reason for this obligation is simply that the environmental, heritage and economic values of these regions have been comprehensively assessed through the RFA process, and state legislation governing sustainable forest management, environmental protection and endangered species still applies. An RFA is signed when the Commonwealth has satisfied itself that state regimes adequately address these interests. There is no need for further assessment at the Commonwealth level, nor for further debate or conflict. The bill also binds the Commonwealth to the termination and compensation provisions in RFAs. The second objective is to provide legislative commitment and support to the national forest policy statement and the forest and wood products action agenda. The third objective of the bill is that it will legislate for the continuation of the Forest and Wood Products Council. These objectives continue our national commitment to build an internationally competitive, sustainable forest industry based on increased value adding and continuous improvement.In 1999-2000, Australia's imports of forest products were worth $3.8 billion and consisted mainly of paper and other high value products. In the same year we exported $1.6 billion worth of forest and wood products, mainly woodchips and round wood. The simple arithmetic is that we have a trade deficit of $2.2 billion in these particular products. Yet with our extensive forest resources, Australia should be in a position to export a wide range of high value products to redress this imbalance.Rather than consuming wood harvested from other countries where there are concerns about sustainability, we should be consuming our own wood and exporting it to the rest of the world. We should be promoting Australian wood for the global good and advertising the fact that Australia is a world leader in sustainable forest management. Just the other day I received from a constituent a photograph of their son holding a baby orang-outang, and they wrote across the bottom, `Surely the best way to protect this animal is for Australians to use the wood from their own forests.' Of course, I would endorse that remark.The RFAs have secured for us a native forest resource base for the next 20 years, some essential structural adjustment and value adding, funded in part by the FISAP program and the new processing and manufacturing investments in the RFA regions. We are also getting substantial new investments in plantations. Last year, Australia's plantation base expanded by over 100,000 hectares. We are committed to achieving the Vision 2020 of trebling the area of plantations to three million hectares by the year 2020. We now have the resource base. We are building on our processing and manufacturing base. What more do we need to do to maximise sustainable and profitable activity for tree growing, value adding and marketing of Australia's forest and wood products?In November 2000 the government announced the forest and wood products action agenda `Forest and Wood Futures'. A number of actions in that agenda have been implemented:· In July 2001, the Commonwealth increased its contributions to the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, FWPRDC, to match industry contributions dollar for dollar.· The Commonwealth has also established the Forest and Wood Products Council. The council has met twice to date and outcomes of this meeting are published on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry web site. Might I add that the contribution of the representative of the CFMEU Mr Smith has been most positive and, in fact, he has taken a good lead on many issues. So I just demonstrate the cross—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—He is a friend, is he?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, I am very friendly with him in the forest industry, Minister. They actually hold stop-work meetings for me.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Is that right?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, so I can address their workers.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—In McMillan?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I do not know about McMillan, but certainly in other parts of the state of Victoria. Another action in that agenda that has been implemented is:· The Australian Forestry Standard Steering Committee has published a draft Australian Forestry Standard for comment. The AFS will provide a basis for independent, third party certification of forest management.Industry should now be able to benefit from the competitive advantages offered by Australia's reputation as a manager of highly sustainable forests.The Forest and Wood Products Council is creating a sustainable, long-term and competitive forest industry, through its work progressing the action agenda. Committing to the continued existence of the Forest and Wood Products Council and the action agenda is important in order to progress the future vision of the Australian forest industry.In summary, we have made a substantial difference to the forest industry in Australia through the RFA process, the Vision 2020 and the forest and wood products action agenda. And let me announce our ongoing commitment. We now have world-class forest reserves, an increasingly secure forest industry looking to expand into value adding opportunities, an expanding plantation resource base, extensive research and development commissioned by the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, and a government and industry partnership driving an action agenda. The Australian forest industry is well placed to tackle future challenges and to begin reversing the trade imbalance in forest and wood products.It is the government's intention to seek the expeditious passage of this bill through the two houses. Given that all the issues have previously been debated at length, we do not consider the bill should have extensive reconsideration—and could probably be considered in the Main Committee. I wish to comment particularly on the bill's management in the Senate. There is a very restricted period available for the determination of all government legislation outstanding, including bills such as the one recently introduced with respect to refugees, and the desire of the government is to give such first-time initiatives adequate parliamentary exposure. It must be obvious to the opposition—who, I understand, have had a conversion relating to support for this bill—that they need to ensure that this bill is expedited through the Senate. We have previously observed the filibustering of certain senators speaking as individuals for many hours on this issue, and such time is simply not available. Considering the opposition's public remarks and their desire for this bill to pass, it will be incumbent on the opposition to prove their bona fides by ensuring such filibusters are interrupted by their motion. The passing of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001 will be a demonstration of Commonwealth support and it signals our continued commitment to the future of the forest and wood products sector in Australia. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—I will move that the debate be adjourned, and I would just remind the minister that next time he comes to my electorate—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You never funded one of them. You just funded closing sawmills. That is what you funded.UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Paterson and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation!Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills30473R136830473Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 29 (lines 11 to 13), omit subsection (3A), substitute: (3A) APRA may modify a prudential standard to replace particular requirements in the standard with an in-house capital adequacy model proposed by a general insurer, authorised NOHC or subsidiary of a general insurer for the purpose of setting its capital requirements. The in-house capital adequacy model proposed by the general insurer, authorised NOHC or subsidiary must comply with criteria set out in the prudential standards. (2) Schedule 1, item 23, page 37 (after line 21), after subsection 47(2), insert: (2A) APRA must obtain the Treasurer's written agreement before making a determination under subsection (1).10:12:0030473Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The General Insurance Reform Bill 2001 is the second quite historic bill for the financial services sector that has passed through the parliament this week, and we expect that the opposition will be supporting this initiative. The General Insurance Reform Bill 2001 is the first of its kind in the world. It will be a model for uniform prudential regulation in general insurance that does not currently exist. For example, at the moment there is no general insurance equivalent of the banking prudential regime under the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. The Australian Insurance Act was first written in 1973 and has been the subject of little or no reform in nearly 30 years.To remind the House, the bill introduces a three-tiered approach to supervision which includes high-level principles, regulations and practice guidelines. This will bring greater uniformity between banking, life insurance and general insurance supervision. Importantly, the bill makes mandatory the use of actuaries in the valuation of the general insurer's liabilities and raises the minimum seed capital of a general insurer from $2 million to $5 million. I am aware of various information being distributed to the media about the difficulties of some of the smaller players trying to raise the $5 million. The government understands that it may be difficult for some small general insurers to raise that additional capital and that they may need to merge or be subject to acquisition or, alternatively, may need to list to raise the additional capital. We understand those problems, but let me say point-blank that the general insurance industry has known of this bill coming for an extended period of time. The government and I think the parliament do not in any way apologise for these tougher guidelines and rules for general insurers. We believe that insurers need to have an adequate level of capital to meet the ongoing changing environment in the general insurance industry. Therefore, whilst we are sympathetic to the plight of the smaller general insurers, it is in the national interest that they increase their capital. A risk weighted capital adequacy regime will be introduced which borrows heavily from international banking practices and adds significant sophistication to the current blunt edge regime.I would like to say a few words on a very sad note—that is, on the recent death of a very senior executive from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Mr Brian Gray, who led the team that has undertaken this process of reform. Mr Brian Gray was the number two at APRA, and he has in many ways been the architect of the reform that brings the general insurance industry into the 21st century. He has developed, with the support of a great team, a framework for supervision that will be copied around the world. His tragic passing just last Friday has been a great loss to his wife, Cathy, and to his children, Michelle, Joanne and Michael. It has also been a very significant loss to APRA, to the government and to the development of public policy in Australia. His most recent work was on the development of better prudential supervision of superannuation, and he had been working very long hours to help us to develop a better prudential regime for the supervision of superannuation.In earlier times, Brian also led the team that first introduced risk weighted capital adequacy in banking, so his credentials were outstanding for these major reform initiatives. His other major projects included development of the conglomerates regime for banking introduced after the Wallis financial sector review in 1997. I cannot emphasise enough how heartfelt the loss of Brian is. We were very surprised and many people were devastated. He was only 47 years of age, and he was at work when the very sad event occurred. APRA is absolutely shattered by the loss of someone so senior and so respected. I think the financial services sector generally has been very upset and surprised and is feeling the passing of Brian very significantly. I know people from all sides of politics are shocked and saddened by his passing. I am very grateful that, with the concurrence of the Serjeant-at-Arms, following these statements the Australian flag from inside the House is going to come down and will be passed to his wife, Cathy, and to his children Michelle, Joanne and Michael. On behalf of the parliament, the passing on of this flag, which is hanging in the parliament today, will give a very clear indication to his family that Brian during his terribly short life served Australia very well and served the financial services industry and APRA very well.10:19:0030474Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition supports the amendments that have been moved here. I have indicated previously opposition support for the General Insurance Reform Bill 2001 and for the general insurance reform packages and measures as a whole. I indicate my support for the remarks made by the minister concerning the impact of those changes, and our belief and expectation that they will improve some prudential issues in relation to general insurance.There was one issue which was the subject of potential controversy which came out of amendments moved by the government in the Senate after the bill passed the House. One of the objectives of the bill is the setting of prudential standards and the development of an in-house capital adequacy model, therefore enabling APRA to set individual capital adequacy standards for each insurer based on their own particular circumstances. An amendment was proposed by the government which would provide APRA with a capacity to set standards which varied from the prudential standards set out in the legislation. We can see why that might be needed to set standards in excess of those set out in the legislation. The way the amendment was originally framed was in our view too wide and open-ended and would have potentially allowed for standards to be reduced from those of the general legislation without reference back to the parliament. We felt that this was something which needed to be disallowable and part of the general framework of parliamentary accountability. We have managed to reach agreement with the government concerning that, and we are pleased about that and therefore pleased on that basis to support the amendments as they have emerged from the Senate. I join with the minister in expressing my concern and distress at the sudden passing of Brian Gray and also extend my condolences on behalf of the opposition to his family. I did not meet Brian myself, but he was obviously a very senior figure in APRA and one of the architects of the legislation that we are now dealing with and passing here. I understand from Senate colleagues who had met him that he was a fine public servant. They had some experience of him in Senate estimates committees and found him a very good person to deal with and very knowledgeable in his field of work. To find someone aged 47 dying in the office of a heart attack in this way is obviously a matter of great concern to all of us, and particularly to his family.I do not know anything of his particular health circumstances but I guess we cannot help but have a sense of the stress of work having contributed to his untimely death. I suppose it is a grim reminder to all of us that we should not perhaps regard our work as the be-all and end-all and that there are other things in life, other considerations that are important. We need to have a balance between work and family life and other things that are important to us. It is a matter of distress to all of us to learn of his untimely death, and I pass on to his family the condolences of the opposition.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills30475R137830475Debate resumed from 28 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 damaging Australian universities through massive funding cuts, and for reducing opportunities for Australian undergraduate and postgraduate students, in particular by:(1) cutting Commonwealth funding for universities by $3 billion since 1996, thereby reducing student places by 81,500;(2) overseeing a reduction of 3,278 in enrolments of Australian university students in 2000;(3) cutting the number of research training places by 3,336; and(4) cutting HECS postgraduate coursework places by 60% since 1996”.10:24:0030475Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00— Last night, I outlined to the House the distinctive nature of the new economy and the emphasis that government policy needs to place on research collaboration. Old economy incentives such as R&D tax concessions are aimed at the scale of research expenditure rather than the formation of research partnerships. Even in addressing the scale of research, many of these tax concessions are in fact used for tax avoidance. So new policies are needed. We need to recognise the distinctive nature of the new economy and how its raw materials—its main inputs to the production process—involve people. Its main raw material is in fact people: their ideas, creativity and information skills. This is why governments need to treat education research as a public good and vastly improve national investment and performance.In Paul Romer's view, the corporate sponsorship of universities is undesirable, given the way in which it downgrades academic integrity and the free flow of research findings. So too governments need to avoid the stultifying impact of guaranteed public funding for research institutions. The direct funding of a nation's research establishment usually drains away the competition and creativity needed for technological upgrading. For too long Australian research dollars have followed a Field of Dreams approach to policy: build it and they will come. Large public investment in technology parks, MFPs and special research centres has yielded a poor return. This is one of the paradoxes: the research establishment is always asking for more research dollars directed to institutions but, if Australia has not got the volume of trained scientists, all that policy produces is higher salaries for existing researchers and scientists. We need to train new people— bring new entrants into the research area— rather than directly fund these institutions and run the risk of not increasing research output; that is, achieving nothing more substantial than higher salaries for existing researchers.Instead of institutional grants, Romer recommends a national program of portable research scholarships—portable across institutions as well as fields of research. These would be awarded to the best and brightest of Australia's graduates. This is the key lesson from Silicon Valley: the capacity for smart researchers to create clusters of expertise, technological progress and corporate start-ups. These conclusions point to a critical distinction in the framing of industry policy. Governments need to subsidise inputs to the research process rather than going down the old path of trying to control economic outcomes. They need to desubsidise the old economy, with its raft of corporate handouts and tax concessions, and dedicate these funds to education and research. They need to invest in people, not old industries and old institutions.A second policy involves a national program of small business research scholarships. These would be allocated to emerging enterprises on a tender basis. Companies would then be able to use these scholarships within the university system, creating new collaborative relationships between the corporate and higher education sectors. In the United States, this kind of collaboration has fostered the growth of the new economy in tandem with large university endowments. We desperately need to replicate this kind of success.In Australia, our corporations spend just 2.3 per cent of their R&D outlays within the university system. Comparative statistics have been provided on the NoticePaper and show that Australia's record—2.3 per cent of private sector R&D expenditure in universities—is very poor on an international scale. In Canada, it is 4.4 per cent; in Korea, 4.2 per cent; in Switzerland, 4.1 per cent; in Germany, four per cent; and in Sweden, 3.6 per cent. So in other nations there is a far higher proportion of corporate R&D spent within the university system. That points to a higher level of collaboration between the private sector and higher education. In Australia, we desperately need to replicate this kind of success. It can be achieved through a national program of small business research scholarships.A third policy is to recognise the importance of general education. Too often, the importance of the foundations of the education system is neglected when talking about research and development. The postgraduate researcher making new inventions and progress in the year 2020 is in fact a kindergarten student today. The foundations of good research always rest in the preschool, school, college and university systems. Donating money to companies through R&D tax concessions is not a good research investment compared to getting the foundations right in the general education sector.A fourth policy relates to the need for competition. In the old economy, R&D was seen as an economic externality whereby no business could fully capture the benefits of its research efforts. Now, it has become a core business activity and something without which no information based enterprise could survive. The best discipline for increasing business expenditure on R&D is market competition; not open ended tax concessions which often ended up in tax avoidance but rigorous market competition. The best policy for government is to abandon the old paradigm of industry welfare and to pursue the new challenges of collaboration and partnership formation. Only then will Australia emerge as a clever country or a knowledge nation. A great deal of work needs to be done in repairing the damage caused by this government's failed research policies. As I mentioned last night, this piece of legislation is nothing more than compensation for the way in which the government, from 1996 onwards, cut back severely the amount of publicly funded postgraduate course work in this country. It is a form of compensation that is not likely to be sustainable. The minister has admitted in his remarks and in this legislation that it is not likely to produce win-win outcomes. Either the postgraduate loans scheme will fail to produce a pick-up in postgraduate demand or, if the demand does increase, it will lead to higher postgraduate fees, and the minister has foreshadowed a cap on the quantum of postgraduate loans. The minister is offering compensation, but it will not be sustainable compensation. That adds to an appalling track record of failure by this government in the area of research and development and, most significantly, the running down of Australia's university capacity. Across the board, whether talking about the failings of tax R&D concessions, the failings of the government's university policy or the failing of its policy in the general education sector, this government has set back Australia's long-term economic prospects. New paradigms, agendas and policies are desperately needed and, of course, that will happen after the next election.10:32:0030477Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—In speaking to the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001, while I do not endorse all of the remarks of my friend the member for Werriwa, I do concur with his concluding remarks in relation to the government's poor performance in relation to higher education funding. I will refer to that in more detail shortly.It is perhaps worth while to remind ourselves what this bill is about. It will amend the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 to provide additional funding for operating grants and superannuation expenses, introduce a loans scheme for postgraduate students, enable the imposition of a cap on student debt to the Commonwealth and facilitate and regulate electronic communication between students and institutions. I want to draw attention to the contribution made by the shadow minister for education, Mr Lee, the member for Dobell, on this legislation last night. I want to do that because he amplifies, in a way which was endorsed by the member for Werriwa in his concluding remarks, the way in which the federal government has caused a deterioration in the higher education sector as a result of a cutback in funding. I want to highlight a number of the facts that emerge from the contribution of the member for Dobell and then describe how they impact on the university I am closest to in a geographical sense, the Northern Territory University based in Darwin, and Batchelor College, which is, of course, based in Batchelor. As a result of work that has been done, we know that Commonwealth funding for universities has, as was indicated by the member for Dobell, fallen every year under this Prime Minister and the Howard government with Dr Kemp as the minister at the helm, from $4.875 billion in 1996 to $4.223 billion by the year 2002, according to forward estimates. This adds up to a $3 billion cut from public funding for Australian universities over the period. In addition, as was pointed out again by the member for Dobell, an extra $2 billion has been taken from the federal government's incentives for private research and development, adding up to a Howard government record of $5 billion being taken away from our universities and private R&D incentives.I will not go into the debate about the nature of those incentives, which was entered into by the member for Werriwa, but I want to make this observation and again refer to the speech made by the member for Dobell in which he refers to the work of Professor Simon Marginson in relation to the OECD in which he points out that public expenditure in Australia on tertiary education fell by five per cent between 1995 and 1998. As was pointed out, this is the second worst performance in the OECD. The cutback in funding over the period means a loss of student places, and that has a dramatic impact on the ability of universities, and particularly smaller universities, to function properly. I was referring to the submission from the National Union of Students to the Senate inquiry into the capacity of public universities to meet Australia's higher eduction needs and I was drawn to a couple of facts as they relate particularly to the Northern Territory University. Since 1996, the coalition under Prime Minister John Howard, and under Dr Kemp as the minister for education, have cut the operating grant to the Northern Territory University by some $6 million or, as Professor Ron McKay, who is the vice-chancellor of the university, indicated in his evidence to the Senate references committee on Monday, 30 April, almost 20 per cent. You only have to imagine what this means to a university the size of the Northern Territory University. On recent figures, for the year 2000, the university had around 2,900 students. Had the university been funded appropriately over the period, it would have had an additional 424 places. Instead of having 2,900 full-time equivalent students, it would have a figure closer to 3,300 had the minister continued to fund in the way the university had been funded prior to the coalition forming government in 1996.The Northern Territory University is a small university. Its student body and the population of the Northern Territory expect it to provide a full range of courses. I have said here on a number of occasions what the impact of cuts has been on the university's ability to provide appropriate courses for its students and indeed for the population of the Northern Territory. That university, you might recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a young institution, which was formally opened in 1989. It was seen to be a place of great promise for the people of the Northern Territory. It was seen to be a place that would attract students both nationally and internationally because of its geographical location and because of the possibilities it could offer in specialist research and specialist teaching. However, over that period, as I have been informed by the NUS submission, several courses have been cut altogether or been severely wound back as a result of funding difficulties at the Northern Territory University. Those courses are English literature, philosophy, politics, economics, anthropology, maths, physics, psychology and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studies.In its submission to the Senate inquiry, the Northern Territory Postgraduate Students Association makes the very strong point that the NTU no longer has the capacity to meet the Northern Territory's higher education needs. It points to the view that its higher education base is diminishing significantly as a result of a greater focus on technical and further education. It makes the point that currently the higher education provided at the NTU is mostly vocationally based, with the majority of people engaged in career path oriented study. The submission from the Northern Territory Postgraduate Students Association emphasises the collapse of courses as a result of the funding cuts to the university, and states:The NTU no longer teaches English literature and philosophy, barely provides engineering, mathematics and has virtually abandoned anthropology, political theory and physics.You have to wonder—I have been a student at the Australian National University, the University of Western Australia and, later, Murdoch University—what the heart of a university ought to be in terms of its teaching and its capacity to provide core subjects to provide a basis for a good general education, whether it is in mathematics-science or humanities and the arts. But what has been cut out of the Northern Territory University is its capacity to provide a foundation in the arts in a fundamental area like English literature. It has been gutted. In general science, its capacity to provide courses in physics and mathematics has been severely retarded. That raises significant issues about the nature of the product which is being provided for the Northern Territory community. It raises significant questions about the Northern Territory University's capacity to meet the needs of the growing Northern Territory population.Whilst the leadership of the university may be open to question, in large part the university has suffered not only inappropriate, poor treatment by the Prime Minister John Howard and his government, through the way in which Dr Kemp, as Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has administered higher education in Australia since 1996, but also through a lack of influence on the federal government by the previous CLP government in the Northern Territory. I say that because it is very important. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that recently there was an election in the Northern Territory, and you will have seen the important headline for the people of the Northern Territory and for the university: `CLP out, Labor in'. It was a momentous historical occasion for the people of the Northern Territory. It was very important in terms of the Labor Party's approach to higher education as opposed to the CLP's approach to higher education in the Northern Territory. The result of that election is indicative of the fact that the Northern Territory CLP government did not meet the Northern Territory community's needs in education, higher education and a lot of other public services. But more to the point in the current debate about higher education was the total inability, the incapacity, of the John Howard government to influence the higher education outcome for the Northern Territory University. A number of questions have to be asked. The Northern Territory University is based in Darwin, with a campus in Alice Springs jointly shared with Centralian College, which hosts some of its courses. It is a long way from any other tertiary institution apart from Batchelor College in the Northern Territory, which concentrates its efforts on indigenous education. It is a long way from any other higher education institution, the closest being in Broome in the north-west of Western Australia, or in Cairns and Townsville. So, if the federal government had a concern and an interest in promoting the needs of regional Australia, in looking at the specialist requirements for research that northern Australia, in this case, demands and in looking at the demographic profile of the community and the cost to the community of not having appropriate higher education services and the full range of courses, you would expect that they would look at that university and say, `We need to provide you with some basic assistance and we will not subject you to the sorts of cuts you have been subjected to.'It is important to comprehend that people who live in northern Australia do not have the choices of people living in Melbourne and Sydney. Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I think you went to the Australian National University, but you were brought up in Melbourne and you had the choice of going to any number of tertiary institutions close to your home, as do other people who live in that city. Here in Canberra there are two universities. Sydney is just a few clicks up the road—in Northern Territory terms it is a very close city: 2½ to three hours drive. Of course, if you leave Alice Springs, which is where I live, and you want to go to the nearest city that provides tertiary education, you have to drive about 1,500 kilometres north to Darwin or 1,800 kilometres south to Adelaide.What if you live in Darwin and you want to study English literature? English literature is no longer available. So what choice do you have? Get on your bike, son, and ride out of town. That adds enormous costs. I do not think this government appreciates the costs. Families become fractured because children are forced to move away from their homes. It is not a matter of choice; they are forced to move away from their homes if they want to obtain a decent higher education. I appreciate, of course, that not all courses would be available in an institution like the Northern Territory University, given its size. But you would expect, when we have a government talking about the needs of the Australian community in terms of improving industry and improving skills in maths and science, that you would at least be able to do physics and maths in an institution like the Northern Territory University. Well, you cannot, in an appropriate way. Why is that the case? Because the federal government has failed to provide sufficient resources to the Northern Territory University. As a result, it has failed the people of the Territory, who will not forget this failure when the moment to account comes upon us later in the year. I will refer again to the NUS submission and quote an apposite part of that submission:A dynamic, vigorous university for the Northern Territory is not only essential for the economic growth of the NT, but is also essential for the informed development of our cultural, social and political growth. Moreover, because of its particular position, geographically and organisationally, the NTU has, since its inception in 1989, been ideally placed to become a world leader in a range of fields and pursuits. In 2001, twelve years later, it is clear that this has not been achieved. In fact, the very existence of the university may be at stake.If that is truly the case, if that is the perception of the people who attend the university, if that is the perception of the people of the Northern Territory whose children might aspire to attend that university, what does it mean for the nation? What does it mean in terms of developing the intellectual capacity of people who live in rural and remote Australia, in this case particularly in northern Australia? What does it mean in terms of the ability of this government to comprehend the needs of people who live in regional and remote Australia?849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—They don't care!IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—What it says to me is that not only do they not care, but they have adopted a `one size fits all' approach to the way in which they govern and to the way in which they have funded universities around Australia. They have adopted an approach which has gutted the Northern Territory University and severely impacted upon the ability of people in the Northern Territory to get access to higher education and higher education research facilities. There is a lesson here for all Australians. If we want to develop the intellectual capacity of this nation, we have to ensure that higher education is properly funded. I know that when the election comes later on this year we will see a government which is committed to higher education, rather than one which has been dedicated to gutting it. (Time expired)10:52:0030480Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—The Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 is part of a continuum of legislative and governmental actions relating to higher education and education in general. I want to put it in some context, firstly, because these issues are not in isolation. If we go back to the 1980s and the Fraser years, people who were around in those years will recall that there was a massive emphasis on what was then called a `resources boom'. The future of the country was seen to be in more and more mining and the exporting of more and more raw materials. In that context, our manufacturing sectors were essentially derivative. Most of the technology we used was imported and not owned by Australians and, certainly, the markets we could sell to were invariably only local markets. For example, Ericsson manufactured circuit boards in Australia which could only be sold to Australasia, while Ericsson in Sweden exported its products into a much wider Asian market.When Labor came into government in 1983, we saw these two weaknesses, which had been demonstrated by the collapse in 1982 of the manufacturing sector. For those who are not aware, in one calendar year alone, 1982, our manufacturing work force declined by 10 per cent. One does not need much reminding about who the Treasurer was. The mind-set that was there when we came into government in 1983 was an artificial emphasis on resources—and therefore on low-skilled, extractive industries—along with a collapsed manufacturing sector and an education sector that had been under pressure from the Fraser government for some years. I will give just one little example. The Whitlam government had introduced the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, the TEAS, which gave income support to students. Throughout the period of the Fraser government, that had not been increased and so, between 1977 and 1983, there had developed quite a substantial discrepancy between what students were being given to live on and what people who were unemployed were being given to live on. In fact, it became quite a discouragement to people to go on to university or higher education, because they would actually get more money doing nothing. Certainly, the whole mind-set was essentially anti-education. The constant attacks on and cuts to higher education areas by the Fraser government and the current Prime Minister as Treasurer were quite an issue of the day. We came into government with those three issues running strongly: an emphasis on resources, a collapsed manufacturing sector and an anti-higher education mind-set in government that had therefore been in some parts of the community. In attempting to recover that situation and to re-establish Australia as a manufacturing sector and certainly as an innovative, inventive, developmental country, we found we lagged behind the world in two major ways. One of those was our access to venture capital, a very major issue; and the second one was, of course, our investment in research and development. We lagged way behind the world in R&D investment and even in the recognition of its importance.Over the years from 1983 onwards, we tried many different ways to turn that around, and many of those failed. Simple ways were, for example, trying to bring onshore more of our defence manufacturing and more of our defence manufacturing design work so that our clever scientists working for defence science were able to influence and impact on the manufacturing of our defence equipment. Other simple examples are the fact that the precursor to Telstra, the engineers working in communications for the government of the day, found that their best and brightest ideas were given for nothing to Ericsson, who then sold them worldwide. We actually gave away much of our research and the products of our highly capable scientific people in the field. Despite the Fraser government and despite everything else, the Australian people have been very inventive and very innovative as a natural survival technique. I suppose it is a matter of the old question: when you are in a small country that is very isolated, you have to be inventive to keep adapting things to work; and we had a long history of inventiveness that had never been able to be exploited. So the challenge to the Labor government was in fact to take that on and find ways to help do that.In addressing those two issues of venture capital and R&D, we ran up against some major roadblocks and major obstacles. The first was the concern in the community that investment in education was unbalanced and unfair, because the people who benefited appeared to be those who received the investment—in other words, the students. Rather than see that investment in students as being of benefit to the whole community, many saw it as being unfair: why should they pay taxes for people who would then become much higher income earners? If we wished to accelerate the rate of education investment beyond the norm, something else had to happen.In that context, we introduced HECS, the higher education charges, to allow us to invest more rapidly in education, to advance education at a faster rate than other spheres, because of the fact that those who were benefiting from it were then contributing something towards it. That was a most political decision to take, and a very hard one to implement. It was opposed by the then opposition, those in government now, in their politically opportunistic way. The aim of the HECS scheme was to reduce the roadblocks, to allow us to accelerate investment in education because, as a country, we were so far behind that we needed to do that. The introduction of HECS meant that governments of the future, forever and a day, would be able to spend more on education than on other issues, because the people who were benefiting were in fact contributing. So, rather than spend at the average rate, we could spend faster.What happened in 1996? I well remember Minister Vanstone being absolutely critical of the rate of spending on education, and pointing out that we had spent more on education and at a faster rate than we had spent on roads or on some other community activity—totally ignoring the fact that the whole principle behind the HECS funding program was to allow us to do just that, because the country needed it. I remember her speaking of some nasty little conspiracy between the Labor Party and the education sector to get them extra money—when in fact the money that they were being given was predominantly coming from the charges being applied to those who benefited.What did the government do when they came into government in 1986? They increased HECS charges. Quite ironically, for a government that say that taxes should be equal, should not be judgmental—like one rate of GST, not multiple rates; we see them trying to move more and more towards a flat income tax—on the HECS charges they introduced three rates and made them quite differential. So they vastly increased the rate of HECS; they increased the differentials and, of course, they lowered the threshold at which it gets paid back. So, in fact, they actually produced a massive discouragement to people to go into education. That discouragement is still there and, in the minds of many people, is a major obstacle. It certainly has an effect on what courses they choose. The courses with the highest charges are the ones for the people we are most short of, for example, particularly in the science sector. The government talk now about innovation while they make it more difficult and more expensive for people to become scientists because they charge a higher HECS charge. What they are encouraging students to do automatically is to look at the courses, look at the salaries afterwards, look at the HECS charges, and then pick the best combination. Rather than students necessarily doing what they might want to do, or what might be best for the country, there is now a disincentive for them to do that. I find that so hypocritical of the government. This legislation, and all the posturing of the minister on these issues, is so massively hypocritical. This is a government massively in denial and one that so misuses words. The government's record of cuts in this sector and the minister's rhetoric when he tries to tell the world that he is actually increasing spending are such that I do not think that people in Australia are now falling for it. They might have fallen for it for the first year or two but, after five years, that stuff wears a bit thin.The other part about HECS and investment in education is that we were told last year that the GST would not affect the education sector. I—and I am sure every other member of this House—am receiving constant approaches by students who have suddenly been told that their HECS interest charge increase for the last year is 5.1 per cent. They say that for other sectors of the community the GST inflation impact was removed but for them it has not been. So the students of Australia are going to pay more money to the government for HECS because the GST has increased the rate of inflation. In other words, the GST is being placed on education because the extra three per cent or so that is GST relevant is actually being charged. So current students—and this, of course, eventually compounds—and people with HECS debts are now paying more because the government has actually incorporated into the interest charged on their HECS debt the impact of the GST. This government says one thing and does another. The difficult part for most of us in the community, I suppose, is that normally people take things at face value: they hear what someone says and they take it at face value. With this government everything has to be checked in detail because within the fine print you find all the little tricks and devices. Talk about mean and tricky: Shane Stone had it in one! When it said that there is no GST on education, what it meant was that there is no GST on some of the direct charges. What it implied was that education would be quarantined from the GST impacts. Of course, it was not—as health is not; as schools are not—because we find that tax affecting it in a number of different ways. Certainly, for a country that desperately needs to become more highly educated and to become better at innovating and at taking our innovations into production, this government has put up some massive disincentives and discouragements. The reason that I mentioned earlier the resources boom of the 1970s was that that shows the mind-set that this government has.For most of the life of this parliament I have been involved in a parliamentary committee that has been undertaking some inquiries into value adding in Australia. Our first inquiry, which carried over from the previous parliament, was to look at investment in research and development. It was very clear from our inquiries—and our report essentially stated it—that business research and development had gone down substantially since the change of government. It took us years and years to find the methods and the formulas to get investment in research and development increased in Australia. Despite all the best advice, these things are really difficult to do. We are talking about a major culture change in the business community to see investment in R&D as being an investment in their own eventual profitability and for their own corporate benefit rather than something they were just losing. This is the way the government still sees education. Whereas many of us see education as an investment in our future and in our country, the government sees it as being a cost to the taxpayer and constantly puts it in that context, therefore helping to marshal resentment in the community against educational investment. That is what I find so contradictory and so duplicitous about what has been put forward in this legislation, and every speech the minister makes has that contradiction embodied in it. In that inquiry on R&D it became very clear from virtually every business organisation we spoke to, and the submissions that we had, that the business sector did not believe that investment in R&D would increase without the reintroduction of the 150 per cent tax write-off on research and development. The government is proclaiming this legislation as the implementation of its innovation statement and its investment in trying to recapture the growth in R&D, an innovation which it had killed off. R&D did not die of its own accord; the government killed it off. It actually said that R&D investment was a rort. Day after day in question time we had the Treasurer badmouthing literally hundreds of people who had put an awful lot of work into this. Sure, there were some people in there who may have been rorting, but tell me of a government scheme that does not have people in there committing fraud. Fraud is quite different and, rather than isolate the fraud, the government badmouthed the whole scheme and justified that financial attack on it.In fact what the government managed to do was turn businesspeople off investing in R&D. They discouraged them from doing it, made it more difficult, made it punitive and put them in danger of being called cheats, rorters and frauds. It had taken us 10 or 12 years to persuade businesses to start to invest in R&D. We had just got them onside and working along very well, and we had started to get towards world's best levels, and then in came this bunch and killed it off. They did not do it accidentally. It was not some unintended consequence; it was a deliberate, conscious onslaught for months and months. Now they are trying to recover ground, but it is clear that the business community recognise that the 150 per cent tax write-off was by far the most effective way of investing in R&D.Now the government has increased it. It has also made compliance more difficult, which makes it more expensive. The change in the corporate tax rate actually reduces the level of R&D write-off in equivalent terms. The tax deduction of 150 per cent, 125 per cent or 175 per cent has to be discounted by up to a third because of the change in corporate tax in terms of the actual net benefit to a company and offset against what it costs the company to comply with it. It is very questionable now for most companies whether it is worth their while investing—whether they will still lose money. We are talking here about cultural change in a major way.This will eventually impact on the university sector. This legislation is not in isolation, as I said at the very start, but is part of a continuum. The government is now trying to recover some ground and regain some credibility for itself. That in itself is a lost cause because, quite frankly, anybody who is informed in this field no longer believes this government, particularly this minister. The deceptive use of numbers and statistics is well understood by those in the field, but the danger is that we have this shallow, superficial approach, which is indicative in the innovation statement. The government announced that there would be a $2.9 billion investment program over five years, but six per cent of that will be in the last couple of years. This is three to five years away.The issues we have with R&D are right now, but the government's activities are predominantly three years away. They will start getting serious in two or three years time, which says to the community, `This matter isn't really important right now. We can do it in the longer term.' Let me tell you: if this government stays in power, the tax cuts that will be made in a couple of years time will be cut from this program. They made cuts in 1996 and blamed the industry, the community and the people who were doing research and development. You can be sure that in two years time they will say, `There wasn't the take-up rate, the community didn't respond and the business sector didn't pick it up; therefore, there's a saving available.' What they will save in this innovation statement will end up being translated in tax cuts for higher income earners. All the way through we find the government talking up expenditure, but when it comes to the crunch the money is not spent. It is the same with aged care—with the phantom beds we have—and the same in many other sectors: the government make a big noise about what they might be doing but when it comes to the crunch you find that the money has not been spent. One of the great examples is defence expenditure: year after year they postpone major equipment purchases. Our equipment is desperately run down and the government are still talking about doing something in a couple of years time. They are also still talking about a request for tender for the patrol boats. This was supposed to have started two or three years ago, but they are still talking about it. It will be the same case in this sector.This tricky government does it in a clever way: it puts up these figures for the next four or five years, and then two years out it says, `The take-up wasn't as great and we can therefore make a saving—not as much was required.' That saving then becomes somehow clever, better management—but the saving is not a saving; it is a cost. Investment in higher education and skilling our community is not a cost; it is an investment—an investment in all of us having a better future. The sooner the government genuinely understands that, genuinely supports it and genuinely starts talking about it, the sooner people in the business and education sectors will start to respond. In the higher education sector, in the universities of Australia and even in my own university in Newcastle there is much discouragement. Morale is low and their acceptance of the government as not being genuine is profound. These sectors need a government that is positive about their future and that sees them as an investment and not a cost. (Time expired)11:12:0030484Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I rise to support the amendment to the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 moved by the shadow minister for education. I remember that when I had the privilege of being able to go to university in the early 1970s the only choice I had to make was basically which course I would do or which my qualifications allowed me to do. I think then of the circumstances which gave incentive to go to university and to study particular courses. At that stage we had access to a very generous Commonwealth scholarship scheme, and in my own state teacher scholarships abounded at that time. I now think about what lies ahead for many students and their families as they face the prospects of tertiary education, after the initial euphoria of receiving successful results.Apart from the grind of their study, and hopefully the stimulation of their study, the financial and social demands facing most students and their families in Australia today are quite considerable, unless they have the wealth not to worry about that. The financial constraints facing students and their families today are the Higher Education Contribution Scheme; living expenses; study and course specific costs; and, if relevant, the postgraduate fees that appear to be complementary to the gaining of primary degrees and the continuation of further study, lifelong learning, to improve the job prospects of graduates. It has been estimated by the Australian Scholarship Group that the costs of tertiary study—including things such as living costs, fees and specific course study costs—range from $12,000 to $28,000 per year. Multiplied by four years, the cost ranges from something like $48,000 to $100,000. Indeed, that is an investment in their futures, but it is also an immense financial burden for many students and their families.Whilst evidence suggests that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of students defer their HECS payments, many work long hours in part-time and casual jobs or are forced to take out loans just to meet everyday living expenses and the cost of books and materials. It is a considerable cost and burden on young people and their families. This is often a forgotten fact of the cost of tertiary education, but it is a harsh reality for a student. Also, the cost of materials for many courses is very high—something that is often forgotten about. Indeed, I am told that in some courses the costs can amount to several thousand dollars a year, and they are just subject-specific costs for students. University financial advisers often comment that many tertiary students and their families fail to appreciate the pitfalls when they first start out in tertiary studies. My advice is that any students and their families who are considering university and tertiary studies, including TAFE, avail themselves of the services of campuses and look at the financial requirements and potential burdens that they face. I am told that some students doing computer courses cannot even afford to buy a computer. I would have thought that was a fairly basic requirement of people doing those courses. Financial difficulties are a major reason why first-year students drop out of college. The pressures are exacerbated by the fact that many students have to work to finance their courses. It was very different when I set out in my university days in the 1970s and early 1980s. It is interesting that most of the decisions made on further education matters in this House are made by people who had the privilege of going to university at basically zero cost. Those days have certainly changed, and I wonder if our consciousness of what happened to us remains as well.For students who are required to live and study away from home, Commonwealth financial assistance is increasingly inadequate and restricted, and the pressures on these students is great. I refer particularly to students who have to leave the north-west coast of Tasmania, in my electorate of Braddon, to study in Launceston, Hobart and, unfortunately, on the mainland, because they have limited choices for tertiary studies in our region. That is not to say that the quality of what is offered in our region or its delivery is not good. Indeed, the Burnie campus of the University of Tasmania and the TAFE campuses at Burnie, Smithton and Devonport do a good job. However, course choices are limited and many of our young people have to leave the region to commence and/or to complete their tertiary studies. This is often a catch-22 situation for our region, as I have mentioned a number of times in this House. The Mersey-Lyell region has, unfortunately, one of the lowest retention rates in the nation for years 11 and 12 and for tertiary education participation. Indeed, tertiary participation in the Mersey-Lyell region is amongst the lowest in Australia. In national university participation rankings, the Devonport-Burnie and north-west rural Lyell regions rate at 227 and 280 respectively out of 290 in Australia. TAFE participation is similarly low. Only remote areas of Western Australia and—as my colleague the member for the Northern Territory mentioned—the Northern Territory rank lower than the north-west rural Lyell region. These participation patterns are repeated at the state level in Tasmania. Although regional participation rates have improved significantly since the opening of the University of Tasmania's North-West Centre in 1995, they remain low in comparison with other areas. Although Mersey-Lyell contributes approximately one-quarter of the state's population, only 12.5 per cent of the students attending the University of Tasmania in 1998, for example, were from the region. This underrepresentation is found at both the school leaver and mature age levels. Tertiary education participation and achievements in Mersey-Lyell are therefore plainly well below average in both a state and a national context.The retention rate to year 12 for north-west students is also well below other Tasmanian regions. For example, although participation rose significantly in 1999, still barely 50 per cent of north-west government school students completed their education to grade 12, compared with the national level of 74 per cent. Moreover, the 1999 rise is more likely to be linked to changes to youth allowance eligibility rather than to be an indicator of change in attitudes towards education. These rates are improving, but emphasis needs to be placed on this process. I welcome the additional 20 places at the Burnie campus which were recently announced by the Commonwealth, but this does not deal with the need for most students to either undertake one year of study on the campus and then relocate to another metropolitan campus, or to move out of the region to commence their studies in the first place. Our north-west campus of the University of Tasmania offers only first year in a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Social Science (Police Studies), Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Computing, Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary), Bachelor of Adult and Vocational Education, Bachelor of Information Systems, Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Natural Environment and Wilderness Studies. While these courses are offered in a very eductional and successful way, our students can do only one year and then they must move on. Unfortunately, there is a complementary trend which works against people taking up tertiary studies in the first place. Where are the government's policies targeted at tackling these basic challenges? What programs are there to specifically raise retention and participation rates in areas of educational risk? Where is the Howard government's equivalent of the Labor Party's educational priority zone? There is none. There is little to nothing in financial or educational incentives or programs to improve retention or participation rates in areas of educational risk, not just socioeconomic risk. In fact, the opposite has occurred. The social and financial costs for many students forced to study and to live away from home have got worse under this government. For example, why are so many more students taking up part-time work whilst trying to study full time? Let us not forget that time is money in tertiary education now. As Student Financial Advisers Network Chairman, Roger Deutscher, pointed out to the Senate inquiry into Australia's higher education needs:Part-time work is no longer seen as an added extra for students but rather as necessary to meet basic needs while they study.Obviously the financial pressure on students and their families necessitates many taking on part-time work to sustain their studies as well as themselves. Another mitigating factor is the very low parental income threshold for youth allowance. The full allowance is paid to students only where the parental incomes are less than $25,150. Prior to 1997, students over the age of 22 years were automatically considered independent, making it easier to qualify for government assistance. Now the age of independence has been increased to 25. Students living away from home who do not qualify for any assistance are usually worse off—I suggest not just financially but socially.A major concern here is the financial differential that exists between students and their families who receive no financial support from the Commonwealth but are forced to live away from home and students in similar financial situations but who live in close proximity to the tertiary institutions they study at. I suggest that those who receive no support but are forced to live away from home to study are the forgotten group in Australian society. There is probably a $10,000 per annum differential in their situations. How can some form of equity be introduced? Is there a possibility that a tax rebate scheme could take into account that differential? Is there a possibility of a sliding scale on the income threshold that determines youth allowance or rental assistance? Thus, means testing would still apply but would be scaled according to the differential cost, based on the requirement and the proof thereof to live away from home.Most observers argue that the widespread introduction of up-front fees for many postgraduate courses has had the most significant impact on students' circumstances. These postgraduate up-front fees vary but can be more than $10,000. Mature age students in particular find this a difficult burden, particularly if they are raising a family, working full time and no doubt carrying debt. Younger postgraduate students who may be working part time are repaying their HECS debts but generally borrowing to pay for postgraduate fees. The highly competitive nature of employment now almost dictates that graduates take up further postgraduate studies to improve their employment prospects The Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme before us today will allow for the full fee for non-research postgraduate courses to be repaid through the tax system in the same way as HECS debts. PELS, as it is referred to, should provide around $995 million in loans over five years and assist approximately 240,000 students. There are fears, however, that the availability of PELS may simply encourage universities to raise postgraduate course fees, leading to even more student debt. The government unfortunately is seeking to cap the amount of interest-free debt for HECS and PELS students, which may force some to pay fees up front. There is a reasonable fear therefore, as mentioned by the shadow minister the member for Dobell, that an anticipated increase in postgraduate fees could produce a snowballing of student debt.Daniel Perkins, the Victorian Education Officer of the National Union of Students, is reported in the Age newspaper as saying:While Federal Government loans for postgraduate courses will help students gain access (to postgraduate courses), it will also allow the universities to put up their fees because more students will have the ability to pay.This has been the case since the introduction of HECS in 1989. The Age newspaper investigation by Janet de Silva points out that HECS fees, which began at a flat rate of about $2,600 a year in today's dollars, now range from $3,500 a year for band 1 courses such as nursing or humanities to just under $6,000 a year for band 3 courses such as medicine, law or dentistry. Typical arts students taking a four-year course will graduate with a HECS debt of $14,000. A band 3 course graduate will finish with a debt close to $40,000. Student fees have more than doubled in many courses since 1996. Rather than using additional fees to provide enhanced infrastructure or increased student places, the increased funding has been used to reduce the Commonwealth's contribution to higher education—that is, Commonwealth funding per place has dropped and undergraduate fees have increased.When compared with fees paid by domestic undergraduate students in other countries, Australia's students are second only to the United States in the fees they pay. In Australian dollars, students in the UK pay between nil and $2,827; in New Zealand, between $2,280 and $3,040; in the United States, $6,443; and, in Australia, the average HECS fee per annum is $4,360. Further pressure is placed on graduates with the dramatic reduction in the compulsory income repayment threshold. The threshold, originally pegged at average weekly earnings of about $32,000 in today's dollars, is $22,346 in 2000-01. The threshold was lowered significantly by this government in 1996. The GST, as has been mentioned, has played its part in adding pressure to students trying to pay off their HECS and PELS debts. The Howard government's promise not to tax education has been broken. Clearly, the GST has increased inflation, which means an increase in HECS payments, because HECS is indexed to inflation. This year's inflation figure of around 5.3 per cent has the potential to add several hundred dollars to each student's accumulated HECS debt—hence, a tax on education.No doubt members on all sides of the House were contacted by graduates and, of course, by their families to complain about this tax on their studies. It is important that the HECS repayments system remains strictly income contingent, because this is the financial incentive for parents not to be pressured to pay up front. Likewise, it is important that the HECS and PELS debts remain as interest-free debts. It is of minimal comfort to graduates now that the repayment income threshold has been lowered that, with an interest-free debt, for every year a graduate does not pay off the loan the better they are doing in comparison with those who pay up front. Most students take between nine and 11 years to repay their debt, but this is often nowhere near the actual cost to students of graduating and gaining those tertiary skills so necessary for creating a knowledge nation.11:32:0030488Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I have always been proud of the fact that I come from Western Sydney. I am one of a number of members in this parliament from that great region. It is a region where one in 10 Australians live and where one in four people in New South Wales live; it has 20 per cent of the state's labour force, 90 per cent of whom have to travel outside of the region, and it has 25 per cent of the state's GDP. It is the third largest economic region in Australia, with a GDP of $55 billion. We are unapologetic in Western Sydney in saying that we are not second-class citizens, that we want our fair share and that we want our fair share of jobs. So a bill like the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 is of fundamental importance to the people of Western Sydney, particularly to the young people. In relation to Sydney's unemployment, we have 78 per cent of Sydney's unemployment and we have 58 per cent of Sydney's jobs. If you look at the information and technology area, you will see that 20 out of every 100 jobs in the rest of Sydney are high tech, information industry based. In Western Sydney that number is merely four.I suppose what has been most distressing about this government's action is that, whatever limited opportunities there are in Western Sydney, they are being cut back. I know we are dealing with nonresearch places, but look at what this government has done to the University of Western Sydney in the cutback of research places. There has been a decline Australia wide of 3,336. It means that we have been savaged. The University of Western Sydney has had a reduction of 50 per cent in its research places. You may think I have that wrong, but we have had a 50 per cent cutback. That is the second highest cutback, both in percentage terms and in numerical terms.We do aspire to have young people from Western Sydney going on to do research. In fact, the Hawkesbury campus, a very old, traditionally agriculturally based campus, has had a long history in research. But this relatively new university, the second largest in terms of numbers in Sydney, has had a cutback of 50 per cent in its research places. That is tragic. In addition to that, the number of places has not been maintained. We all know that, when this government came to office, it decided to savage the universities of Australia. At the University of Western Sydney there are currently 24,693 students. Had the government maintained the funding, there would have been an additional 3,608 students. In other words, we would have had 28,301 students. What is the minister putting back into the University of Western Sydney under this legislation? A measly 40 places, in lieu of 3,608. Just fighting to get that university took some time, and it is disappointing to stand in this place and see the University of Western Sydney and the people it seeks to serve being singled out for savage, vicious treatment.Maybe older universities, like the university of East Sydney—more commonly known as Sydney University—and the University of New South Wales, are better able to accommodate these cutbacks. But when you have a new university going through all the growing pains that these institutions go through, these cuts come doubly hard. As I said to you about this region, Mr Deputy Speaker, the one thing we are not blessed with is a lot of regional institutions. If you were to shift Western Sydney further west, clearly we would be a state in our own right and we would have a whole range of infrastructure. Therefore, our educational institutions are so important to us.What are we talking about in terms of education? It is really about improving the life chances of our young people. In talking about universities we should not diminish the role of primary schools, which are tremendously important in laying down those educational foundations, and the role of high schools in further developing the foundations and giving students options about whether they are going to head off to university or further vocational training. I do not diminish the importance of those institutions. In Western Sydney we have some very fine examples of private schools and also public schools. But, generally speaking, it is the case that the education system is not delivering the opportunities for success that students deserve. After all, the role and responsibility of an educational institution, whether it is a primary school, a high school, a TAFE or a university, is clearly to develop the potential of those young people. Instead of saying that too many students are failing school, I say that schools are failing too many students. Not for one moment do I underestimate the challenges associated with teaching in Western Sydney, but that ought not be an excuse for failure or for a second-best outcome. That is unacceptable to me and unacceptable to the parents and I believe it is unacceptable to the students. Unfortunately, rather than raising the bar and developing an expectation that all students will succeed, schools too often reinforce an expectation that students will not do well. I believe we ought to measure the success of these institutions not by how the brightest student succeeds at a primary school, a high school, a TAFE or a university but by how the least bright student does. We owe a duty of care and responsibility to each and every student. But these days, because it is the way of things, people have to be prepared to invest in their future. That is why HECS was developed. It was developed as a way of expanding the number of places available at universities when we abolished the bicameral system in higher education, but we said that there had to be a contribution. We on this side often say that going into debt is often a turn-off to working-class people. But I would argue very strongly that we need to change that culture and that attitude to one where it is perfectly appropriate for people to invest in themselves and their life chances by taking on debt at university under HECS or in postgraduate non-research places under this new PELS scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker, although it is a fact that people may not be able to look forward to having one job for 20 or 30 years, as you and I may have expected, and people will go through a number of changes, I think that initial investment, that initial taking on of debt, is very worth while. I suppose a number of things have been unfair. Firstly, there is a bit of intergenerational injustice in this because, in a sense, you need to prepare parents and families that this is the way of the world, and in this case there was little preparation. When Labor introduced HECS, we did not do it to improve consolidated revenue or to get rid of the $9.6 billion deficit we were left; we did it with the view that every dollar would go in to expand the system. That is not the case today. Unfortunately, HECS payments are being syphoned off into consolidated revenue. I find it a most alarming development that the level of student debt— or the loans that they are required to take out to undertake courses—now places Australia, as the honourable member for Braddon pointed out, second to the United States. I think that is getting too close to the Americanisation of the system.Another thing I want to point out is that, in some community consultations I was involved in, a number of people have raised with me the age of independence. The very first committee that I ever chaired looked at student financial assistance. I have always been indebted to Bob Charles, the deputy chairman at the time, because we looked at quite a few controversial things but were able to bring down a unanimous report— which was signed up to by, for example, the Leader of the National Party, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Assistant Minister for Defence—to gradually reduce the age of independence from 25 each year, and I am pleased to say that this was happening under the Labor government. Of course, this has been totally reversed by the Howard government, and I think it is grossly unfair and a most unfortunate change.People from Western Sydney resent bitterly being considered second-class citizens or, indeed, having people try to dictate what is in their best interests or what is good for them. The airport debate is a pretty good example of that, where inner city federal members on both sides of parliament, whilst knowing full well that a second airport will not reduce any noise effect in their electorates, believe that we should share in the noise.I am pleased to say that the Western Sydney Economic and Development Board have prepared a report for us—and it has been endorsed by federal members in Western Sydney and federal ALP candidates—that looks at developing a technology, education and learning corridor on these 1,700 hectares. The 1,700-hectare site is the single largest remaining government site in Sydney. Whilst it is an excellent report, we are looking at further working it up and consulting with stakeholders in the region. This is not my estimate, but the board have suggested that up to 100,000 jobs could be developed directly as a result of proceeding down this path. I am not a job snob. I value each and every job that is available to people in my electorate. As I pointed out to you earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, and as Jim Bosnjak, the chairman of the board, has pointed out, there is a real fault line developing in Sydney between the high-tech information based jobs that are available in other parts of Sydney and those available in Western Sydney. I believe this exciting development would significantly redress that imbalance. Unlike other technology park proposals that have been around for some time, this is not just about developing high-tech industry; it is also about having education being provided on site. I imagine there may be outposts of one or a number of universities on this technology, education and learning corridor.In relation to any residential development, we have an ideal opportunity here to provide leading edge, environmentally sustainable accommodation. It could involve things like solar energy—perhaps that is not so new anymore—grey water recycling and energy efficient housing. Maybe we could even have some permaculture subdivisions. Isn't this the great Australian irony? Permaculture was developed in Australia but no subdivision in Australia is done under permaculture principles. In fact, it took California to pick up this Australian idea and implement it. Can I be so bold and go so far as to suggest that maybe we could have a good look at that. I want to reiterate that this undertaking would require vital and direct private enterprise involvement not only in terms of the industries that might relocate there but actually in terms of getting private enterprise into the driver's seat in developing the proposal.I do not want to take up too much more time of the House. I indicate that I totally support the shadow minister's amendment. People in Western Sydney have a passion about education. It is so important to us, but more particularly it is so important to the richest resource that we have in Western Sydney—that is, our young people. Anything that improves their educational opportunities improves their life chances. These are great Australians who in this new century and in this new millennium have the potential to make an outstanding contribution to the further development of this country. I yearn for a government that really sees the investment in young people as being worth while, whether they are in primary school, high school, TAFE or university, and that really is prepared to say that public investment in research and in postgraduate education not only is good for the individuals but also is absolutely in the national interest. I support the amendment.11:50:0030490Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—As the member for Chifley was the last speaker on the speakers list, I will take this opportunity to sum up the debate and to make some concluding comments on the second reading part of the consideration of the bill. I want first of all to make some comments about the legislation itself, and then I will make some broader comments about the nature of the debate that we have just had.The Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 is an important piece of legislation which will contribute both to Australia's international competitiveness as a knowledge based economy and to opportunities for Australians to pursue lifelong learning. The centrepiece of the bill is an initiative that will ensure that the qualifications and skills of many thousands of Australians are up to date and relevant in today's economy and today's society—that is, the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme. This is a very significant innovation in higher education policy in Australia generally. The government has provided in its estimates for some $995 million to be provided to support loans under this scheme over the next five years, and that provision is on top of the $3 billion provided in the Prime Minister's innovation package, Backing Australia's Ability. This scheme is in fact necessary because of actions the previous government took to deregulate postgraduate course work in the universities and to permit full fee paying students in postgraduate courses. The Labor Party said that with some minor exceptions it would allow the universities to charge fees for postgraduate course work study that reflected the cost of these courses and the demand for them. The Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme is made necessary by the fact that there are students who would like to pursue postgraduate course work but, because of the Labor Party's full fee paying scheme, find that there is a prohibitive cost to them doing so.This government takes the concept of lifelong learning seriously. Skills and knowledge do need to be continually updated; people want to improve their employment prospects, increase their incomes and achieve more satisfaction in their lives. The opportunity to undertake postgraduate course work is an important part of that opportunity in Australia and the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme will establish for postgraduate students a loans arrangement rather similar to that available through HECS for undergraduate students, and that is an income contingent loan, with no real interest payable on the loan, which can be used to meet the full fee that is charged by the university for postgraduate courses.This measure is a very substantial additional contribution to achieving access for all qualified people to Australian universities. I welcome statements by the opposition that they recognise—at last, I may say—the importance of getting this legislation through, because we would not now be considering this bill had the opposition not delayed the passage of the legislation on its first introduction to the parliament when they split the bill in the Senate. There is no doubt that the Labor Party has caused a great deal of uncertainty amongst many potential students who would like to continue their education at the postgraduate level and great uncertainty amongst the universities as to whether or not this loans scheme will be available to students in 2002. The government has hence reintroduced this piece of legislation as a separate bill to enable the scheme to pass through the parliament. It is a very important part of Backing Australia's Ability and it reflects the government's determination to expand and continue to expand opportunities for participation in higher education.The opposition has always been ambivalent about this. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was minister for education, very clearly stated his view that Australian universities were large enough, that there was no need for additional places in Australian universities and that people simply could not expect to continue through to university on a universal basis. He sought to impose a political cap on the growth of Australia's universities. That is not a view which has ever been taken by this government. Our policies have been designed to continue the expansion of the Australian university system to meet the requirements of qualified Australians as they move through to the higher education level.The hypocrisy of the opposition on this point is breathtaking, and that is clearly indicated in the second reading amendment which has been moved by the shadow minister for education, which contains within it four propositions, each one of which is simply misleading or untrue. The first proposition is that the Commonwealth government has cut funding for universities by $3 billion since 1996, thereby reducing student places by 81,500 in number. This is a totally untrue statement. The Commonwealth funding for universities has not been cut over the five years of the Howard government. Operating grants for the universities, at some $5.2 billion, have been maintained in real terms across that period. They have the same real value now as they had when the government came to office and there is no disputing that.In addition to that, the government has in fact enabled the universities to increase their total revenues very substantially. Total university revenues this year are $9.5 billion, $1.2 billion a year more than they were in 1995. So, the universities now have substantially greater resources and Australia's national investment in higher education is substantially greater now than it was when the government came to office. It is worth noting that Australia's investment in tertiary education is significantly higher than the OECD average. Australia's total spending, public and private, on tertiary institutions in 1998—the latest OECD figures—was 1.59 per cent of GDP, above the OECD mean of 1.33 per cent and higher than national investment in countries like Germany and the United Kingdom. The suggestion that this government has reduced university places is equally untrue. There are in fact some 28,000 more places available in Australian universities this year than there were when the government came to office, and some 30,000 additional undergraduate places. So, far from there being a reduction, there has been an expansion in university places.What could the opposition possibly mean by these clearly untrue and misleading statements? Let me interpret them for anyone who may be listening to this debate. The interpretation is simply this: Labor is not talking about reductions; it is talking about changes to forward estimates that it projected when it had a deficit of over $10.3 billion. Let me make this point: when the Labor Party went to the Australian people in 1998, it had a full opportunity to promise to spend according to its previous forward estimates on universities. It did not do so. It has never promised to restore those forward estimates at an election campaign.This shows the total hypocrisy of the Labor Party. It is asking the Australian higher education sector to believe that it would never have addressed the $10.3 billion black hole or, if it did, addressing it would never have had an impact on the higher education sector. Nobody in the higher education sector believes that. So the shadow minister, like his leader, is living in a fantasy land. He is trying to put forward misleading propositions in the hope that someone will believe that funding for universities has been cut and that universities have fewer resources and fewer places now than when the government came to office. None of those propositions is true.I notice that the shadow minister then tries another sleight of hand in the second proposition in his second reading amendment, and that is that there was a reduction of 3,278 in enrolments of Australian university students in the year 2000. What he does not tell you is that there are 28,000 more students in Australian universities now than when the Labor Party had charge of the higher education system. He is hoping to use figures for year-to-year fluctuations and to obscure the general and very substantial increase that has taken place in enrolments in the university sector. As people in the sector will know, the government announced further places within the last week which will amount to some 21,000 additional places in the sector over the next five years as a result of the 2,000 innovation places and further places as a result of the 670 regional places. In the next four years, those two measures together will add some 20,800 places to the university sector.Since the Howard government has been in office, we have had an increase in places which is essentially equivalent to another large new university in the system. We have just announced decisions which will add further places equivalent to another university within the system. Only the opposition believes that it can get away with this constant misleading of public opinion by its statements that there have been reductions in the number of places. This is laughable. Why should anyone believe that the Leader of the Opposition, who said the universities were big enough at the size they were in 1993, has any credibility when he says that the opposition is committed to significant growth in the sector? No-one in the sector believes that the Labor Party is so committed to significant growth. All we have are these misleading statements from the Labor Party.Unfortunately, a number of other statements in the course of this debate were also misleading. We heard the opposition suggest that participation in universities by women is declining. This is completely untrue. In fact, women now account for 56.3 per cent of the higher education population, up from 55 per cent in 1996. We also heard claims that enrolment growth in universities is slow, but the opposition fails to acknowledge that unmet demand is now significantly lower than it was when the opposition was in office. The Labor Party shut tens of thousands of qualified Australian students out of universities because, while it was quite happy to have full fee paying courses at postgraduate level, it was not prepared to give Australians the opportunity to obtain fee paying places at undergraduate level while it was quite happy to have overseas students obtain such places. The government has introduced the opportunity for universities to establish fee paying places at undergraduate level, and as a consequence there are now several thousand students in the sector who have had access to these places. That has been a significant improvement in opportunity. In addition, the government has pursued policies which have significantly opened opportunity in the vocational education and training sector. We have seen 386,000 additional places added to vocational education over the last five years. The skilling up of Australia is continuing at a most significant rate under this government. There has been some rebalancing in tertiary education under this government between the vocational education and training sector and the higher education sector, but the significant fact is that unmet demand for higher education has reduced significantly under this government. This year, for example, the level of unsuccessful university applications dropped by 14.4 per cent nationally. The universities themselves are projecting that, by the year 2003, total enrolments in Australian universities will be 599,000 students, up 30 per cent since the government came to office. Yet we have the opposition moving a second reading amendment in the House which attempts to persuade people in the community, and presumably in the sector, that somehow or other student numbers have reduced. I do not know how long it believes it can maintain this laughable charade, but it has no credibility within the university sector for the nonsense it goes on with in these debates.Another point raised in the debate related to research training places. The opposition has claimed, quite incorrectly, that the number of research training places has been cut by 3,336. This is simply not the case. You always have to look closely at the text of what the opposition puts forward because there is always a sleight of hand involved in these sorts of propositions when they come from the Labor Party. What it does not tell you is that the number of HECS exempt postgraduate research students has actually increased. The number of postgraduate research students occupying the HECS exempt research student places has actually gone up. What the Labor Party is referring to is the fact that the government has taken action in cases where universities have sought to increase the postgraduate research student load by using HECS places, places which would normally be available for undergraduate students. The result of that, as shown by very careful studies by my department, has been that the completion rates of those students have gone down, because we have seen students move into the research area without adequate supervision. To give an indication of the dimension of the problem, which the Labor Party has never even mentioned—it seems to show no awareness of it whatever—across the whole sector, for research students who began in 1992 the completion rate after eight years is 53 per cent. There are universities where 20 per cent of students who commenced postgraduate research in 1992 have completed it. There are very significant issues which the government have sought to address. We have addressed them with one objective in view, and that objective is to lift the number of postgraduate research students completing their postgraduate research, because that is vital for Australia's future.The Labor Party never talks about completions. The Labor Party is satisfied if someone commences. It seems to have no interest in whether the commencing student ever completes their degree, or whether Australia ever gets the benefit of the resources which are put into supporting the postgraduate research of those students. It offers no comment on whether the government should be commended for seeking to increase the level of postgraduate research completions, and that will certainly be the impact of our policy. Far from reducing the number of research completions in Australia, the government's policies are increasing those completions. Finally, the Labor Party refers to postgraduate course work places without making any reference to the fact that this very piece of legislation is designed to offer HECS type loans—that is, no-interest, income-contingent loans—to postgraduate students. The Labor Party, unfortunately, has demonstrated once again that it has no interest in higher education policy and no interest in improving the capacity of Australia's universities to raise resources and meet the needs of this country and its students in future. I am only grateful that the Labor Party has said that it will support this piece of legislation, and I urge it to do so. (Time expired)Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.30494Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:11:0030494Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I have a few factual questions, which I am sure will not provoke any controversy, that I would like to put them to the minister, but before I get to those factual questions I cannot help but be provoked by the minister's summing-up. I will start with a simple question which concerns the minister's claim that very high numbers of postgraduate students are not completing their studies. The minister, not for the first time, claimed that at least one university has a completion rate of 20 per cent. Is the minister aware of the name of the university that he claims has a completion rate of 20 per cent for postgraduate students?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—Yes, I am aware of the name, and I do not propose to release it publicly.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Why is the minister not prepared to release the name of the university that he claims has a completion rate of only 20 per cent? If he thinks that this is a matter of great public importance that justifies many of the changes that he has introduced into research funding in Australia, why is he not prepared to name the university that he is using to justify massive cuts in research training places for universities all around Australia?12:13:0030494Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am not prepared to release the name, because this is a matter of agreement between the government and the universities. The data is collected from the universities on the basis that individual universities will not be named. That is not something I necessarily agree with—I do not see any particular problem in that information being made available—but that was the agreement that led to the collection of the data, and I believe that the government should honour it. Let me make it clear in this answer that it is not a matter of one university; there are many universities. There are universities that have completion rates lower than 20 per cent, and there are a number of universities that have completion rates lower than 30 per cent. The total system-wide completion rate is 53 per cent after eight years. You can see that a large number of universities—in fact, most universities— have low completion rates. The opposition has never addressed that issue, as far as I am aware, in any policy statements it has ever made. It seems to be quite happy for universities to take on numbers of students who are not going to complete and who will not be properly supervised.12:14:0030494Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Is the minister prepared to write to any university that he alleges has a completion rate for postgraduate students of less than 20 per cent and ask them to give him permission to release their names? Is the minister prepared to write to the institutions that he is using to justify the changes he is making, to ask them if they will agree to have their names released? I do find it strange that a minister who lectures us endlessly about the need to release statistics on literacy and numeracy is prepared to use examples in this House of universities that he believes are not doing enough to ensure high completion rates but is not prepared to provide us with the information. That is the first point, Minister: would you be prepared to write to the institutions concerned, asking them if they will agree to release their names? The second point, Minister, is that, despite several commitments made on a number of occasions in the Senate, you and your department have not yet released the report that was prepared on completions. I ask if you would be prepared to give the opposition a copy of the report on completions, which I expect does not mention the names of the various institutions. Can we at least have a copy of the report that has been promised to us on so many occasions?12:16:0030495Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The department has prepared a report on university completions. I think the final text of that is currently in preparation. When it is complete and available I will release it.In relation to writing to the universities, I make the general point—and I am open to correction on this—that the agreements with the universities that this data would be provided in confidence were probably agreements reached under the previous government. This data has obviously been collected for some time—the base year that I am referring to is 1992—so I rather suspect that the agreement on confidentiality is one which the Labor Party concluded with the universities. If the Labor Party now no longer believes that that is appropriate, then I am quite happy to ask the universities whether they are prepared to withdraw the confidentiality agreement and allow the data to be published.12:17:0030495Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The reason I am seeking to encourage the minister to obtain the name of the university is that I think that figure is wrong; I think it is false. The reason I make that allegation is that, unlike the minister, I visit lots of these institutions, and the feedback I get from them is that this claim that a university—an unnamed, mystery university out there somewhere—has a completion rate of only 20 per cent of postgraduate students is, they tell me, false. Maybe they are misleading me and maybe the minister is right. But the point they make to me, Minister, is that the data you use takes no account of transfers from one institution to another and it takes no account of transfers within universities from one faculty to another. Could the minister confirm whether or not the figure of a university or more than one university having completion rates of 20 per cent or lower does take account of transfers from one institution to another or of transfers within an institution?12:18:0030495Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I make the point again that we are not talking about a university here. We are talking about a problem which, in many ways, is a system-wide problem. It is not a matter of a university which has a completion rate of around 20 per cent. As I have said, there is actually a university which has a lower completion rate than that.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Lower!BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—This is the kind of childish approach to these important national issues which the opposition—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Why not name it?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Let me just put it into Hansard: the opposition shadow minister has just asked me to name the university. He has asked me to break the confidentiality agreement which, as I have said, was probably put in place by the Labor Party, and to act in this way, which is not ethical. He believes, apparently, that this is appropriate in the parliament. To score a cheap political point, he is challenging me to break an agreement with the universities. This is very illustrative of the reason why the Labor Party has no credibility within the higher education sector: because it is never prepared to address issues properly, to look at the substance of the facts and to mount a substantial argument on any of these issues. The shadow minister goes around, peck, peck, pecking at little points which he thinks he can score a debating issue on, without ever really looking at the substance of the issues which concern universities or the government. Until he does that, I am afraid there will be no credibility for what the Labor Party has to say on the sector. 12:20:0030496Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I will put it to the minister again: isn't it a fact that your figure of 20 per cent is misleading and false because it takes no account of transfers between universities and between faculties within universities? Isn't that a fact?12:20:0030496Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I will provide the report to the shadow minister and he will see exactly what the basis of the statistics in the report is, and he can make his assessment of those and their validity. But I can assure him that, in discussions between the government and universities, quite a number of universities have conceded to the government that the places they have had which have not been HECS exempt places but are places that they have created themselves out of HECS places have not been satisfactorily supervised and are not going to be of a standard which the universities are prepared to maintain. Universities have voluntarily withdrawn these places from the pool because they know that these places are not competitive within the higher education research pool which has been created as a result of the government's white paper.12:21:0030496Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I was not the person who introduced this figure of 20 per cent. Minister, do you know whether that figure includes transfers between universities?12:22:0030496Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The figure that is used is one which, as I understand it, includes transfers between degrees and courses. I am doubtful that it includes transfers between universities. I think it is based on statistics that come from individual universities. We will see, however, whether that has a significant impact on the total statistic. That statistic has been discussed with the universities on a number of occasions. They have raised every issue that has been mentioned by the shadow minister, and that statistic is not challenged essentially, in its substance, by the universities. Universities are not telling the government that their completion rates are actually significantly higher than the statistics reveal. Of course, there are possibilities for students to move from institution to institution, and there is no universal identifier for these students. But whether that is a significant factor is entirely another matter. One thing I am absolutely confident of is this: the shadow minister is not in a position to assert that it is a significant matter. It is simply a point—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Then give us the information.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Well, you never collected that information. You have never put this information at all on the public record, and you are now asking the government to break confidentiality agreements. To me, that shows the complete lack of substance in what the opposition has to say on university affairs.12:23:0030496Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The reason I have asked the minister these questions today is not that I do not agree with governments working with universities to lift postgraduate completion rates. What I object to is the minister using a figure which I believe has been challenged by some universities— the figure of a university having only a 20 per cent completion rate—and I think it is proper that we have as much information as possible on the table. If today the minister has given us a commitment that the report on completions will be made available to the opposition and the public, I think that is a step forward.In the time remaining to me, I want to ask the minister a couple of brief questions on the funding for the supplementation in university salary funds for those universities that have satisfied the government's industrial relations requirements. This bill provides, I understand, an extra $27.6 million for that program. Minister, if every university were entitled to that two per cent, am I right in thinking that, as was provided for in the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999, that is worth about $84 million or $86 million per annum? Is that the total amount that would be provided in the two per cent supplementary money, if every university were entitled to that two per cent? 12:25:0030497Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—That figure is substantially correct.12:25:0030497Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—In this year's budget papers in the forward estimates, at table 4 on page 41 of one of the budget statements, there was provision for what I thought was the two per cent for universities. It came under Education, Training and Youth Affairs and provided additional funding in the forward estimates for higher education staff salaries. But that is only listed as between $43 million and $44.8 million, covering the years 2000-01 through to 2003-04. I am wondering if that is because only about half of the universities have so far qualified for the two per cent. Is that the reason that the expense measure only appears to have only half the funds which are required to pay every university the full two per cent?12:26:0030497Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Yes. My understanding is that the reason was that an initial estimates assessment—I suppose that is the correct term—was made of the number of universities likely to qualify. In fact, the sector has done significantly better than the initial assessment indicated, and the great majority of universities have now qualified for the funding.12:26:0030497Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I thank the minister for that clarification. Since the statement of risks in the budget contained no reference to the fact that the remaining half of universities were being assessed as to whether they met the industrial relations criteria that the government had set, am I right in thinking that the contingency reserve or some other part of the forward estimates already covers the remaining $40 million or so that is required to top up the remaining universities if they subsequently meet the government's IR criteria? Have I made that clear, or would you like me to say that again?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—I am not entirely sure what you mean.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The budget estimates clearly identify $40 million for each of the coming years in the forward estimates. The bill allocates an extra $27 million for this year. Is that coming off the budget bottom line, or is that already provided for in the forward estimates? I have assumed that, since there is nothing about it in the statement of budget risks, the full $80 million is provided for somewhere or other in the forward estimates, either in the $40 million already covered, as stated specifically in the item for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, or somewhere else in the forward estimates—in the contingency reserve or some other part of the forward estimates. If the minister would prefer to take that on notice, I am willing to let him correspond with me, if that is his desire.12:28:0030497Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I will take that on notice, thank you.12:28:0030497Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, I had understood that there would be an interruption soon to proceedings but, as I am told that is not to happen yet, I think that means that we now get a chance to resume some of the discussion that was taking place before about a number of claims that the minister made and a number of statements that we made in the debate but that the minister rejected. As part of my long-term campaign to breathe life into the House of Representatives chamber, let the minister and me continue to discuss these matters. It is a campaign that has been going on for five years now.It is important that the minister's claims— that universities are, according to him, being adequately funded because total revenues are at a record level—be addressed. If we follow that argument, I assume that One.Tel could be described as the perfectly operating business because its total turnover kept on growing quite dramatically. If you take no account of the cost pressures that are being placed on universities and no account of the fact that the number of students has been increasing at such a rate that the funding per student has been dropping, and if you take account of the fact that the Commonwealth government's investment in higher education has been falling, then the simple claim that university revenues are at a record high provides a completely misleading picture. It is just as misleading a picture as the general manager of One.Tel claiming that One.Tel's revenue is at a record level. The point we make is that, despite the minister's claim to the contrary, this graph demonstrates that the Commonwealth's direct investment in higher education has been declining as HECS payments by students have been increasing. I know the minister is very familiar with this graph. Like Joseph Stalin rewriting the encyclopaedias of the Soviet Union, the minister has sought to rewrite history by having the black and white segments of this table combined so that we can no longer see the separation and the split between how much the Commonwealth funds directly and how much students are funding through their HECS payments. I have already promised the member for Adelaide, who is present in the chamber, that we will be circulating a copy of the graph in her electorate to ensure that her constituents understand that there has been a cut in the Commonwealth's direct investment in higher education—a cut of more than $600 million—and that that has done enormous damage to higher education in Australia. Many of the claims made by this minister about higher education are completely false. The most basic one is his claim that there is no problem in higher education. He believes that, simply because revenue is at a record high, that means that universities are not facing severe financial problems.The other point that the minister made recently in his infamous fact sheet—the very misleading fact sheet which the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs put out—was his claim that universities are enjoying high enrolments. What he forgot to mention was that last year we actually saw for the first time in Australian history a decline in the number of Australian students at university—a decline of 3,278 students— because of the deliberate effect of this government's policies on Australia's tertiary institutions. We also have the minister in his infamous fact sheet claiming that, somehow or other, the government should get credit for putting some extra funding into research in the next five years because of the government's innovation statement. The truth is that the government has taken $3 billion from higher education through its cuts—its cuts in the operating grants for universities, its cuts in the Commonwealth's own direct investment in those operating grants—and it has taken $2 billion from the Commonwealth's own incentives for private investment in research and development. It is for those reasons that we reject the bogus and misleading claims that the minister made in his summing-up address. Unless I am provoked by the minister, I will leave that as my final remark at this particular stage of the bill.12:32:0030498Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We cannot let those remarks go unanswered. The first point I would make about the little chart that the shadow minister held up is that he is complaining—and I am sure taxpayers listening to this will hear this message—about the taxpayers not making a larger contribution than they are. He is not concerned with the bottom line or the top line on the chart, which is that total revenues are increasing, or that there has been a better balance between public and private spending. He never addresses those. All he complains about is the taxpayers being let off, as he thinks, too lightly. Obviously he is a supporter of the Leader of the Opposition's position that income taxes in Australia are not high enough at the moment and that they could be higher. This is part of the Labor Party's election campaign, which is now in the offing, for higher taxes. That is not a position that the government has taken. The government has taken the view that, where there is a capacity to provide lower taxes and return money to households, we should do so. The government has done that but, no, the Labor Party is never satisfied: if public expenditure is dropping anywhere, that is a problem and, therefore, public expenditure needs to be pumped up again even though it means higher taxes. This government has put in place a much better balance between private and public benefits in university funding. As a result of doing that, and as a result of the incentives we have provided, the total revenues of the universities are now $1.2 billion a year higher than they were in 1995. The shadow minister also focused on a fluctuation in student numbers last year. Let me make a point about this. The government invited the universities to consider whether they could admit additional students, given unused resources of staff and infrastructure. The universities have provided those additional places. The universities have to manage those additional places. Inevitably, from university to university the number of those additional places fluctuates from year to year, but what is unmistakably the case is that, as a result of this government's policies, the total number of places in the university sector has increased by some 28,000 since we came into office. That is the equivalent of another large new publicly funded university emerging in the sector.As a result of the announcements that I made on Friday last week, there will be an additional 20,800 places added to the sector over the next four years. Any effort by the opposition to suggest that somehow or other the government is not favouring growth in the sector, both in financing and in student places, is completely fraudulent. He seeks to suggest that somehow or other the sector is in trouble. Who are the best monitors of whether a satisfactory quality of education is being provided? My view is that the students are the best monitors of university quality.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Why don't you talk to them?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—The shadow minister asks why we don't talk to them. Unlike the Labor Party, we do talk to them. In fact, we provide a course experience questionnaire for undergraduate students who are graduating. Every year we measure the extent of student satisfaction with their courses. Last year, the proportion of students who expressed satisfaction with their courses was 91 per cent, a record high. Under the policies of this government, students are more satisfied now than they were before with the quality of their university experience. Contrary to the picture which the opposition is attempting to paint, we have universities which have never been as well resourced as they are today, which have never had more students than they have today, which have never had the flexibility to place those students in courses that they have today and which have never had students as satisfied as they are today.12:37:0030499Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—One of the good things about this debate is that I cannot recall seeing so many backbenchers coming into the chamber to listen to a debate on education. I am sure it is not connected in any way whatsoever with the fact that the Prime Minister was scheduled to be in the chamber, although that has been postponed, in case government members have not heard. The point I would make to the minister is that he dismisses our claims that there are serious problems facing higher education in Australia. I would ask the minister if he agrees with these comments:Higher student-staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation ... are fuelling a perception of declining quality.Does the minister agree with what he said in his leaked cabinet submission from 1999?12:38:0030499Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—You do wonder if the shadow minister pays any attention at all to what is happening in policy in this sector. He may recall that since then we have brought down a $3 billion innovation package, of which some $1.5 billion goes directly to universities to address the issues in that comment which led to a `perception', which is being addressed—the reality is also being addressed—by this government to build up university infrastructure and the opportunities for outstanding Australians to participate further in the national research effort. It is worth reminding the shadow minister that this bill before the House is concerned with adding to that remarkable amount of $3 billion to Australian R&D a further $995 million in loans to postgraduate students, which we estimate will increase the number of postgraduate students by some 31,000 over the next five years. We have remarkable growth occurring within the sector at the same time as we have what the Labor Party completely failed to achieve: a better balance between the higher education sector and the vocational education and training sector. In that sector we have also seen a major increase in places— some 386,000 additional places—in TAFE over the last five years, we have seen a doubling of the apprenticeship system and we have seen the substantial expansion of higher education as well. This government has achieved, I believe, a remarkable level of success in its campaign to skill-up Australia and open access to education and training opportunities for Australians.12:40:0030500Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I am getting close to finishing my questions, but I would put to the minister that his remarks in the leaked cabinet submission refer to `higher student-staff ratios' and `less frequent lecture and tutorial contact'. The minister surely is not claiming that there has been any improvement in those areas. If he does, I would like to know what changes he believes he has implemented that have made any change whatsoever to higher student-staff rations and less frequent lecture and tutorial contact. If anything, those problems have got worse.12:41:0030500Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Again it is necessary to educate the shadow minister. The sentence that he refers to referred to `perceptions'. Let us have a look at student-staff ratios. The OECD figures which have since come out have clearly indicated that Australia has a student-staff ratio at universities which is significantly lower than the OECD average. Not only that, the changes in student-staff ratios in recent years have been entirely as a result of the voluntary decisions of the universities themselves in admitting the marginally funded students. The government has not compelled the universities to admit these students; the universities have total control over the numbers of students they admit to the marginally funded places. If they choose not to admit any, that is entirely up to them. The changes in student-staff ratios entirely reflect the decisions of the universities to increase the numbers of these marginally funded students, and they have done so because they have made a judgment that they have the capacity in terms of staffing and infrastructure to provide quality education for these students. As I said in my previous answer to the shadow minister, students have never been so satisfied with their experience as they are at present.12:42:0030500Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The last comment I will make on this is simply to say that we accept the minister's challenge that, if the opposition believes that our country has to invest more in education, and higher education in particular, then we will need to persuade the Australian community that education should be one of the highest priorities for our nation in this coming decade. We reject the minister's attempts to equate a concern about universities, schools and TAFE colleges with an increase in taxation. We will demonstrate to the Australian people that an opposition that offers a plan to increase national investment in our public institutions—not just in education but also in health—can provide the Australian community with a positive alternative vision that is not matched by those who currently occupy that side of this House.12:43:0030500Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—With some touch of irony I suppose I could try to conclude this debate from the government's side, but one can only admire the courage of the shadow minister, as he moves towards the election campaign prepared to argue the Labor Party's case that it is going to provide higher spending and bigger surpluses and that it is going to maintain the GST revenue to the states despite roll-back. It is going to try to argue all these incompatible positions and is going to try to convince the Australian public that the spaghetti-and-meatballs solutions of noodle nation somehow or other constitute a vision for the future. All I say to him is, `Good luck.'12:45:0030501Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I will tell you what we will not be doing: we will not be providing $1 million a year increases to schools like King's, Geelong Grammar and the minister's old school, Scotch College. We know that there are much higher priorities in education in Australia than to allow this minister to follow his ideological objectives. BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is of no relevance at all to this particular bill.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I do not know whether that was a point of order, and I must admit I have just come in on the debate. But I have heard it before, and it was very wide ranging.Bill agreed to.30501Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp)—by leave—read a third time.Bills30501R137330501Debate resumed from 8 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: “the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for an additional $30 million in capital works grants to government schools, to match the extra funding being provided for establishment grants to non-government schools”.12:46:0030501Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—You could almost think my last comments were foreshadowing this debate on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001, which is about school funding. While I will be outlining the opposition's position on this legislation, members would be aware that we have discussed these measures previously when they were part of another bill.I think that the first thing we have to do is to discuss why we are dealing with this bill today, in its current form. There are basically three reasons. First of all, the government inappropriately packaged up these measures with two other matters that dealt with higher education. The bill that we have just dealt with provided for the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme for postgraduate university students and also the government's proposals implementing the commitments that were made in the innovation statement in January. There has never before been a bill which has sought to allocate funding for both school education and higher education in the one bill. We are very suspicious as to the reasons for the government packaging up this $10 million increase in establishment grants for non-government schools with the measures that provided innovation funds and the establishment of the PELS scheme. I remain suspicious that the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, was keen to try to use the establishment increase of $10 million to hold up those other measures. That is why the opposition argued for the bill to be split—not just because it set a new precedent of combining school education and higher education, but because we were suspicious about the minister's motives in packaging them together. That is the first reason why we are dealing with this today. We have forced the government to split the previous bill.The second reason we are dealing with this today is that last October the minister and his department failed to fix a problem that became quite evident at that time. We have now had an admission from the minister's department in Senate hearings that his department was aware that the financial provision for establishment grants for non-government schools would be inadequate to fund the number of applications that had been received from new schools. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there was a lot of controversy about the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 last year. It did not finally pass the Senate until it had been sent back to this House a record number of times. I think that request for an increase in funding for government schools, moved and supported by the Labor senators, the Democrats senators and Senator Brown, was sent back more times than any bill since the First World War. It was a series of requests that were ignored by the government in the House of Representatives. It was a bill of great controversy and it passed the Senate only on the last sitting day of the parliament in 2000. As I said before, the government has now admitted that the department of education knew as early as October that there was insufficient funding to pay all of the establishment grants to new non-government schools, yet the minister sat on his hands—knowing in October, knowing in November—and took no action to amend the states grants bill last year to fix up this problem. We can only speculate as to why the minister chose not to rectify the problem last year. I suspect that he would have found it too embarrassing to ask for the parliament to allocate an extra $10 million for non-government schools, in a bill that was already providing $800 million in funding increases for non-government schools, without any balancing increase in funding for local public schools right across the country. That is the second reason we are dealing with this issue today: the minister sat on his hands and failed to deal with the matter last October.The third reason is largely the result, if you can believe the newspapers, of the ineptitude of the government and the way they have implemented this series of measures. As I said, last year's states grants legislation allocated an extra $800 million for non-government schools, and all that the public schools received was the automatic indexation that is required by law—a very minor top-up that equates to, on average, about $4,000 for every public school in Australia. That is apart from the indexation for cost increases. So, while schools like King's and Geelong Grammar are receiving $1 million a year increases for their students, public schools in every state and territory receive an average of only $4,000 per year. It is not only unbalanced; it is unfair. When you look at the terrific resources and facilities that the category 1 wealthy schools already have, it is certainly bad priorities, because it means that scarce education dollars are being directed to wealthy category 1 schools rather than to needy government and non-government schools.The Leader of the Opposition has already outlined Labor's plan to reallocate the $105 million that this government proposes to direct in funding increases to those 58 wealthy category 1 schools. We will spend half of that money on providing for urgent capital works in public schools, and we will spend the rest on funding 1,000 new teacher scholarships to encourage the best year 12 students to go into the vocation of teaching. We want to encourage more of the best year 12 students to become maths, science and IT teachers so we can improve the quality of teaching in our classrooms. We will redirect part of the category 1 school funding increases into funding teacher development partnerships that will help to improve the quality of teaching for our existing teaching work force. The scholarships will help to improve the new teachers, and the partnerships will provide extra federal funding for more professional development for our existing teaching work force.Labor will pay for the cost of extra professional development for teachers. We will also provide a $2,000 completion bonus for those teachers who are willing to undertake that professional development in their own time. We will ask them to make a contribution by studying in their own time, and our contribution, at the federal level from a Beazley government, will be to pay for the cost of that professional development and to give teachers a $2,000 completion bonus. However, the Howard government does not intend to follow any of that. We certainly know that the Howard government has directed more and more of the Commonwealth's schools funding into non-government schools and has provided a pittance not only to public schools but also to many needy non-government schools. Since 1996, the percentage of direct Commonwealth schools funding for government schools has fallen from 41.5 per cent, to 35.7 per cent this year. By the year 2004, it will have fallen to 33.6 per cent.The Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, has committed that a government that he leads will reverse that trend of the falling percentage of Commonwealth schools funding going to public schools. We need to ensure that every Australian child, whatever school they go to, gets the best possible education. We cannot expect young kids in needy public schools and non-government schools to get the education they deserve when such a lopsided system of funding for schools has been implemented by the Howard government. The Labor Party have made it clear that we will support the provision of establishment grants to new non-government schools on the condition that there is a proportionate increase in Commonwealth funding for government schools. The one amendment that Labor will move in the Senate, which is dealt with in my second reading amendment, is a provision to request the government to provide an extra $30 million for capital works in public schools. The government wants the extra $10 million in establishment grants for non-government schools, and we will support that as soon as the government provides an extra $30 million for public schools. Seventy per cent of Australian students attend public schools; therefore it is only reasonable to provide a balancing increase in funding for capital works for public schools. The government has introduced this system of establishment grants for new non-government schools on the basis that these schools are faced with unexpected costs when they are first established. That is why there is provision under this program for a payment in the first and second years for each student at a new non-government school.Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, there is no reason in the world that the same argument should not apply to local government schools. I am sure that, as an assiduous local member in the growth area of Western Sydney, you would be aware of the pressures that are faced by new schools in some of the fastest growing parts of our country. Extra books need to be purchased for new libraries, works need to be carried out to ensure that schools have decent sporting facilities and sometimes you even need to provide a bit of shade at the bus stop of a new school. While it would be great for us to expect that the capital expenditure always plans for these things, we know that at new government schools and new non-government schools there are often unexpected expenditures both for capital works and recurrent works that require looking after.Labor's point is this: if it is good enough to have an extra $10 million for establishment grants for non-government schools, why can't the government agree to an extra $30 million in payments to public schools to provide a balancing increase? The government could hardly argue that it cannot afford to provide this extra $30 million, when it has blown $20 billion since last November in the Prime Minister's desperate attempts to recover the political ground he has lost since the introduction of the goods and services tax. All the opposition is saying is that the government should provide an extra $30 million for the 7,000 government schools when it intends to provide $145 million for 58 wealthy category 1 schools between now and 2004.The minister wrote to schools in mid-August saying that the government will not agree to Labor's amendments. That is a great tragedy because it means that this measure that provides the $10 million extra for non-government schools establishment grants will be held up until after the election. The minister has already sought to argue that the Labor Party is in some way responsible for the delays in payments to certain schools. This measure could be passed before the end of this week if the government would simply agree to provide an extra $30 million for public schools. If the minister had fixed the problem last October—if the minister had not tried to package this measure improperly with higher education funding—and if the minister had administered his department in the way he should have, we would not be facing this delay today.The commitment that Labor have given to schools that are affected by any possible delay is this: either the measure will be passed before the election, because the government will agree to our amendments or, if not, after the election. If a Beazley government is elected, we will provide not only the $10 million extra for establishment grants for non-government schools but also at least an extra $30 million for public schools across the country. We certainly intend to comply with this amendment in government. We challenge the Howard government to match us by allowing this measure to pass before the end of the week by agreeing to an extra $30 million for public schools. That is the least the government can do. The point we make is that this is a program that was meant to provide assistance to genuinely new schools to help them with additional recurrent costs in their first two years. I note that there have been a number of articles in the newspapers in recent days alleging that some payments have gone to schools that were already established—perhaps different campuses of existing schools—and other questions have been raised. When this bill goes before the other house we will have an opportunity to explore those issues in more detail. The point we make to the government is that, if there is an argument for establishment grants to be topped up for non-government schools by $10 million, we would simply ask the government to provide a balancing increase of $30 million for public schools to ensure that the needs of students at public schools are looked after. For those reasons, I move:That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:`the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for an additional $30 million in capital works grants to government schools, to match the extra funding being provided for establishment grants to non-government schools.'10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Is the amendment seconded?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.13:01:0030504Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. This is an important and urgent piece of legislation. It deals with the budgets of a large number of new schools in the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and other systems, as well as for new low-fee independent and community schools. This bill would not be necessary were it not for the difficulties the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats have placed in its path in the Senate.The amendment contained in this bill was previously contained in the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. In the Senate on 29 June 2001 Labor and the Democrats voted to split the bill three ways. In doing this they effectively voted this bill down and denied five schools their full entitlement. I notice that the Labor Party has again moved an amendment in the House of Representatives to the effect that it will allow this bill through only if $30 million is also supplied to new government schools, and I will deal with that in a moment. If the opposition again fails to pass this bill it will result in the Commonwealth being unable to pay a total of 54 schools their second payment, which is due this coming October. These schools are across the spectrum of non-government schooling and include, as I said before, Catholic parish schools, Anglican schools, Christian schools, Montessori and Steiner schools, Jewish day schools and an indigenous community school.The bill amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000, which authorised establishment assistance funding for the 2001 to 2004 funding period to assist new non-government schools with costs incurred in their formative years. This bill amends the act by increasing the amount for establishment assistance funding for the 2001 to 2004 funding period to take account of demand estimates. The act provided for a total assistance of $4.726 million. This amendment increases that by $9.534 million to a total of $14.26 million over four years. This is to accommodate statistics revealed in the 2000 census data. It was found that, while the number of new school enrolments was relatively constant, average enrolments were nearly double those of 1999. This bill contains no policy change to funding arrangements for non-government schools. It is an additional appropriation to ensure that the government can fulfil its obligations to newly establishing non-government schools over the next four years.If the opposition again refuses to pass this bill, it will mean that 54 new schools which will have budgeted to receive their funding will be forced either to turn to parents with higher fees or to become involved in other forms of fundraising. The opposition should note that many of these schools serve low and middle income communities and that further delay will only serve to disadvantage their school communities. I would now like to turn to the question of school funding as a whole and in particular government or state school funding. As the House would be aware, the Queensland Teachers Union are running a deceptive and duplicitous campaign against the coalition government's school funding policy. I have no doubt that the education unions in other states are following the same approach. The basic tenet of their campaign is the portrayal of the coalition as taking money from government schools and giving it to non-government schools. Nothing could be further from the truth.These are the facts. School funding in Australia is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and state governments. When I go to schools in my electorate, I see `state school'. That means what it says. Schools are a state responsibility primarily. State governments are responsible for around 90 per cent of funding for government or state schools. The Commonwealth government provides around 92 per cent of funding for all non-government schools. State governments provide to non-government schools generally in the area of some eight per cent. Commonwealth funding for Queensland state schools has risen to a record $440 million in this financial year, an increase of 5.7 per cent over last year. This is, in fact, an incredible 52 per cent higher than the funding in 1996, the last year of a federal Labor government. Since 1996 federal funding for Queensland state schools has increased by $150 million. Queensland state government education has not kept pace with the Commonwealth increases. It increased this year by 4.1 per cent after an increase of less than one per cent last year. The major factor in this year's increase was a 4.5 per cent salary increase for teachers, which consumed some $214.9 million. While I do not begrudge the teachers in Queensland receiving a salary increase, I do begrudge their pointing the finger quite unfairly at the Commonwealth when they have been seeking to place the blame somewhere else.By 2004, government secondary schools will receive $8,172 per student per year. For those in non-government schools the amount will be $5,721. For students in the schools which the education unions and the Labor Party like to refer to as wealthy schools, the figure will be $1,120. I want the House to think about those figures per student per year: $8,172 in government secondary schools, $5,721 in non-government secondary schools and $1,120 in the so-called wealthy schools. The facts speak for themselves. The majority of overall government funding goes to government schools.I note that the shadow minister referred to 70 per cent of the student population being enrolled in state or government schools. That is a correct figure and he is right in making that known. What he did not say, though, was that 78 per cent of the total combined funding goes to government schools. So the sector has 70 per cent of the students but receives 78 per cent of the total government funding. The reality is that government schools are well and truly catered for, as they should be, by the Commonwealth and perhaps less so by the states. Government schools receive around $13.5 billion in taxpayer funding for the two million students they enrol. Non-government schools receive $3.5 billion for the one million student population they have enrolled. That is $13.5 billion for two million students in government schools and $3.5 billion for one million in non-government schools. One cannot escape the facts.Since 1996 student numbers have increased by 2.3 per cent—this is in government schools—while Commonwealth funding to government schools has increased by 52 per cent. The Queensland Teachers Union does not like these facts because they do not support the flawed proposition that they put forward, but facts they are and facts they remain. It is clear that government schools are not being discriminated against by the Commonwealth government, contrary to the propaganda being distributed by the QTU. It is not me alone saying this. In fact, Don Rolls from Mackay—someone who is highly respected in the city of Mackay, a councillor and a very hard worker for the local community—happens to be the chairman of the parents and friends state committee for Catholic Schools in Queensland. Recently in my local newspaper, the Daily Mercury, he stated that `the QTU were just being mischievous again' and that `the QTU should show the full picture.' Hear, hear to that! But these campaigns by the education unions really do beg the question: what do they really want? What pressure are they going to put on the Labor Party if the Labor Party wins government federally? I think that is a realistic question for parents of children in non-government schools right across Australia to ask—particularly in my electorate of Dawson, which has a lot of non-government schools. What are the education unions really going to put the pressure on the Labor party for should it win government? We have an inkling of the answer, and it lies in the following public statements of the Australian Education Union in its submission to the Senate inquiry into the states grants bill in July 2000: The AEU has long opposed any funding for private schools and will continue to do so. They are opposed to any funding for private schools. On 15 March 2001, when asked by an ABC Radio presenter, `Now, do you want the government to stop funding private schools in all shapes and forms?' Sue Simpson of the New South Wales Teachers Federation said:Well that's certainly the ideal position of the Teachers Federation.So no funding for private schools. Further, Mike Poate, the AEU Tasmanian president, stated:The federal government must redistribute the money that it is currently giving to private schools into the public sector. That way we can assure the future of Australian children. Mr Poate seems to believe that he can assure the future of Australian children, but presumably only those in government schools. If you happen to be a child who goes to one of the small church or independent schools, then you will receive no assistance. None of the taxpayers' dollars that your parents pay will come back to you for schooling. So there we have it. The end game of the education unions is no funding to anything other than government schools. This is a very serious situation. Such a proposal would decimate the Catholic and other church schools in my electorate of Dawson— schools that are held in high regard. It is a proposal with which I could never agree. The question I would ask—and which I will be asking—of the Australian Labor Party and the education unions would be: `Which of my non-government schools is going to lose funding under a federal Labor government?' Is it going to be St Patrick's College in Mackay? Mercy College? Holy Spirit College? Emmanuel Catholic Primary School? St Joseph's? St Francis Xavier? Or perhaps St Mary's? All of those schools are based in Mackay. Or are they going to go a bit further afield? Are we looking perhaps at the Whitsunday Anglican School? Mackay Christian College? Or the Carlisle Christian College? Perhaps they are going to be looking at St John's at Walkerston or St Anne's at Sarina. There are other non-government schools in my electorate, such as St Catherine's in Proserpine; the Whitsunday Christian Community School in Cannonvale; St Mary's in Bowen; St Coleman's in Home Hill; and St Francis and the Burdekin Catholic High School in Ayr.Let me assure honourable members that these are not wealthy schools. When I visit these schools it is quite plain that their only wealth lies in the community support for them. The parents support the schools. There is no doubt that they serve communities which struggle very hard to send these children to church based schools. Children who attend these schools do not come from wealthy families. These are not the so-called wealthy schools. As I said, many parents make great sacrifices to send their children to these schools. Of course, they send their children to non-government schools for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they wish them to attend a church based school. Perhaps the school happens to be the nearest one to them. For whatever reason, it is their choice. They have made their choice. They pay their taxpayer dollars and we as a government should support parents' choices, whether it is to send their child to a government school or to a non-government school. The removal or reduction of Commonwealth funding from these schools would put them beyond the reach of many and would disadvantage many families in my electorate of Dawson. Let me say that it would also disadvantage many government schools. There would be no way that the government schools in my electorate of Dawson could accommodate the rush of students that would leave these schools if they received no Commonwealth funding. Yet this is the ultimate aim of the education unions: to ensure that there is no Commonwealth funding for these schools.Our children—and I know that you will agree with this, Madam Deputy Speaker— should have the expectation of receiving the best education outcome regardless of where they live or their family circumstances. Every child should have the opportunity for a worthwhile education, a fulfilling career and a satisfying adulthood. I know that that is something with which all sound members of parliament would agree. I am totally opposed to the view of the education unions that want to see all Commonwealth government funding diverted away from what they call `private schools'—what I call `non-government schools'—many of which struggle in my electorate. I am very concerned that, were the Labor Party to win government, the unions would begin to pressure a Labor government to put that very unfair and discriminatory policy into place.I have mentioned Don Rolls previously in my address. He is a most thoughtful man. I would like to quote from his letter—the article deserves to be aired. It states:Mackay City Councillor Don Rolls has come to the defence of Catholic and all private schools in the ongoing debate on funding for private and public schools.Cr Rolls is the chairman of the parents and friends state committee for Catholic Schools in Queensland and a delegate on the Australian Parents Council for parents of students in the non-state sector of education.He said the Queensland Teachers Union was only telling part of the funding picture.Cr Rolls said the state government has a constitutional role to education funding and it was only in the 1970s that funding to private schools was increased.This was done to address the decline in religious teaching at Catholic schools.He said it was the right of every child to be funded for education.Hear, hear to that! It continues:The joint parent body in Queensland is asking both levels of government to increase funding for all students.Cr Rolls said about 90% of the Queensland education budget and 78% of the combined state and federal funds for education went to state schools, which had 70% of the student population.He said the number of students going to private schools was not shown.`We're not looking at full funding, just an equitable share of the taxes that we pay.'`The QTU is just being mischievous once again,' he said.Cr Rolls said the QTU should show the full picture and allow people to make up their own minds on the issue. Hear, hear to that! Councillor Rolls should be commended for coming into what has been a very divisive and misleading debate.I am disappointed today by the opposition's amendment, not because asking for funding for any level of schooling from any sector is necessarily a bad thing but because the Labor Party is letting the state premiers off the hook—78 per cent of combined government funding goes to government schools. If there is a need for funding for new government schools, that genuinely falls on the state sector. The premiers, with their GST funding, should not be allowed to avoid their responsibilities. I simply ask: if there is a need to assist the states with funding for new government schools, as the opposition claims there is, what is being rolled back such that they do not have the funding from the GST to be able to do this themselves? Why is it that the Labor Party believes the states are not going to be able to properly fund education? It is their role constitutionally to do that. So I have grave concerns about this. I will be asking in my electorate which government schools are to be defunded were the education unions to have their way. I fully support the minister, Dr David Kemp, in his efforts not only to assist new non-government schools but to ensure that that 52 per cent increase in funding from the Commonwealth to government schools continues and that non-government schools receive a fair and equitable share. I commend the bill to the House.13:21:0030508Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00— The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 increases funding for the establishment of non-government schools. It continues the government's pattern of legislating new money for the non-government sector but not government schools. It is part of a package that has reignited the public versus private sector debate in school funding. In fact, I would argue that this government has gone out of its way to provoke this kind of debate. The most poisonous and counterproductive debate in the history of our national politics has been the state aid argument, and now we have a government going out of its way to reignite the public versus private sector debate. This legislation, along with many other of the school funding initiatives of the Howard government, is not for the purpose of a better schools policy; it is for the purpose of political point scoring and division—division in the education sector in this country.The government has gone out of its way to provoke a public versus private sector debate. This can be seen in the introduction of the new SES funding system. This was a system that gave new money to the non-government schools sector without matching funds for the government schools sector. The SES system claimed to provide a new, improved assessment of need, but it failed to provide this assessment to schools which, in practical terms, can now be said to be overfunded, that is, the so-called funding maintained schools.The SES system also has not been applied to the Catholic sector. The Catholic system entered into a backroom deal whereby it traded off $140 million in additional funding—that is, seven per cent of its total funding—in return for keeping its centralised control of resources. Much like the medieval popes, the national Catholic Education Commission has given greater priority to its own interests, its own power, than the best interests of its constituency, Catholic schools and Catholic students. Naturally, this particular problem has caused a great deal of outrage.A Catholic school principal, with many of his colleagues, has written to me. I will just quote from this one letter:My school community is under significant financial stress because of the decisions made by the wise men who play the cute games at the cost of many. My school has a clientele that is hardworking or just doing it hard. The capacity to pay fees is limited. Because of the group funding provisions we are worse off, while some of the wealthy independent schools and their ilk are further rewarded. The message that we have been given is that there is a greater addition to the common good by the group funding scheme. I have my doubts about the reality of this in theory and practice.They are the words of one Catholic school principal who is very concerned about the way in which the administration of the Catholic education system has gone into a backroom deal with the Howard governmentThese are great difficulties: a government which has introduced new funding systems but not applied them across the board, a government which has said that it has a better methodology for the funding of non-government schools but will not apply that methodology to the Catholic system nor the funding maintained schools. So it is a government that has sullied its own system, a government that has soiled its own nest, a government which has gone out of its way to provoke a public versus private sector education funding debate—a very divisive debate beyond the best interests of good education and good policy around the nation.There are many problems with the public versus private sector debate, problems which are contained in the legislation now before the House. The first problem is that the public versus private debate ignores equity issues within the government system. I understand that the differential between government schools in any one state is just three per cent of funding—that is, a school like Claymore public school in a public housing estate in my electorate receives only three per cent more funding than a school like Double Bay public school in the very wealthy eastern suburbs of Sydney. The differential in the base funding between government schools in any one state is just three per cent. Of course, it is well known that many parents in wealthy suburbs use schools like Double Bay as a feeder school to get their children through primary school education and then they move them into private secondary schools. Many government primary schools in wealthy suburbs have enormous private fundraising capacity. On 30 July the Sydney Morning Herald produced a list of government schools that have significant private fundraising capacity. Mosman public school gets $100,000 a year in extra funding from its parents. Seaforth public school gets $70,000 a year. Neutral Bay gets $72,000 a year, and the list goes on. Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, these are funds raised by parents in wealthy suburbs that could not possibly be available to any of the schools in your electorate or mine in the western suburbs of Sydney. This is funding raised by private means that could not possibly be found in the disadvantaged areas of Werriwa, Fowler and Prospect in the south-western suburbs of Sydney.There is an inequity within the government system whereby the public funding differential is so small—just three per cent. It is Claymore versus Double Bay. Yet the amount of private funding resources to these schools means that in affluent suburbs the government schools are better off in aggregate terms. There are equity issues within the government system which need to be addressed. If we just debate public versus private, we can never put the spotlight on these severe equity issues within the government school system.The second problem with the public versus private debate is that it ignores inequity within the private system. I have demonstrated some of those inequities in the government's flawed application of the SES funding system. This is also true of the government's treatment of non-government special schools—that is, non-government schools providing education for students with intellectual and physical disabilities. One of the great problems with the new SES system is that it fails to provide an accurate needs based assessment of these schools. It does not include the parental capacity to pay at non-government special schools, nor are these schools assessed on their actual needs. They are simply lumped in at the top end of the SES ranking or given a funding base of 70 per cent of average government school recurrent costs.I repeat: there is an enormous problem in that non-government special schools are not assessed according to the SES principles of parental capacity to pay, nor are they assessed on their actual education funding needs. They are just lumped in at the top of the SES funding band or 70 per cent of the average government school recurrent costs. So there are enormous problems in the public versus private debate. One of the inequities that is ignored relates to non-government special schools. If we were to apply a proper assessment of these funding needs—that is, they received 70 per cent of the average government special school costs—these schools would be five to six times better off in the funding they receive from the federal government. This is a black hole in terms of equity.Non-government special schools are not getting a fair deal from this government. There are 34 of these schools around Australia educating 4,200 students. They are not necessarily in affluent suburbs. Most of the non-government special schools are in working-class areas, places like Terrigal, Wetherill Park—which is in your own electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio— Lewisham, Parramatta, Wollongong, Camden and the Hunter Valley. These are not affluent areas, but they have non-government special schools undertaking one of the most important tasks in education. They do not receive a fair funding assessment from this government. There is no factoring in of parental capacity to pay, nor is there an actual needs based assessment of the cost of educating students with disabilities. If they were funded at the proper differential, 70 per cent of average government special school costs, they would be four, five or six times better off. A third problem with the public versus private debate is that it ignores the things schools have in common. In an electorate such as mine, I find very little difference between the education issues and needs of a school such as the William Carey Christian School at Prestons and the nearby Casula high school. The issues and needs in government and non-government schools in my electorate are indeed very, very similar. The same issues arise in conversations with teachers and parents—the same issues about class sizes, teaching resources, information technology, socioeconomic factors, the critical issue of learning in the home, parents as educators and the crisis in middle schooling. I can go to William Carey, a low-fee non-government school in my electorate, and find that the issues are almost identical to those up the road at the Casula government school. Why is it that we have this public versus private debate when in reality in working-class electorates such as mine the issues between schools are so similar? I do not see any sense in dividing working-class parents, in trying to encourage parents to engage in the politics of envy. I do not encourage working-class parents sending their children to Casula public school to look down the road and think that somehow William Carey school is getting a much better deal. I do not encourage this politics of envy between working class parents. In an electorate such as mine, the issues between schools are almost identical. There is the same need for extra resources, the same need for improved teaching in the classroom and the same need for improved education outcomes.The fourth problem with the public versus private debate is that it ignores the possibility of partnership. What is wrong with government schools working together with non-government schools for win-win outcomes? I have given some public attention to the proposed partnership between Wesley College in South Perth, a former category 2 non-government school, and the Boddington state school south of Perth. The educators at Wesley and Boddington see great sense in collaboration—building a bridge from government to non-government schools, working together on information learning packages, co-locating facilities and providing common professional development programs. It is a basic principle in education that collaboration gets the best result. If schools work together they will achieve much better results than if they work in isolation. The great problem the educators at Wesley and Boddington have is federal and state buck-passing. The federal government will not support a Wesley-Boddington partnership because it is worried that Boddington is a state-funded school. The state government will not support a Wesley-Boddington partnership because, it says, Wesley is resourced by the federal government. This is the curse of cost shifting, the curse of buck-passing, between the two tiers of government—federal and state. This curse, unfortunately, in its reality, in its practical form, is hurting no-one other than students trying to get a better education, whether they are in government or non-government schools. We need a new school funding system which actually encourages and funds collaboration between the government and the non-government sectors. The fifth problem with the public versus private debate is that it denies reality. Recently the head of the New South Wales P&C, Bev Baker, addressed a meeting of teachers in Liverpool, at the northern end of my electorate. She said that there is `no such thing as a poor non-government school'. I have never heard anything so out of touch. I invite Bev Baker to visit the poor non-government schools in my electorate. How obtuse, how ridiculous, for someone involved in the education sector to say that there is no such thing as a poor non-government school. Some of the non-government schools in my electorate are amongst the poorest in the nation, the poorest I have seen.Across the non-government schools sector over 120,000 students come from families on incomes of less than $26,000 per annum. I put those statistics to Bev Baker and her ilk. Over 120,000 students in the non-government sector come from families on incomes less than $26,000 a year. Her statement is just ridiculous. It is denying reality. It is denying commonsense to say that there is no such thing as a poor non-government school. The reality is that there are some poor non-government schools and there are many poor government schools. That is why we need needs-based funding systems, not a system that tries to make some distinction between public and private. This is the point. The sixth problem with the public versus private debate is that it denies the possibility of a nationwide needs based funding system. My argument is all about equity: to treat schools fairly under a common set of rules. No part of the education system should be subject to special deals and funding arrangements. All schools, whether public or private, religious or non-sectarian, in the city or the country, should be judged and funded on the basis of need. Only when this happens can Australia's parents and students be confident in the integrity of their government and the quality of their schools. So how can we produce a nationwide school funding system based on need? We need to make some significant changes. Australian schools are a victim of our federal system of government. School education relies on two different streams of funding. The federal government takes most of the responsibility for resourcing non-government schools and the states and territories provide the bulk of funding for government schools. This dual system is plagued by inefficiencies and inequities—the sort of buck-passing and cost shifting that I mentioned earlier on. Over the past 25 years, in the key areas of public provision in Australia, services funded from state budgets, such as government schools, TAFE and public hospitals, have grown at a significantly slower rate than Commonwealth funded services, that is, non-government schools, universities and medical benefits. This has created imbalances and inequities in school resourcing. Enormous variations have emerged in the quality of school education in Australia. With the polarisation of the labour market, strong schools and neighbourhoods have become much stronger, while disadvantaged areas have become appreciably weaker. Poor schools in both the government and non-government sectors have suffered from this process. The dual funding system acts against the interests of needy schools no matter their ownership. Worse still, it perpetuates the poisonous myths of the state aid debate. Each side of the funding contest is encouraged to hold back the other. Resources are wasted in arguing about the relative size of the government and non-government sectors. This ignores the most pressing issue in schools funding, that is, the development of a new system which implements needs based funding for all Australian schools. Fortunately, this approach is now within the reach of policy makers, and it should be on the agenda of the federal government. With improvements in information technology, it is possible to produce a sophisticated assessment of the resource needs of every school. This know-how allows the federal and state governments to integrate their funding systems and establish a common set of funding principles. A national system of needs based resourcing should be introduced based on the following six steps. The first step is the integration of the two funding streams into a common pool of federal and state resources. Let us put all the federal and state schools funding in the one pot administered under a Commonwealth-state schools agreement. The second step is the development of a minimum national standard of school provision. Let us have a standard that we aim at across the nation, a standard which addresses the core requirements of modern schooling: staffing class sizes, physical amenities, computer technology, literacy and numeracy programs and special education. The third step would be a school by school assessment of resource needs sensitive to the location teaching requirements and socioeconomic status of each school. The technology, the know-how and the methodology are available to make this school by school assessment for every single part of the Australian school education system. The fourth step is the distribution of funding so that every school, government and non-government, is able to reach the national standard. We should use public funding to bring every school up to the accepted national standard. The objective is to bring the Australian system up to the level of international best practice. The fifth step is the recognition of the private resourcing of non-government schools. The capacity of parents to pay school fees should be factored into the resource formula. This acknowledges the decision of these families to move outside the universal public system. The sixth and final step is to have an understanding that not every school should be entitled to public funding. If the private resource capacity of an affluent non-government school is sufficient to reach the national standard, then as a matter of fairness government funding should be allocated to schools in greater need. It might not necessarily be required by that particular non-government school. So it is possible to jump over the public-private divide, to jump over the senseless public-private debate and produce a nationwide system of needs based school funding. Only when we do that are we going to get a proper assessment of the needs of students in our schools around Australia. Only when we do that can we give a guarantee to parents that their children are getting the very best start in life, the very best educational opportunities.There should be no special deals. There should be no backroom deals between any part of the education system and the federal government. There should be a nationwide, uniform system of school funding based on need and founded on the basic principles of federal-state cooperation. The know-how is available. All we lack is the political will and leadership to develop these kinds of policies. Through a Commonwealth-state schools agreement we can integrate funding, we can establish a national standard, we can fund Australia's needy schools up to that standard, and we can give parents a guarantee that their children will get a decent and fair start in life under the leadership of the national government. Unfortunately, those principles are not in this legislation. They are not in any part of the rhetoric or programs of the Howard government. It has gone out of its way to provoke this senseless public-private debate. It stands condemned for doing that. There is a better way and I am sure we will see it after the next federal election. 13:41:0030512Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is with pleasure that I rise to support the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. This is the second time I have spoken to an education bill in the past couple of weeks. The last time was to support the government's huge commitment to literacy and numeracy standards. The bill that we have before us today focuses on establishment assistance for new non-government schools. As the name suggests, establishment grants help new schools in the extraordinary one-off expenses that are incurred in getting the enterprises up and running. The experience of every school will be different according to the level of assistance that is required, but clearly that is when significant expenditure is incurred. The government's commitment to assisting these new schools to become viable and operative is the reason behind this bill. Establishment grants are provided at the rate of $500 per student—which is generous—in the first year of a school's operation and this rate is halved to $250 per full-time student in the second year. The bill amends the States Grants Primary and Secondary Assistance Act of last year to increase the amount of establishment assistance appropriated from the budget from $4.7 million over the 2001-04 quadrennium to $14.26 million. It is an increase of $9.5 million over those four years. The question is: why is this bill necessary? The bill is necessary to cover the extra assistance grants. It is not because there has been a significant increase in the number of new schools established but rather the level of enrolments at the schools has risen exponentially. So, because of that, the number of students who would qualify has risen dramatically. Obviously, the result is increased assistance to those schools involved in the setting-up process. Significantly, it shows that the demand for the low-fee, non-government schools that exists is quite a reality. I know that there are many new schools out in the western suburbs, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker would be aware of, and possibly some in your own electorate. These newer, low-fee Christian schools get a lot of support from the community. Obviously, this is what people want. There is a great wish for choice in the community. Of course, one of the great aspects of this government is that we believe in choice. It is not about just giving people the choice of one—you go to a government school and that is it. Personally, I went to a state school and I am very proud of that fact. My wife went to a state school. But people have the choice of which school they want their children to attend. If the parents decide that they would like their child to go to a Catholic systemic school, they are able to do it, and they get government assistance to do so. If they want their children to go to an independent, private school, they get assistance. If they want to go to one of the smaller schools that are being established by various Christian groups, by independent groups in various parts of Australia that offer low fees and provide a variety of choice to the parents, that is being supported. Parents are finding that the level of education is outstanding and the type of curriculum that is offered by those schools is challenging and interesting. That does not by any means denigrate the outstanding work being carried out in our public schools. In my electorate there are some very outstanding schools right across the board— some selective schools. Caringbah High produces some outstanding results in the HSC. But if we think of Woolooware High, which has a fine tradition in music, or Port Hacking High, with its great emphasis in terms of music and drama, or Endeavour High, which has an excellent record in regard to sporting prowess, these schools are very significant in terms of their contribution to the community. Great athletes have been produced in my area. Also, some of the people who are going into the professions have come from these outstanding schools. The broad range of primary schools shows the dedication of the teachers and the great contribution that they make.The estimate for the original states grants legislation was based on 1999 school census figures. This legislation uses more recent statistics. As the minister knows from his second reading speech, it is not unusual for appropriations to be altered in the education portfolio. It has been a common occurrence over the last few years. The current shortfall in funding means that five schools already approved for Commonwealth funding have not been paid for their first instalment of establishment grants. If they do not get this funding soon they will be disadvantaged. So any delay by the Senate in passing this legislation will mean that we will be unable to pay a total of 54 schools—4,000 students— their second payment due in October, and any shortfall would continue through the funding quadrennium.So choice is important—it is important for parents to be able to make up their own minds where they should send their children. Of course, our government celebrates choice. Competition is an extremely good thing. Competition—whether it be in schools or whether it is being able to provide private sector hospitals, as well—is something that this government stands for in terms of choice. We have the other alternative, as in the old Stalinist Russia, where there is no choice; everything was planned centrally, people took what was offered, and that was it. The result was huge inefficiencies, long queues and long delays. Here we believe in choice. That is not to denigrate any one aspect, but simply to provide the choice that is available.It is unfortunate that the Labor Party has tied itself up with the Teachers Federation. They come around and lecture me. So I ask them, `Do you believe in choice?' The answer from one of the Teachers Federation people was, `No, no choice at all. You either go to a private school or you go to a Catholic systemic school and you pay for all of that funding yourself, no matter how much tax you actually pay, or you go to a state school. No choice.' It is the old Soviet model—provide no choice at all. Look at the person who sends their child to Our Lady of Fatima school in Caringbah, which is an excellent school. Because they pay their taxes they would expect to get part of what it costs to send a child to a government school in terms of the government contribution. And so they do—and rightly so, because this is a broad community, a democratic community. If we pay our taxes, we expect that some of those taxes are going to go back into supporting the education of our children in the way we wish to have them educated. I am sure that even the member opposite, the member for Paterson, would agree in his heart with the great need for choice—that people should have the choice in his electorate whether they go to a Catholic systemic school or a government school. And it is only right and fair that, if they pay their taxation, they should see the benefits of that.So in terms of this whole class war rhetoric that we get from the Teachers Federation, who are living so much in the past—they are philosophically opposed to any government funding other than to government schools. In fact, federal funding for government schools is not being cut; it is being increased in both sectors, government and non-government, by record amounts.In 2002—next year—the government will be spending nearly $700 million more on government schools than it did in 1996. This is an increase of 43 per cent, when the number of students in government schools has risen by only 1.4 per cent. I will say that again: almost $700 million, an increase of 43 per cent. The Teachers Federation, with their sad looks when they come around and see you, say, `Look, you are not giving enough money to government schools. That is your problem. You are doing this.' We hear it all the time. But there will be $700 million more—43 per cent more—to government schools, and rightly so. They deserve more funding increases.In New South Wales, as the member for Paterson would know, there is a great need for the state Labor government to spend more money on schools. Many of them are in need of repair. Of course, the majority of funding for schools comes from the state government. Many schools certainly need, at least, a coat of paint, some work done on them and new facilities such as school halls, et cetera. In my electorate, many schools look neglected. I receive constant complaints about that. If you look at the way our funding has increased and compare that with the Carr Labor government in New South Wales, you will see that their funding has been going backwards while our funding for government schools has increased exponentially. This nonsense that we are not providing funding to government schools should be shown up to be the fraud that it is. This government is committed to government schools, and rightly so. Our Prime Minister went to a government school and he is proud of it, and I am proud to have gone to a government school. However, we need to provide choice. At a combined funding level, the 2.25 million government school students in this country are supported by an annual Commonwealth and state budget of around $13.4 billion. The one million non-government school students are supported by public funding of around $3.7 billion. This is a significant difference by any measure.The introduction of the GST has also provided state governments with a growth tax and done away with the old Premiers Conference, where states had to beg the government of the day for handouts. For example, New South Wales got—wait for it—$8.317 billion in GST revenue last year, yet it still manages to abrogate its responsibilities. The Teachers Federation puts out its little signs saying that the Howard government is to blame because there is not enough funding for schools, but what is the reality? The New South Wales Labor government received that amount of money from the GST. The Labor side of the House constantly criticises the GST—and I know that Deputy Speaker Nehl is always full of praise for the GST—but the Labor state governments around Australia are the beneficiaries. If they want to find money for schools, here it is. Some $8.317 billion was provided to the New South Wales government just last year. Surely it can use that money to fund government schools and to provide assistance to independent schools as well. Recent media reports have told of school P&Cs around Sydney being forced to bail out the New South Wales government for urgent maintenance work. A very fine reporter from the Herald newspaper pointed that out with several front page stories. Those articles showed that P&Cs are raising tens of thousands of dollars to carry out work that the state government should have provided. They also said that these organisations have been setting up deals with McDonald's to have a few maccas in schools. Most parents would question the wisdom of that but, in order to generate the funds they need, they are in bed with fast food operations when in fact the New South Wales government got $8.317 billion from the GST alone, not to mention the amount they got from stamp duty or from land tax or from payroll tax. Property prices in New South Wales have been going through the roof. But what benefit have the children in New South Wales schools seen? Basically, the state government has been going backwards in terms of funding, at a time when state revenue continues to rise at a rapid rate and at a time when it is receiving GST revenue as well.In terms of Labor's own record, their only contribution seems to be the noodle nation. It is a wonderful, magnificent diagram which nobody can understand, because it has lines and arrows pointing in every direction. The amazing thing was that once they announced it with great flair—and this was going to be the salvation of the nation, we could all depend on it as the way ahead for education, the way ahead for science and the way ahead for research and development for the country—it went down as such a huge lemon that they have not mentioned it in the House again. It has been such a huge success! Everyone thought, `What a dud.' This was meant to be Labor's idea of science and technology and the nation in the future.The coalition's SES funding system ensures that the neediest non-government schools are getting the support that was long denied them under the previous government. In 13 years of government the ALP did nothing about ensuring a national standard of literacy and numeracy, the basic building blocks of any child's education. When Labor left office, nearly one-third of year 3 students failed to meet minimum acceptable standards in these areas. A national standard now exists and Australian children are benefiting.Labor would take us back to the days where a centralised, bureaucratic, union-dominated, one-size-fits-all approach was seen as the way to approach education. Yet this clearly is not the way to go. The reality is that the funding we have provided has been warmly supported by the community, by the private sector, certainly by the Catholic system, by the independent Christian schools and by the others who are operating in the education area. Instead of the one-size-fits-all approach we had under Labor, we are now taking a different approach.The Christian controlled parent schools are on the record as saying that the government is to be congratulated because low income Australian parents and their families have been given a real chance to exercise genuine choice in the education of their children. That is the choice that is facing us today, because the bill before the House provides the funding we need for private education in this country. It does not take away from the government schools. Rather, it assists and supplements those private schools that are operating around the country and which are being supported with the significantly increased numbers attending these schools. These establishment grants of $500 per student will be of great benefit to those children who are attending the schools and a great boost to the viability of the schools.We hear the general argument from members opposite and from the unions that this government does not fund education appropriately. The reality is here to be seen. The significant increase in government grants to non-government schools is overwhelming. We are providing the choice that is necessary in terms of spending by schools.Let us look at those figures again. In 2002 the government will be spending nearly $700 million more on government schools than it did in 1996. That is an increase of 43 per cent. When did we see this type of increase under the Labor government? I am very pleased to see the shadow minister for education, the member for Dobell, in the chamber. He goes around Australia saying that this government does not provide funding to government schools. How can the member for Dobell justify his rhetoric, when we see that in 2002 nearly $700 million more will be provided to government schools than in 1996—some 43 per cent more in funding than we have seen before? In terms of the government schools alone, there has been a very large increase—the type of increase we did not see under Labor. The non-government schools right across the country are being encouraged to develop, grow and expand. This bill will provide the type of assistance that is necessary to make education viable right across this country. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Ministerial Arrangements3051614:00:0030516Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I firstly inform the House that the Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today and tomorrow as he is attending World Trade Organisation and APEC related meetings in Mexico, Uruguay and Chile. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.Ministerial Statements305163051614:00:0030516Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—by leave—I wish to make a statement regarding the circumstances surrounding the motor vessel Tampa. I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition regarding this matter about a quarter of an hour ago and, for reasons I am sure he will understand, it was not possible for me to provide him with a written statement in a fast developing situation. I expect that the Leader of the Opposition will be given leave to respond if that is his wish.I inform the House that, following a series of events that I will outline, the motor vessel Tampa, in defiance of a clear communication from the Australian government, entered Australian territorial waters earlier today and approached Christmas Island. This was in contravention of clear advice from the Australian government to the Norwegian government, and also very clear advice to the master of the motor vessel Tampa, that Australia was refusing the right of entry of the vessel into Australian waters. The Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke last night to the Norwegian foreign minister, and again this morning at around 9.30, and communicated to the Norwegian government in the clearest possible terms that, if Australian territorial waters were entered, appropriate action would be taken to stop and board the ship. The foreign minister pointed out that any entry into Australian territorial waters would be a breach of international law and that Australia would take whatever action was necessary to stop the Tampa from moving into or further into Australian territorial waters.The government were subsequently informed by the ship's captain that the Tampa would not enter Australian waters if medical assistance for necessitous cases were provided. We indicated then, as we had previously, that we would be in a position to provide medical assistance, either through an Australian helicopter or, if the ship's captain preferred, by permitting the lifeboat of the motor vessel Tampa to pick up medical supplies and assistance from Christmas Island. I point out that the lifeboat is enclosed and is internationally certified. The ship's captain then indicated that he was willing to accept this offer.Shortly thereafter, completely contradicting this advice, the ship's captain indicated that he would enter Australian territorial waters and approach Christmas Island. The government was left with no alternative but to instruct the Chief of the Australian Defence Force to arrange for Defence personnel to board and secure the vessel. My advice is that units of the Special Air Service under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Gus Gilmore executed this instruction over an hour ago and that the ship is now in the control of the SAS. We have subsequently been advised by the ship's captain, in contradiction of earlier advice given, that the reason he decided to enter Australian territorial waters was that a spokesman for the survivors of the Indonesian vessel had indicated that they would begin jumping overboard if medical assistance was not provided quickly. I table a telefax message from the Australian Search and Rescue Centre, containing the text of the communication from the master of the Norwegian vessel. I should inform the House that the preliminary assessment carried out by the Australian Defence Force doctor indicates that nobody—and I repeat: nobody—has presented as being in need of urgent medical assistance as would require their removal to the Australian mainland or to Christmas Island. I repeat that that is the result of the preliminary investigation and a further medical assessment continues.When I was informed of the apprehended violation of Australian territorial waters by the ship, I rang the Norwegian Prime Minister to express our concern about what was occurring, to repeat the advice that had been given by the foreign minister and to remind him that the foreign minister had spoken to his foreign minister. At that time, the order for the SAS units to stop and board the ship had already been given effect to. In my discussion with the Norwegian Prime Minister, he expressed the view that the Norwegian government had no responsibility in the matter, despite the fact that it is a Norwegian flagged vessel, it is a Norwegian captain and it is a Norwegian company. He continued to assert that it was entirely the responsibility of Australia and other countries.I pointed out in that discussion that our legal advice was that Australia was under no legal obligation to accept responsibility for the survivors of the Indonesian vessel. I also pointed out that the motor vessel Tampa had been en route to an Indonesian port with the survivors and only decided to head towards Australia under duress from the survivors. I think the point about duress, particularly in view of the telefax communication from the captain regarding the circumstances of his decision to violate Australian territorial waters, bears repeating.I have been informed by the Chief of the Australian Defence Force that the vessel presently lies four to five nautical miles from Christmas Island. The SAS personnel on the vessel have put it to the captain that the appropriate thing would be for the captain to return to international waters. We have indicated all along that we stand ready and that helicopters will be available, I understand, within an hour eastern standard time to take supplies and, if necessary, further personnel to the vessel.Our proposition to the ship and the ship's company is that the vessel ought to return to international waters. That matter is still under discussion with the company, and there will be further communications to the Norwegian government, but at this stage the company has indicated that it is disinclined to return to international waters, which, of course, creates a very serious situation. I should emphasise that that proposition of ours and our offer of medical help are not in any way conditional on the return of the vessel to international waters. We stand ready to provide that assistance and to maintain the humanitarian lifeline irrespective of the decision that is taken in relation to the return of the vessel to international waters. Through the ADF personnel on the vessel, we are currently having carried out an assessment of supplies, medical stores and the like that may be needed if there is to be an extended stay at sea by the Tampa.This is a very difficult—in fact, for Australia, I think, unprecedented—situation. Nobody is lacking in compassion for genuine refugees. Nobody pretends for a moment that the circumstances from which many people flee are not very distressing. But, equally, it has to be said that, in the last 20 years, no country has been more generous to refugees than Australia. After the Indochinese events of the 1970s, this country took, on a per capita basis, more Indochinese refugees than any country on earth. We have continued to be a warm, generous recipient of refugees, but we have become increasingly concerned about the increasing flow of people into this country. Every nation has the right to effectively control its borders and to decide who comes here and under what circumstances, and Australia has no intention of surrendering or compromising that right. We have taken this action in furtherance of that view. It remains our very strong determination not to allow this vessel or its occupants, save and excepting humanitarian circumstances clearly demonstrated, to land in Australia, and we will take whatever action is needed—within the law, of course—to prevent that occurring. I want to add two other things. I want to record my gratitude to the men of the Australian Defence Force who are involved in this operation, particularly their commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Gus Gilmore. It is always important on occasions like this to remember that the men and women of our Defence Force are exposed to potential danger. The other point I seek to make and to repeat—and I condition it by saying that it is only preliminary advice at this time—is that the preliminary medical assessment is that nobody on the vessel has presented as being in need of urgent medical evacuation. I think that is a very important element in the debate that has gone on. I also repeat that we stand ready to continue to supply on a humanitarian basis medical assistance and medical supplies. It is entirely consistent with that offer that the vessel return to international waters where it belongs and it is entirely consistent with our stance regarding the non-entry of the vessel into Australia that that ought to take place. We will continue to discuss the matter with the Norwegian government and the government of Indonesia. I have said on a number of occasions, and I repeat it here, that in the medium to longer term a solution to this problem lies in preventing the egress from Indonesia of so many of the boat people. That is the core of the problem. That will require a cooperative effort between Australia and Indonesia. We stand ready to be involved in that cooperative effort, and we have communicated that willingness to the government of Indonesia. We understand the strains on the Indonesian economy and we understand the limited resources available to the government of that country. We are prepared to shoulder the financial burden in relation to the implementation of a satisfactory policy that will block the egress of people from Indonesia. The problem does lie in the ease of entry of many people from Middle Eastern and other countries to neighbouring countries of Indonesia and their relative ease of transfer to Indonesia and then through Indonesia onto boats and down to Australia. Something has to be done to stop that flow of humanity. Something has to be done internationally to ensure that people who seek to be treated as refugees are commonly, fairly and equitably assessed, and that is not happening now. We stand ready to shoulder our burden in relation to refugees—we always have and we always will—but it must occur in a fair and proper fashion, and plainly what is happening with people-smuggling is that the principle of fairness is being grossly violated. We hope that, by the action we have taken in relation to the Tampa, we have not only upheld the principles of international law and acted in Australia's national interests but also sent a message of our concern to the rest of the world, the international community, regarding the situation that has developed. We are at present engaged in communications with the government of Indonesia regarding a medium to longer term resolution of the issue. But I repeat: the medium to longer term resolution does lie very much in that particular area.In relation to the present situation, our position is that the Tampa should not be able to dock or discharge the people on board at Christmas Island or anywhere else in Australia and, consistent with our humanitarian obligations, which we stand ready to discharge, we will continue resolutely to maintain that position.14:14:0030518Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—by leave—I join the Prime Minister in the first instance in expressing gratitude to the members of the Australian armed services engaged in this very difficult situation both at sea at the moment and also on land. This is a moving situation, and one which was difficult and has now become extraordinarily difficult. In these circumstances, this country and this parliament do not need a carping opposition; what they actually need is an opposition that understands the difficult circumstance in which the government finds itself, and to the very best of my ability I will ensure that that situation prevails. When the government first announced its proposals in relation to the fate of the MV Tampa, it did so on the basis of international law, not a change in policy. As far as we can see, there has been no change in government policy on the way in which refugees, or potential refugees, coming illegally to this country ought to be treated. The government was acting under international legal obligations that are presented by the law in relation to rescue at sea, which oblige those countries in whose zones people are rescued at sea to make landfall in those countries. It has been quite clear from the outset that, in this particular case, it occurred in the Indonesian zone, and therefore landfall should take place in Indonesia. That is indeed what should have happened and what should happen, regardless of whatever duress or pressures are placed on the captain of the vessel, his crew, the Norwegian government or the shipping line. That is the state of international law as far as the situation is concerned.Noting that there has been no change in policy in that regard, and because we believe more generally that policies in the area of immigration, which are quite fraught in debate in this country, are best settled on a bipartisan basis, that is the view that we intend to pursue. We understand completely now that a difficult legal environment has been created, even more difficult than it was prior to the decision by the captain to enter Australian territorial waters. It will be a very hard situation for the government to handle, and I suspect the Norwegian government, the owners of the vessel and the master of the vessel himself are very well aware of that fact and that that may well determine the way in which they choose to handle it over the course of the next few days. There is law of course in relation to our navigation acts associated with breaches of the sort that is being engaged in by the captain of the vessel. The government has requested the captain of the vessel to leave our territorial waters and has indicated to him that it will provide every assistance to him in that regard. As the government does that, given all the things that the government has said to this point, I hope and trust that it will, before that event occurs—should it occur—have made absolutely certain that the preliminary medical check will be completed in a full way to determine that all those on board the vessel are in a fit medical condition to continue on course, and of course there would have to be a provisioning of the ship in a way that ensured that that occurred.The Prime Minister in his remarks mentioned the situation with Indonesia. There is no doubt that the difficulties we currently experience with the illegal entry of people who may be refugees into this country via sea, via these boats, are products of a change in relations between Australia and Indonesia. There are other factors as well but, as the Prime Minister himself acknowledges, that is an important factor. Over the last 10 years something like 13,000 people have come into Australia this way: 2,000 up until about 1996 and 11,000 since then. Quite clearly, there is a job of work to be done in terms of our relationship with Indonesia to in some way check or halt this process. The Prime Minister had apparently a good meeting with the President of Indonesia on this matter a few weeks ago. In some ways this is a test of the preparedness on the part of both parties to take that issue further forward, and we may ask a question or two about that during question time.However, this is, as I said, a situation which is very unclear at the moment. It is a situation in which there is a deal of serious concern on the part of this government, and so there should be. We are not dealing here with a national catastrophe; what we are dealing with here is a serious problem. Serious problems require cool heads and good hearts in pursuing the solution to those problems. I am sure that the Australian people want both a clear and cool-headed government and a good-hearted government. The way in which this issue should be resolved should reflect both those aspects of what we admire in the Australian character: clear thinking and decent and honourable thinking. As I said at the outset, it is not our intention to, nor should we, put ourselves in a position where anything we say here will in any way, shape or form influence the processes on the high seas. People should act lawfully. The Australian government has acted lawfully. The captain of the ship should act lawfully. We urge him to continue to do so; should he not, then that is a substantial problem for the government, and the government is seeking as best it can to resolve it. Distinguished Visitors3052010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I call on questions without notice, perhaps this might be an opportune time, given the hour of the day, to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the House of Representatives in Japan. On behalf of all members of the House, I extend to our Japanese visitors a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I also indicate to the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a well-known former state member, Mr John Johnson, who is well known not only as a former member of the Legislative Council in New South Wales but of course as a distinguished president of that council. Mr Johnson, welcome to the House.Honourable members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am sorry to cause the House some uncertainty, but I believe we also have in the gallery the Irish Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Mary Harney. If I am correct, I welcome her and if not I will extend that welcome a little later. Ms Harney, on behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice305203052014:22:0030520Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and follows the brief discussion we have just had in the chamber. Prime Minister, given the international obligations of Indonesia in this matter, can you advise the House when you first made contact with President Megawati and what is the outcome of that contact?30520Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The contact on this particular issue with the Indonesian government has not been head of government to head of the government; it has been officials. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question and I am very happy to indicate that contact has not been at that level. The president at this stage has been travelling in South-East Asia. We have a number of contacts at different levels under way and one of the approaches will involve head of government to head of government.But I should indicate that the broader question, not related to the Tampa, of the refugee flow was raised by me in my discussions with the Indonesian government when I was in Jakarta. I thought the leader's question related specifically to the Tampa. I would point out in relation to the Tampa at other levels in relation to the broader issue I did raise that, and it is not going to be a quick process. The Indonesian government has stretched resources. We are going to continue to engage them in different ways and there will be further head of government to head of government contact. We have had some contact at senior officials level; we have also had, I understand, some contact at a foreign minister to foreign minister level and that will continue.3052014:24:0030520Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Given the Prime Minister's statement to the House a short moment ago, would the minister update the House on the government's handling of the motor vessel Tampa and inform the House of the action the government is taking in relation to the flow of illegal arrivals to Australia?30520Ruddock, 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 Curtin for her question and her obvious concern and interest in this matter. Like the Prime Minister, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's comments today but particularly his affirmation that the legal position is clear. I want to address some comments, if I may, to what has sometimes been asserted as the moral position as distinct from the legal position, because Australia has consistently maintained that it stands ready and willing to provide humanitarian assistance in the form of food, water, medical services and supplies, as well as the safety equipment necessary. There is one other matter that I wanted to address today, and that is the suggestions that have been made from time to time that Christmas Island is an appropriate place for people rescued at sea on a vessel of the size of Tampa to be taken. I do not know that it is recognised internationally, particularly from some of the comments I have heard, that Christmas Island does not have a port. It has a wharf and a berth to land small vessels. Captain Philpott, who was the former master of vessels for the British Phosphate Trading Christmas Island operation, had this to say, and I think it was something that ought to have been noted and observed:There are moorings at the island for bulk carriers for loading phosphate. I am familiar with the vessel Tampa, which is the huge container vessel which I believe could exceed the capacity of the moorings, both in tonnage and length. And the other problem is the very high free board of the vessel, which makes it very difficult to disembark to vessels which are not actually alongside a wharf.The captain went on to say that the likelihood of the boat, the Tampa, ripping out the moorings was such that it would leave Christmas Island unviable as a port for a long period of time if that were to occur. If you were cognisant of the issues relating to the 1,500 people whose home is at Christmas Island, that is obviously a matter of very real concern.There has been some other questioning in relation to the efforts that Australia is making to deal at source with the problem of illegal trafficking and movement of individuals. As part of a global approach to combating people-smuggling, Australia has been pursuing a range of strategies. One of the strategies has been to establish regional cooperation models with transit countries dealing with the flow of unauthorised arrivals through their territories. These issues are just as important to those countries as they are to Australia, and the more attractive that Australia is as a source, for the reasons that I outlined yesterday, the more people will inevitably end up not only in Australia but in countries of transit. So it is just as important for them to be cognisant of these issues as it is for us.Under this model, persons detected by local authorities to be travelling illegally to countries like Australia can have their claims for asylum determined there. Persons with refugee claims can apply to the local UNHCR office for protection, and, conversely, those persons found not to be refugees are offered assistance by the International Organisation for Migration to return home. The fact is that Indonesia has already interdicted some 1,500 or so people, whom it presently detains. Amongst those, a number of people have been found to be refugees. As I mentioned, 14 per cent of Afghanis have been found to be refugees, assessed by the UNHCR in Indonesia. Resettlement places are being sought internationally for those people. Already the IOM has been able to return 160 non-refugees who have volunteered for repatriation from Indonesia under these arrangements. But in July Cambodian authorities intercepted 242 people illegally attempting to come to Australia on an unseaworthy boat. The organisers of that failed trip are now in custody and I believe in Cambodia there may have been convictions for people-smuggling against a number of them.The fact is that many of the 242 passengers held false Afghan passports which they would have destroyed before arrival, if they had come to Australia, in order to hide their identities. They said that they would have claimed to be Afghans on arrival in Australia, but so far half of the boat have now admitted, or been determined, to be Pakistani in citizenship and not Afghan, and 124 people have so far volunteered to be, and have been, returned home, mostly to Pakistan, under IOM arrangements.Australia continues to support regional authorities in their efforts to contain this insidious trade. We are expanding the number of countries with whom we are formalising exchange of information about people-smuggling and other aspects of illegal immigration. We are working closely with other government agencies and with joint exercises involving the Australian Federal Police, as well as with my department, as part of a smuggling strike team to combat activities, both domestically and overseas. Another important part of our strategy has been the removal of unauthorised arrivals who have no legal right to remain in Australia. As you may have observed yesterday, I announced that a charter flight took 31 people abroad last weekend. A number of them were people of Palestinian ancestry who had come from Syria, where they already had safe and legal entitlements to continue to reside. We have also been working with international agencies in countries of first asylum and source countries, and we do so particularly through the UNHCR. Australia is committed to reinforcing those efforts and will be very much involved in developing plans with international agencies and the UNHCR to strengthen their efforts in places like Pakistan and Iran, and, when appropriate arrangements have been put together with those agencies, we will be providing additional support that will meaningfully address the issues, particularly in relation to Afghans, by committing up to an additional $14 million to assist in efforts to contain those secondary flows, and to assist in the return of displaced people from refugee camps. If those arrangements can be concluded as planned—and the enormity of this commitment ought to be understood—it will be an effective doubling of the resources made available by Australia to deal with these issues at source. No-one should see Australia as lacking in sensitivity to these issues and as unwilling to play its part in dealing with these issues constructively and positively. If all members note and bring those efforts to people's attention, a lot of the public discussion will be much more sensible and responsible.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Just before I recognise the Leader of the Opposition, understandably with the number of guests and with a changed approach to question time, a number of people have been conferencing in the aisles. Can I discourage that practice, as that practice is in fact discouraged by the standing orders.3052214:34:0030522Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the legal status of the persons on the MV Tampa now that it is four to five nautical miles off Christmas Island?30522Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I understand that one of the things you are not meant to do at question time is to give a legal opinion, but I think that it is one of those issues that, given the seriousness of it and without taking a pedantic point, I will take on notice. I will get some advice from somebody whose knowledge of international law is even better than mine or that of the Leader of the Opposition and provide the House with a precise answer.3052214:35:0030522Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What action has the government taken to negotiate with the government of Indonesia to address the issue of people-smuggling?30522Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the member for Sturt for his question, for the interest he shows in these issues and for the great interest he shows in international relations generally. As the Prime Minister has said, over the course of the last 48 hours or so we have had pretty intensive consultations with different levels of the Indonesian government and those consultations are continuing in Jakarta today in relation to MV Tampa. I also hope to be able to speak with the Indonesian foreign minister during this evening. He was overseas until yesterday afternoon. As the Prime Minister said, the President has been making a trip around various countries of South-East Asia. Over a period of time, though, this government has actively sought the cooperation of the Indonesian government on the broader issue of people-smuggling. We entered into a partnership with Indonesia, the International Organisation for Migration, known as the IOM, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees under what is called a regional cooperation arrangement. That regional cooperation arrangement began in April 2000. Under the arrangement, Australia funds the reasonable costs of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the IOM in their work to resolve the situation of third country nationals detained by Indonesian authorities. In that context, Australia has also been working for some time on a bilateral basis with Indonesia to assist both the Indonesian police and their immigration authorities in addressing this question. Australia is seeking to conclude with Indonesia a memorandum of understanding on illegal migration, on top of those measures that we have already entered into with Indonesia. The MOU will commit the two countries to further cooperative activities to prevent irregular people movements as best we can, and obviously as best we can to prevent people-smuggling. My colleague the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs had useful discussions in, I think, June last year on this issue. We will continue those negotiations with the Indonesians over the next few weeks. As the Prime Minister said, it was also one of the major items on the agenda for his discussions with President Megawati a couple of weeks ago. Nobody has any illusions about how difficult this trade is to deal with, and there are many different aspects to it which impact on Indonesian society in one way or another. There is great sensitivity in Indonesia about the number of illegal immigrants from other countries in South-East Asia and other parts of the world. There is no doubt that it is a trade, if you could call it that, that the Indonesians would very much like to control, but it is extremely difficult for the central government in Jakarta to do that. Nevertheless, we have had very positive and cooperative discussions with the Indonesians on this issue. We put in place the regional cooperation arrangement, which came into force in April 2000. We continue to build that aspect of the relationship with Indonesia, and that has been highlighted very much by the discussions we have had in the last couple of days over the issue of the MV Tampa.3052314:39:0030523Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00— My question without notice is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, doesn't Telstra's record annual profit announced today provide another 4.1 billion reasons why no more of Telstra should be sold? Minister, isn't it the case that the $1.2 billion dividend that Telstra will now pay to the Commonwealth for just one year's work is more than 10 times the amount you have promised today to spend on your so-called Stronger Regions program over the next four years. Can you please now explain to the House how the full privatisation of Telstra will improve services to regional Australia?30523Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. There is just the faintest whiff of a policy position in there, which is always a surprise, I have to say, from the member for Batman—Honourable members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—It is only the very faintest whiff. We might even say something about that during the day. I might feel a bit tempted to make some observations. The reality is that, one way or another, we have done an extremely good job in addressing the telecommunications needs of rural and regional Australia. The first point that I come to is that we significantly upgraded the universal service obligation, but perhaps more important than that, and greatly to the credit of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, we have introduced something called CSG—customer service guarantee. The ALP never likes talking about that because it is, I suspect, more than anything else the mechanism that is ensuring that rural customers across the nation get the services they need. For the first time, it actually sets out what service standards might be and it raises the spectre of genuine penalties if they are not met. When you couple the processes of the universal service obligation with the CSG and with the social bonus programs such as Networking the Nation and what have you, which have to be seen as part and parcel of the several billion a year that the government has been averaging in expenditures in rural and regional Australia, they amount to a very genuine, far-reaching commitment to rural and regional Australia. Our record stands in very stark contrast to yours. You would have us believe that you had some sort of commitment to rural telecommunications services. You did not have a commitment to it—there wasn't one. There was no CSG and there was no Networking the Nation. The question can only be described as pretty flippant. 3052414:42:0030524Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House of the June quarter current account figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics?30524Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question. I can inform the House that the June quarter current account deficit was $3½ billion, or 2.1 per cent of GDP. This is the lowest current account deficit as a proportion of GDP for 21 years. The fall in the current account deficit was led by a surplus in trade on goods and services, a surplus of $1.5 billion for the quarter, the largest surplus since the gold sales back in 1997. Abstracting from those gold sales, it is the largest quarterly trade surplus in nominal terms since 1959. The current account deficit was led by a rise in export volumes of 1.1 per cent and a 0.2 per cent decrease in import volumes. I pay tribute to Australia's farmers and rural producers. In the March quarter, the volume of rural exports rose by a full four per cent, and over the year by 0.7 per cent. For the financial year—that is, the whole of the year ended June 2001—the current account deficit was 2.8 per cent of GDP, the lowest current account deficit in 21 years. As members would know, since the election of Labor in 1983 and Mr Keating's comments about a banana republic in 1986, Australia's current account deficit has been averaging above four per cent. These figures, led by Australia's exports, have—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Where is the debt truck?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Paterson!UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Paterson!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am asked by the Labor Party about foreign debt. I can inform the Labor Party that foreign debt in the June quarter fell—UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is defying the chair!CT4Mr COSTELLO—It fell by two per cent of GDP, from 48.8 per cent to 46.7 per cent, with the export servicing ratio—this is the proportion of exports which is required to service net foreign debt—falling to 9.2 per cent off a high of 20 per cent back in 1990. So the export story for Australia, notwithstanding a weakening world economy, is a good export story. It has no doubt been helped by a competitive exchange rate, and I have mentioned that on numbers of occasions. But, in addition to that, for the first time ever in Australian history, Australian exporters got the same deal as exporters from other countries got: they could export tax free, because this government changed the taxation system.Labor's system was to tax our exporters and to weight them down with taxes in a way which no other country was doing. With the advent of tax reform, Australian exporters got the same opportunities as exporters from other countries. They have led growth in this particular quarter, notwithstanding a weaker world economy. As a result, Australia's current account is the lowest in 21 years; and in relation to trade in goods and services there is a surplus in the quarter. I pay tribute to the exporters of Australia, particularly our rural producers, for the magnificent performance that they have put in during a weakening world environment.3052414:46:0030524Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, can you confirm that on 10 June 2001 the standards agency overturned a recommendation to revoke the accreditation of the Albury and District Private Nursing Home, despite its failing all four care standards, three critically? Didn't the agency, in overturning the recommendation, admit that they had no confidence the nursing home would ever meet your standards? Minister, can you explain to the families and residents from the St Catherine's Nursing Home in Newcastle and the St Joseph's Nursing Home at Lochinvar, who are in this House today, why their nursing homes, which are recognised as providing good quality care, are being forced to close while the Albury nursing home has been allowed to remain open? An incident having occurred in the gallery—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! Or I will have the gallery emptied.30525Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Yes, I can explain why the home of St Catherine's of Siena is to close.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Why won't you meet them?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—It has decided to close—Opposition members interjecting—SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Yes, it has decided that it wishes to close.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call. The minister will not respond to interjections. The minister will respond, as she is responding, to the question.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—The St Catherine's of Siena home is one of nine homes owned by the trustees of the Roman Catholic Church of Maitland and Newcastle. It has appointed Catholic Care of the Aged as the manager of those nine businesses. It has made a business decision to close St Catherine's because it is an old heritage building, a former convent—83NHall, Jill, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—It is a business decision because it is an old heritage building which Catholic Care of the Aged has apparently decided is no longer financially rewarding in terms of making that management of nine businesses profitable. If I can address the question of subsidy, St Catherine's of Siena has had, since 1995-96, an increase of 54 per cent in funding: it has risen from $1.638 million to $2.7 million. It in addition sought in 1997—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation! The Minister for Aged Care has the call.83NHall, Jill, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland is warned!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—It sought an increase of 16 beds, which it told the department would make it more viable. It also received a capital grant at that time in order to do some upgrading of that old heritage building, which I understand is the former convent and really totally unsuitable for an aged care home. Further, if you have a look at the consolidated accounts of Catholic Care of the Aged, you will see that that group received, in this current financial year, $15 million. That is $15 million which has been received to run the homes it manages, plus the community aged care packages. And, if you look at their profit and loss account, you will see that they trade at a profit. But they have made a decision that this particular home is no longer one they wish to operate. They have sought advice from the department, which has made suggestions about the way they might share a kitchen between the high-level care and the low-level care which is on the same site and about whether or not they might seek extra service, but they have declined to follow those recommendations.The fact of the matter is that they have made a business decision to close this home but to keep the 67 beds, because they will be able to keep the 67 beds, receive the same amount of subsidy and not have to service an expensive building. They will also be able to move the residents who are in that home into other homes that they operate. In fact, they will not be permitted, not be prepared, to transfer any of the beds out of the Hunter because those beds are required to be in the Hunter and therefore they may not sell them without permission of the department, and permission would not be given if they were chosen to be sold outside the region.I further add that, within the period from the end of 1998 to 1 November 2001, some 461 places will have come on stream in the Hunter, to improve the legacy that was left behind by the Labor Party, who refused to issue new places whilst they were in office. I think it would be useful for me to table details of the new homes that have in fact been opened. I can say that they do indeed include high-care beds and new homes, as well as extensive renovations to existing homes. I table the document for members who are interested in aged care in Newcastle. I point out that the way the system works in aged care is that the government provides funding to approved providers who, at the time they apply for beds, must prove that they are financially viable. In fact, Catholic Care of the Aged have always managed to do that, but they are entitled to make this business decision—though I would say that the approved provider is the trustees of the Catholic Church itself and in the end it is the trustees who must make the decision to close, although they will probably accept the recommendation of their managers, Catholic Care of the Aged. I might add that Catholic Care of the Aged also manage another two homes on behalf of the Sisters of St Joseph, and they have chosen to remove some of those beds from Lochinvar—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will resume his seat. I have been listening closely to the answer.5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No. The member for Hunter has raised a point of order on relevance. I noted the question. The question concerned a series of aged care facilities and, to date, the minister's answer has been entirely focused on the provision of aged care. There is no point of order on relevance. The member for Hunter will resume his seat.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—The minister was asked a question about Lochinvar—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will resume his seat.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps 12 months ago but not recently—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—As you are aware, it is not acceptable or proper under the standing orders for you to rule out of order a point of order before you have heard it, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—No, Mr Speaker, let me make my point. The standing orders and House of Representatives Practice make it clear that the Speaker should rule on a point of order after he has heard it; and it is not proper or acceptable for you to rule on the point of order before you have heard it, Mr Speaker. I urge you to give the member for Hunter the opportunity to make his point. I accept that you may not accept it, but he must have the right to make it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As the Manager of Opposition Business is well aware, it has been my practice in the chair to allow wider observations about relevance than any of my predecessors have. As he is also well aware, I note every question. There are occasions, however—and this was one of those instances—where there was no way in which the comments made by the Minister for Aged Care would have been ruled as anything other than relevant to the question, by me or by any of the other occupiers of the chair in the period that I have been in this parliament.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I mentioned also that Catholic Care of the Aged manages a home at Lochinvar on behalf of the Sisters of St Joseph. They have chosen to move those beds—20 beds which are operational and 10 which have been given provisional approval—to a new site that they already operate at Swansea, where the 10 beds that have been given a provisional allocation will be able to be brought on stream more quickly. This is a sensible outcome. I understand that the sisters are in discussion with an alternate manager in order that they may have that facility managed by a different entity.I raise that second point for the very sensible reason that there has been movement in the Hunter whereby Catholic Care of the Aged has made a business decision that one out of nine homes should close, that they will continue to operate the other eight homes and that they will continue to receive the same subsidy by absorbing the 67 beds into their existing facilities, without the inappropriate heritage building, which is not a suitable building for an aged care home. 3052714:58:0030527Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister outline to the House measures taken by this government to assist communities in rural and regional Australia? What additional measures has the government put in place? 30527Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his very real interest in these matters. The government has established a very impressive record in fostering regional development. In fact, when you total it, we have committed some $28½ billion over five years in specific programs supporting regional Australia. There are some 300 of them, believe it or not. When you range across from the Natural Heritage Trust, the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Control, Roads for Recovery, the Regional Solutions Program, the rural transactions centres, More Doctors Better Services, and Agriculture— Advancing Australia, it is a very impressive list. We have overseen a quiet revolution in the way that we do business with rural and regional communities. We do it in partnership. We do not come along now with a plan out of Canberra and say, `This is what you will wear whether you like it or not because Canberra knows best.' We have an open toolbox approach: we have a range of programs that rural communities can access. It works very well and rural communities appreciate it very much. It is about reconnecting rural and regional Australia, bridging the divide to ensure that they recognise that, at a time of increasing prosperity and opportunity in this country, undergirded by economic reform under this government, rural and regional Australia are not left behind.The Stronger Regions Program announced today is another significant step forward in the journey that we are taking towards a completely revitalised and strong rural and regional Australia. The centrepiece of it is the $100 million Sustainable Regions Program to help local leaders and local communities meet the challenge of change. To be honest, it is something that I do not think we have always managed as well as we might have. The ALP committed us to trade reform in the early 1990s. It was supported by farm leaders and, certainly, it was supported widely across the range. But, frankly, not enough thought was put into how we would cope and help those communities that were going to wear the brunt of change. Today we have taken a very significant further step to ensure that communities that are experiencing very high unemployment, low levels of household income, a lack of investment and lack of job opportunities in rural, regional and remote Australia and outer metropolitan areas have a more effective mechanism to ensure that their problems are addressed.I also announce that, from November this year, the federal government will pick up the bill for 40 per cent of Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service charges across agricultural industries. This is an area where the ALP could never get it right. They moved from 100 per cent payment by the government to 100 per cent payment by industry, with a system that was out of control and that was loaded with surplus inspectors who were then billed to people who were paying for the services. At one stage, I think, it rose to a total cost, to an industry much smaller than it is today, of about $120 million. Ministers like Kerin and the would-be Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the member for Hotham, were utterly unable to reform it. We have brought the costs down through reform, and today I have announced that there will be a further reduction of 40 per cent from November this year. I have also indicated that we will be ensuring that national competition policy works to the advantage of rural and regional Australian communities. I was also asked about alternative policies. There has been the whiff of a policy—a couple actually—from the member for Batman. The whiff came in a graph—they do love graphs! We got a graph put out on regional development funding: `The official story', they call it. I suppose members cannot quite see it here but we love these Labor graphs— it is just a pity that they cannot be more accurate. The whiff of policy is that they want to take us back, presumably, to when they did a lot on regional development. I have just outlined policies from this side of the House for rural and regional Australia which come to between $5 billion and $6 billion a year. Labor has a graph out saying that they were spending—wait for it!—$200 million a year on regional development, and their graph shows that, under those programs, it dropped away to virtually nothing under us, so they claim that we ought to go back to their way of doing things: $200 million a year. In contrast, there is close to $6 billion a year under the way in which the Liberal and National Party governments have approached regional development. The real pity of all this is that what we have had is a clear demonstration that my opposite number, the ALP spokesman for regional development, is still lost in that land where he believes that Canberra knows best: that regional development is all about having some committees and some bureaucrats who will do a little bit of talking but will not actually work in partnership with the great regions of this nation, where seven million Australians live, to ensure that they grasp a strong and secure future. 3052815:05:0030528Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of a report Stepping into the breach, released by the Salvation Army today, that claims around 11 per cent of those seeking assistance from their organisation who have been breached by your government have been forced to turn to crime to survive? Are you aware that the Salvos say:The impact findings strongly suggest that breaching is compounding the already impoverished status of the unemployed, and for significant numbers, is a contributing precipitating factor in homelessness and crime?Are you also aware that the Salvos claim that the consequences of your breaching policy are `morally unacceptable'? Prime Minister, my question is: do you agree with the Salvos? 30528Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer is no, I have not seen the report. It was released today and I thought it would have been obvious that I have not had an opportunity to read a report of that kind, given other matters that I have been giving some attention to this morning. I always pay some regard—indeed, a great deal of regard—to what the Salvation Army says. I think it is a wonderful organisation, and I cannot think of a finer organisation in this country. It brings to the care of the needy in the Australian community not only Christian compassion but also a hard-headed assessment of human behaviour.R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler has asked his question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I guess in all of these things there are some things we agree with from organisations and there are some things we do not agree with. I would be interested to know whether the honourable member for Grayndler agrees with the views of the Salvation Army on heroin trials, for example. I would be very interested to know that. I say very genuinely to the member for Grayndler that I will have a look at the Salvation Army report. If there is anything further I can say on it, I will. As of now I have not seen it for the most obvious of reasons, but I will have a look at it.3052815:08:0030528St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. While Australia's agricultural producers are amongst the most efficient in the world, they are marketing their products in extremely competitive world markets. What is the government doing to help exporters achieve new, expanded international markets?30528Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. It comes on a particularly significant day for agricultural Australia—we had the great news about our wonderful trade performance and the contribution that rural and regional Australia has made to the best trade statistics since 1959. That is a real credit to the tremendous effort that people in the electorate of the honourable member, and indeed others, are making towards developing a very strong export focus for our nation. Earlier today the Deputy Prime Minister delivered his landmark Stronger Regions, A Stronger Australia statement, which is a real blueprint for the future progress and development of people who live in regional Australia. I take the opportunity to congratulate him on a very forthright and visionary statement. There are a number of very significant issues to help particularly those areas of rural and regional Australia that are still doing it tough and that have not yet had an opportunity to share in the broader prosperity and development of our nation. Those things will certainly be welcomed in electorates like my own and, I am sure, the electorate of New England. One of the particularly welcome announcements was the decision to reduce AQIS inspection charges by 40 per cent across the board. This is a magnificent initiative, something that has been demanded by the exporting sector ever since the days when Labor introduced full cost recovery in 1991. This is consistent with this government's efforts in reducing costs and taxes on exporters. We have, after all, taken through the new tax system around $3.5 billion off the costs of our exporters.If we are looking around for any single factor that has contributed to the great trade statistics reported today, it certainly has to be the reform of the tax system. Not only are we taking positive steps in this regard to introduce new measures; we are reversing many of the negative elements of the policy mix that were put in place by Labor—whether it is reforming the waterfront or reforming the costs of AQIS. AQIS costs went up year by year under Labor. As the Deputy Prime Minister remarked, under the direction of the ex-ACTU president who was in charge of quarantine policy at the time the costs simply blew out because no-one was prepared to take on the unions. No-one was prepared to do anything about costs that were just redundant in the whole system.There were actually scores of meat inspectors in towns where there were not even any meatworks. Labor did not have the guts to shift them. The union said, `No, they will stay there and enjoy a life of luxury and ease.' They were not prepared to move people to places where the work was, and so there were something like 800 meat inspectors around the country. Now that number has been halved because we have them where they are doing the work. On top of all that, there is going to be a significant reduction in the costs that will be applied. It will apply not just to the meat industry—although that is the biggest cost of the inspection charges—but also to grain, dairy, live animals, fish, horticulture and organic foods. They will all enjoy lower cost impositions on their exports. That will help our people, who have to work in anything but a level playing field, to achieve a satisfactory export performance for our nation.Mr Speaker, it may not surprise you to know that this announcement has been very warmly welcomed by Australian exporters. Livecorp: `Industry applauds reduction in AQIS charges', and of course that will be across the board. What about the Cattle Council? `Beef producers over the moon on $20 million saving.' What a difference it makes to have a government that cares about exporters, that wants to do something about building a strong rural and regional Australia, that actually helps our exporters rather than hindering them. That can only happen when you have a coalition government.3052915:13:0030529Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that the Salvation Army's hard-headed and compassionate report Stepping into the breach describes the government's approach to breaching the unemployed as `cost shifting'? Isn't it the case that, as well as putting intolerable pressure on emergency relief agencies by breaching the unemployed, you are making these organisations pay GST on assistance they provide? Prime Minister, given the fact that the Queensland branch of your party has been caught out evading GST, why should charities providing emergency relief to people you breach have to pay the GST on their decency? Will you support Labor's policy to compensate charities for the loss of input tax credits in this situation? 30530Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have three points to make. The first is that I have not read the report—for the most obvious of reasons— but I will. 8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—You've been too busy reading the Daily Telegraph.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have not even read that extensively today, either. With all due charity to the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Grayndler, I will not accept uncritically their regurgitation of what is in the report without having a look myself. The second point is that I do not accept the Leader of the Opposition's characterisation of behaviour by the Queensland division of the Liberal Party. In conjunction with that, I would point out to him that we are perfectly happy to throw the books of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party open for examination in relation to GST matters. I assume the Leader of the Opposition has already written that letter, or he has arranged for the president of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party to write that letter, to the Commissioner of Taxation.Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, it hasn't gone yet! I know: I am meant to have read the Salvation Army report this morning, but he has not had time to write to the tax commissioner! As to the rest of it, I will take the question on notice and, when I have read the report written by the Salvation Army—and I repeat that I have the greatest possible regard for the Salvation Army; it is a wonderful organisation—I might have something further to say.3053015:16:0030530Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of the action being taken by the government to ensure the capacity of rural communities to recruit and retain doctors?30530Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The Deputy Prime Minister has already outlined in question time the actions the government is taking broadly, in the Stronger Regions statement and in a number of very specific statements. But I would like to inform honourable members of one specific thing we are doing in the area of health relating to the operation of the Trade Practices Act. The Trade Practices Act has caused concern across all general practitioner groups—from the college of GPs, the College of Rural and Remote Medicine, the Rural Doctors Association, through to the AMA.Different groups have different concerns about the operations, and there would appear to be some genuine concerns. Certainly the issue of rostering in country areas and the issue of practice structure, where one doctor might be incorporated and another doctor not incorporated, would appear to be problems. To be fair to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, they acknowledge this and they have been very supportive of the authorisation process that the government intends to proceed with in looking at these two issues. In spite of that, other concerns have been put up, and it is hard from a position of government to determine the validity of these concerns. They may very well have substance. So the Prime Minister has announced today that the government will be having an inquiry into the operation of the Trade Practices Act, inasmuch as it affects rural and remote communities attracting and retaining doctors. The three people who will be looking at this are Warwick Wilkinson, who is an assistant commissioner with the ACCC and who, in 1999, looked at the national competition review of pharmacy; Diana Gibbs, an economic consultant working in rural Australia; and Dr John Aloizos, currently chairman of the Australian Pharmacy Advisory Committee and past chairman of the Australian Divisions of General Practice. The terms of reference ask them to look at the impact of the Trade Practices Act on the competitiveness, structure, sustainability and regulation of medical practitioners in rural Australia; the economic and social impacts of rural medical practitioners and the communities they serve; changes to market structure, competitiveness and sustainability of regulation of medical practice in recent years; public benefits, if any, from the altering of the application of the Trade Practices Act to rural medical practitioners; measures which could be undertaken to facilitate the flow of benefits or mitigate any transitional costs or negative impacts arising from the application of the Trade Practices Act to rural medical practitioners and residents of rural and remote Australia; and measures to create greater awareness of the Trade Practices Act and the medical profession in the community. This will give a chance for those people who have concerns about the operation of the Trade Practices Act to raise them in an open and public manner. The committee will hold public hearings. We expect to have a report from them within six months, and if that report shows, in its independent and open way, that there are problems over and above those which we have already identified, we are prepared to act on them.3053115:20:0030531Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyInd00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The only CPI figures that are available indicate that prices in North Queensland's midwest towns are as much as 20 per cent higher than those in Brisbane, and in gulf towns they are around 40 per cent higher—which means that these people are paying 20 per cent to 40 per cent more GST. Could the Prime Minister please advise when an inquiry will be undertaken—which you expressed sympathy for on a number of occasions, similar to the one you initiated when you were Treasurer 20-odd years ago—into zone rebates and social security allowances, with a view to overcoming the gross unfairness that has arisen under the GST and other indirect taxes, present and past?30531Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. There are a number of things I would like to say in reply to that. The member for Kennedy represents one of those electorates which, along with the electorates represented by the member for Kalgoorlie, the member for O'Connor, the member for Grey, the member for Leichhardt, the member for Maranoa—most of them are over here.An opposition member—The Northern Territory!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I acknowledge the Northern Territory electorate, which is represented by the other side. I do acknowledge that. The electorates that I have mentioned have the characteristics of very considerable size and remoteness from population centres, and it is true that some of the costs in those electorates are higher than costs in metropolitan areas. It is an undeniable fact, and I would not seek to argue against it, but I would also submit that there are some other features of the cost structures around Australia where the reverse is the case. It is undeniably the case that housing costs in a city like Sydney are dramatically higher than they are in any other part of Australia and infinitely higher than they are in rural and regional Australia. It is always important, with these things, to bring a sense of balance and perspective.There are a number of things that I would specifically say in reply to the member for Kennedy. The first thing I think I will do is to send him a copy of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech, made to the National Press Club today. I thought it was an excellent speech. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hunter!ZD4Mr HOWARD—One of the things that really hit me in the eye about the Deputy Prime Minister's speech was the statement contained in an earlier part of the speech in which he said that, over the past five years, the government has invested $28.5 billion in more than 300 regional programs. He then set out that record in a companion document. He also announced today a 40 per cent reduction in AQIS charges. I would hope that the member for Kennedy would acknowledge that that will assist many industries in his own electorate.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—I know.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think it will. He does agree. That is good; I am pleased to hear it. It is true that 20 years ago, when I was Treasurer, I did have an inquiry carried out into zone rebates. That is true. That inquiry was fairly inconclusive, and it is true that there have been discussions within the government parties. I know that when the member for Kennedy sat with us he was involved in some of those discussions. I was sympathetic to those discussions taking place, but the view was formed as a result of those discussions that many of the complexities, including the aggregate costs surrounding a significant expansion of the zone rebate structure to bring meaningful relief, outweighed the advantages that would accrue as a result of that. The government therefore has taken the view that there are other and better ways of assisting remote communities. One of the ways is to have a good export sector. Another way, may I say, is to have a supercompetitive exchange rate. I cannot think of any single development in the Australian economy that has been of more assistance to electorates like Kennedy, Gwydir, Maranoa and Grey and all of those—the member for Kennedy, I note, nods his head—than this supercompetitive exchange rate. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—And interest rates.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Treasurer quite promptly reminded me of the enormous benefits that have accrued through lower interest rates—and lower inflation, lower taxation and taking the GST off exports. The member for Kennedy is nodding at everything. I think I am making some progress with the member for Kennedy; I really do. I do understand the commitment of the member for Kennedy to rural Australia. We might disagree, and we are adult enough to recognise that we do disagree on some things, but there are a lot of things where the views that we hold on the approaches that ought to be taken are similar.I know that the member for Kennedy supports lower taxation, lower interest rates, lower fuel costs, no taxation on exports and a supercompetitive exchange rate. And I bet he loves the fact that we now have a superefficient waterfront in Australia as a result of the strong action that I have taken. This is not a question without notice; it's almost a policy love-in. I say to the member for Kennedy that I will always remain sensitive and sympathetic to the concerns and needs of the wonderful people of Kennedy. In relation to zone rebates, I think there are better ways, but I would be happy to further discuss the matter with the member for Kennedy if he would like to take advantage of that offer.3053215:28:0030532Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I ask the minister: would he advise what measures are being taken by the government to ensure regional communities have convenient access to air services, including essential air medical services? Is the minister aware of alternative policies?30532Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The government acknowledge the very great importance of regional communities having access to air services. No-one could deny that, in relation to the debate around Sydney's future airport needs, we have demonstrated a very real commitment in policy terms and, I think it can be fairly said, in financial terms. Regional airlines carry more than 5.6 million passengers per year. There are essential transport links for the millions of Australians who live outside our capital cities. In particular, it needs to be remembered that emergency services such as the air ambulance and the Royal Flying Doctor Service are an essential part of life in the remote areas of Australia. I said a little while ago that we caught just a whiff—just the merest whiff— of a policy for rural and regional Australia from the member for Batman.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Really?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Actually, you could say three that I am aware of. We hear some talk about an infrastructure council of some sort—to spend I do not know what, because they have made no commitment to our programs let alone to any of their own. In addition to that, we have seen some suggestions that we ought to go back to their regional development policy of spending a mere $200 million a year. But they now have another one. We have said that we will retain Essendon airport in Victoria as an operational airport. It has been privatised, it has been sold off; we have been through that process. The Minister for Finance and Administration has done a tremendous job in identifying an appropriate owner, and all that has been handled well. It was great news for regional Victoria that we would retain it as an operational airport, because it handles 18,000 country movements a year. It also, as part of that, handles 8,000 flights per year by the air ambulance and the police air arm. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Who would be against that?4K4Mr ANDERSON—That is a very good question. Astonishingly, we now have a policy from the Labor Party spokesman for regional development. It is one of the few policies that have been announced by that `great friend of the bush', the member for Batman. He has announced that Labor would close Essendon airport. Under Labor's plan, air ambulance services would have to move further away from the city to Melbourne airport. I have here a letter from the Victorian Metropolitan Ambulance Service, and I am happy to table it. It says:I would like to stress that from an air ambulance point of view Essendon airport is ideally located, being on the edge of a freeway and within 10 minutes of major city hospitals.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—The freeway needs to expand, you boofhead.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that we have had unparliamentary language from the member for Batman and he should be asked to withdraw it.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Wilson Tuckey said he was a boofhead.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is doing anything but facilitating the chair or the chamber. The question of what is or is not parliamentary language always poses a problem for the chair, but it is fair to say that the intervention that I made yesterday, requiring the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to exercise a little more charity in the way in which he dealt with the chamber, should also apply to the member for Batman.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I do not want to have to call the House's attention to the simple fact that drawing distinctions between what is or is not parliamentary language is never a joy to the chair. It should be simply obvious to people that we need to exercise common courtesy in the way in which we deal with each other. The member for Batman has indicated to the chair by nodding that what he said was inappropriate.4K4Mr ANDERSON—A bit of personal abuse is always a good substitute for a policy statement. That is really where the ACTU Tammany Hall style practices come into evidence in this place. We have got just the whiff of three opposition policies, and this is one of them. Mr Speaker, let me again give you some background, because I think it is important. We went to a lot of trouble to make sure—and I thank the minister for finance for recognising this in our negotiations—that Essendon airport would be available not just for the convenience but for the safety, the health and the wellbeing of country Victorians. We went to a lot of trouble to ensure that. Along comes their `friend of the bush' with the only policy statement of any substance we have seen for a very long time and it is so city-centric that every regional Victorian ought to be loudly and clearly made aware of it. We have waited months and months for a policy statement from the member for Batman. At last he has revealed part of it, and it is basically this: if you live in regional Australia—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—What happened in Queensland? What happened in WA?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Corio!4K4Mr ANDERSON—They always protest loudly when they do not want to hear the punchline, and the punchline is that their policy prescription is: if you live in regional Australia, you are less important than someone who lives in a major city. The coalition roundly rejects that proposition.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations3053315:35:0030533Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Wills claim to have been misrepresented? UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills may proceed.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Yesterday in the House the member for Cook referred to remarks I had made concerning Mr Stan Wallis and the GST. He then described Mr Wallis as the chairman of Woolworths, talked in glowing terms of Woolworths's performance, accused me of `a lack of reading of the business community in relation to some of our major companies in Australia' and said I should `try to keep abreast of current developments in the economy'. In fact, Mr Wallis is the Chairman of Coles Myer, not Woolworths, and my remarks accurately so described him. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills must indicate where he was misrepresented.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I have, Mr Speaker. I leave it for the House to judge who needs to keep abreast of current developments in the business community.Questions to the Speaker305343053415:36:0030534Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I once more rise under standing order 150, regarding question 1134 issued on 15 February 2000 to the Prime Minister, question 1415 on 10 April 2000 to the Prime Minister, question 2459 on 27 March 2001 to the Prime Minister, question 2560 on 27 March 2001 to the Prime Minister, question 2483 on 28 March 2001 to the Treasurer, question 2571 on 22 May 2001 to the Minister for Aged Care, and question 2701 on 19 June to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Mr Speaker, I request that you write again requesting that they have the decency to reply.30534SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take up the matter raised by the member for Prospect as the standing orders provide.3053415:37:0030534Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, could I request that you write to the minister with regard to my extensive question of 41 parts—question No. 2748—of 27 June 2001. As yet I have not received a response from the minister.30534SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised under standing 150, as the standing orders provide.Personal Explanations3053415:37:0030534Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—On Monday, 27 August, the member for Dickson misled the House in claiming that I had failed to table a petition from the Hercules Road State School in my electorate.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Petrie should be aware that an accusation such as that belongs in quite a different context. She may indicate that she has been misrepresented, and I will allow her to proceed.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I have been misrepresented by the member for Dickson. In March this year, the petition was delivered by hand to the Clerk of the House who explained that the petition was out of order and could not be tabled. The petition was then delivered by hand to the Leader of the House's office and it was again rejected. I wrote to the Hercules Road State School P&C and every identified signatory to the petition, saying that it could not be tabled and I forwarded it to the P&C. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Petrie has indicated that she was misrepresented—9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—Where I was misrepresented, and I will come to that—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No, the member for Petrie will come immediately to it.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—In the House on Monday, the member for Dickson said:I put this onto the record on their behalf because their local member was not willing to do so.I request that the member for Dickson apologise and familiarise herself with the petitioning procedures of the House.Questions to the Speaker305353053515:39:0030535Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I have found it quite disconcerting that, over the last couple of weeks, the chair in which you sit seems to be leaning somewhat to the right. While I am not suggesting for a moment, Mr Speaker, that this may be a reflection on your impartiality, I wonder whether there is an explanation and whether you intend to address the matter.30535SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Let me reassure the member for Hunter and all members of the House. The member for Hunter sits in a very expedient spot and his observation is right: the chair has, in fact, been known to move, I am pleased to report, both to the left and to the right—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000Mr SPEAKER—I would indicate to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that that does seem to be a matter for debate, I am pleased to say. For the information of all members, I report that this chair, which is of course constructed for this purpose and has various hydraulic mechanisms to allow it to be raised and lowered and to have the tilt altered on it, has had a fault with the hydraulic mechanism. It has been temporarily locked—Opposition members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—I am unamused by the fact that I have to raise my voice to be heard when there is no issue that ought to be causing any controversy. The mechanism is currently not operative. The chair has been locked in a particular position, and I would hope that the member for Hunter finds it currently sits to his satisfaction. It will, however, be repaired during the Christmas break.Personal Explanations3053515:41:0030535Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—Yes—again.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—In the House this morning, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation said in relation to me:The Labor member for McMillan has gone as far as to conduct a large public meeting designed to soften up workers for job losses.Mr Speaker, you will recall that I have taken a personal explanation previously on exactly this point. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, what provisions might be available to you to require the Minister for Forestry and Conservation—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan—84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—to stop misleading the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will not talk over the chair. I merely interrupt the member for McMillan to point out to him—and he may not be aware of this—that, to date, he has not indicated to me where he has been misrepresented. He has indicated the accusation made and he has not refuted the accusation. For that reason, I interrupted him. I would have thought that it was to assist him, not to be interrupted by him.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—Thank you. I am always grateful for your assistance, Mr Speaker. The comment made by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation is, of course, wrong. The reason that I held that meeting was to provide information to timber workers, not to soften—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will now resume his seat.Questions to the Speaker305353053515:42:0030535Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for your assistance under standing order 150 to get an answer from Dr Wooldridge to a question. I got another one this week, dealing with naltrexone, question No. 2229, and I appreciate that. Now I would like you to round up the Prime Minister and a few other ministers on some outstanding questions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will come to the matter raised as the standing orders provide.83DMr MURPHY—Question No. 2478 to the Treasurer, dealing with the income tax exemption charity status, appeared on the Notice Paper of 28 March and remains unanswered. Question No. 2591 to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, relating to the HIH royal commission— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will take a leaf from the member for Prospect's book and simply list the questions that he wants me to attend to.83DMr MURPHY—Okay. That question appeared on the Notice Paper of 28 May 2001. There is question No. 2657 of 6 June to the Treasurer and question No. 2676 of 7 June to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Also from that date, 7 June, there are the following questions: question No. 2678 to the Minister for Health and Aged Care; question No. 2679 to the Minister for Finance and Administration; question No. 2680 to the Minister for Finance and Administration; and question No. 2681 to the Attorney-General. I also refer to question No. 2693 of 18 June to the Minister for Health and Aged Care; question No. 2698 of 19 June to the Treasurer; question No. 2736 of 21 June to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services about Sydney airport; question No. 2766 of 27 June to the Treasurer; and, also from that date, question No. 2767 to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. We are nearly there, Mr Speaker. Questions Nos 2783, 2784 and 2785 were to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and dated 28 June. Finally, there is question No. 2786 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and question No. 2787 to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, both dated 28 June. Mr Speaker, I do appreciate your efforts on my behalf under standing order 150, because I am getting some results. Thank you.30536SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter as the standing orders provide.3053615:45:0030536Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. I know you have not had much time, but the Procedure Committee tabled a report yesterday outlining a recommended new series of procedures for the opening of parliament. Without wishing to pre-empt the Prime Minister, I think it is fairly certain that there will be an election at some point later in the year. Could you indicate whether or not you would be prepared to consider the report and to take up with the President of the Senate and the government those recommendations? I would like to place on record that in relation to previous reports, whenever it has been within your power, you have certainly strongly supported the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.30536SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I indicate to the member for Chifley that I have looked at the report. I have not taken the matters up with the President of the Senate, which will not surprise the member for Chifley. I will do so, and I will discuss the matter with the Leader of the House. Whether the report's recommendations have any impact on the opening of the next parliament I am not aware, but I am happy to take up the matter raised by the member for Chifley.Documents3053630536Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Papers are tabled in accordance with the circulated list to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Tuckey) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA—Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2001— Section 9 of the Commonwealth Companies and Authorities Act 1997. (23 August 2001 / 27 August 2001)Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance305363053610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to explain why it wants one GST rule for the Liberal Party and another rule for Australian small business. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:48:0030537Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This matter of public importance becomes terribly important. We have seen today the Prime Minister close up question time three questions short because he wants to avoid further scrutiny of his small business minister and his Treasurer. There was a scam exposed by the Labor Party last Thursday because of people within the Liberal Party being so incensed at the fraudulent scheme being put in place, and we have two ministers, the Minister for Small Business and the Treasurer, condoning and covering up this scam.Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister indicated, when he got very agitated after a series of questions on this, that he did not think there was a scam. For him it is business as usual. This is the man who, when he was the Treasurer of this country, left a telephone book of bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. This is the person who failed to act on tax avoidance and to crack down on it, despite the fact that his own department, the Treasury, was advising him—pleading with him—to crack down on bottom-of-the-harbour schemes and to make people pay their fair share of tax. The Prime Minister has form, therefore; business as usual. Now he is trying to pretend that what the Liberal Party has engaged in is not a scam. What we have exposed is this: the Liberal Party has one rule for small business and another for itself. The Prime Minister of this country wants to have one rule for the small businesses of this country but a completely different one for the Liberal Party.Let me just go to what the scam is, so that the Prime Minister can understand it. This government still has to answer this point, because it continues to avoid addressing it. The simple fact is, as the Treasurer repeats often, that businesses cannot claim input tax credits unless they pay the GST. That is how the GST works. The GST must be paid on the takings of the business, minus the GST already paid on inputs. That is how every business in this country has to operate. We know in the case that we have outlined in this parliament that the Liberal Party claimed the input tax credits. How do we know? Because we have a media statement from the secretariat of the Liberal Party dated 24 August which quite clearly says:In December 2000 the Queensland division paid the Picnic Point Restaurant $9,090 for the fundraiser and claimed a GST credit of $826.41 in its December quarterly BAS.From the Liberal Party's mouth, they are admitting that they claimed the input tax credits. Under the law, they have to pay one-eleventh of the takings to the tax office. If they have claimed one-eleventh of the catering bill, they have to remit one-eleventh of the takings, minus the input tax credits. We know as well what the takings were from the Costello fundraiser, now dubbed `dinnergate'. Moneybags Treasurer went to Toowoomba to fill the Liberal Party's moneybags at this dinnergate scam.We know because of documents tabled by the opposition what the takings were from that dinner. They appear in the statement of income and expenditure for the period and they say the gross proceeds from the Costello dinner were $18,350. That document is on the record. If the law is to be complied with by the Liberal Party in Queensland, they must remit to the tax office one-eleventh of that, minus the input tax credits. In other words, they have got to remit $1,668 minus the $826: $842. This $842, as well as the $826 to the caterers—who themselves remit it—must go to the tax office. So what the tax office gets under this simple new system is still the $1,668 but they get it through two components.But did the Liberal Party remit the takings of the one-eleventh of the $18,350? No. Instead, the Liberal Party want to pay the tax office $826—the input component of what they paid the caterers—but claim it all back; in other words, to effectively pay zero GST. No other small business in this country can do that, but the Minister for Small Business and the Treasurer condone it for the Liberal Party. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—You have lost everyone.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—If the minister at the table cannot understand his own tax, how does he expect small businesses in this country to understand it? That is the simple question. I put it as clearly as this: you cannot claim one-eleventh of the input tax on the caterer's bill unless you pay one-eleventh of the takings of the dinner. That is how the GST operates; that is what a value-added tax is. But what you have done is organised this nice little scam so you avoid the tax. That is what the scam is.And they cannot claim in this case that head office was providing services to the Groom FEC, if that is their excuse, because all the documentation that we have tabled shows that they did not. It was the Groom FEC that organised and paid for—initially— the caterers. So the documents expose the cover-up. Instead of paying 10 per cent in terms of GST, they are getting away with something over four per cent. No other small business in this country can do it, so why should they be able to do it?That is what the last week in this parliament has been all about. We raised this issue last Thursday, we have persisted with it over the weekend and we have also used question time over the last two days, not just to highlight the misleading by the minister but to demonstrate the double standards of this government. Not only has the minister misled but as small business minister he is condoning double standards for the constituency he claims to represent: one rule for the Liberal Party and another one for everyone else. He will not help small business but he will help himself in terms of his own fundraiser. In what they want to call a simple new tax the only simplicity is that everyone else pays it but not the Liberal Party. This is the government that says it wants to close down the black economy, when we have exposed them creating their own black economy.That is why this matter of public importance needs to be debated, and I notice that the minister at the table is the Minister for Financial Services; I presume he is taking this issue. Where is the Minister for Small Business? Where is the Treasurer? They should be defending this scam. But they are out trying to avoid any scrutiny on this issue. They think that, because of the events that have happened in relation to the MV Tampa,this issue will go away. It will not go away, because what the Liberal Party has been engaged in is a fraud on the country and a double standard in terms of the small businesses of this country.Let me go to the Treasurer; we have not got to him yet in terms of the questioning. We have embarrassed the small business minister constantly: he dithers at the dispatch box; he cannot come in here and give a coherent answer about anything. This is supposed to be the small business minister of the country. If he cannot defend himself, how can he defend small businesses in this country? This man is a shambles and a disgrace, and that is why he does not deserve to hold the office.But this is the position of the Treasurer of the country: he avoided questions on this very issue when it was raised last Thursday. He looked like he had something to hide but he left the very clear impression that he knew nothing. As Laurie Oakes has observed, it was like Manuel in FawltyTowers: `I know nothing, Mr Fawlty. I know nothing.' That is what he was doing. He even suggested that we had fabricated this issue. He even suggested that, yet later in the day what did we find? We found the Treasurer fessing up to the fact that back on 21 February he was advised of this scam. So why didn't he pass it on? And particularly against a background where he told the parliament that if Simon Crean:... thinks that there is anything untoward from the Groom FEC or, indeed, if he thinks there is anything untoward from the Liberal Party state division in Queensland, I would be happy to receive any information and I would be happy to pass it on to the Australian Taxation Office ... I have never obtained any preferential treatment for any Groom FEC or for the Queensland Liberal branch ...But the truth is that he did receive this material on 21 February and he sat on it. I noticed today he was out there at a doorstop claiming that the reason he did not have to do anything in relation to it was: ... because, as is clear by the time Mrs Watts wrote to me, the matter had been disclosed to the federal director and rectified and Mrs Watts said in the circumstances she wished no reply.The question I ask is: how did he know that? The letter from Mrs Watts, which has been tabled and made public, does not mention anywhere that the matter has been fixed by the Liberal Party. In the second last paragraph, it says:The Queensland State Director has recently admitted he was in error in taking part in the scheme. However, the damage has already been done.It is true that she did not ask him to answer it, but she should have taken him on face value, when he said to the world at large, `Send me the material and I'll act on it,' that he would act on it, but he did not act on it. How did he know, when he received that letter on 21 September that it had been acted on? Did he have discussions with anyone— with the Liberal Party or the member for Groom? These are all the interesting answers that we want to know in terms of this murky cover-up. As a further part of his misleading, the next day he denied that any money was claimed by the Liberal Party, and said that it was not clear that anyone claimed it back. He also contradicted the statement of the Minister for Small Business that there was no correspondence between the small business minister and me. Yet the statement from Lynton Crosby, which I referred to earlier, clearly shows that the Liberal Party had claimed back the GST credit.How did the Treasurer know that this problem had been fixed? Why did he not pass on the material? He still has a lot of answering to do in terms of this cover-up. He and the Minister for Small Business stand condemned of covering up and condoning a scam that benefits the Liberal Party, a scam that is not available to anyone else in this country but which has been devised by shadowy figures within the Liberal Party, according to Mr Watts. We want to know why the minister and the Treasurer are not in the House today to explain the situation. The facts are simple. We know about the cover-up. We know that they have condoned it, but why is it that only the Liberal Party in this country can claim input tax credits without paying the GST to the tax office? Don't give us the excuse that the GST was paid to the caterers. Of course there is a requirement to do that as part of the normal transaction. That is input taxing, and that is what happens if you are not charging the GST. If you are going to claim the input tax credits, you have to pay the GST. Every small business in the country has to do that, but not the Liberal Party, and that is why they should be condemned. (Time expired)16:03:0030539Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—That was the last gasp of the Labor Party day after day asking the same old questions. They describe it as a scam. The Prime Minister pointed out yesterday to the House and to the people of Australia that the total shortfall was $150. At a time when the people of Australia are interested in the serious issue of illegal attempts to enter the country, the opposition thinks that spending question after question in question time on a $150 underpayment on the GST is the issue of national significance for the people of Australia. This is the alternate government that thinks, day after day, that a $150 shortfall is more important than some of the issues that the Australian people are interested in at the moment, including issues relevant to the destiny of the Tampa off the coast of Northern Australia, as well as serious questions about health, education and law and order.I said last Sunday, and I say again, that last week was all about the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. This week is about the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. Next week and every week until the federal election will be about the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. That is what it is about. Today feels like Groundhog Day in relation to MPIs and GST. For the umpteenth time, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has come here to talk about how the GST is this, how the GST is that and how the GST has effectively caused Mount Etna to erupt as well as having brought down the Australian economy last year.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It did. It cut the growth rate by half. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—He says that it did and it cut the growth rate by half. Thankfully, I can go to more authoritative sources than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to learn a little about the true impact of the new tax system. I am happy to table this extract from the Economist. It is not an Australian publication or an Australian government publication. The extract, dated 18 August, states:In the nine years up to the middle of 2000, Australia enjoyed remarkable economic growth, averaging more than 4% a year. Unemployment fell, productivity growth increased, and inflation was low. The economy slowed sharply in the fourth quarter of 2000—I notice that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nods his head to that. It says:... under the weight of higher world energy prices and a slowing American economy.That is what the Economist said. It continues:However, the OECD says in its latest survey of the economy that the slowdown should be short-lived ...Damn right; it has been. The article then says:Tax cuts should help to support demand, and low inflation has given the Reserve Bank room to cut interest rates. The OECD lauds tax reforms that began to take effect last year, to broaden the indirect-tax base and to reduce high effective marginal rates of income tax. The Paris-based economists also like the look of recent labour-market reforms.The Economist poll indicates that, for the year 2002, Australia's growth rate will be, according to its forecast, four per cent, which is higher than Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Euro area and the United States. That is the fastest growth in the world, and the Economist says that you can thank the reforms of the Howard government for bringing it about. Just for good measure, I notice in the same Economist that the Australian all-ordinaries index has outperformed every other major index in the world at the same time. Given that we are the largest share owning nation, no thanks to the Labor Party, we can also be pleased about that. When it comes back to credibility—8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—What about the Minister for Small Business?10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Cunningham! The minister will ignore the member for Cunningham. You make it very difficult for all of us.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I know that a lot of people do, but on this occasion I want to take advantage of his interruption. He says, `What about small business?' I will talk about small business.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—No, I said, `What about the Minister for Small Business?' He is misrepresenting me.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Let us look at the single most tangible indicator of what happens to small business out in the marketplace: small business interest rates. In 1976 they were 10.4 per cent; in 1981 they were 12.5 per cent; in 1986, under Labor, they were 17.4 per cent; in 1991 they were 14.35 per cent; in 1996 they were 10.75; and in 2001 they are less than eight per cent. It is like climbing the mountain for small business, except the problem is that, when Labor is in government, small business has to get to the top of the mountain, which is 17.4 per cent interest rates. Thankfully, this government is about the interests of small business. This government is about protecting and enhancing opportunities for small business, much to the regret of the Labor Party. The Labor Party has on numerous occasions declared itself to be the party of the union movement rather than just the party for anyone other than the union movement. I am reminded of the fact that, on 7 July last year, on Perth radio the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, said:We have never pretended to be a small business party, the Labor Party. We have never pretended that.It is a reminder to every single small business in Australia—an estimated 2½ million small businesses in Australia—that the Leader of the Opposition has proudly proclaimed to all Australians that the Labor Party have never pretended to be the party of small business. Do you know why? It is because they are the party of their mates in the union movement, and they have declared it. Not only have they declared it, but the Labor Party deliver on their declarations. When we came into this House with amendments to the Trade Practices Act to try to protect small business from the implications of secondary boycotts, and when we tried to give the ACCC power to protect small businesses that were going to be hit in a third line way by boycotts by the union movement, the Labor Party opposed it. We had the extraordinary scene when numerous members of the Labor Party got up in this place and said, `We support this measure for the ACCC to protect small businesses.' In came the shadow minister for industrial relations, the member for Brisbane, Arch Bevis, and he said, `Hang on, comrades. We are about protecting the union movement; we're not about protecting small business.' He is saying that it is absolutely right that small business is thrown to the wolves in its battle with the union movement, but the ACCC should have no powers to protect or defend small business. A hell of a lot of small businesses are also exporters. Only today, the balance of payments figures came out again and gave a very clear indication that the tax reform undertaken by the Howard government is delivering real benefit for Australia's exporters. Exports are dramatically up, the trade deficit has come down about 50 per cent, and Australia is exporting its socks off. To give credit where credit is due, a low Aussie dollar is obviously making us more competitive. If you are removing $3 billion of tax from exports, you are making Australian exports a whole lot more competitive. If you make Australian exports more competitive, more people buy them, which means that we sell more products and become a wealthier nation. Why was the Labor Party opposed to that? Why was the Labor Party opposed to helping Australian businesses grow through exports? Why was the Labor Party opposed to more jobs in small business? Why was the Labor Party opposed to tax reform which the article in the Economist, which I table, clearly indicates has helped to deliver the strongest economy in the developed world? Why was the Labor Party opposed to all that? My goodness, could it be political opportunism? No, it couldn't be, could it? Could it be about the Leader of the Opposition's standing for nothing? Could it be about the Leader of the Opposition's believing in nothing? Could it be about the Labor Party's having no principles upon which to build a credible policy alternative? The Labor Party has waxed and waned about taxation. Compared with wise people like the Chief Government Whip, the member for Menzies, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, or the member for Corangamite, the member for Petrie and I are political novices. Mr Deputy Speaker, I defer to your political wisdom as well. I make one observation about the last few years, and the last few months in particular: every time the Labor Party releases a policy it gets itself into trouble. They are not even detailed policies. When the GST came in, the Labor Party announced that it was going to have roll-back. It is now running 150 miles away from roll-back. The words are not uttered.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—It's on the shelves in Woolworths!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—What has happened to roll-back? The member for Cunningham says it is on the shelf.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—It is in Woolworths!10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Cunningham!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Put it in the store room, or send it to the National Archives. Roll-back has gone.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—You wish!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It has gone—out the door. Roll-back is on the interchange, but it is never coming back. Then we heard the next policy: Knowledge Nation—aka `noodle' nation, spaghetti and meat balls—a simplistic explanation of the new education agenda of the Leader of the Opposition. The only problem was it made a Telstra interchange look simple. It is `noodle' nation, which the Leader of the Opposition said he was going to build his prime ministerial ambitions on.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—Sure will!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Dead—and not even 24 hours! Some of the greatest flops in film in history have lasted more than Knowledge Nation. It is dead. That was a policy initiative— 8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—`Never, ever' on the GST!10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham is stretching his goodwill. His account is nearly overdrawn. The minister has the call.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—As Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, I suggest he is actually overdrawn! The third area of policy which the Leader of the Opposition introduced was health. Two weeks ago he started every question in question time as if the federal government runs accident and emergency specialist centres in the hospitals right around Australia. In fact, a criticism from the former Premier of Victoria was that the Commonwealth has a department of health and it does not run a hospital. And the Premier of Queensland came in and said, `In fact, we proudly, at a state level, run all the accident and emergency centres.' So we got question after question from the Leader of the Opposition then, klunk, dead. Health died because the Leader of the Opposition incredibly made some major errors by using his family in those instances.This election will be about credibility. This election will be about the truth. And on those criteria alone we should be re-elected because we have been honest with the Australian people. We look forward to the Labor Party being honest with the Australian people. That is why the Prime Minister said we are waiting for the Victorian branch of the Labor Party to write to the ATO, because if it is good enough to apply the truth test to the Liberal Party—and we will apply it independently—then it is good enough for the Labor Party to apply the same truth test. We anxiously await a copy of the Leader of the Opposition's letter to the head of the ATO. (Time expired)16:18:0030542Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00— This is a government with a born to rule mentality. It is a government that believes there should be one rule for the Liberal Party and another rule for Australian small businesses. We witnessed that mentality last week with the disgraceful Lynton Crosby `dash for cash' bill, on which the state director of the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party commented, `Why mess around with the GST if you don't have to?' Small business bankruptcies have gone through the roof under the GST, and small businesses in Australia do not get the choice as to whether or not they have to mess around with the GST. Any small business with a turnover of more than $50,000 must register for the GST and mess around with the GST, but not the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party expects the choice as to whether or not it should pay the GST and, if it does pay the GST, how much GST it should pay.The government's view that there should be one rule for the Liberal Party and another for small business has been on display in this parliament and outside it since last Thursday, when the behaviour of the Groom FEC and the Queensland division of the Liberal Party came to light. Since that time, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the Minister for Small Business and now the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation have all said that there is no scam, just a misunderstanding, that only $75 or only $180 is involved and that there is no systematic problem. Even on Friday, the Treasurer said they may have made an error or that people from time to time make mistakes. There was no mistake.I will describe what happened. The fundraising function occurred on 23 November last year and the bill was paid by the Groom FEC to the catering company. Then, on 12 December, the scam was outlined to a reluctant treasurer of the Groom FEC. On 18 December that reluctant treasurer was so concerned about the scam that she telephoned the small business minister and warned him about it. He said that at the meeting of the FEC the next day, which he would be attending, he would not be voting on it; it had nothing to do with him. On 19 December that meeting occurred and it resolved to direct the treasurer of the FEC to reverse the transaction. So, under duress and under the direction of the FEC, the treasurer of that FEC went to Liberal Party headquarters and obtained from the Liberal Party state director a new cheque, which she then went back to the caterers with and said, `I am instructed to ask you to refund the cheque that we gave you three weeks ago. Here is a new cheque.' The catering company was so concerned about it that they described it as irregular, and made a diary note to that effect. So, one month later, the original transaction was reversed and the scam was put in place. There was no error and there was no misunderstanding. It is a systematic scam. We know that because the Liberal Party has now admitted that this scam has been put in place in Lilley and in Leichhardt. The Ryan FEC had this proposition—the scam—put to them, but they said no; Bob Tucker's people said no. Well, I can say his days are numbered because I have the latest leak from the Liberal Party with me. It is the notice of a special meeting of the Centenary branch of the Liberal Party which occurred last Thursday. It was to get all the opponents of Mr Tucker to that meeting to dive through a loophole on the residency test so that they could vote in Saturday's preselection and wipe out Mr Tucker's chances of being the candidate for the federal seat of Ryan. It is a leak a day as far as the faction ridden Liberal Party of Queensland is concerned.We have also heard that the Liberal Party did pay the GST on the fundraising dinner. We have heard that from the Minister for Small Business; he said so last Friday. He said that there is therefore only $75 involved. As every small business knows, if you claim the input tax credits, you must pay the GST. It is very simple. One-eleventh of the proceeds of the fundraiser is $1,668. How much was paid to the ATO by the Liberal Party? $751. What is the difference? $917. That is the shortfall—$917, and not $75, as the Prime Minister has tried to tell the parliament and the Australian people. So that works out at a special cut-rate GST for the Liberal Party of four per cent.They tried to cover up the scam after the whistleblower exposed the scam but, even in the cover-up, they botched it. That is what the $75 is. That is the discrepancy. That is the extent of the botching of the cover-up. When the Prime Minister says, `Look, it is only $75,' and then goes on to say, `Look, it is only $180 for all of Queensland,' that is the extent of the botching of the cover-up— not the extent of the cover-up itself. The cover-up could be many thousands of dollars. There could be thousands and thousands of dollars of input tax credit fraudulently claimed, but they even botched the cover-up. That is what the $180 is, and not the extent of the cover-up itself. It is like being caught with your hands in the till and giving back all except $75 and saying, `What's the problem? We were caught. We gave the money back. We have got $75 in the pocket. What's the problem?' That is what the Prime Minister is saying. No small business in this country could get away with that. No small business has the luxury of trying to get away with that, because they would be nailed by the tax office.The minister himself has made so many confusing and contradictory statements that it has got to the point where he does not know whether he is Arthur or Martha. But I know he is not Arthur Macfarlane; he is Arthur Daley. Arthur Daley made an art form of, and dedicated his life to, beating the VAT man. That is what the minister is trying to do: beat the VAT man with `a nice little earner'. That is what the Minister for Small Business thought he had got—a nice little earner. And he had got it, because there is still $826 of falsely claimed input tax credits in the re-election account of the Minister for Small Business, as of this day. And he is saying, `I did nothing wrong.' He has had a nice little earner.There are lots of other Arthur Daleys floating around the Liberal Party in Queensland, and these are the shadowy figures: Neville Stewart, Santo Santoro and, despite his denials, Senator George Brandis. What was the motivation behind these nice little earners beating the VAT man? That is revealed in yet another leaked document, Lynton Crosby's review of the conduct of the 2001 Queensland state election, where he says under the heading `Rebuild the finances immediately':The financial problems which the Division faces must be addressed immediately. And they started addressing them immediately—through this nice little earner. There are plenty of small businesses going broke, but they are still obliged to pay the GST. Last year on 18 May, the Treasurer said, `I don't think any small business will go to the wall as a result of the GST.' The chart I am showing you graphs the bankruptcy figures for the period since the GST came in. They are going through the roof. An apologist for the government said, `These rising bankruptcies are not necessarily due to the GST. They could be due to a slump in sales.' What do you reckon might have caused a slump in sales? Climate change? The greenhouse effect? The GST caused the slump in sales. So the Arthur Daleys of the Liberal Party have been going around beating the VAT man, and they have been backed 150 per cent by the Prime Minister. Remember that the Prime Minister comes in here, putting his arm around the Arthur Daley who is trying to beat the VAT man and saying, `Good on you, son. Go your hardest. This is terrific.' Why? Because there is one rule for the Liberal Party and another rule for small businesses.The Deputy Speaker last night sought to sit me down for reflecting on the minister when I was quoting from the minister. He said, `You're reflecting adversely on the minister.' What an indictment of the minister, that the Deputy Speaker had to try to sit me down for quoting from the minister because the Deputy Speaker himself regards that as an adverse reflection upon him! So there we have a Liberal Party forced into this sort of unseemly, fraudulent activity that small businesses would be nailed for by the tax office. There is one rule for the Liberal Party and another rule for small business. If the Minister for Small Business had any decency, he would resign. If the Prime Minister had any principles, he would sack the minister.16:28:0030544Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10— There is nothing more illustrative of the vacuous nature of the opposition than this matter of public importance today. A debate on a matter of public importance in the House of Representatives is an opportunity for the opposition to raise what it believes to be the matter of the most signal interest in the country on a particular day. As of 11.59 this morning, moments before the last opportunity at which it could advance a matter of public importance, it decided upon this matter. Yet, in every media outlet in Australia, in every newspaper in Australia today and on the front page of the Australian and the Herald Sun, the Age, the Canberra Times and the Sydney Morning Herald—I could bring them all in and hold them up—on the airwaves of every radio station in this country, and on the channels of every television station in this country, the matter which is occupying the interest, attention and concern of the Australian people has been about a boat with people on it, moored somewhere off Christmas Island, and about questions that go to the heart of Australia's national security, sovereignty and immigration policy and how Australia can determine its own place and make decisions and laws for its own people in this part of the world. That is the matter. This is one of those occasions when there is simply no doubt about this issue. It is one of those occasions—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the member for Menzies is nowhere near the matter of public importance. Surely he is not encouraging the opposition to attack the government's policy when we have offered a bipartisan position on this immigration matter.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member for Menzies knows what is required of him.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—What I am pointing out to the House and to anybody who is listening is that, in choosing a subject for a matter of public importance today, the opposition have simply ignored the matter which is occupying the attention of the Australian people, the matter which is so significant that it is on all the airwaves. Nothing illustrates the vacuous nature of the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the opposition more than their choice of matter of public importance today. Rather than a sober and serious consideration of a matter that I believe every Australian is concerned about and probably has a view about, today we have had another carping, whingeing performance from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This is an opposition which has no policies, no programs and no ideas, except to come in here day after day on vacuous matters such as this—and they have spent three days on this issue. There were great Labor leaders of the opposition in the past. I point out to the House the Arthur Calwells— 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—They weren't too great.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—I say to my friend at the table that they were in the following sense: could anyone ever imagine an Arthur Calwell or even a Gough Whitlam coming forward in the lead-up to an election without a program of policies and practical solutions for the country? The reality is that this Leader of the Opposition and this Deputy Leader of the Opposition basically have nothing to say to the people of Australia as to how they would take the country forward.Let me deal for a moment with the actual matter that has been raised in this so-called matter of public importance. We are dealing with an amount of money in relation to the Minister for Small Business—as much as it applies to him, because basically it is his federal electorate council—of $76, an amount of money which has been paid to the tax commissioner, an amount of money which is the subject of an audit by the tax office in Queensland. Yet this matter has somehow occupied the attention of the opposition for some three days in this parliament, but beyond that it has occupied their attention over and above one of the most serious matters that has been before the Australian nation—namely, the events surrounding Christmas Island and the boat there at the present time. Not only that, it is a matter which was of dispute within some branches of a political party—and that was all fully minuted; so it is hardly a scam because it was all fully minuted—and on which professional advice was sought, and the matter has been resolved. Yet somehow the opposition want to say that this is a scam.If you want to talk about scams, let me illustrate one to the House—that is, the scam involving Centenary House. On 23 September this year it will be the seventh anniversary of the rental and lease agreement concerning Centenary House. Centenary House is a large office building on National Circuit owned by the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party have entered into a lease agreement with a tenant, the Australian National Audit Office, which is substantially in advance of commercial rents you could expect in Canberra and, indeed, even in Sydney. From 23 September, Australian taxpayers will be paying out $4.88 million a year to rent Centenary House from the ALP, an agreement entered into with the ALP some seven years ago. This year will see a $400,000 increase in the rent from the nine per cent automatic escalator in the ALP's lease deal with the ANAO. So, if the Australian people want to know about a scam, I suggest they look no further than this lease arrangement between the ALP and their tenants at Centenary House, where $4.88 million a year is being taken from the Australian taxpayer. Compare that to $76 and I think things start to fall into perspective. One thing could be done about that. If the Leader of the Opposition had the fortitude to come forward and do something about it, he could make a phone call and fix that overnight. But the Leader of the Opposition will not do that, because we are dealing essentially with a weak Leader of the Opposition.The other thing is that, when it comes to major national matters over the last five years, the opposition has either had nothing to say or has been entirely negative. Here we have a matter which has been run out for the last three or four days, and why? Because last week the Leader of the Opposition made some remarks in relation to the hospitalisation of his daughter in Perth which later proved to be untruthful. That is why this matter has been run out. In fact, there is a very strong rumour about this place that the Labor Party has had these documents since March. This is not a recent invention that has come out. We all know the rumour doing the rounds—UU5Horne, Bob, MPHK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—Perhaps the shadow parliamentary secretary is confirming what I am saying—that in fact the Labor Party has had these documents since March and has simply brought them out now because it was convenient to do so because the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition was rightly under attack. On every major issue for the past five years, the Labor Party either has been completely negative or has had nothing to say about it. We have had roll-back, the policy that no longer dares speak its name. Two years ago the Leader of the Opposition was asked what roll-back meant, and he said: Anything that you can conceivably think of is implicated in the term roll-back ...But he was asked about it a few months ago on talkback radio in North Queensland, and this is how the conversation went:CALLER: G'day, Kim. How are you going?BEAZLEY: Good mate, good.CALLER: That's the idea. Kim could you tell us how you are going to roll back this GST and help primary producers?You would think this would be an ideal opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to actually put some flesh—83PBishop, Julie, MPMs Julie Bishop—The moment of truth.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—The moment of truth, as my colleague says, in terms of roll-back. But what do we get from the Leader of the Opposition? I quote again from the transcript: BEAZLEY: What would be a good idea is, if you think there is some way we can assist you, would be for you to send in some suggestions to us.So when asked, `Provide some substance about roll-back,' what does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says, `Send in some suggestions to us.' This is a party which has no clue, as I said earlier, no policies and no program and yet wants to be trusted by the Australian people. This MPI is a lost opportunity on the part of the Labor Party. It could have spoken about something very serious. It could have made some sober and serious reflections on matters pertaining to the issue of the day in the Australian nation, but it chose not to. It chose simply to be vacuous, as it has been for the last five years. This is an opposition without policies, without programs and without any idea whatsoever. 10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has concluded. Bills30546The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001Bills30546R137130546Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.30546Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills30546R137630546Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.30546Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous30546Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave— agreed to:That the following bill be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2001Committees30546305463054616:41:0030546Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the eighth report for 2001 of the committee relating to Lavarack Barracks redevelopment, stage 3, Townsville. Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—This report relates to the proposal for the third stage of the redevelopment of the Australian Army's Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. It involves the upgrading of working accommodation and facilities, in particular for the 3rd Brigade, and of facilities for other units located at the barracks. The committee has found the proposed work necessary and recommended it proceed. Many of the existing facilities at Lavarack Barracks are more than 30 years old and, arguably, have reached the end of their functional life.According to Defence, the facilities do not adequately reflect the current structure or functionality of the 3rd Brigade—which is the major land component of the Ready Deployment Force of the Australian Defence Force. I hasten to add that, following the committee's inspection of the barracks, we would agree with this view. Facilities such as the headquarters building are inadequate for current operational needs. We believe the redevelopment work will enhance the overall effectiveness of the 3rd Brigade and other units based at Lavarack Barracks.There are a number of benefits. They include: the better grouping of related brigade functions, facilities that better reflect current work practices and functional relationships, improved morale as a result of Defence personnel having working accommodation and facilities that meet present day standards, more efficient operations flowing from improved maintenance and storage areas, and fewer occupational health and safety problems by getting rid of cramped temporary accommodation.Defence's submission to the committee presented options for addressing problems at Lavarack Barracks. Essentially, they were to refurbish existing buildings or to rebuild. After calling for additional information from Defence, the committee concluded that the rebuild option was the better option. I would like to make some brief comments on the scope and cost of the project. An issue for the committee was that, while Defence had a capped budget of $170 million for the project, the estimated cost of this redevelopment is $230 million. The difference between $170 million and $230 million is explained by Defence as savings which could be made by value management and other cost savings measures within the project. It is self-evident that the scope of the works proposed by Defence will not be achieved unless Defence can make these savings. While I think it is fair to say Defence is confident it will make the savings, the committee would prefer in future submissions to see similar projects presented more cogently. In this context the committee is currently interested in the benefits achieved from what is known as alliancing, where the total project cost is fixed. Alliancing is a team-based approach to building design and construction. It was used to design and construct the new National Museum herein Canberra, and in this case the project was on time and under budget. The committee has commented on a number of other issues in the report and they include heritage matters, environmental issues including the recommendations to consult with the Australian Greenhouse Office and consultation with other stakeholders. I do not propose to comment in detail on these issues as they are covered in the report.In conclusion, the committee supports the stage 3 redevelopment of Lavarack Barracks and it is therefore recommended that the proposed work proceed at a cost of $170 million. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the committee, particularly the local member in this house today, and that of the committee staff—in particular, Gillian Gould and Tiana Gray who helped us with this particular report. I commend the report to the house.16:46:0030547Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—by leave—This Public Works Committee report is the continuation of the upgrade of Lavarack Barracks, Townsville, Australia's largest ADF base. Lavarack has seen virtually all of the operational mounting issues that have occurred over the last 10 years in Australia, their having come out of North Queensland through Lavarack and through RAAF, Townsville. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—A lot of money has been spent there.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—A lot has, yes. This work improves, in fact modernises, the working accommodation, which has been there since 1965. What I am particularly pleased to see is that the headquarters of 3rd Brigade, which are currently right down the end of Lavarack Barracks, will move back into the central component of the barracks making it much more efficient in relation to the commander's operations and so on. We will see new working accommodation for the 1st Battalion and 2nd Battalion and also for units such as 3/4 Cavalry Regiment, 3CER and so on. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Didn't they serve in Timor?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—They did, both the 1st Battalion and the 2nd Battalion served in Timor.I am also pleased to see that evidence was taken in the committee that, where possible, local contractors will be used. There is $170 million, 75 per cent of which is going to flow back into the Townsville economy and, of course, that means jobs and security for families and that is terrific to see. So we get a double win here—we improve the facilities for our members of the ADF but we also look after the local community at the same time. Very shortly, the next item of business is for the parliamentary secretary to move for approval of the work.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You can support that as well if you want to.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I understand that. I am pleased to see that because stage 2 needs to move on straight on transparently to stage 3. That way all of the workers can stay on site, and the contractor can stay on site, with the approval of the Department of Defence, provided his bid is in the ballpark. I think that it will be because Thiess have done a very good job on stage 2 and I do not see why they should not move to stage 3.I thank the chair of the committee and I thank the committee and the secretariat for the work that they have done on this particular project. This is very important to Herbert, very important to Townsville and Thuringowa and very important to Australia.Committees30548305483054816:49:0030548Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Lavarack Barracks redevelopment, Stage 3, Townsville.Mr Deputy Speaker, some people think that the wheels of government move slowly. But the government has been motivated, and indeed moved, by the motion of the member for Pearce, the report of the committee, the very strong representations and the very effective speech made by my colleague the member for Herbert. It has been inspired immediately to approve the report and to back the recommendations of the honourable member for Herbert.The Department of Defence proposes to undertake stage 3 of the redevelopment of Lavarack Barracks near Townsville, Queensland. Lavarack Barracks is home to the 3rd Brigade, the major element of the Ready Deployment Force of the Australian Army. In addition, the base currently houses a number of units and elements that provide support to Defence and Army in north Queensland. The first stage of the Lavarack Barracks development was undertaken in the early 1990s and provided operational and support facilities for the base. In particular, new facilities were provided for elements of the 3rd Brigade Administrative Support Battalion, the base medical centre and the 162nd Reconnaissance Squadron. The main focus of the second stage, which will be completed later this year, was to replace existing living-in accommodation with modern facilities and provide three messes co-located with the living-in accommodation precincts. The Lavarack Barracks stage 3 redevelopment will start the process to replace the working accommodation for 3rd Brigade, other land command force elements, training command units and area facilities at Lavarack Barracks. In addition, it will provide for the future relocation of the 11th Brigade, currently located at Jezzine Barracks, which are also in Townsville. The proposed redevelopment would enhance the overall effectiveness of the 3rd Brigade and other Lavarack Barracks based units by grouping related brigade functions, providing facilities that reflect the work practices and functional relationships of the organisation, improving morale by providing working accommodation to contemporary standards, providing efficient maintenance and storage areas complete with environmental controls, and alleviating occupational health and safety problems stemming from occupation of cramped and temporary accommodation. The work will provide unit accommodation, training facilities, vehicle workshops and shelters and enhancement of base infrastructure.In its report, we have just heard that the committee has recommended that this project proceed. The Department of Defence agrees with the recommendations of the committee, subject to an intention to review the context of one of the recommendations which is not critical to the project proceeding and which deals with future referrals. As advised to the committee at the public hearing on 13 July this year, the estimated out-term cost of the proposed works is $170.6 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed works are scheduled to start early next year and be completed by late 2005. I just wanted to point out, as I referred to in my initial remarks, that the report has just been tabled by the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. While that is in fact the case, the report was presented to the Senate on 23 August 2001 and the government has been considering the report of the committee since last week. That is why it is appropriate that the motion for the work to be carried out be moved at this particular time. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support. I would also like to thank the member for Herbert for his very strong representations for this additional work to be carried out. It will be of tremendous benefit to North Queensland and to the electorate of Herbert and is an indication of the very strong and effective representation provided to the people of Herbert by the honourable member for Herbert. I thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills30549R137330549Debate resumed. 10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dobell has moved as an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 16:55:0030549Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise to support the second reading amendment to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. Having listened to the contributions made to this debate earlier today by a number of government members in particular, I am highly amused at their comments. I was very amused at comments made by the member for Cook that this government is about choice in education. By the favouring of wealthy private schools and the denying of satisfactory funds for poorer public schools, this government claims that it is about choice. I would like to read an extract from an article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph on Monday. The article gives a description of a couple of schools. I would ask government members to consider the choice that the parents of the children who attend these schools really have. The article states:Trinity Grammar, Summer Hill History: Founded in 1913 by George Chambers, it offers education for day and boarding students in a Christian environment. Facilities: Chapel; boarding house, including pool table for senior students and an open fire in the dining hall; sports centre, including basketball courts, weight room, hydra gym, swimming pool and squash court; two ovals; tennis courts; theatre and amphitheatre; library; assembly hall; music building, including an acoustically enhanced orchestra room, and a rural retreat near Goulburn. A new science centre completed in 1996 includes a full-size operational model of Focault's Pendulum (used to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth). Bulahdelah Central School, Bulahdelah:This is a school in the electorate which I represent. The article continues:History: When the school was established in the 1950s local parents and a master builder volunteered their time to build the school. The school is popular for its central school model, which means students can stay at their school for the whole of their education. Facilities: It has 13 permanent buildings; 18 demountable buildings; a library too small to cater for all students; a school hall which is too small for all students to go to assembly at the same time; flooding problems due to inadequate drainage of demountables (currently being rectified by the Department of Education); inadequate outdoor undercover areas (planning officers from the department working to rectify this). Which of those schools would the people of Australia think was going to get an extra $2½ million by the year 2005? The answer is that Trinity Grammar School is going to get an increase in funding from this federal government of 151 per cent. What does the state school get? It will get a CPI increase in funding. It is interesting that I could repeat that story many times over.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Who runs state schools?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Oh yes, who runs state schools? This article in the Daily Telegraph highlights how 10 of the richest private schools in Sydney will receive an average of $2.84 million each from the federal government in 2005. The increase is supposed to be based on a model that takes into account the socioeconomic backgrounds of the students that attend those schools. As I indicated, this article is of specific interest to me because it compares and contrasts these schools to Bulahdelah Central School, which is in the Paterson electorate. Bulahdelah Central School is a K to 12 school. It is a school that has tremendous community support, a school whose immediate past school captain was better known as a triple gold medallist at last year's Paralympics in Sydney. This young man was considered so outstanding by his team-mates that he was selected to address the Prime Minister and the parliamentarians who attended a celebratory dinner at Old Parliament House last year.Heath Francis is that person, an outstanding young Australian and a product of Bulahdelah Central School. Bulahdelah exemplifies all that is good about community public schools. It has community involvement, it has students living at home and it has community pride in the achievements of the school. A speech day at Bulahdelah Central School will invariably involve the mayor and the councillors of Great Lakes Council, the state member for Myall Lakes and, of course, the federal member. We dare not miss it because local community representatives and parents and friends of the school will all be there. They come to celebrate achievement and to enjoy the school band and the choir that are composed of students and teachers.This is truly a community school. It has the commitment of the teachers—those teachers that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in the federal parliament loves to hate—and it has a commitment from the parents, an excellent basis for any school to be founded on. Unfortunately for the people of Bulahdelah—as we can see in this article—it does not have a commitment from the Howard government. Will funding to Bulahdelah Central School increase by 151 per cent in 2005? The answer is no. Why not? Is the socioeconomic background of the school students at Bulahdelah Central School of any concern to the Howard government? It would appear not. I have no doubt that, on any socioeconomic modelling the government chooses to use, the wage earners of Bulahdelah would rank below those of any of the areas that have the following schools: Trinity, Newington, King's, Knox, Scots, Abbotsleigh, Sydney Grammar, St Andrew's Cathedral School, Cranbrook or Shore. Yet all of these schools, under the government's so-called socioeconomic modelling, stand to reap a massive $2.84 million, while the students of Bulahdelah will be condemned to the very poor quality facilities that they have. The minister—and the parliamentary secretary has preceded him—will immediately plead that the state public schools are the responsibility of the state. There will be no mea culpa from the minister on state education. When students and families that I represent have to put up with substandard conditions such as described in the Telegraph then I say that the funding model is obviously wrong. I do not have to rely on Bulahdelah. I can go to other schools such as Clarence Town. Clarence Town is a small town that I know very well. I lived there for four years. I visited the school, which is a historic weatherboard building consisting of demountable buildings. During a spate of wet weather earlier on in the year, the students had to be taken out of them because of the damp carpet, the mould, the smell and the conditions that simply made it unhealthy.I could go to Soldiers Point, Raymond Terrace Primary School and Raymond Terrace High School. I could visit virtually all of the schools in the electorate that will not be receiving anything like the funding of those 10 wealthiest schools in Sydney because the socioeconomic model does not apply to them. This is not about choice at all. It is not about fair play. It is not about ensuring that all students have equal opportunity regardless of their background. This is about a government paying favours to people who support it. This is about a government, in the throes of the end of its life as it approaches an election, making sure that the people who support it get favours returned. That is what this sort of funding is about.We hear the minister ranting and raving about numeracy and literacy programs. In the electorate that I represent there is no doubt that numeracy and literacy are of concern, but is anyone going to suggest that they are of major concern? I would think the major concern is that those students who should be attending school in fact do so. What is this government doing about that? The government talks about holistic approaches, but there has never been a government in the history of Australia as divisive as the Howard government. In education and health, it is dividing the Australian community more than ever—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—It is all about equity and choice.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Equity and choice: those are the catchcry words of the government. If you want to talk about choice in education, the real choice in education—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the parliamentary secretary—is about choice in curriculum. It is not whether you go in this gate dressed in a khaki uniform or whether you go in that gate dressed in a blue uniform. It is about whether you have a choice of subjects when you get in the classroom. By fragmenting education in many areas, this government is actually reducing choice.I was a career teacher. As a matter of fact, for 15 years I was a head teacher of science in the public education system in New South Wales and I participated in formulating timetables at a secondary school. I know— and if you had enough experience, Mr Parliamentary Secretary, you would know too— that the true choice comes when you have enough students in a class to provide full face-to-face teaching for that group of students. Once you get below an optimum number of students in the school, you have to say to the parents and the students, `Sorry, we are going to reduce the number of periods these kids will be taught. We are going to reduce the number of subjects that we offer at our school.' We had an example earlier this year on Tomaree Peninsula, which is in the electorate of Paterson, when a very good Christian school, working its way up the ladder—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPUU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Are you going to get this terrier out and put a trap on him?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Tell us. Be honest.10000Hawker, David (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! The member for Paterson has the call.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Students actually withdrew from the Christian school at Salamander Bay and attended the public school over the road to increase their subject choice. There were only 22 going to year 11, and they realised that they did not have the choice. Here we have the parliamentary puppet, the parliamentary secretary, saying that this bill is about choice. It is not about choice; it is about reducing choice. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You're bagging the Christian schools now, are you?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—If you would listen and learn, you would find out that it is about reducing choice.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—What nonsense. You don't believe that.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I may as well sit down.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! If the parliamentary secretary wishes to join this debate he will wait his turn.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Have you had enough to say? If you want to speak, you can.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—I'm not allowed to speak. It's not my portfolio.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I knew it wasn't. You're a goose.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I suggest the member for Paterson continue.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—As I said, currently in many schools in my electorate one of the major problems is not about numeracy and literacy but about kids who are not attending schools.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—That is a problem nationwide.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I realise that the government are most concerned about serious issues. They keep calling on us to raise them, and all I can get opposite me is a ratbag that wants to introduce trivia at every opportunity. If you sat there and listened, you would learn, but I do not think there is anything to retain the knowledge.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You're off the topic. You've lost your train of thought.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Obviously we have an example opposite of what happens to people when they do not attend school long enough and learn how to comprehend and how to take in information. In the electorate I represent there are many students that come from dysfunctional families. The commitment between families and schools is not there. There is no social contract that encourages students and ensures that students will go on. They are not encouraged by their parents, they are often antisocial, they do not enjoy the school environment and as a result they are often cast aside by the school system. It is not uncommon in some of the towns in the electorate that I represent for students aged 12 or 13 years to roam the streets in the daytime. I often talk to them because I am interested in education. I ask them why they are not at school and they say, `School doesn't want us.' I can understand why: these are schools where resources are stretched.I am pleased to see that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is in the chamber. I believe that he does have an interest in education—although it may be, in my opinion, misguided. I believe the greatest problem in education lies outside the mainstream curriculum in that we are not offering enough alternatives. Programs for early intervention are not being funded. If we introduce a holistic program for the Australian community we will prevent these kids from going off the rails. Children will only stay at school as long as they are experiencing success and some reward for effort, which is what a good education system does. And yet that is not happening in many schools. Students are being cast aside and then we have a law and order problem, which is a major problem in many parts of Australia. Many of the kids that are involved are education drop-outs. We need to be funding programs which ensure that these kids have alternative curricula. They need to have areas where they can experience satisfaction, can be successful and can feel that they are achieving. But we do not get that at all from the Howard government. No interest is shown in getting these kids back to the school where there can be some control.This bill is about funding for states grants. All funding should be based on need. This funding is being based on an ideology and not on the needs of our community. The Howard government is failing government schools, particularly secondary schools, in the community. That is because there is no real concern about what is happening in public schools. There is no real commitment to public schools to ensure that they satisfy the needs of modern communities. We heard the Deputy Prime Minister stand up here today and talk about what this government is doing in rural and regional Australia. I would ask the minister to have a tour around rural and regional Australia and simply compare what is being offered in rural and regional schools. I can assure him that the choice that he so often espouses in this House is certainly not available to kids in rural towns whose parents are not wealthy enough to send them to the sorts of schools that were listed in in the Daily Telegraph article on Monday. If you are talking about choice, Minister, then you are talking about choice for all Australians and about choice in curriculum. I am pleased that the minister is in the chamber; I tried to get this point through to the parliamentary secretary. The true choice in education is about choice in subject; it is about choice in curriculum. I will reiterate: fragmentation of education reduces choice. The reduction of numbers in schools in rural and regional cities by breaking down a school will reduce choice. The optimum number of students at a secondary school is in the order of 700 to 1,000. That will give a full range of subject choice. Divide that school into two, as your legislation would encourage and as your funding would support, and you reduce the choice, because at senior level the subjects will not be offered. (Time expired)17:15:0030553Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 increases the total funding for establishment assistance for new non-government schools for the program years 2001-04. The substantial increase, from $4.7 million to $14.2 million, was brought about by significant changes in the full-time equivalent census enrolments, from 1,692.4 in 1999 to 3,399.4 in 2000. This was largely confined to three of the new schools, with the overall increase in new schools actually dropping by one, from 39 to 38, between 1999 and 2000. The figures show the inexorable growth in new school enrolments with the abolition of the new schools policy. The government would rejoice in this as an affirmation of its policy, its philosophy of free choice. Last weekend I joined the member for Dobell and the member for Parkes in addressing a country teachers conference in Dubbo. In referring to the philosophy of choice and unbridled establishment of new schools, I said:It is all right to talk about freedom of choice in education, in health, in union membership, indeed in superannuation for anyone other than an MP, but freedom of choice implies a capacity to exercise that choice, and many parents and children just don't have that capacity but should in no way be penalised because they don't. Freedom of choice is one thing, equality of choice is what we should be aiming at, especially in education. Financial constraints should be no barrier to opportunity, yet I fear the trends towards market based education at a pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary level could delivering exactly that unwanted result. I must admit grave reservations about the abolition of the former Government's New Schools Policy which effectively capped the establishment of new independent schools. I know we have a private sector largely based on a Catholic and Protestant base, and I know there are many more religious groups within our society today with the right to establish their own education institutions. But I worry that scarce resources are likely to be spread over more and more and smaller and smaller schools, with a wider and wider social, ethnic and religious spread. I just question what that does for the homogeneity of our society and while I think we should celebrate cultural differences and strengths I don't know that a mushrooming of sectarian education is what we need.This legislation, and this increased funding, only underscores my concerns. There are serious questions of guidelines for the provision of these grants; the transparency of the process by which a new school is actually new, or whether it is a campus extension of an existing school; and issues of equity and fairness vis-a-vis government schools. The opposition, the Democrats, the Australian Education Union and the Independent Education Union of Australia have called for clearer guidelines and accountability. I note the assurances given to committee hearings by the department but, as a parent of children who attended both government and non-government schools, I can see quite clearly how Commonwealth and state funding can be applied as required to the recurrent cost of school education, but this frees up other substantial private financial resources to provide the extra facilities that give the independent school that exclusive edge. I know very well that parents pay for that edge—I have still got my receipts and records—but it concerns me that we have lost the measure of a community's capacity to pay as a benchmark when allocating scarce education budgets. This is especially so when there are so many resources needed at government school level, and the capacity to raise funds is being diminished by the day, as parents of some means, often the fundraisers and energy of state schools, head their children in such large numbers towards better resourced independent schools. I told the teacher representatives at the Dubbo conference that one thing we cannot afford to do is to scratch the scab off the state aid debate. But what we do need to keep stressing is not choice but equity and opportunity. That is what I have argued throughout my years as a teacher, journalist and now MP, and that is what I argue is absent from the government's socioeconomic status model for non-government school funding. This policy will do no more, I fear, than widen the resources gap between government and non-government schools. While many new schools may well be in low socioeconomic areas—and their children rightly qualify for maximum assistance—it is the uncapped expansion of the new school sector which causes me concern. The Bills Digest states:The automatic conferral of the establishment grants without examination of the circumstances of schools has created contention. Unlike the major general recurrent grants for non-government schools, establishment grants are not scaled according to need. There is also no similar Commonwealth assistance for new government schools. There is little doubt that many key components of the former government's funding policies for non-government schools had reached their use-by date. The Education Resources Index, though, had some strengths that have not been picked up by this government's policy. One significant criticism of the ERI was that, by reducing the amount of government funding as private incomes increased, the index actually acted as a disincentive for non-government schools to seek greater private contributions. All money raised from fetes or trivia nights could contribute to lowering a school's ERI and could result in less government funding.The socioeconomic status model was supposed to be a better way to provide funding to non-government schools in terms of equity, certainty, simplicity and flexibility. As I pointed out back in 1999, and as we have seen since its introduction, the SES does not appear to be equitable or simple. The SES funding method assesses a school's need according to a measure of the socioeconomic status of the community or communities from which it draws its students. It is a statistical measure of the socioeconomic profile of a community and is made up of a number of different aspects, including income, occupational status and educational status. Whereas the ERI aimed to assess a school's need by its capacity to raise funds on its own behalf, the SES assesses a school's need by measuring the capacity of the community it draws from to support it.My main problem with the SES stems from the measuring of the capacity of that community to support a student, because this is where its potential for unfairness arises. I can see that many of the new schools assisted under this legislation may not have any greater capacity than the average government school to raise their own financial resources; they might have less, especially less than state schools in well-off areas, or selective government schools. But, as we go on, with more and more non-government schools, there is a risk of more new independent schools with significant private means attracting more and more public funding at the expense of the majority of the government school sector.Let me just comment on the SES formula. Students' home addresses are collected, then linked into the Bureau of Statistics census collection districts data—typically, 250 households are surveyed—and then applied to calculate an average SES score for each community. Each school's score is then calculated on the basis of the average SES of the communities from which its students are drawn, and weighted according to the number of students from each census district of the school. The lower the SES score of a school community, the lower its capacity to support its school—that is what it is deemed to represent—and the more government funding it will be entitled to. My problem with the SES remains its sole reliance on this measure of socioeconomic status to determine the amount of support a school receives. In my opinion, the SES requires a second tier test to alleviate the impact of such discrepancies in its method of measuring socioeconomic status. That second tier test would look at the proportion of a school's students, especially those from a sub-85 SES status school, in receipt of youth allowance or whose student body is benchmarked against the youth allowance formula—for example, if they were from a prep school, a preschool or a kindergarten. The youth allowance with actual means test now gives an accurate picture of an individual's family income. A school returning an SES of under 85 but with few students on a youth allowance qualification would be subject to this second level of assessment to work out the real status of the student, not just the community from which he or she came.A school with proportionally fewer students on youth allowance, or measured against the youth allowance test in the communities from which it draws, should not be allowed additional funding until its student population accurately reflects the population of the broader community from which it draws. Without this option of a second-tier test, the SES model, as far as I can see, will continue to provide assistance to the richer portion of the independent sector at the cost of equality in the provision of education. Such misdirected funds are desperately needed to top up federally funded initiatives for disadvantaged schools or literacy programs or, indeed, for early intervention and curriculum development to meet the problems of children for whom school is irrelevant—the sorts of students that the previous speaker in this debate referred to.I believe the combination of the SES, the abolition of the new schools policy and the coalition's interpretation of the enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme supports the argument that the current policy, whether by design or not, is engineering a shift in the number of students attending government schools towards the non-government sector and creating a marketplace education model. I cannot see it delivering other than a growing divide between the private and public school sectors, the students within those sectors and even among schools within those sectors. It is one thing to recognise and to react to a change in where students are being educated; it is another thing entirely to try to drive that change. In 1996, 2,221,000 or 71 per cent of students attended government schools. The other 29 per cent, some 900,000 students, attended non-government schools. According to the department's figures, this worked out at $729 per government student and $2,334 per non-government student. I appreciate the role of the state in funding state schools, but those are the federal figures.Last year the figures were $877 for each student in the government sector, and $3,075 for each non-government student. That figure increases I guess with this legislation. Based on these figures, funding for government schools has increased by 20 per cent compared with 33 per cent for non-government schools. The department's per capita projections for 2003 stand at $937 for government and $3,534 for non-government.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—What about state government funding for schools?KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I have just alluded to that. I am talking about—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPKL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I have already indicated that the benchmark adjustment is out of whack according to my estimation of schools' needs—an increase of 30 per cent and 52 per cent respectively. Another way of looking at it is to say that, over that period, while federal funding to government schools will increase by about half a billion dollars, non-government schools funding will increase by about $2 billion. The problem here is that the funding increases are outpacing actual student movements, and that is the point I make to the parliamentary secretary at the table. I quoted a 71 per cent to 29 per cent split between government and non-government student numbers for 1996. Last year, according to the department, the ratio remained around the 70 per cent to 30 per cent mark, yet the increases in federal funding to each sector do not reflect this. Where Catholic systemic schools have negotiated with the government to remain with the ERI funding scheme but at category 11 level to guard their less affluent schools against potential losses in funding under the SES, a government school in a similar circumstance with potentially declining enrolments has no such recourse. The argument is often put that if people pay taxes they deserve a share in government spending. That is the oft repeated argument for education. People pay taxes for a whole range of reasons, whether for age pensions, Newstart, Austudy, drug rehabilitation, research, the health system or, dare I say it, to support us in retirement as politicians. People pay taxes for many, many services they might never themselves access. One of the most fundamental purposes of paying taxes as far as I am concerned is to provide as good an education as we can to all Australians, regardless of their means.17:29:0030556Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 and to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for education, the member for Dobell. That amendment proposes that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for an additional $30 million in capital work grants to government schools to match the extra funding being provided for establishment grants to non-government schools.Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to take you on a little journey this evening—and I hope it will be worth while—to demonstrate the failure of a government, the CLP government in the Northern Territory, to recognise the needs of students in public education and how, by ignoring the needs of students in public education, that government allowed a vacuum to occur, which has been filled well, I might say, by people in the private sector. That is a matter of concern, but not because the independent schools that have been developed have not done a worthwhile and very good job; they have. The bottom line, though, is that all Australian citizens should have the fundamental right to access government education. But the fact is that there are very large numbers of people in my electorate who have no access to public education services and who are then, because of a reluctance by the previous Northern Territory government to provide people with access to those services, forced to go to independent providers.The Prime Minister has defended his decision to expend 68 per cent of Commonwealth funding on private education, arguing that public education is a state responsibility. State and territory governments have carried the burden of providing public education, and many in this House will remember what a burden that was when they went to school. I must say that we are a dying breed, but those of us who were at school in the 1950s and 1960s—indeed, perhaps even in the 1970s—during the time prior to federal funding to the states, saw a deficiency in the infrastructure that was being provided, particularly in the area of independent schools. I recall when the school that I attended, which was a Christian Brothers college, received its first bout of Commonwealth government funding and the difference it made to the way in which that school operated.The community has broadly supported that there be an element of choice—that people should have the opportunity to choose, where it is possible, between education services provided by the public sector and education services provided by independent providers. We know that people do make that choice. But for many Australians there is no choice. I know, for my own part, my parents made a choice. They made sacrifices when they made that choice, just as many parents do to send their children to independent schools. My family has also made a choice about the way in which our children are to be educated. We accept the responsibility, and we are fortunate enough to be in a financial position where we are able to accept that responsibility, that, if we choose to send one or all of our children—we have a number— to independent schools, we are prepared to pay for it; we recognise that responsibility. But we also recognise that we have a right as parents, as taxpayers, as members of the community, to send our children to a state school. My concern goes to an issue that the breast-beaters on the other side of the parliament talk about from time to time but, in fact, do nothing about, and that is the question of Aboriginal education. The fact of the matter is that there are literally thousands of students in the Northern Territory who have no access to school services. It is worth while to recall some participation rate figures. Perhaps I should start by giving some figures on the percentage of students in the Northern Territory achieving the reading benchmark in 1998. These are Australia-wide tests. The figures for all students in years 3 and 5 across the Northern Territory who achieved the reading benchmark in 1998 were 78 per cent in year 3 and 71 per cent in year 5. For indigenous students, that figure across the Northern Territory was 54 per cent and 36 per cent, for urban schools only. For the combination of schools—that is urban and non-urban—it was 68 per cent for all students in year 3 and 62 per cent for all students in year 5; and for indigenous students in years 3 and 5, it was 31 per cent and 20 per cent. They are appalling statistics.I do put a caveat on those stats because I think that the validity of those tests, the testing methodology for many of those students, is quite questionable. But let us just look at these figures. Thirty-one per cent and 20 per cent is bad enough. But for non-urban schools only, the percentage of all students who achieved the reading benchmark in the Northern Territory was only six per cent in year 3 and four per cent in year 5.I have been around a bit in the area of education as a teacher and—I guess to the chagrin of the minister—a teacher unionist. I have also written on the question of Aboriginal education and I have worked in the area of public policy for some years. But, even given the caveats that I have explained with respect to the testing methodology in relation to this data, I ask myself how it is that in 2001—well, in this case 1998, but the figures will not have changed substantially since then—that situation prevails. Generally speaking, from my experience, the education provided by the public sector in the Northern Territory in urban communities and the education provided by the independent sector in the Northern Territory is the same—that is, the education is of a good quality. If you attend an urban school in Northern Territory, whether it is a government school or a non-government school, you can expect a reasonable outcome as a result of the professionalism of the teaching staff, et cetera. But, if you live in the bush, whilst you will get a highly dedicated staff, they are very underresourced—and we know that, until recently, there was absolutely no interest by the then Northern Territory government to do anything reasonable about Aboriginal education and participation rates.I do not have the data to support this assertion, but I can tell you that it is true that there are literally thousands of students in the Northern Territory who have no access to any school facility. The demographic I am talking about is the 13- to 18-year-old age group, male and female, who have no access to mainstream educational services, and I ask: why is that the case? I acknowledge, as I said, the importance of independent schools, and I will refer to a particular school which I know the minister is aware of—that is, the Ngaanyatjarra school which operates out of Yulara and works in three communities around the Central Desert. It has received an operational grant and has been assisted by the government. I am supportive of the government providing that money, but it has been done because a void, a vacuum, had developed in those communities because of the failure of the then Northern Territory government to do its job and to provide the resources necessary to get an appropriate education structure in place. It seems to me that we have a challenge. I greet with a great deal of joy the fact that a week ago last Saturday, the Northern Territory community gave the CLP government the flick. The minister is probably in his heart of hearts quite glad about that as well because, as he knows, there has been an inability to deal and negotiate with the Northern Territory government over IESIP funding and they have traditionally been very difficult. When I was in a position of responsibility in the previous Keating government, there were occasions when departmental officials would go to the Northern Territory to negotiate similar arrangements and were abused by Northern Territory bureaucrats. On one occasion that I am aware of, we instructed the Commonwealth bureaucrats not to participate in those discussions because of the attitude adopted by the then Northern Territory government.It is important that we accept that there is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that Australians, wherever they might live, have access to reasonable education services. The fact is that, in the Northern Territory, as I have pointed out, many Northern Territory citizens—they happen to be Aboriginal people, by and large—who live in remote communities miss out and get no access to those services. It is worth while noting the data from Learning lessons—the review which was led by a former Senate colleague, Bob Collins—which is sometimes known as the Collins report, in the area of student progression from year 8 to year 12 in the Northern Territory. The data exemplifies the lack of the service provision for indigenous students, particularly those who live in remote communities, and highlights yet again the paucity of education services for indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory. The report says:Across the Northern Territory in 1998, only 14 per cent of indigenous students progressed from years 8 to 12, compared with 80 per cent of non-indigenous students.I think that highlights in a most dramatic way the failure of the education system in the Northern Territory to meet the needs of indigenous students.Minister, you have funded an independent school—the Ngaanyatjarra school operating out of Yulara—to help fill the void created by the then Northern Territory government's unwillingness to provide adequate education services, but there are other communities in the Northern Territory in the same situation. You may not know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker—but I am sure the minister knows—that there are communities across the Northern Territory with 2,000 to 2½ thousand people. I can name at least five: Maningrida, Port Keats, Wadeye, Galiwinku, Yuendumu. These small towns have such large populations, yet they do not have high school facilities. That is not a situation which would be allowed to prevail anywhere else in Australia.I say to the minister, while we can argue about the willingness and intent of the government or, indeed, us as the opposition in relation to these matters, it is very clear that additional resources need to be made available. We can argue, as we have done in this place, about the merits or otherwise of providing the funding in the way that you are proposing to independent schools. What is fundamentally clear, however—it should be clear to all of us—is that there is a dramatic need for additional resources for schools in the public sector. The minister will say, as will others, that public education is a state or territory responsibility. Maybe that is true in the way that we have interpreted our constitutional responsibilities and the residual powers of the state and territory governments, but it is also true that we as a nation have a responsibility to all Australians. We have a particular responsibility for indigenous Australians. Certainly in the Northern Territory and I know in the north-west of the electorate of Grey, and I suspect also in the electorates of Kalgoorlie, Leichhardt and Kennedy, not sufficient is being done to ensure that indigenous Australians have equal opportunity when it comes to education.There is no point us just lamenting the fact that the CLP were so tragically poor and deficient in their understanding and willingness to provide for all their citizens. I am sure that the new Northern Territory Treasurer, who is the current Chief Minister, Clare Martin, will to her chagrin find in the next few days, if she has not found it already, a huge black hole in the Northern Territory government's budget. That did not stop the Northern Territory CLP promising to build high schools at Maningrida, Wadeye and Borroloola prior to the election a week ago last Saturday. When they had their proposals for funding costed, it was clear that they intended to put no additional moneys into those schools. They were proposing that these high school services would be provided out of existing infrastructure. That was, of course, a con perpetrated upon the Northern Territory community for cynical electoral purposes by the former Northern Territory government. I say to the minister that, although we should ensure that governments around Australia accept their responsibilities, we also need to understand that there are insufficient funds available currently to provide the sorts of services that will satisfy the needs of the constituents who live in my electorate. They will not come from the Northern Territory government. That is clear, because I do not believe they have the resources, primarily because of the profligacy of the previous CLP government. Additional funds are required for public education in Australia and in this case, most particularly, in the Northern Territory, and that is why I am supporting the member for Dobell's amendment to this piece of legislation.17:49:0030559Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—As the second reading debate has now concluded on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001, I propose to make some summing up remarks in the debate before concluding this part of the consideration of the bill. The piece of legislation currently being debated by the House is a highly significant piece of legislation, principally because of the attitude that the opposition has taken to it. It ought to be a very straightforward bill. It is a bill which amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000, which authorised establishment assistance funding for new schools in the non-government sector over the period from 2001 to 2004. In other words, there is already legislation which entitles new schools to grants to assist them with their establishment costs. These grants are available at a rate of $500 per full-time equivalent student in the first year of the school's operation and $250 per full-time equivalent student in the second year of operation. Newly commencing non-systemic schools that applied for general recurrent grant funding after 11 May 1999, and were approved with effect from 1999 or 2000, were also eligible for establishment grants in 2001 and 2002.This is not a bill which concerns any issue of principle. It is a bill which simply seeks to authorise the funding that new schools are currently entitled to. The bill increases the funding for establishment assistance to new non-government schools for the 2001-04 program years in line with the government's current estimates of demand. The amounts in the bill reflect the fact that there have been significant increases in the numbers of students—though not in the numbers of schools—who are entitled to establishment grant support. The act provided for a total establishment assistance of $12.726 million for the current quadrennium; the amendment in this bill increases the total funding to $14.260 million—an increase of $9.534 million over four years. All this legislation is about is providing $9 million for establishment grants in a program of school funding which exceeds $22 billion.To put it in another way, the amount of money that has been sought for the establishment of all new non-government schools over the quadrennium is less than the amount that the Commonwealth has invested in the establishment of a single public high school in New South Wales that I opened some months ago. I opened the Camden Haven High School, a school which cost some $17 million. Of that $17 million, the Commonwealth contributed $14 million, so there is no question whatever about our commitment to funding public education and to supporting the establishment of new high quality schools within the public sector. Despite the fact that public education is the primary responsibility of the states and territories and they are getting a lot more money to support it through the GST revenue, the Commonwealth is proposing to increase its own funding for public schools over this quadrennium compared to last by an amount of $1.4 billion. That is $1.4 billion extra for public education; for government schools. And yet we are arguing over this bill with the opposition because the opposition is resisting the appropriation of a sum of $9.5 million for establishment grants to new schools.The significant thing about this and why this is such an important issue between us is that these schools are not schools serving wealthy communities. Overwhelmingly, these schools are schools serving low income and middle income communities. These are new schools being established to meet the needs of families who have decided that the best educational option for them is a non-government school which teaches courses and values which complement those of the family. Just to illustrate the point, one of the schools is the Nyikina Mangala school in the Kimberley, an Aboriginal community school. The Labor Party's position on this piece of legislation is that it intends to deny this school $9,000 in establishment grants.Why is the Labor Party doing this? Why is the Labor Party cutting funding to the schools serving low income communities? Let us make no mistake that the Labor Party's attitude is denying funding right across the breadth of the non-government sector. The Labor Party has already denied $26,490 to the Jubilee Catholic Primary School in Queensland, it has denied $8,542 to the Living Faith Lutheran Primary School and $17,655 to Ellenbrook Christian College. These are moneys to which these schools are already legally entitled but which the Labor Party is seeking to prevent the government from paying to these schools. Its failure to pass this legislation in the form in which the government first presented it to the parliament has already denied funding to which these schools are legally entitled. But the Labor Party has made it quite clear that it intends to oppose this legislation if the government does not give in to its conditions. In doing so, it strikes at new schools of every kind in the non-government sector.The Labor Party is doing this for one reason and one reason only: it is seeking to find a compromise position with the extremist views of the officials of the Australian Education Union, who do not believe in funding non-government schools at all. They are totally outside the consensus of the Australian community, which believes that it is entirely fair to fund choice. They are seeking at the moment, as we know, to whip up a campaign of disinformation against certain of these schools, to vilify some of these schools in the press and to claim that these schools are not really new schools, despite the fact that the state governments have registered them as new schools. The union is going to stop at nothing to try to force the Labor Party to adopt again, as it did when it was last in government, a new schools policy to restrict the right of low income parents to choose a school.Why do they do that? Because they live in the Stone Age of education thought. Their solution to the outflow of students from public education is to shut the school gates and deny students the opportunity to attend a school in the non-government sector, even if that is the wish of their family. The Labor Party, unfortunately, under the current Leader of the Opposition is so weak that it cannot stand up for the legal rights of these schools. Instead, it wants to deny funding to Catholic parish schools, to Christian community schools, to Aboriginal community schools and to Steiner and Montessori schools in order to appease the tiger of the Australian Education Union. It is hoping that that tiger will not turn on it in the course of the coming election campaign; it hopes that it can get the Australian Education Union to direct all its spleen and vitriol against the government because the government supports school choice.This piece of legislation is the strongest evidence we could have that Kim Beazley has already rewritten the Labor Party's education policy. And he is not only now denying funds to schools that he says are rich schools—although, as we know, many of these schools could by no stretch of the imagination be called rich schools: one of them is a community school on the Darling Downs in Queensland, the only school he intends to deny funding to in Queensland in that category—but in addition to that he is now going to deny funding to new community schools. Every one of the two million parents who sends a child to a school in the non-government sector now knows that if the Labor Party were to win the federal election the funding for their schools would be in doubt, the funding for their school system would be in doubt and their system would be unable to significantly expand. And who can doubt, given the behaviour of the New South Wales Labor government in cutting funding to other non-government schools, that one of the important sources of the revenue that Kim Beazley desperately needs to fund his promises will be the non-government sector. This is a disgraceful attitude by the Labor Party. It is entirely expected, but it is contrary to principle—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—It is a fiction of your own making.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—The shadow minister for education says that it is a fiction. We will see what the Labor Party does in the Senate as to whether it is a fiction or not. We will see whether they deny funding to these schools. One of the most unsavoury aspects of the shadow minister's contribution to this debate was the fact that he indicated that in the Senate the Labor Party would be picking up the union vilification campaign against some of these new schools, attempting to discredit these schools and vilify them in the public arena for no reason other than that it serves the Labor Party's political purposes to sacrifice the reputation of these schools to appease the Australian Education Union. This is an absolutely appalling performance on the part of the Labor Party.Before I finish, I want to comment briefly on the remarks of the member for the Northern Territory. He referred to the state of educational provision for indigenous students in the Northern Territory. I was very pleased to hear the member for the Northern Territory saying that he supported the national literacy benchmarks and using those benchmarks to indicate the state of Aboriginal education in the Northern Territory. I want to say to him and to the Labor Party that I hope that the incoming Labor government will be willing to establish targets for improvements in education for Aboriginal students in the Northern Territory and to sign the IESIP agreement with the Commonwealth government.This legislation will go right through to the election campaign as a very significant issue. It is rightly angering all parents in the non-government sector, and the Labor Party will have to explain why it is taking such an unjust attitude towards giving schools their legal financial entitlements.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lee's amendment) stand part of the question.18:06:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr D.P.M. Hawker) 72Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.57Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Fischer, T.A.Swan, W.M.Cameron, R.A.Rudd, K.M.Vaile, M.A.J.Sciacca, C.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.30562Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Motion (by Dr Kemp) proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.18:11:0030562Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I will not delay the House for long—I get only one shot at this. I simply place on record the fact that almost every claim the minister made in his summing-up of the second reading debate was completely false and without foundation. The legislation could pass within two sitting days on one easy condition: that is, that the minister agrees to $30 million extra for Australian public schools to balance the $10 million extra he wants to provide in establishment grants for non-government schools. If David Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, could convince his colleagues that public schools deserve an extra $30 million, this legislation could pass within two sitting days. If the legislation is blocked, it is for several reasons: one, that the minister cannot convince or is not prepared even to try to convince his colleagues that Australian public schools deserve an extra $30 million.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPMG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—He interjects across the table, `That's right,' so we have it from the minister once again that he is not even prepared to try to win an extra $30 million for students at Australian public schools. That is one reason why this legislation is at risk of being delayed before the election. The second reason is that the minister sat on his hands last October when he learnt that there were going to be more applications than there were funds to be provided to non-government schools. It is for those two reasons that the legislation will be subject to amendment in the other House: a simple amendment, calling on the government to provide $30 million extra for students at government schools. After the $20 billion that the government have blown on their spending commitments since last November, they can hardly argue that they cannot find $30 million for students at Australian public schools. That is the fact of the matter. If anyone is responsible for delaying this legislation, it is the man sitting on the other side of this table, David Kemp.If, for some reason, the minister does not give ground between now and the election, and the legislation is not passed by the Senate because of the minister's intransigence, the election of a Beazley Labor government will result in the extra $10 million being provided in establishment grants to every one of those non-government schools, because we will be providing more than $30 million extra for students at Australian public schools. If the minister at the table is not prepared to meet our request, a Beazley Labor government will not only provide the extra $10 million in establishment grants for non-government schools but will also provide more than the $30 million that we state is required for that balancing increase for Australian public schools.18:14:0030563Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We now hear the full extent of the vindictiveness of the Labor Party in relation to these new schools. What the shadow minister has just said is that he is quite prepared to deny these schools, for an indefinite period of time, funding to which they are legally entitled. And he requires the non-government schools to believe him; he requires the non-government school sector to take on trust his position that a Labor government, if it were elected, would support establishment grants to new schools. As we know, a Labor government simply cannot be trusted in relation to the new schools policy because that is the very policy that it was most reluctant to honour when it was in government last time.The member for Dobell says that the legislation provides no extra money for government schools. What he is doing is simply ignoring the extra $238 million that the coalition provided for the government schools in this year's budget. That $238 million comprised: $143 million over four years through funding identified by the enrolment benchmark adjustment and applied to develop students' mathematical, scientific and technological skills; $28.8 million for literacy and numeracy over the years 2001-02 and 2002-03; $23.8 million over five years to support online curriculum; $32.7 million over four years to assist people moving from school to further education by maintaining the Jobs Pathway program at its current high level; $6.7 million over four years to the Enterprise and Career Education Foundation for extra work placement coordinators in remote areas of Central and northern Australia; and $2.5 million to pilot career and transition advisers.Of the specific schools initiatives in this year's budget, 87 per cent of the funding is directed to the 69 per cent of students in government schools. This totally refutes the claims of the member for Dobell and demonstrates the commitment that this government has to securing quality education for students in all school sectors. I make the point that, on a proportionate basis, this is $50 million more than government schools could expect on the basis of their enrolments; $20 million more than the Labor Party is seeking in a foreshadowed amendment in the Senate. That is why we treat the Labor Party's posturing in relation to this bill with contempt and why people in the non-government sector will be deeply concerned at the cynicism which is leading the Labor Party to the position where it has made it quite clear that, if the government does not go along with its condition, it will deny schools funding for the rest of this year to which they are entitled, and for an indefinite period into the future. That is all that needs to be said about the position of the Australian Labor Party.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills30563R138930563Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.18:19:0030563Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The Royal Commissions and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 expands the powers of royal commissions to gain access to information from other agencies and to be able to cross-reference data that at the moment may not be available to them and, in doing so, will allow royal commissions to more fully investigate the matters that are the subject of their inquiries. The opposition understands the reasons for that and will not be opposing the bill. I want to address the political agenda behind the operations of the current royal commissions which were the subject of the minister's second reading speech. I thought it rather appropriate, in fact, that the minister who introduced this legislation was the Minister for Defence, the member for Flinders and former minister for workplace relations, Mr Peter Reith. I thought it most appropriate that he should be introducing a bill about royal commissions and talking about the royal commissions into HIH and the construction industry and activities in industrial relations, because it has been suggested to me that, were we to win office, it might be a good thing for the royal commission into improper activities and violence in the workplace to look at some of the activities cultivated by that minister when he had the previous portfolio. I refer particularly to the Patrick waterfront dispute, where the government was involved in plotting with some of those on the waterfront and some of those who use the waterfront to break its own laws. We saw that unfold in a most violent and un-Australian manner on waterfronts around Australia, where workers in some of those ports who were acknowledged by their management to be undertaking work at world's best practice were nonetheless dismissed for the sole sin of carrying a union membership card in their wallet. The minister who was most closely involved with that was, of course, the minister for workplace relations at the time. I thought it rather appropriate that he was the minister who introduced this bill, because it may well be one day that the royal commission that he referred to will look more closely at the events involving him.Another example comes to mind that could be the subject of investigation by that royal commission—and I will speak about the terms of reference of the royal commission in a moment, because I believe they would allow this to occur—and that is the incidence of violence perpetrated at G & K O'Connor meatworks at the abattoir in Pakenham: we have seen exposed on the Channel 9 Sunday program about two months ago the circumstance of the company engaging hired thugs to stand over those workers, with whom it had been in dispute for well over a year. Those workers were subjected to a nine-month lockout by this company. The company decided it wanted to reduce the wages of the workers at its meatworks, and it conducted a very vicious industrial campaign, locking its workers out for the longest period of time since in the Great Depression—a nine-month lockout— and, of course, then engaging in the tactics which I have just described.As it happens, the minister for workplace relations at the time was the current Minister for Defence—again, Peter Reith, the minister who moved this bill—and he has publicly stated his approval and endorsement of the tactics used by G & K O'Connor in its industrial dispute. Again, it might be a fruitful area of investigation for the royal commission to look at the details of the way in which G & K O'Connor has conducted itself—in particular, the way in which it has engaged hired thugs to intimidate workers who do not want to agree to having their wages cut by 17 per cent, as the company is seeking to do. There is another interesting connection with the minister: according to that Channel 9 Sunday program, the principals of G & K O'Connor actually met with the then minister, the member for Flinders, the current Minister for Defence, in the course of this dispute and subsequently changed their legal advisers, adopting as their legal advisers the personal lawyer to Mr Reith. It was after that that they decided to engage some of the identities who were involved in the waterfront debacle, and they subsequently engaged thugs to intimidate workers in the workplace.All of these matters seem to me to be issues that would warrant some consideration by a royal commission—indeed, by one of the royal commissions to which the minister referred in his second reading speech. There are, of course, two royal commissions that the government has established in recent times, one of those dealing with the collapse of the HIH insurance group—which now looms as the largest corporate collapse in Australian history—and the second investigating industrial relations improper practices and intimidation and, in particular, those practices as they relate to the construction industry. I should say in relation to the first of those royal commissions, the HIH one, that the government spent quite some time being coaxed, cajoled and pressured into establishing that royal commission. There was a period of some weeks where that matter was pursued in this parliament and outside the parliament, when the government showed no real interest in establishing an inquiry of this kind. I recall that quite well, going back to May when the current Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was touting the idea of having a royal commission into the building unions and the construction industry. I recall very well the minister for workplace relations leaking a document that he had had constructed for him by the Office of the Employment Advocate. Mr Hamberger produced for him in about 11 days a report that made a whole series of allegations, not one of them substantiated.The minister decided to background journalists by dropping it off the back of a truck and giving it to a whole host of journalists around the country, not just here in this building. We know that the minister did that, because when he decided to background the journalists he sent it from his office fax complete with ministerial fax header on it. The leak that occurred of that report came straight from the minister's office, complete with ministerial fax header. The journalists who contacted the ministerial office were told that Minister Abbott would make an announcement the following day The following day happened to be a meeting of the industrial relations ministers of Australia, the industrial relations ministerial council, and one might have thought, given the circumstances, that the government was seeking to make some play of this in the ministerial council, to be followed that afternoon by an announcement of a royal commission— which is certainly what most of the gallery anticipated would happen and what they were led to believe would.In fact, at the meeting of the ministers on the following day in May, there was no mention at all of the OEA's report, nor was there any mention at all of any inquiry. So, when the journalists huddled around the minister to find out what his announcement would be, all he said was, `I have received a report and I will make a statement later.' What caused the minister to change his tune between the Thursday night, when he sent the report out on his own fax to all the journalists around the country, and the next afternoon? What changed his mind was that he was told by the Prime Minister's office that he would be doing no such thing—because the government was still procrastinating about whether it would set up an inquiry into HIH, and it was a bit hard to justify setting up a royal commission into unions, when there was the biggest corporate collapse in Australian history that the government was still refusing to move on. But eventually it moved on HIH and established that royal commission. A couple of months later, the government felt it had enough camouflage to establish a royal commission into activities in the workplace.I want to say in relation to that royal commission into workplace matters that, as I have said on a number of occasions prior to this, there is no place in Australian workplaces for anyone who wants to indulge in intimidation, violence or threats—no place whatsoever. It does not matter whether that intimidation and violence are carried out by workers, unions, employers or this government. It does not matter who perpetrates those things; it is and should be unlawful, and those responsible for it should face the full force of the law.The government have failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the need for this inquiry. To the extent that they have made allegations, I have made it clear that they should do the right thing and provide that evidence to the police force so that the police can properly investigate it—and, indeed, the national leadership of the union in question has asked the police force to make those inquiries. I noticed that when this was set up the political agenda of the government did not go unnoticed by the media commentators. A feature article in the Financial Review in July of this year about the government's plans said how the coalition planned to corner Kim Beazley. It was about the Liberal strategy of trying to make industrial relations a vote winner for the Liberal Party by trying to paint the worst possible position they could of the Australian industrial relations environment. The article noted: On Thursday the government launched its attempted knockout blow, a royal commission into the building industry. The royal commission has a serious policy intent but also many hope a serious political upside. We should not misunderstand the government's motivation in establishing this royal commission. This royal commission has been established by the Liberal Party government as part of its pre-election strategy, and it needs to show some caution in the way in which it approaches that. Another article about the same time, on 27 July in the Australian, had a heading: `Costigan a reminder of how inquiries can often bite back'. The government might reflect on this. In a small cameo piece at the bottom of the article in the Australian it said:`Royal commissions and trade unions'1980: Costigan royal commission into Painters and Dockers Union turns into a four-year inquiry into organised crime. Its most famous victims were high-profile white-collar criminals who engaged in tax-evasion schemes.We all remember that very well because it was set up by the Fraser government when the now Prime Minister was Treasurer. Of course, what it turned up was that the wrongdoing was occurring at the top end of town, with tax evasion through the tax system which the now Prime Minister was responsible for as Treasurer of the nation at the time. That royal commission did not quite go as planned. In 1981 there was the Winneke royal commission called by the federal and Victorian governments into the Builders Labourers Federation. It uncovered more than $150,000 in gifts to BLF secretary Norm Gallagher and some union organisers. Developers Bruno and Rino Grollo, Maurice Alter and George Herscu pleaded guilty to paying secret commissions and received good behaviour bonds. Gallagher was jailed. It should be recalled also that soon after that the BLF federally, and in most states of Australia, was deregistered by a decision of the federal parliament, of the federal Labor government, a decision wholeheartedly endorsed by the overwhelming majority of trade unions. They share the view, which I am sure is a view shared by all members of this House on both sides, that violence and intimidation have no place in the workplace and that anybody who wants to perpetrate that has no place in any position of responsibility. The people who confronted that, the people who actually did something—not playing politics with it in the way that this government is seeking to do with the current royal commission—and who dealt with that properly as a policy matter were, in fact, the Labor government of the day and the trade union leadership of the day.Then we come to the most recent royal commission in 1990, the Gyles royal commission into the New South Wales building industry. As the Australian article noted, it found `employer and union connivance in corrupt and violent activities'. It also noted that the building industry task force to prosecute illegal activities was `abolished in 1995'. There is an interesting sideline that the little cameo piece did not mention: the Gyles royal commission did not recommend criminal action or that a court case be made against a single union official or union member. In fact the only people that the royal commission proposed action be taken against were employers. That is another lesson to substantiate the headline of that article: `Costigan a reminder of how inquiries can often bite back'. The terms of reference of the royal commission that was announced by the government in July of this year in part said:1. the nature, extent and effect of any lawful or otherwise inappropriate industrial or workplace practice or conduct including, but not limited to:(a) any practice or conduct relating to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, occupational health and safety laws, or other laws relating to workplace relations;(b) fraud, corruption, collusion or anti-competitive behaviour, coercion, violence, or inappropriate payments, receipts or benefits; (c) dictating, limiting or interfering with decisions whether or not to employ or engage persons, or relating to the terms on which they may be employed or engaged.I refer to my earlier comments about the goings-on at G & K O'Connor, about the much publicised goings-on on the waterfront during the Patrick Dubai fiasco, and the involvement of the government in those. It would certainly seem to me possible under those terms of reference for this latest royal commission to take evidence on and look at those activities. It may well be that the minister who presented this bill to the parliament—now the retiring member for Flinders, who will not be in this parliament after this year, following the election—might like to present himself in the new year to that royal commission and give evidence of those things that he knows of in relation to the violence and intimidation that occurred on the Patrick wharfs around Australia, with the use of hired thugs, the use of people who, I might say, were duped. As much as I abhor the actions of this government and the way in which it conducted that Patrick waterfront fiasco, I have a great sympathy for those ordinary Australians, many of them from the defence forces, who were duped, some of them into leaving their jobs, to take up employment with this new venture that the government promoted—only to be dropped like a bag of spuds when their usefulness to this government had ceased.We saw some of those people here in the gallery last week. They rightly feel betrayed. They in fact were the pawns in a bigger game that they did not appreciate at the time. I think they do understand that now, which is why they were here earlier. That is why they are so angry. It is why they have a court case. It is why they sought to rope the minister who introduced this bill into that court case. The government have successfully defended the minister in extracting him as a defendant in that case. In the interests of public disclosure, the minister who introduced this bill might like to present himself to that royal commission and tell the royal commission what his role was and how he went about encouraging people to break the law as in fact they did.The bill before us is about extending the powers of all royal commissions, although the second reading speech understandably refers to the two on foot. That is certainly understandable. What we in this House need to appreciate is that behind this bill, and behind one of those royal commissions in particular, lies a political agenda that does this country and this government no good. There is no merit in the way in which the government have conducted themselves in contriving this inquiry. If they have evidence about these matters, they should send it to the police. They have not done that. They cooked up a report from the OEA and now they have proceeded to try and milk this for all it is worth politically between now and the election. I think the people of Australia will see through that. The people of Australia understand that the improper activities of a few do not represent the activities or the standards of the trade union movement or of the Labor Party. I support the bill before the parliament. It is a pity that it has been introduced by this minister—somewhat ironically—and at this time with the other royal commission to which I have referred in detail. (Time expired)18:39:0030567McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—The previous speaker, the member for Brisbane, has raised a number of issues which need some readdressing.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—There's no-one here to do it.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—The member for Reid might understand a couple of things. The member for Brisbane has brought up yet again the dispute at the G & K O'Connor processing plant. That is an argument about the introduction of AWAs, the removal of the tally system and an attempt by that processing plant to get more productivity. The member for Brisbane must understand that.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—You wouldn't support the thugs, would you?VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—I know a bit about the meat industry. I hope the shadow minister does not leave; there are a couple of other matters we need to address.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—I'll stay for you, mate. VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—The member for Brisbane might not understand that the removal of the tally system has been a major breakthrough in the meat industry. That means that workers on the production line can work hard, get more productivity and not be restrained by the tally system coming in at 12 o'clock and then all the fellows going home. Both shadow ministers at the table, the member for Reid and the member for Brisbane, might understand that. I know the member for Brisbane has been to some of these meat processing plants. He may have even met Wally Curran in Victoria. The shadow minister is a Victorian, and Wally Curran might have been a friend of his.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—I am a Queenslander.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—Is that right? You are formerly from Victoria.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Don't insult me, Stewy. I was born and bred in Brisbane.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—You have had association with Victoria. In view of your vast knowledge, you may have met Wally Curran, and you would fully understand the industrial conflict in the meat industry in Victoria. You are suggesting that the proprietors of G & K O'Connor at Pakenham did not have the right to improve their productivity and to bring about a new system of industrial arrangements where AWAs could be signed and the removal of the tally system would be an ultimate outcome. That is what you are arguing here. They took a reasonable action to bring in a new system. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union did not like this change. I would argue strenuously that G & K O'Connor did close their works down for about four or five months in an attempt to bring in a new system. That is quite reasonable given the set of circumstances. I have seen coercive activity by the Australasian meat union.The member for Brisbane spoke about the building industry. You would have to be joking to say that there were no undue practices in the building industry in Victoria and in New South Wales. We have a situation in Victoria where the building industry is in disarray. We have a particular position in Geelong, my home area, where the building industry is impressed by the Geelong agreement and where unions have a say with management.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Keep going. I always like to hear you.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—Thank you, Prime Minister.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—He is here to listen to you.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—I am delighted that the Prime Minister is here, because he fully supports some of the remarks that I am about to make.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Along with thousands of your constituents.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—That is right.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I draw the attention of the members for Reid and Brisbane and the Prime Minister to the fact that the member for Corangamite has got the call and he will continue in the debate.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—The member for Brisbane spoke about the MUA and their training operations: they attempted to take some good Australians to Dubai to train them for the waterfront. He makes great play of the fact that that was an illegal act and how terrible it was. Why can we not take individual Australians to be trained on the waterfront in the normal course of events so that they might replace the waterfront with skilled personnel? Obviously it was a difficult operation to remove the closed shop of the MUA to bring about a new culture, and the result of that is there for all to see.I will move now to the important part of the bill—if I have time before the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement. The bill before the House is in relation to the HIH royal commission. As members would be aware, HIH has losses of up to $5 billion. I refer to an article which appeared in the Financial Review on 28 August, where it is suggested that the collapse will be in the vicinity of $5.3 billion and that it will take up to 10 years for the creditors to be paid. The royal commission will look at all the background information in relation to the HIH collapse. The liquidators are saying that it will be in New South Wales and Queensland, and it may be that the governments in those states will get only 35 cents in the dollar recovery and that the rescue packages will be in the range of $600 million. The bill before the House is to ensure that these two royal commissions work in with the inquiry into the HIH collapse and, of course, the building industry, which the shadow minister has spent so much time talking about. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills30569R140430569Bill presented by Mr Howard—by leave—and read a first time.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister has not informed me about his intention to seek leave to introduce this bill. I will not be opposing the introduction of the bill, but I want to make it clear that I oppose this bill.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would indicate to the member for Calwell that leave has been granted for the introduction of the bill. If the member for Calwell wishes his concern to be recorded, I will ensure that that happens, but leave has been granted for the Prime Minister to proceed.3056918:47:0030569Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—by leave—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.In a statement made before question time today, I outlined the serious circumstances surrounding the entry of a Norwegian flag vessel, the MV Tampa, into Australian waters surrounding Christmas Island. That vessel entered our territorial waters in defiance of a direction given by Australia. In the absence of firm action on the part of Australia, it could have led to the illegal entry of the persons on board into Australia, thus undermining Australia's control over its sovereign territory. Those who enter our territorial waters contrary to an express direction from the government should not be rewarded by being allowed to stay in our waters or, even worse, by having the opportunity to enter our land territory. While the government believes that there is appropriate legal authority at present, for more abundant caution this legislation will ensure that there is no doubt about the government's ability to order such vessels to leave our territorial waters. Section 4 of the proposed bill enables an authorised officer to order a vessel that is within the outer limits of the territorial sea to be taken outside the territorial sea. That order would cover all persons on board the vessel. A provision has been included to ensure that the order is effective even if the master of the vessel subsequently claims that the master was not on board the vessel at the time or could not understand the order. Also, the bill provides authority for the ship to be taken outside the territorial sea if the master of the vessel refuses to comply with the order.One of the difficulties facing Australian officers in dealing with vessels involved in people-smuggling is that people on board often seek to avoid preventive action by jumping overboard. Also, it may be necessary for humanitarian reasons to take people off a vessel subject to the order for medical treatment. Section 6 of the bill authorises an officer to return such persons to the ship subject to a direction under section 4 of the bill.The protection of our sovereignty, including Australia's sovereign right to determine who shall enter Australia, is a matter for the Australian government and this parliament. Consequently, sections 4, 8 and 9 ensure that a direction given under section 4, and actions taken as a consequence of that direction, will not be able to be challenged in any court in Australia. In particular, the bill confirms that the persons on board a vessel at the time a direction is given will not be able to seek to delay their removal from the territorial sea by making a claim for refugee status under the Migration Act. However, the minister will have a non-compellable power to allow such a claim to be made. Also officers, and those assisting them, taking actions authorised by the bill will be protected from civil or criminal proceedings in respect of those actions. It is important that this bill, for the reasons I have outlined of more abundant caution, cover actions taken and to be taken in respect of the MV Tampa. Therefore the bill, on entry into force, will operate from 9 a.m. today, Australian Capital Territory time. As I noted earlier, this bill will confirm our ability to remove to the high seas those vessels and persons on board that have entered the territorial waters under Australian sovereignty contrary to our wishes. It is essential to the maintenance of Australian sovereignty, including our sovereign right to determine who will enter and reside in Australia.This is an unusual bill for unusual circumstances. I am seeking, unusually, the authority and the support of the parliament to facilitate the passage of the bill through all stages in both houses of parliament tonight. I appreciate the courtesy extended to me and to the government by the opposition in giving leave for the introduction of this measure. I ask the opposition to support the measure so that it can pass into law as soon as possible.The government have embarked on a course of action which we believe is a lawful course of action. It is a course of action that is overwhelmingly in Australia's national interest. It is not a time, having embarked upon that course of action, to leave any stone unturned so that any doubt could be raised as to our capacity to carry through with that course of action. It is our advice that the actions we have taken to date are properly grounded in existing Australian law. But, as every member of this House will know, the law is often an unpredictable thing. For more abundant caution, I sought the advice of the Attorney-General and his advisers. As a result of that request, this bill has been drafted very quickly and very professionally. I thank the Attorney-General, and I thank the officers of the Attorney-General's Department who have cooperated in the preparation of this bill in a very short period of time.As I said, it is an unusual situation, but it does require a very quick, comprehensive and unambiguous response from the representatives of the Australian people. It is in the national interest that this vessel not be allowed to remain in Australian territorial waters. It is in our national interest that this vessel be returned to international waters. It is in the national interest that we have the power to prevent beyond any argument people infringing the sovereignty of this country. One of the great enduring responsibilities of a government is to protect the integrity of its borders. There is no doubt that the integrity of the borders of Australia has been under increasing threat from the rising flood of unauthorised arrivals.The circumstances surrounding the Tampa are particular but they are nonetheless a metaphor for the dilemma that this country faces. It is a dilemma that can only be resolved in the medium to longer term by the sort of cooperative actions of which I spoke earlier this afternoon. In commending this bill to the parliament, I again say to the opposition—to their representatives in this House and also in the other place—that it is in the national interest that this bill go through tonight. It is in the national interest that, in legal terms, what we have done today is put beyond all shadow of doubt. It is in the national interest that the courts of Australia do not have the right to overturn something that rightly belongs to the determination of the Australian people, as expressed through their representatives in this parliament.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I understand from consultation with the Clerk that the Prime Minister, for understandable reasons, does not have an explanatory memorandum available at this stage but the intention is that it will be presented later. Could I have leave of the House to agree to that later presentation of the explanatory memorandum?Leave granted.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted to continue the debate?Leave granted.18:55:0030570Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—The opposition will not support the Border Protection Bill 2001. The opposition believes that it has been treated with a level of discourtesy that is not warranted by the way in which the opposition has offered a degree of bipartisan support to the government over the course of the last few days. I find the circumstances here quite extraordinary. The opposition has had this bill for about 40 minutes now. There is no explanatory memorandum, but we are told the bill has to be passed through all stages tonight. We will facilitate debate on all stages tonight, but it will be a matter for others to determine whether or not this bill will be passed through all stages tonight. That is a question for the Senate at the end of the day. The Prime Minister said that the Commonwealth had the powers to protect its borders in the way in which he has described his actions to this point, including the instructions that he has given to the captain of the Norwegian ship to remove his ship from Australian waters. We believe he has those powers, and that those powers ought to be exercised in accordance with the law as it has been understood by Australians to this point. I said in my remarks during this afternoon, when the Prime Minister reported on the situation that had developed with the Tampa, that the position that had been taken by the government to that point was acceptable because it did not change policy and it was acting in accordance with law as we knew it.The situation that affects the Tampa arises from the international search and rescue regime that applies. This means that the appropriate destination of the Tampa was Indonesia and not Australia. That was a situation that the opposition supported. Make no mistake about it: this bill as it is currently structured changes policy. This is new policy. What this bill means—and I think the Prime Minister got at it—is that, no matter what the circumstances, it will be a reasonable and authoritative thing for an Australian officer to take a boat that is sinking, and in which there are life threatening situations involving the people on board, and order it out. That will be capable of being sustained by this bill—drag the boat out, sink it, people die. It does not matter what you think ought to happen; that is what this bill permits.I also said today in my remarks that we do not face in these circumstances a national catastrophe; we face a serious problem. There is a difference between those two things. Were we facing tonight a national catastrophe of some description that required a piece of legislation to put beyond doubt, as the Prime Minister said, the capacity of the Commonwealth to respond to it, we would support it. But what we have is not a national catastrophe, but a serious problem. And the serious problem, the Prime Minister said— and we believe this to be the case—already has sufficient law to cover the position associated with it. We do not need to go down this particular road. We require clear minds and cool heads. Any piece of legislation that changes policy is entitled to that level of consideration.I was surprised, I must say, in the course of question time to discover that the Prime Minister had not contacted President Megawati in Indonesia. I was also surprised to discover that the first conversation the Prime Minister had had with the Norwegian Prime Minister on these matters had occurred after the Norwegian government evidently encouraged the Norwegian captain to take the boat into Australian waters. The Prime Minister has been on the airwaves all over Australia during the last couple of days, but evidently has not found the time to do what any Australian Prime Minister would normally do in a situation where we are requiring of the captain of a ship of another nation a certain course of action to end up with a certain set of events in a port of one of our neighbours. I would have thought that, in these circumstances, it would inevitably be the case that the Prime Minister would have taken action to deal with that, that he would have at least had a conversation with President Megawati. I understand from what he has had to say that President Megawati has not been in Indonesia. I assume, however, that President Megawati has been in places where phones are, and that it would be entirely possible to phone President Megawati in places other than Indonesia if a consultation had to be had in that regard. But this has not occurred.What is going on here is not dealing with a substantial problem for this country; it is wedge politics. The problem can be dealt with by other means. What is going on here is a desperate effort, of a piece with efforts to reintroduce native title, with efforts to do native title legislation, with efforts to again put forward industrial relations legislation, all of it in the last couple of weeks of this parliament, to try to drive wedge politics and to play politics with the lives of Australians. Well, I tell you, Mr Prime Minister: we will not be in it. Whatever particular political advantage you think it gives you, we will not be in it. In the circumstances in which you have apparently made a series of errors, given the advice that has been given to you, we are prepared to consider, if it is necessary, a legislative solution to the Tampa problem in particular. What we are not prepared to consider for one minute is a legislative solution which claims to alter the regime that applies now, entirely on the basis of three hours consideration in this parliament this night. This is extraordinary, and we will not be going along with it. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You're a disgrace.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—If there is any disgrace here, the disgrace rests with people who give an opposition 40 minutes notice, who give an opposition a bill without an explanatory memorandum, who put in place in legislation a proposition that does not deal simply with the problem to hand but deals with a range of other problems, with ramifications that might conceivably produce a set of circumstances which this nation has never morally signed up to and which may well be in breach of the international obligations that we have signed up to and which produce an international regime with which we can live and are comfortable and which ensures that, when we have a particular problem associated with refugees—as we have had from time to time in our history—there are others in the cart with us helping us when we need that assistance.So our position is this: if you have a particular legislative fix in relation to the situation on Tampa and if you have actually made an approach to see the safe location elsewhere of the people associated with that, we are prepared to facilitate it. We are prepared, as I said, to facilitate everything lawful that this government does within the framework of the law that exists now and all the rights associated with that law that are applicable now. We are prepared to do that. But what we are not prepared to do is, sight unseen, change the totality of that law. So, if you have a fix in relation to the Tampa, present it to us and discuss it with us in a reasonable fashion. But, if what you want to do is to change this, to overturn this legislation completely, we are simply not going to be in it. Therefore, the opposition will not be voting for this tonight either here or in the Senate. We would appreciate in future dealings with this government over the course of the next couple of weeks that, when we actually give you bipartisan support on something, we are not treated with such tawdry impoliteness.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPPE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—We are not going to fall here, Bronwyn, for wedge politics under any set of circumstances. If you are going to govern this nation, you have to be prepared to consider legislation in an orderly and sensible fashion. You have to be prepared to consider the obligations that are on us in an orderly and sensible fashion. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—What about the national interest?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—You have to be prepared in the national interest to consider the particular set of circumstances that you face and what you need to do to fix it. In a piece of legislation to deal with a specific problem, you do not actually need to go through a process of totally overturning what you have stood for as a country over the years—and that is what this legislation does. You may well say that an Australian minister would not find himself in circumstances where he would approve towing out to sea a boat that was in the process of sinking and where people's lives were threatened. You may well say that, but the simple fact of the matter is that the legislation that you are putting in place here permits that—and you do not know that. You have not talked that through with your caucus and you have not had that subjected to analysis anywhere.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—There are other laws that fix that. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—But this overrides them all.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—This overrides all law. I am very interested in the intervention that I have just heard from a National Party minister and member of the cabinet. A National Party minister and member of the cabinet said this to me just then: there are other laws that take care of that situation. Minister, in this act that you have just deliberated on, there is a clause which says it overrides all law—all law. If you do not believe me when I put that proposition, I would suggest that you turn to clause 10. That says, `This act has effect in spite of any other law.'DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—So there are other laws, are there, Warren?GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—Moral law.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—There are other laws which apparently are not covered by this. That is an example of what is going on here. Not even the government knows what is in this act; not even senior members of the government know. What they do know is that they think they see here an electoral opportunity. That is what they think they see here—an electoral opportunity. When an election is called, it will be fought on a wide variety of issues, and one of them will be this. In the end, you are trying to fix up a problem for which you have been largely responsible—at least partly responsible—for putting in place. The simple fact of the matter is that, as you said in your remarks today during question time, you know that what you require is a relationship with the nations in this region that means that people do not get sent on. That is what you require. You know that because of the 13,000 people who have come to this country over the course of the last 10 years—2,000 came in that period of the decade in which we were in office and 11,000 have come since. That is because relationships in this region have fallen apart, and that is the principal challenge we must be able to deal with. I noticed today that at the National Press Club the Leader of the National Party has refused to put One Nation last—and I hope that this has nothing to do with that. That is what is going on here in the wedge politics that are being played.7K6Entsch, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Leichhardt will withdraw that remark.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—I withdraw.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I want to come back to where I started out, and that is about what we are prepared to do. As I have said, we are prepared to consider the circumstances that you might put forward that would deal with the Tampa situation specifically, that would ensure that the people who are associated with that live up to their international obligations. We are prepared to give due consideration to that. Also, in regard to all other areas of immigration policy and in dealing with illegals, we are prepared to give consideration to the legislation you put forward, as we are doing now in a number of other areas. Even the minister in this area said that we agreed with you on 90 per cent of what you are putting forward, and we are prepared to discuss the other 10 per cent. We have no problems with that at all.What we will not do is take, sight unseen, in 40 minutes, a piece of legislation like this, which is so far reaching in its implications and its impact. That requires a proper level of consideration by the parliament which cannot conceivably be given it tonight. I must say, I thought when the Prime Minister handed it across to me that it would be a bill that dealt specifically with the situation in relation to the Tampa, and that there would be other opportunities to consider the wider issues. But it is not such a bill. This is a bill that goes across the entirety of our regime as it applies at the moment, and that is not a bill that will be considered or supported by the opposition. What we urge you to do, whatever the outcome of the deliberations of this in the Senate, is to bring back for the consideration of the parliament a piece of legislation that deals with the specific circumstances that is not so far reaching in its impact. We oppose the bill.19:12:0030573Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I spoke to the Prime Minister an hour or so ago and he asked me to facilitate the introduction of this bill. I was happy to do so, but I indicated that I wanted to have a look at it before I made up my mind about it—and obviously I have not had enough time to do that. But the very aim and tenor of the bill suggests that it is not worthy of support. A few moments ago I spoke to a close relative and tried briefly to explain to her what this piece of legislation was all about. She told me that she supports the Prime Minister right up to the hilt; perhaps my electorate supports this legislation right up to the hilt—but I do not. This morning I put out a press release referring to the migration bill that was introduced last night—not this bill currently before the chamber. That press release said: The Government risks fanning racial tensions within our community by rushing new legislation into Parliament just weeks before calling an election ...There is no doubt there is room for reform in our asylum granting processes, but this should be debated fully in Parliament and not rushed through to obtain maximum political advantage in the last two weeks of this Parliament.In the short term we have a humanitarian crisis on our doorstep, whatever the law of the high seas, and in the absence of any other option we must accept the people aboard the Norwegian ship the Tampa are our moral responsibility.After all, in rescuing the passengers of the stricken boat, the freighter was responding to requests from Australian authorities.In the longer term we should seek the full co-operation of our Asian neighbours and the United Nations to rub out the multi-billion dollar people smuggling trade.Hopefully the worldwide coverage of this event will redouble international action to address people smuggling rackets.Indonesia has a special responsibility to ensure the elimination of any corruption that facilitates the embarkation of boatloads of asylum seekers from Indonesian ports.I have no problem with legislation designed to weed out the frauds from the genuine refugees.But it must be remembered there are 50,000 illegal immigrants already hiding in this country who have deliberately overstayed visas.The Parliament must be given the opportunity to properly scrutinise this legislation so we are not part of a pre-election knee-jerk reaction in response to polls and talk-back radio.We almost risked a race-based election in 1998 over Native Title, we are headed down the same path in the current climate.We cannot claim the high moral ground in sending our troops against Saddam, we cannot condemn the Taliban extremists, if we aren't prepared to accept there are thousands of persecuted victims of those regimes who manage to escape.Why wouldn't they seek asylum in the most free nation on earth?I sent that release out to my local media, for it is to them that I owe my loyalties and my explanation. I did not send it anywhere else. With the Senate likely to reject this legislation, I somehow expect this to be the last sitting week of the parliament—this event being exploited to create the desired climate. If that is the way to win government in this country, then whoever exploits that way holds a poisoned chalice, and the victory would be political but certainly not moral.19:16:0030574Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—I will be brief, because I understand that it is the desire of the House that this bill should be dealt with and considered in the Senate. I oppose this legislation, but my reasons for doing so have to do with the way in which we have been dealing with this particular crisis. As the member for Calare has said, the situation that we have here is not a question of the law of the sea or of international law; it is a question of humanitarian obligations and the image of this country in the way in which it deals with the refugee issue.One of the things that has not been mentioned—and many things have been mentioned—is the fact that there are many women and children on this boat.A government member interjecting—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The honourable member here said that it has been done deliberately.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will not respond to interjections.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Why are there so many women and children on this boat? I will tell you why. In 1999 the government introduced legislation on the temporary protection visa which, instead of giving genuine refugees permanent residence, gave them only three years, and it also prohibited them from bringing their wives and children to Australia. As a result of that, there is only one course left to these people once they have been given genuine refugee status—that is, to get their children and their wives onto boats. Government members interjecting—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The honourable members here are interjecting again. I challenge you to do this: why don't you look at the details of this and see how many people on this boat have relatives in Australia—that is, people who have been granted refugee status in Australia? There is a second consequence of the 1999 act.Government members interjecting—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Mr Speaker, they have had their say.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell has the call.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—There is a second consequence of the 1999 decision. The message has gone back that, if you come only by yourself and you do not bring your wife and children, they will never be able to join you. So what is happening? Whole families are coming now because of this law. So much for the deterrence principle of the minister. Instead of it being a deterrent, it is actually leading to a humanitarian situation in which women and children are on these boats and in danger.I ask the Prime Minister: if you push this ship out into international waters, how will that solve the crisis? Do you expect that Indonesia is going to accept them? Do you expect that Norway is going to accept them? Or is Australia going to be put in the situation where it continues to have to supply food, water and medicines to these people for weeks? Is that the situation? How can this conceivably be a wise decision? Governments should have a certain wisdom in relation to these humanitarian crises. We need a wise decision here. If these people are admitted into Australia and dealt with quickly, those who are genuine refugees and pass our process can be admitted to Australia, and those who are not can be deported. The situation is wrong if we completely ignore our international obligations in relation to this matter, and this is the real issue here.I also support the point made by the opposition leader that this bill is so wide that in humanitarian situations to occur in the future we would actually give the right to certain ministers and to certain bureaucrats to actually push people out of our waters who are in danger and who are in trouble. How can we make a decision like this at this hour on this day, without first debating it throughout the whole of society and throughout the whole of parliament?We have to not only oppose this bill but also start thinking, Prime Minister, about what is going to be a realistic solution to this matter. This issue will not go away. You can push this ship into international waters, but you cannot—A government member interjecting—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The honourable member asked me what my policy is. Why don't we first find out. Why don't you put—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will address his remarks through the chair.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—All right. The honourable member raised an issue about policy. Instead of sending defence forces, instead of simply deciding to push this ship out in this way, why don't we send somebody who can find out how many of these people do have relatives in Australia and do have genuine reasons for coming here? This is an attempt to try to suggest that somehow our international sovereignty is in danger, when it is not. It is an attempt to use this refugee issue in a political way.I say that it will not solve the crisis in relation to this ship. Even if you push it into international waters, the situation will continue. Ultimately, we will have to accept humanitarian responsibility for these people and process them in the proper way through our refugee system, Prime Minister. And you may think that you can push this ship out into international waters and somehow deal with the crisis; it will not deal with the crisis. The only way to deal with this crisis is to deal with it in a humanitarian way through showing some consideration for these people in trouble. Question put:That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells having been rung—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Speaker, the time has been up for about a minute.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Dobell. I was in consultation with the Clerk.19:27:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 73Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.62Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Fischer, T.A.Swan, W.M.Cameron, R.A.Rudd, K.M.Vaile, M.A.J.Sciacca, C.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.Bill read a second time.3057619:31:0030576Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—by leave—I move:That the bill be now read a third time.In the process I table the explanatory memorandum.Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to.19:33:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 73Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Fischer, T.A.Swan, W.M.Cameron, R.A.Rudd, K.M.Vaile, M.A.J.Sciacca, C.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time. Adjournment30577Motion (by Mr McGauran) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.3057719:35:0030577Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Today, the press were summoned for a landmark news conference, and the press release heralded the quiet revolution in rural and regional Australia. My electorate, which is in rural and regional Australia, waited with bated breath to hear what this revolution was all about. I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, must have been talking about a different revolution. There is a quiet revolution going on in regional Australia. However, it is not the revolution that says, `Thanks for all you've done, John, and thanks to the Howard government. Thanks for everything you've done,' because the one thing you have done is cut back services in regional Australia and, when it hurts, you have gone for a bit of a bush visit. We had the Prime Minister on his bush bash some time ago. You come and have a listening campaign to see what you can do about it. Then you say that you will pour out some money to try and fix up a few regional problems, money which is in no way compensating for the moneys that have been ripped out of regional Australia since 1996. That money might fix up a bit of television reception. Members opposite have spoken about the black spot television program before. We get a few bob to try and fix television programs so you can keep regional Australia off your back and they can see the advertisements that are being pumped out, millions of dollars after millions of dollars, telling them all about the good things you have done for Australia, but if people are not experiencing them in regional Australia, they soon will. A few bob is being thrown around to fix up some telecommunications problems that people are still experiencing in regional Australia. What is going to be the reward for that? You are going to sell off a bit of the family silver. People can buy some of it back and you will spend some of that to give them some telephone services and a little bit of downloading for computer systems and the Internet. Of course, your reward after buying back what you already own is: `When we've done all that, and we're doing it in a very generous way, because we have just had an inquiry telling us that things aren't too bad, we'll pump out a few more hundred million dollars into regional Australia. Listen, we won't do it this time, but we're going to sell Telstra again.' Yet we have massive dividends coming in from Telstra, and what does the government say? It says, `If you oppose the further sale of Telstra, the rest of Australia will not be able to experience the great benefits of Telstra.' They will experience the benefits of Telstra; they do so through dividends, and that will continue.I noticed the quiet revolution in rural and regional Australia that the minister announced today. By the way, I just managed to capture a little of Channel 7's news earlier, and that landmark contribution to regional Australia did not get a mention. He talks about partnerships and strengthening rural and regional economic and social opportunities. He even mentioned `changes to the national competition policy'. National Party members have been warning the government about the implications of the national competition policy. As early as May this year, the Labor Party—that is, this side of the House—announced at least four propositions involving the national competition policy and how to moderate it in terms of regional Australia so that it can provide a little bit of equity rather than ideology in regional Australia. Here we have the minister, a few months out from an election, saying, `We must do something about the national competition policy, we must get into partnerships, and we must go out and talk to regional Australia.' His Stronger Regions, A Stronger Australia statement will happen only when—it will not be much longer now—regional Australia votes for Labor. So much for the quiet revolution. There will be a revolution, all right, and it will be pretty soon, but it will not be the minister's laughable, fluffy old announcements today and his few bob—I think it is about $2 a head—in 60 regions throughout Australia.3057819:40:0030578Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—On indulgence, Mr Speaker, I recollect, during the last set of divisions, seeing the Leader of the Opposition in the first division and seeing him leaving the House before the second division without notifying the tellers. My understanding is that the count for the first division was identical to the count for the second division. I ask you to check to see whether in fact the Leader of the Opposition was absent from the division on the third reading and to report back to the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the minister. I will take up the matter he raises. I do not think for a moment that he is implying anything else, but the Leader of the Opposition may have inadvertently left without notifying the tellers. I did not personally notice one issue or the other. Equally, someone may have arrived without notifying the tellers, but I will check with the whips and with the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and ensure that the right count is recorded in the Hansard. 3057919:41:0030579McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I want to put on the public record the illustrious career of the member for Indi. At the end of this week, the member for Indi will finish a 25-year career in public life. He was first a member of the state parliament of Victoria and then a member of this House. Members might be aware that the member for Indi first became the member for Benambra in the Legislative Assembly in the Victorian parliament. It was a great win for Mr Lieberman on that occasion, because he took over the seat from a longstanding Country Party member, Mitchell. Not many people thought that young Lou Lieberman, who was an active Liberal, could win. He won that seat in March 1976. It was a great campaign out of the back of the ute, with three or four supporters. Lou Lieberman started his long career with that great win in the heartland of the Country Party, as it was known at that time. He met all the people and he won the seat, and from that time on Lou Lieberman was impregnable in the northern part of Victoria. He became a hero of the Liberal Party, having triumphed in very difficult circumstances.He gained rapid promotion in the Victorian parliament. After three years, he was Assistant Minister for Health from 1979 to 1981. He became Minister for Planning from 1979 to 1982; Minister for Mines in 1981; Minister for Minerals and Energy in 1981; and Minister for Local Government from 1981 to 1982. He became an important figure in the Hamer government and made a great contribution to the debate at that time. His very good friend, the former member for Indi, Ewen Cameron, persuaded him to come to the federal parliament, so he became the member for Indi in 1993. He fought the election illustriously and won with the support of the former whip, Ewen Cameron, a very respected member for Indi. He won the election in 1993, 1996 and 1998.It is interesting to look at the honourable member's career. I will report some instances. He was the Minister for Health, but he had a little bit of trouble with his tobacco growers in Myrtleford. In his usual colourful style, he managed to balance the interests of the health minister and those of the tobacco growers of Myrtleford. Only Lou Lieberman could achieve that delicate balance between those two interests. I know that he has been a great supporter of the wine industry, including Brown Brothers and other famous wineries in his electorate. In forestry, he has been a supporter of the RFA from the federal point of view. He took on the Kennett government in the interests of the workers at Mount Beauty. He has been running a long debate about the Albury bypass. That matter has been resolved very much to the satisfaction of the member for Indi.He has doggedly looked after Australian motorists on the price of petrol. Nobody in this parliament knows more about the price of petrol, be it at the terminal gate or the pump. He has pursued that matter religiously and relentlessly on behalf of Australian motorists, and I think his final epitaph might be: Lou Lieberman got the lowest price and worked extremely hard for motorists throughout Australia.He has spent 25 years in public life. He has been a fantastic local member, always friendly to supporters and opponents alike. He has fought some of the difficulties on the ground with our coalition partners, the National Party. He was well liked by everyone on all sides of politics, both in this parliament and in the state parliament. He has been personable to all his colleagues and I think to all colleagues on the other side of the parliament. He has been ably supported by his wife, Marj, through his 25-year career. He is a lawyer by background, but does not show any of those tendencies because he has a much broader view of the world. He is going to enjoy boating. He tells me he is going to go cycling, returning to his old pastime, and become the `Oppy of the bush' in northern Victoria. We look forward to seeing Lou Lieberman riding his bike and losing a bit of weight! Lou Lieberman personified the democratic tradition of northern Victoria: service to the people, of the people, for the people. I put on the public record my personal appreciation of his friendship, and the friendship of all members, in his long and dedicated career to the people of Indi, the people of northern Victoria and the people of Australia. I say: well done, Lou Lieberman. May it be on the public record forever. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I know the question before the House is that the House do now adjourn, but the member for McMillan has sought indulgence to make a brief remark about the member for Indi. I am happy to grant indulgence to him—providing he is brief—and not consider it part of the adjournment debate.3058019:46:0030580Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00— Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I just want to state very plainly the opposition's view that Lou Lieberman, the member for Indi, has been a fine representative and is a good man. On many occasions I have had to deal with him as someone who shares an electoral boundary on the north of my electoral district. I have always found him an honourable man in all of his dealings.A reference was made by the member for Corangamite to Lou Lieberman's courageous work on behalf of the workers at the Mount Beauty timber mill. At around the same time I was doing similar work on behalf of the timber workers at the Swiss Creek timber mill, which is on the other side of the mountains, in Gippsland. I remember that Lou Lieberman was a good and very useful ally in that whole process. The workers at the Mount Beauty timber mill always appreciated his support. I have also found Lou to be a very decent fellow in matters to do with Aboriginal people and I know of his genuine interest in the advancement of Aboriginal people. I want to acknowledge that today.Lou Lieberman is a great man, and a fine representative who I am sure will be very sadly missed by his constituents. I want to place on the record my appreciation of our friendship during the short time I have been the member for McMillan, and also place on record the opposition's view that Lou Lieberman has been a fine representative, a good man and a good servant of the people of Australia.3058019:48:0030580Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I joined the Labor Party because of the view that it was a great humanitarian party. I am very proud to stand here tonight, after the debate we have just had, as a representative in one seat for that party. I have a particular interest in the debate that took place. My father arrived in a refugee boat called the SS Strathallan in June 1939. My uncle arrived on an equally famous boat, the SS Dunera, many of the people from which have since made great contributions to Australian society.There are many historical parallels that this House should be aware of in considering the issue before all Australian people tonight of the boat being taken back out into international waters by members of our armed forces. There are no historical parallels that are exact, but we should perhaps think about the situation before the Second World War of the very famous ship the St Louis. The St Louis left Nazi Germany and travelled down the coast of Florida. It attempted to dock in Havana and was refused permission. Eventually it had to steam back to Bremen in Germany. We know what unfortunately happened to the people in those circumstances. The then president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt—who was a truly great man, an international statesman and probably, with Winston Churchill, saved us from 1000 years of darkness through his defeat of Nazism—did not cover himself with a great deal of glory in allowing that ship to go up and down the American coast. I am afraid that, in the current circumstances, our Prime Minister risks having the same reputation.Of course Australia needs to ensure that unauthorised arrivals are properly checked out. Of course we need to ensure our own sovereignty. Of course we need to make sure that either Malaysia—as the Prime Minister has accused Dr Mahathir tonight—or Indonesia are not letting people come to our country to disrupt our economy, and that not just anyone can be allowed to arrive in this country. But let us see this problem in its context. There have been 11,000 unauthorised arrivals in the five years of this government. That is about 2,000 a year. There were 1,500 throughout last year. We are a country of 20 million people. I am convinced of the generosity of spirit of the Australian people. I know of the generosity of spirit of our party—the opposition. I believe this is why our leader took the stance that he did tonight on the bill that will be further considered. In other countries around the world there is a problem of unauthorised arrivals, and they are dealing with them too. The United States receives more than 500,000 people a year; Germany, 100,000; and the United Kingdom, around the same number. We have not seen the collapse of the United States, Germany or the United Kingdom. I think a mature Australian government has to put this problem to the Australian people in its context: 11,000 people in five years is nothing that should cause the Australian people to fear.It is only a government that allows itself to be ruled by the talkback kings, particularly in Sydney, and the fear of certain voters in Queensland and regional New South Wales who vote for a certain political party, that I believe is distorting our national discussion on this issue. It is a very sad day, in my view, when the Australian armed forces are used for the purpose of dragging that ship out into international waters. I simply ask the question of the government: what do you imagine, members of the government, will happen now? When the SAS leave that ship, what will happen? What do you suggest happens to the ship—that it continues to float around from country to country? This is a very ill thought out idea of the government's, and they should be aware of the historical parallels.3058119:53:0030581Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I also take this opportunity to place some comments on the record in support of my friend and colleague the member for Indi. Very few of us have the opportunity of leaving this place at a time of our own choosing. To be able to serve your community and your nation for 25 years and still have the support of your community and your people, and then to be able to decide when you leave this place, is testimony to the greatness of the member for Indi, Lou Lieberman. You have already heard another colleague, the member for Corangamite, place on the Hansard record the long and very distinguished career that the member for Indi has had in the Victorian parliament and in this parliament as well.I got to know the member for Indi as a colleague and friend particularly when serving on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, a committee that we have both served on since 1996. We have embarked on some rather interesting and sometimes difficult inquiries, including the Torres Strait Islanders: A new deal inquiry and the Unlocking the future inquiry, the report of the inquiry into Reeves review of Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. For all those inquiries, we travelled greatly throughout many areas of Australia and met some wonderful Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal people. What really impressed me was the way Mr Lieberman was able to communicate with those people. His decency, his compassion and his humility were outstanding. In no matter what area we travelled, in sometimes very difficult circumstances, when talking to people from all walks of life, whether Torres Strait Islander or Aboriginal people, Lou Lieberman was able to communicate with them at their own level, to understand their concerns and their needs.Another indication of the greatness of the member for Indi is the fact that we have been able on that committee to bring down three unanimous reports—with no dissenting reports—on issues that are very volatile, issues that do create a lot of emotion. The work that he has been able to do with all sides of politics to negotiate and understand people's differing views is a wonderful testimony to the political skills, compassion and understanding of Lou Lieberman. The images that I will remember of the friendship that I have had with Lou will be of travelling throughout the Torres Strait Islands when we undertook the inquiry leading to the report Torres Strait Islanders: A new deal, a report looking into the greater autonomy of the Torres Strait Islander people. It was exciting travel, sometimes in Caribous and sometimes in light aircraft, to very isolated communities. It was a great privilege for all of us to be able to be welcomed into those communities, where very few Australians have actually had the opportunity to travel, to meet those people and to get an understanding of the importance of having the Torres Strait Islander people living on those islands and doing their bit, as very proud Australians, for quarantine and immigration protection for the borders. They are such proud Australians; and to see Lou Lieberman working with them was a privilege. I believe that the report that we brought down, which did propose a number of changes and has helped a great deal to streamline some of the government bodies in the Torres Strait, is a report that will have an impact for many years to come and will help the Torres Strait Islander people. In the few seconds that I have left, I would say that I know that on both sides of the House Lou Lieberman is one of the most respected people who has ever been in this chamber. He will be sadly missed. He will not walk away from us, I know. He will still make a strong contribution to the community and, hopefully, we may see him back here on different occasions. He still has some important work to do for Australia in representing us at the United Nations in the next couple of months, and I wish him and Marj well. Uncle Lou, you will be missed in this place.3058219:58:0030582Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—I rise to inform the House of serious developments in relation to activities of a former staffer of mine. On 30 July this year I was informed by colleagues of allegations that were being made that a member of my staff, Mr Jorge Ladowsky, either operated or had a direct interest in a printing company which had undertaken printing work for my office. Given the seriousness of the potential conflict of interest involved, I drew the matter to the attention of DOFA and, on DOFA's advice, raised the allegation in writing with Mr Ladowsky on 1 August. He denied it. Mr Ladowsky resigned from my staff shortly afterwards, on 6 August. Yesterday, the Age newspaper carried a report that the Victorian government was considering an investigation into GD Advertising Materials, in relation to the supply of stationery to parliamentarians. The article named Mr Ladowsky as the alleged operator of the business. The article also reported a DOFA spokesman as saying that DOFA had investigated whether GD Advertising Materials had done business with federal MPs, but no records could be found.Today I have received a letter from Mr Ladowsky, enclosing a copy of a statement in which he admits to having operated GD Advertising and apologises for having misled me and others in relation to his involvement with the company. The statement also contains a more serious admission, that a gambling problem led him to siphon funds from the operations of GD Advertising with the Commonwealth. I have referred this letter and statement to DOFA today, for the department to take whatever action is appropriate in the circumstances. I now seek leave to table the letter and the statement.Leave granted.3058219:59:0030582Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Before the House rises tonight I call again for the termination of the sale process of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport until the long-term operating plan is fully implemented and Sydney West airport is built. Sydney airport operates 17 hours a day. The cap of 80 is the limitation on the movements per hour at Sydney airport and, if you multiply that by 365 days, it means 496,400 movements per year. You cannot sell Sydney airport.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0030582House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices30582The following notices were given:ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard to move:That this House: (1) recognises and celebrates the centenary of the Australian National Flag which occurs on 3 September this year;(2) honours the ideals for which our national flag stands including our history, geography and unity as a federated nation; (3) notes that this is the world's only national flag ever to fly over one entire continent;(4) acknowledges that our flag has been Australia's pre-eminent national symbol in times of adversity and war, peacetime and prosperity;(5) recognises that our flag now belongs to the Australian people and has been an integral part of the expression of our national pride; and(6) expresses its respect for the Australian National Flag as a symbol of our profound achievements as a federation; our independence and freedom as a people; and our optimism for a common future together.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 28 August 2001, namely: Commonwealth Place— External lighting design, change of tree species and alterations to exhaust flues.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service, and for related purposes.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to health, and for related purposes.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995, and for related purposes.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and other legislation, and for related purposes.2001-08-29—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members305843058409:40:0030584Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I would like to acquaint the House today with the detail of a letter regarding a very tragic case with respect to private health insurance and some constituents in my electorate, the Jack family. I read from Mrs Jack's letter:I am writing to inform you of what I believe to be a miscarriage of justice. The matter concerns the Government's decision to encourage people to join private Health Fund prior to 30 June 2000. My husband and I joined the fund in May. In June, my husband was diagnosed with a form of cancer, Lymphoma type B, which according to his Doctor has a sudden onset of just weeks. Before he began treatment he rang the Fund to make sure he was covered and he told them he needed treatment for cancer. He was assured he could go ahead at Cabrini, a Private Hospital and so we booked in. Had we been given a negative response by the Fund we would not have sought treatment as a private patient.My husband died as the result of the quick growing Lymphoma cancer on the 20th January 2001. The Health Fund, Australian Unity, now refuses to accept our claims for the medical bills claiming the cancer was a pre-existing condition. I am following this up with the Ombudsman at present and am hoping you may be able to help me also.I believe that Australian Unity and the Government have a responsibility to look more carefully at my case. We have been caught up in a series of circumstances brought about by the changes in the government policy, which encouraged everyone to join a medical fund. However, had we not joined Australian Unity I would not now be in this predicament. My husband would have been treated under the public system and I would not now be responsible for such an unbelievable amount of money to pay—over $21,000. She raises other issues:· We believed Australian Unity when they told us in my husband's phone call that we were covered and with the additional letter they sent on August 28 2000: “Relax you are covered”. We have not had medical cover before, always find the cost prohibitive.· The Government encouraged people to join and considering we were getting older and would be penalised for every year we waited, we decided to join. If we had not joined at the time we did, I would not now be in this predicament since we would have been covered under the public system.· A special offer was made with the Victorian Teachers Credit Union (my husband was a schoolteacher until his retirement at 55) to join Australian Unity and since we belonged to the VTU we decided to join through them.· We were informed in a letter dated 3rd August 2000 that the Fund regretted that benefits could not be paid because the condition was `pre-existing' to joining the Fund.· The Doctors had not yet diagnosed Peter's condition nor did we know that the condition was in existence when we joined. At that time no medical records been passed on to Australian Unity. So how was this diagnosis made independently by a Medical Fund without seeing my husband?· It seems grossly unfair that in the case of an accident a claim can be made immediately no matter how costly, but being diagnosed with cancer, after joining, Australian Unity can decide it was pre-existing without a diagnosis and then not have to pay.And there is a range of other points made. The circumstances of the Jack family are exceptionally unfair. In the circumstances this matter needs to be looked at very seriously. The bills that have been racked up in what they believed in all honesty was a reasonable situation with respect to utilisation of the policy they then held are in the thousands of dollars and the circumstances of Mrs Jack, in terms of being able to maintain her living standards and deal with those debts, are just appalling. I urge the government to look at this matter seriously. I will certainly be trying to take it further.3058509:43:0030585Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise to speak on the current issue of illegal immigrants, following my question to the Prime Minister on Monday during question time about the plight of the 438 refugees on board the Norwegian freighter, the Tampa. My electorate office has been inundated with calls of support for the government's stance on refusing entry to this vessel. We are a nation made up of many peoples; indeed, migrants from all parts of the world have increased our population, our industries and our prosperity. My electorate of Petrie, like so many electorates, is an ethnic mix of cultures and traditions. My electorate office has had many calls from people born in Australia and people who migrated here through the proper channels, all agreeing with the government's stance, because it demonstrates that we are standing by our commitment to only permit legitimate refugees to remain in Australia.Monday's comments by the Prime Minister also demonstrated our humanitarian approach to these people by declaring that we will provide humanitarian assistance if required. As the Prime Minister said in the House on Monday, our decision to refuse entry of the Tampa to an Australian port was the right decision to make in Australia's national interest. His decision has the endorsement of many in my electorate. We are a country that prides itself on the acceptance of many cultures. Indeed, I would not be standing in this House today if it were not for the immigration policies of the past. My parents, like many others, migrated to this country. Their success in this country is testimony to the fact that opportunity exists in Australia for all people. The constant stream of people seeking to gain illegal entry tells us that we are a very lucky country. The government's stand on the illegal immigrants on the Norwegian freighter also says that we do not condone the actions of people smugglers and we are not a soft touch.Some people in both the House and the Senate have tagged the government's response as insensitive to the plight of refugees, yet we are meeting our obligations under UN conventions when detaining people who arrive without sufficient papers and visas, showing that we are not insensitive to legitimate refugees and those who enter by proper channels. The Prime Minister's decision to refuse the Tampa entry is based on our right under international law. All the people picked up by the Tampa had destroyed their papers so as to destroy their identities and their place of origin. They had flown to Indonesia and they had purchased a boat to come to Australia. Their claims to refugee status must be in serious doubt because of their ability to purchase a plane ticket to Indonesia and then purchase a boat to come to Australia. Their actions do little to win public support for genuine asylum seekers in Australia.3058509:46:0030585Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to speak about the Salvation Army report which has been released, Stepping into the breach. This Salvation Army report—the Salvation Army being a non-government organisation, a charity, which has traditionally been close to the conservative side of politics—really highlights the crisis out there for charities providing support to fill the gap that the government has created by the withdrawal of government services. This report paints a very chilling picture of what these organisations are going through at the moment. It shows that of those seeking emergency relief who had been breached within the last 12 months 58 per cent had been breached once, 25 per cent had been breached twice and 17 per cent had been breached three times. Of those, 15.7 per cent of those breached had their payment cancelled for eight weeks. Twenty five per cent of all those seeking emergency relief from the Salvation Army had been breached in the previous 12 months.We need to have a look at why they are being breached. As the Salvation Army report states quite clearly, this is not about people committing fraud. Thirty-five per cent of those people who have been breached have been breached for simply failing to reply to a letter. The Labor Party supports reciprocal obligation and supports penalties against those people who are not legitimately trying to find work or those people who try to commit fraud, but this Salvation Army report shows that people are being breached simply for being poor. It is a morally unacceptable situation. The report also outlines that cost shifting is occurring—the savings to the social security budget are simply shifted onto organisations in the form of increased homelessness, increased health costs and increased costs to the justice system. Eleven per cent of those people seeing the Salvation Army for emergency relief have had to resort to some criminal activity in order to survive. That is a situation that is totally unacceptable, because it is totally counterproductive to save money through breaching only to force an increase in crime. The irony is that, whilst the Salvation Army has to pay GST on its emergency relief if it pays an electricity bill or pays another bill for someone seeking assistance, the Queensland Liberal Party does not have to pay the GST. This is a government that is increasing the GST costs and the pressures on organisations such as the Salvation Army, while at the same time the GST is voluntary for the Liberal Party organisation. (Time expired)3058609:49:0030586Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I want to take the short time available to me today to express my very strong personal support for the government's decisive stand in relation to those who seek to enter our country illegally. The recent decision not to allow the Norwegian freighter carrying illegal immigrants to enter our waters and requiring them to uphold international maritime law and return to Indonesia is a decision that is widely supported by the Australian community. I want to express very clearly, on behalf of the many local residents who contacted my office, the strong support in my electorate for this decision.It is a decision which further backs the tougher penalties which our government has introduced for those found guilty of people smuggling. It is a decision which further reflects our strong belief that we must take a stand and we must have an absolute right to decide who enters our country and in what manner. It is really all about fairness and a fair go. These people are seeking to enter our country illegally. They are effectively queue jumping over the many genuine refugees in camps around the world who are seeking to come to Australia under the humanitarian refugee program. What is worse, in this case they are using threats and blackmail to try to force their way into Australia. We should never, ever surrender to those sorts of tactics.I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on introducing legislation last night which will effectively restore the application of the original convention relating to the status of refugees. It will ensure that those entering our shores illegally cannot misuse our legal system to delay or frustrate their removal from Australia. There is a great deal of understandable anger in the community that taxpayers' funds are being used to support lengthy appeals processing by illegal immigrants, which just takes time and resources away from genuine refugees who legitimately apply to come here. The legislation that the minister introduced last night will help the process and remove some of the legal avenues for appeal which have been misused over many years. It sends a clear message that we are not a soft touch. I understand that Labor does not support this new legislation and that is something that clearly demonstrates how very out of touch it still is with the Australian public. Australia can and must protect our borders. We have to let people know that if they want to come here, they can go through the immigration program—it is a fair one—and apply through legitimate means. We will not be dictated to any longer. Importantly, we will not allow the people smugglers to prey on the desperation of those unfortunate people in order to use our nation for profit. We will not let them get away with their deplorable trade. I am very pleased to support the government's stand. On behalf of my local residents, I urge the minister to stand firm. I know that both the minister for immigration and the Prime Minister will continue to take decisive action that sends a clear message to those seeking to enter our country illegally—a message that reflects the strong view of the Australian community. 3058709:52:0030587Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I want to speak about a report prepared by the St Vincent de Paul Society regarding the way in which Australia should address inequality and poverty. The St Vincent de Paul Society has prepared a report into the growing rift between the rich and poor in this country. This gap has widened over the past 20 years, and will continue to widen in the future if action is not taken to reverse the trend. The report indicates that there is emerging concern and impatience in the community about inequalities and injustices in Australia, and a growing desire to see these concerns attended to realistically.The St Vincent de Paul Society report refers to the fact that, based on a wide range of official data and private research, over five million Australians—up to 30 per cent—live at a distinct economic disadvantage compared to the rest of Australia. In support of this statement, the report refers to the official household expenditure survey data for 1998-99, which shows that 5.5 million people are living in households with an income of less than $23,000 per annum. The report refers to an increasingly large sector of our society known as the working poor. We have seen a massive drop in the number of full-time jobs and a large increase in the number of part-time and casual jobs in recent years. Globalisation, new technology and the economic imperative of profits before people have led to this change. This has not only distorted the labour market figures and hidden the true level of unemployment but also created the situation where many families are really struggling to get by.The report points out that nine to 10 per cent of Australians live on the edge of poverty. This is where a minor crisis such as school fees, the need for a new washing machine or refrigerator or sickness in the family could result in families moving into stressful and long-term economic difficulties. I remind the House that many people are caught up in major financial collapses such as HIH. I refer also to the situation of one of my constituents, Les Emerson, who has lost his entire modest superannuation entitlement of $150,000 through the collapse of a superannuation fund, Commercial Nominees. While globalisation and technological change have created enormous wealth, ABS data shows that between 1992 and 2000 gross domestic product grew by almost $180 billion and Australia's net worth grew by over $830 billion, but this wealth has been confined to Australia's capital cities and a relatively limited number of wealthy households. It has not benefited middle income Australians and it has not trickled down to the poor. I urge all members of the House to read the report titled Two Australias—addressing inequality and poverty by the St Vincent de Paul Society and heed its recommendations. (Time expired)3058709:55:0030587Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—On 7 June this year I rose in the Main Committee to talk about the increasing problem of aircraft noise at the Sunshine Coast airport, Maroochydore. I had organised a public meeting at which the residents of Buderim were able to express their concerns over how the quality of life and the peaceful enjoyment of a wonderful community was being disrupted by the increasing aircraft noise resulting from the local airport. I was impressed by the very large number of residents who came to the meeting. It was a very reasonable meeting. People stood up and said that they chose to move to this premium area of the Sunshine Coast because of the lifestyle and the peace and quiet. There were so many reasons that Buderim has been chosen by people who have moved there, particularly from southern states, as the place where they wish to live, bring up their families and, in some cases, enjoy their retirement. Airservices Australia went away, following the points made by the residents at the public meeting, and undertook to come back to the community with a range of proposals for consideration. I have to say that Airservices Australia was a little slow in getting back to me. I did, however, continue to follow up Mr Allison from Airservices Australia and finally received a letter pointing out the work that had been done since the initial public meeting, with a view to putting forward proposals for consideration by the community at a subsequent public meeting. I have written to all of the attendees at the initial meeting, and I have called a public meeting for 6 p.m. on Monday, 3 September at the Buderim Bowling Club, Elizabeth Street, Buderim. The community will be there and Airservices Australia will be present. A range of proposals will be put forward from Airservices Australia for consideration by the local community. There is an acceptance by Airservices Australia that there is a major problem and, as the local representative, I am determined to continue to stand up for my constituents to make sure that the problem of increasing aircraft noise is removed so that the quality of life which people have enjoyed for so long at Buderim is restored. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills30588R137130588Debate resumed from 8 August, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:0030588Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I can confidently predict that this will be the shortest speech I will ever deliver in my time in the House of Representatives. The Education, Training and Youth Affairs Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 amends provisions of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Student Assistance Act 1973 dealing with criminal offences to ensure that they retain their present meaning following the implementation of the Criminal Code. The opposition supports this bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Dobell—we are grateful for small mercies.09:59:0030588Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I am also pleased to support the Education, Training and Youth Affairs Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001. Honourable members would be aware that this is one of a series of bills which have been brought before the House to ensure that the Criminal Code applies to all Commonwealth offences from 15 December 2001. The Criminal Code contains a standard approach to the formulation of criminal offences, whereas there may be a slight difference in offences that have developed over many years as part of the Commonwealth statute book. In essence, this bill harmonises all offence creating and related provisions within the Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business portfolio from the general principles of criminal responsibility as codified in chapter 2 of the Criminal Code. It is largely administrative and does not seek to alter the substantive operations of the existing portfolio provisions.Personally I support any measures that can simplify and remove anomalies from any aspect of the criminal justice system. I believe the vast majority of Australians—and certainly many of my constituents—believe there is a great deal of room for improvement in the criminal justice system. It is a recurring message that I get from local representatives in my electorate that we need a system that is much tougher on criminals and more accurately reflects the values of our community. There is a widely held belief that the justice system offers little protection for the victims of crime and affords far too much consideration to the perpetrators. There is certainly a great deal of evidence to support that community perception. We see cases almost daily in the national press of lenient sentences, of criminals released from jail early or on day release who re-offend. That is the sort of thing that we all read about and think, `How on earth could this be allowed to happen?'I want to take this opportunity today to call on state governments around the nation, who have the responsibility for the vast majority of criminal sentencing, to listen to community concerns and to act decisively to bring justice back into the justice system. I do not want to take up too much time in this debate—I know that this bill is largely administrative and I appreciate the indulgence of the chair. I do want to commend the government for the action we have taken to reflect community values and to help make our local community safer.As we know, police sentencing and the police system are largely the responsibility of the state governments. I would urge them to use more of their GST revenue to fund more police, especially a greater number of local 24-hour police stations, and to get criminals off the streets.The Howard government is doing all it can do to help make our community safer, like its successful Tough on Drugs policy, which helps attack one of the root causes of crime—drugs. Under Tough on Drugs we have seen record seizures of drugs coming into this country, tougher penalties for those dealers caught importing drugs and a huge boost to both the Federal Police and Customs. It is a practical approach and, with illicit drug use found to be part of up to 86 per cent of property crime, making sure we keep up the fight on drugs is a vital plank in working to create a safer community.I commend the Prime Minister for his personal commitment to Tough on Drugs and his determination to make sure we do not downplay the dangers of drugs to our children. I support wholeheartedly the Prime Minister's strong stand against prescription heroin and legalised injection rooms. We just cannot afford to sanction such activities. In my view, it sends the absolute wrong message to our children. Once again I would ask the state governments to support the Tough on Drugs approach of our government by introducing tougher sentences for drug dealers and pushers. I thank the chair for his indulgence. I am very pleased to support this bill.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I was wondering what bill you were speaking to.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—I also congratulate the government on taking measures to ensure the full force of the Criminal Code is in effect for all Commonwealth offences.10:03:0030589Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I thank the opposition for their cooperation and I note the shadow minister's short speech. I acknowledge that support and thank the opposition. I acknowledge the contribution from the member for Forde. As the shadow minister says, the Education, Training and Youth Affairs Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 amends legislation in the Education, Training and Youth Affairs portfolio to harmonise existing criminal offence provisions with the Criminal Code.Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code contained in the Criminal Code Act 1995 establishes the general principles of criminal responsibility and provides a standard approach to the formulation of Commonwealth criminal offences. The bill is one of a series of Commonwealth bills designed to apply the Criminal Code on a portfolio by portfolio basis. It simply represents good sound management and efficient government. Its purpose is to make all the necessary amendments to offence provisions in the Education, Training and Youth Affairs portfolio to ensure compliance and consistency with the general principles of the Criminal Code. Since some offence provisions in the Education, Training and Youth Affairs portfolio legislation predate the Criminal Code, there is a possibility the application of the code will change the meaning and operation of some of these provisions. The amendments provided for in the bill will ensure a smooth transition to the application of the Criminal Code when it commences to apply to offences against laws of the Commonwealth on 15 December this year.The bill will amend offence provisions in the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Student Assistance Act 1973 but will not substantively change their operations or meanings. The bill will, however, remove unnecessary duplication of the general offence provisions in the Criminal Code from these acts. The bill will harmonise offence provisions in Education, Training and Youth Affairs portfolio legislation by making it quite clear that the Criminal Code applies to offence provisions within these acts. The bill will also improve the efficient and fair prosecution of offences. It will clarify the physical and fault elements of offences by amending certain offence provisions to expressly provide that they are offences of strict liability—that is, offences where the prosecution does not need to prove any fault on the part of the defendant. This is important because, if an offence is not expressly stated to be one of strict liability, the prosecution will be required to prove fault in relation to the physical elements of the offence, making the offences difficult to prove.The bill does not create any new strict liability offences but will ensure that the strict liability nature of certain offence provisions in Education, Training and Youth Affairs portfolio legislation is not lost after the application of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a significant step in the reform of the system of justice, and the harmonisation process will bring greater consistency and clarity to Commonwealth criminal law. It is important that the amendments in the bill are made prior to 15 December 2001 to ensure that there is a seamless transition to the new code. Again, I thank the opposition and the supporters of this bill, and I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Bills30590R137630590Debate resumed from 9 August, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In calling the member for Corio, I plead with him not to provoke the member for Corangamite.10:07:0030590O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I will, of course, accede to your wishes. The Wool International Amendment Bill 2001 enables the final cash distribution to shareholders and the winding up of WoolStock Australia Ltd as soon as practicable after the last of the stockpiled wool is disposed of, rather than at the end of the financial year as required under current legislation. The last of the wool stockpile was sold on 9 August 2001, and this bill will enable a cash distribution totalling approximately $300 million, possibly as early as October. Wool growers have already received interim payments totalling some $200 million. The opposition will be supporting the passage of this legislation through the parliament. We understand the dire political straits that the government is in throughout rural Australia. We understand the real motivation for bringing this legislation forward in such a manner: to make sure that there is a substantial cheque in the pockets of wool growers of Australia just before the election. Of course, we do not want to be too cynical about this. The wool industry has had an extremely difficult time over the past few years. This is the growers' wool and the growers' money, so it is appropriate that this money find its way into the pockets of wool farming families as soon as possible. I do acknowledge in the Main Committee today the presence of two of the pre-eminent Western District wool growers: the member for Corangamite and the member for Wannon. Although we see a rising demand for wool, at least one of the honourable members opposite is an endangered species politically. I will not make any more comments on that. Suffice it to say that I concede on this occasion that the honourable member for Corangamite in particular, who has been a wool grower in the Western District for many years, probably has as intimate a knowledge of this industry as anybody in this parliament, closely followed by the honourable member for Wannon, who has a long association with this industry.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—Four generations.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—He reminds the House that it is four generations. That is a very strong relationship with an industry. I guess he must have torn his hair out when the government got it so wrong on the stockpile and suspended the sale. At least the industry is now coming to the conclusion of this particular episode. This legislation will ensure that wool growers receive what is duly theirs at the appropriate time.My interest in this industry goes back a long way. My electorate of Corio is a major wool processing, marketing and transportation centre for the industry. Whilst the member for Corangamite and the member for Wannon are in the production hinterland, it is in the urban area of the Geelong region that the value adding to this wonderful Australian product takes place. Indeed, that wool industry—and the downstream processing and everything associated with it—forms a very important part of the manufacturing base of Geelong in textile clothing and, to a lesser extent, footwear. We find some 3,274 people directly employed in the industry. That constitutes some 22 per cent. It accounts for 88 per cent of regional manufacturing turnover sales and some $440 million.The whole industry underwent significant restructuring throughout the 1980s and the 1990s. It was a restructuring that took place under the auspices of a Labor government and not without significant pain to Labor's constituency in the Geelong region. I often quote the following statistic when I go round Australia speaking to disillusioned dairy farmers about the government's deregulation of the industry and how it managed such momentous change. In Geelong, over some three decades, in automotive and textile manufacturing, we lost jobs equivalent to the number of dairy farmers currently producing in the industry. It was a significant structural change that took place in our local community. It occurred with considerable pain, but the industry always received strong support from federal Labor governments not only on the production side but also on the value adding side. We realised in that period of significant restructuring that we did want a textile industry in Australia, but it had to be at the high value added end of the chain. That was where our future lay and that was where policies and resources of government ought to have been directed.It is pleasing to note that we do have over 3,000 people directly employed and such an important contribution being made to the regional economy by textiles and clothing in particular. Central to that textile industry performance in Geelong is the wool industry. Geelong Wool is a brand name that is still acknowledged around the world. I have been to wool processing plants overseas, and the City of Geelong has always been identified with quality wool. The range of goods processed and manufactured in my electorate includes wool scouring, carbonising and wool tops. We have Australia's largest carpet and woven fabrics manufacturer in the Southern Hemisphere in Godfrey Hirst. We also produce casual surf and sports clothing, which are a bit diverse from the wool industry. Leather tanning and footwear and shoe components make up that total industry. At the core of this is our wool industry. Geelong is also blessed with some magnificent research institutions related to this industry. In the electorate of the honourable member for Corangamite, just over the Barwon River, we have the Textile and Fibre Technology Division of CSIRO; at Deakin University we have the School of Engineering and Technology, which is related also to the industry; and at the Gordon Institute of TAFE we have the Centre for Textiles, Wool and Applied Science.At Deakin University we have also the International Fibre Centre, that terrible project that went wrong during the Kennett years—the white elephant that sits out there with a lot of machinery but not a lot of action. To me it is a disappointment, no doubt shared by the member for Corangamite, to see a project which I guess was mounted with good intent—but once again without sufficient thought—go so wrong. There is a magnificent building and some machinery that was purchased from overseas but is not in use. That, I understand, will shortly be sold. Some $20 million went into that facility, to no real advantage to the industry. One would have liked, for example, resources of some $10 million or $15 million to go into the skilling of wool producers and getting them in touch more closely with their marketplace.The association of Geelong with the wool industry does not stop there. We have a cultural involvement, in that the National Wool Museum is located in the centre of Geelong, in my electorate of Corio. We also have the Deakin Wool Stores, one of the remaining buildings symbolising Geelong's long history with the wool industry. That facility was refurbished with Building Better Cities money which was allocated by the former Labor government, putting some $2 million, in cooperation with the City of Greater Geelong and the Kirner government at the time, into a catalytic development which has seen Deakin Wool Stores become a cultural centre in its own right. The Great Hall in the Deakin Wool Stores is a venue now for the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and other top acts that come out of Melbourne to regional Victoria. It is a magnificent achievement for Geelong.That development has spawned the massive private investment which has transformed the waterfront of Geelong. Deakin University's Waterfront Campus is a very important part now of the life of central Geelong. It is, however, a matter of eternal regret—and I do not mean this in any way as trying to pirate any of the facilities over on the other side of the Barwon River, in the electorate of Corangamite—that Deakin University was not located in the City of Greater Geelong central business area, because the existence of that facility would certainly have given us a greater economic impetus. In terms of Geelong's wool storage capacity, Elders and other companies have been involved in massive wool stores in the Geelong area, and the port of Geelong has been a major outlet for the bulk shipment of this commodity.I come to this debate with a very strong interest in the industry and its future and in the continuance of Geelong as a centre for wool. I recommend to members of this House this magnificent brochure that has been produced by the Geelong Manufacturing Council entitled Geelong textiles: a directory of capability, products and services, which is an initiative of the Geelong textile network. This publication lists the companies that are involved in the textile industry and the wool industry in my electorate. As you read through it, you will see that one of the great strengths of Geelong as a wool centre is not only its cultural, transport, and marketing association with the industry but the skill of the Geelong work force, which has been associated with the industry over a long period of time.The 1990s was a period of particular difficulty for the wool industry, and I think it is important in the context of this debate to reflect on the historical circumstances of the industry that led to the growth of the wool stockpile. Of course, the honourable members opposite on a previous occasion have tried in this legislation to sheet home some responsibility for the stockpile and the state of the industry to former Labor governments, but it is a matter of the public record, it is a matter for history, that the industry made the request to government for the reserve price scheme. It was that situation that led to the accumulation of the stockpile, which is the subject of this legislation today. I suppose the great graziers in the Western District were there, putting their two bobs worth in when the prices were low and saying, `The government ought to be doing something to support us in the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed in the Western District.' Of course, it is all very well in hindsight to reflect on these decisions, but the industry itself came to the government for the support that was given in the form of the reserve price scheme. In 1989-90, the wool stockpile was negligible but it was growing as a result of that reserve price scheme, which had been introduced back in 1970-71. At the start of the 1990s decade, in 1989-90, wool prices were declining, but they were still high relative to some other commodities. During 1990-91 the stockpile grew rapidly as wool prices fell, and it eventually totalled some five million bales. We saw in the first half of the 1990s wool prices continue to fall. They recovered rather slowly in 1996-97 but fell dramatically again in 1997-98, when the eastern market indicator fell below the 500c mark and many wool growers got into extreme financial difficulty.From 1991 to the present day there has been an orderly reduction in the stockpile. That was, of course, interrupted by the current government due to political reasons that it got into before the last election. I will speak a little bit more about that later. Labor legislated in 1994 for a fixed schedule to dispose of the stockpile, and the coalition introduced its Wool International Amendment Bill in 1996, which required Wool International to dispose of, on a program basis, between 90,000 and 135,000 bales per quarter. It set 31 December 2000 as the target date for the complete disposal of the wool pile. In 1997-98, of course, the demand and prices for wool fell with the deepening of the Asian crisis and weakening European demand, and it was at that point that we saw the eastern market indicator fall spectacularly from over 700c to around 480c.The government announced on 25 August 1998 that a freeze on sales from the stockpile would be implemented immediately after legislation was passed through the parliament. Of course, we know the political context in which this suspension was undertaken. I know there would have been a divergence of opinion between the member for Corangamite and the member for Wannon on this particular issue. I will say one thing—and I hope the devil will not strike me down for this—in praise of the honourable member for Corangamite. Seeing that he is getting to the end of his political career and that we intend to take the seat at the next election, I can say this on the floor of the chamber: he has been absolutely consistent in many of the key political positions that he has taken over the time that I have known him, and I have known him for a long period of time. I stood against him in the seat of Corangamite in 1984—8H4Hawker, David, MPWU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The honourable member for Wannon wants the history of the seat, and I am happy to give it to him. I stood in 1983—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Corio should ignore the member for Wannon.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I stood in 1983 in the seat of Corangamite and achieved a swing of around 10 per cent in my first go against the incumbent, Tony Street. The President of the Victorian Liberals, the honourable member for Corangamite, Stewart McArthur, then stepped into the breach in the by-election early in 1984. We held the line there. We are very proud of the effort. Usually there is a big swing in by-elections. In the Ryan by-election we just had, there was a huge swing against the government— 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Member for Corio, perhaps you could endeavour to be a little relevant to the bill. I know it is a hard ask, but just try.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—It is a hard ask under extreme provocation from the honourable members opposite, but I am trying to point out another split in attitude between the honourable members for Wannon and Corangamite. I will get back to the point: the honourable member interjected about the political performance of the Labor Party in 1984. It was excellent in the seat of Corangamite. But the honourable member for Corangamite became the member and he has pursued consistency in the policy positions he has taken. Of course, he was absolutely horrified with the suspension of sales from the wool stockpile by the government.We know one of the major proponents of that was the member for Wannon. He went weak at the knees in the face of the One Nation challenge, and that was really the critical political factor. They all became Pauline's boys and girls on the other side when the political heat came on before the last election and good policy went out the window, not for the member for Corangamite—because I know he has expressed views on this—but he was in a minority there. He was that lone voice in the Liberal Party, the Colonel Custer of the Liberal Party making his last stand against those weak-kneed operatives in the National Party. He stood alone arguing in the political arena for the maintenance of a programmed sale of the stockpile. But he was not on his own; he had us on the Labor Party's side. We were quite happy to help people like the honourable member for Corangamite who were horrified at what the National Party were doing, spooked by One Nation before the election. But the honourable member for Corangamite and the Labor Party had the support of Wool International, which opposed the freeze. The Wool Council of Australia found the decision `basically inexplicable' and said that only a vocal minority of growers supported it, like the honourable member for Wannon.The Australian Council of Wool Exporters supported the member for Corangamite's and the Labor Party's view. The state wool grower bodies in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland, as well as the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in Western Australia, supported our position to maintain the programmed sale from the stockpile. The New South Wales Farmers Association—and I will not make any comment about any political associations at that particular time—very strongly opposed the freeze. At a meeting of 500 delegates, representing their 15,000 members, 80 per cent of the delegates voted against the freeze.We know good policy went out the window on the sale of this stockpile. Press commentators referred to the decision as being driven by politics, not good policy—there was nothing about the interests of wool growers and the industry. This was driven by weak-kneed, nervous Nellies in the Liberal and National parties who were spooked by One Nation. This is what the press had to say: `The freeze decision is being driven by politics rather than industry considerations resulting from One Nation's success and splits in the National Party.' The Courier Mail, that bastion of liberalism in Queensland at the time, described the freeze as `sheer panic' and `policy on the run'. The Executive Director of the Wool Council of Australia said: It offers no relief to cash-strapped growers and there is no guarantee of any increase in prices. well, he was right on that front—It also creates great uncertainty in the international marketplace—and untold damage was done at the time to our reputation— which has become increasingly concerned at the constant government changes to stockpile policy.The VFF Pastoral Group Wool Committee member, Rob Tehan, said: The value of growers' equity in the stockpile will be diminished over time with interest, other holding costs increased and market overhang compounded. The New South Wales Farmers Association attacked the freeze decision, saying: The government has badly misjudged the issue and sacrificed the long-term interests of the wool industry for short-term political agendas within the coalition.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker—What happened afterwards? The price went up.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I say to the honourable member: you know as well as I do what happened afterwards. You are probably going to say, `Well, the high prices that we are experiencing today in the wool industry are a direct result of our decision to slow down the sales from the wool stockpile which is the subject of this piece of legislation.' If you believe that, you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. You and I know that the reason why the price has gone up has nothing to do with the stockpile; it has a lot to do with the fact that the Chinese have increased their demand by 47 per cent in one year and we have had a massive devaluation of the Australian dollar. You do not have to be a Rhodes scholar or very intelligent to understand that a massive increase in demand by our major customer, which is feeding processed product into the United States as their main market, and a massive drop in the dollar, are responsible for the lift in demand. Yet the honourable member for Wannon will try to rewrite history in this debate, as he has tried to do on many previous occasions. I remind him of the fact that the honourable member for Corangamite was not spooked; the Labor Party was not spooked; the industry was not spooked. Wool International, the Wool Council, the Council of Wool Exporters, state wool grower bodies and the New South Wales Farmers Association all supported the position that we took on the sale of wool from the wool stockpile.In conclusion, let me say that we support this piece of legislation. It is the growers' money and is very important for them. The industry has suffered very tough times recently, so it is good news that that money will find its way back into their farming enterprises to support innovation, good marketing arrangements and production to ensure the viability of their farms.The outlook for wool is quite good at this time. I know prices are not as high as some would like—they are not historically high—but when we compare them to the prices in that 1997-98 period, they are much stronger. The year 2000 saw that stronger demand in major destinations, and I have already indicated why wool growers have had that substantial increase in returns. That market is expected to ease over the course of this year because of the slow economic growth in the United States—which is, if you like, a motor demand for the textile products from China—and other major destinations for Australian wool. Australian suppliers expect the market to contract with lower stocks and less production, but prices are predicted to rise during the 2001-02 period by some eight per cent over the 2000-01 figure.All of these developments have a dark side. The maintenance of high prices for wool, because of the competitive nature of the marketplace, simply means that there will be a diversion of some demand into synthetic fibres. In terms of markets, we have seen strong demand for wool from China; Western Europe might be regarded as soft, but we have seen the emergence of new markets in Mexico and India. So there is a bright light on the horizon for the Australian wool industry. We certainly do hope this industry continues to grow. The industry will not have to put up with the uncertainty in the policy positions that it has in the past under the coalition. It can look forward to good policy under a future Labor government. (Time expired). 10:37:0030596Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—There was one point that the honourable member for Corio did get right in his speech—that is, both the member for Corangamite and I have had a very long association with the wool industry. I am very pleased to be able to stand here as a wool grower and say that the Wool International Amendment Bill 2001 is an historic piece of legislation representing a very historic occasion. Seeing the last bale of that stockpile being sold is a very significant event in the history of wool in Australia, and it will close a chapter of what has been a very sad and sorry story in terms of the way the reserve price scheme operated, the way it spectacularly collapsed and the damage it did not only to wool producers but also to many country regions.Having said that, I would like to refute a couple of points made by the member for Corio. He was completely wrong when he talked about the move in 1998 to push for a freeze of the stockpile. It certainly had nothing to do with other political parties; it had everything to do with good economic sense. I was proud to be part of that push because what we saw, as we predicted, was that if we could get that brief freeze for the stockpile and then manage the sell down of the stockpile in a commercial way, we would see an improvement in the price of wool—and that happened. That is nothing to do with the member for Corio now trying to rewrite history by bringing sales and economic conditions in the year 2000 back to late 1998. It was a totally different situation, and he stands to be criticised for having tried to fudge the figures on that and tried to impose different years one on the other.As the minister said when he was introducing the legislation, this amendment was brought in because currently there is a requirement under section 22P(2)(b) of the Wool International Act 1993 for the final cash distribution to WoolStock Australia Ltd shareholders to take place `as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year in which the last stockpile of wool is disposed of'. Clearly, given the current circumstances, this would mean that it would not be able to take place until after July next year. It makes eminent sense, now that the last bale has been sold, that wool growers should be able to get the benefits. I remind everyone that those benefits are return of payments to wool growers for money that they had compulsorily acquired through the wool tax between 1993 and 1996. It is not a great compensation either directly or indirectly. For every dollar that was taken in tax, wool growers are going to receive—looking at the current market price of WoolStock Australia international shares—just under $1, plus there have been two payouts in the last year or so both of 20c. It is not very much. When you consider the pressure that the overhang of the stockpile has had on the wool market itself, wool growers have indeed paid very dearly for it.I want to go through a couple of points about the whole question of the wool stockpile and some of the history behind it. I am reminded of that famous statement of Lord Acton that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. Therefore I think we should go back to history and remind ourselves of what occurred and certainly avoid the pitfalls of what the member for Corio had to say when he tried to distort history and avoid reality.The fact is that the problems of the whole reserve price scheme occurred under a Labor government and he cannot run away from it. The member for Corio sits there and says that because the government was asked to do something it is the fault of those who asked that it be done. Heavens above! Governments get asked to do something every day by interest groups. That does not mean to say that they automatically follow it up. I think he makes the most pathetic and weak argument there. We have to be aware that it was a Labor government that changed the whole reserve price scheme legislation back in 1987, which allowed the tragedy to unfold over the next three years. Labor can never run away from that and it shows that yet again, when it comes to getting involved in business decisions or something relating to other people's business, Labor has a very poor record. I would like to refer to what this government has done to assist wool producers to get back on their feet. There have been a number of moves that we have taken. Probably the most important one is the wool task force headed by the former defence minister, the Hon. Ian McLachlan. The report that he and his task force produced is outstanding. It sets out in a very comprehensive way the future direction for wool producers. It covers the whole gambit of what the opportunities are and the way that we should go. He is to be commended for what is an outstanding report. It will certainly be around for a long time.Given that we are talking about a particular aspect of this in the Wool International Amendment Bill 2001, I will look at the comments of the task force on the whole question of the reserve price scheme, and I come back to Lord Acton's phrase about history. It is important that we remind ourselves about the reserve price scheme. The summary document of the wool task force made the reserve price scheme legacy very clear. It said:The direct and indirect effects of the 1991 collapse of the RPS continue to haunt wool textile businesses and woolgrowers. Whatever the rights or wrongs of what occurred, the fact remains that the RPS caused catastrophic damage to wool businesses all along the chain.It goes further in the main report, under the heading `Marketing of Wool' and `Reserve Price Schemes'. It says:One of the main reasons for the RPS as far as both woolgrowers and wool processors were concerned was its capacity to deliver relative price stability. Whatever stability may have been delivered during most of its existence paled into insignificance with the instability leading up to and since its collapse.It concludes:In case there is any doubt in the matter, the Task Force wishes to be absolutely clear: under no circumstances whatsoever should any form of RPS for wool ever be reintroduced into Australia. There should be no institution in Australia which has the capacity to make such a catastrophic mistake affecting every wool business in the country.Those are very strong and conclusive words. I think they are something we should continue to remind ourselves of. It is almost correct that the last bale has been sold. The final decision has not been made but I am pretty confident that, while Geelong is going to get what it calls the last bale from the stockpile for the wool museum, there are several last bales. I expect to see one delivered to Hamilton because, after all, Hamilton has very proudly said for many years that it is the wool capital of the world. It has a very proud history of association with wool growing. It has produced some outstanding studs, individuals and wools, and continues to do so. Anyone who was present at Sheep Vention in Hamilton earlier this month would have seen just how significant wool is for the region and how important it is for the local economy. The fact that it is now certainly picking up is an indication that there is confidence around, albeit somewhat more soberly based than it might have been a bit over a decade ago. Nonetheless, people are getting on with the job. Now that we have this stockpile out of the way and government involvement down to the minimum that it ought to be, people are focusing very much on the future.That is one of the real achievements of the Howard government. We have seen the movement of government out of this; we have cleaned up the sorry mess that we inherited from the Labor Party. The impressive performance of WoolStock Australia is to be commended. Contrary to what the member for Corio might have to say about it, the fact is that the decision we took in late 1998 to freeze the stockpile—and then subsequently the following year to bring WoolStock Australia into place—has been shown to be the right decision. It has certainly yielded results. As the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said in his second reading speech: The timely fashion in which the stockpile has been sold down since WoolStock Australia took over its management is a very strong reflection on the success of the Wool International privatisation. It is also a reflection on the excellent job WoolStock Australia has done over the past two years.This is a very clear indication that what the government has done has proved to be correct. The decision taken in 1998—which was delayed slightly by the election—was the right decision. I would like to also compliment the directors and staff of WoolStock Australia for an outstanding job. They have done their job very efficiently and effectively and—might I say— at considerably less cost than their predecessor, Wool International. I just draw the attention of members to a couple of points in the 2000 annual report of WoolStock Australia. If we look at the notes attached to the financial statements, we find the remuneration of directors and executives. There has not been a major change in the remuneration of directors, but there has an amazing reduction in costs in running this outfit if we look at executives. We see the difference privatisation has made to these costs. I think it demonstrates yet again that there are a lot of areas where government should not be involved.Under executives' remuneration we see that in the year 1999 there were 21 executives who had salaries over $100,000. If we look at the year 2000 we see that it is down to seven—and, I hasten to add, of the seven executives reported for the year, five were included as a consequence of the payment of retirement or redundancy benefits as a consequence of the wind-down of Wool International. The size of those redundancy benefits was fairly significant. One former executive officer got a payout of over $400,000 with the winding up of Wool International—not insignificant by any measure, but again this was the system that the Labor Party had put in place under the original Wool International Act 1993. It shows that, when we had a statutory body running the outfit, not only was it inefficient, not only was it constrained by the statutory requirements that placed on this, but it was costly, both in terms of running expenses and also because it did not have the flexibility that the privatised WoolStock Australia has had. The results shown by WoolStock Australia make it absolutely clear that this has been achieved.The opening paragraph of the report by the chairman, Don McGauchie, puts to rest the comments of the member for Corio. It just shows how wrong he got it when he tried to criticise the decision to set up WoolStock. Don McGauchie says:I am pleased to report that WoolStock has completed a most successful first year of operations selling down the stockpile, reducing debt and generating sufficient cash flow to enable the Company to declare an initial distribution of 20 cents per unit to security holders resulting in a total payment of $69.9 million on 12 September 2000.That shows quite clearly that the government's decision was a very good one. It is something that members of the coalition should be very proud of and it shows that, in dealing with the problems we inherited from the Labor government, we have moved swiftly, efficiently and effectively through both WoolStock Australia and Australian Wool Services, which came out of the McLachlan task force as the other part of the reforms. We have seen opportunities for wool producers and wool businesses right through the chain to look forward with renewed confidence, albeit one that is tempered by the reality that wool is an internationally traded fibre and will be subject to the pressures that result from the state of the international economy.I am very pleased to be able to support this bill. I know my good friend and colleague the member for Corangamite will also be speaking, and I am sure he has some other very significant and important points to add. I believe the government has moved and most efficiently, not only in disposing of the stockpile but in ensuring that those wool producers who did contribute through their wool taxes between 1993 and 1996 are to get some benefits back as soon as they are available. 10:53:0030599McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—On 10 August 2001, the Chairman of WoolStock Australia, Donald McGauchie, announced to the Stock Exchange that the last bale of the wool stockpile had been sold. That was a historic moment for the Australian wool industry, and this debate in the Main Committee also marks a very historic point for the industry.Hopefully, this will be the last time that governments, of either persuasion, debate in the national parliament the statutory requirements, the reserve price schemes and all the other paraphernalia that have surrounded the wool industry for the last 50 years. From this day forward, the independence of the wool industry through its privatisation will move forward. The research and development is now in the hands of a private company, and the payments to that company will be subject to shareholder approval, not political battles here in the parliament of Australia. I, along with other members, mark this occasion. Having been involved in the debate since the mid-1960s, I have, in many ways, suffered the slings and arrows of fortune that have been involved in this very acrimonious debate in that period.My good friend the member for Corio has seen fit to leave the chamber, after he spent most of his speech advising and berating the member for Corangamite and the member for Wannon, and I need to get a couple of things on the record concerning the member for Corio. Firstly, he has not taken up my challenge to get a handpiece in his hand. He has never managed to do that. He is a potato grower of a long background. I challenge him to understand fully what a handpiece does and what a wide comb is, because he is the shadow spokesman for the opposition. I note his comments on the International Fibre Centre in Geelong. I just put on the record my involvement in the rearrangement of that centre. The Kennett government attempted to develop this centre. I did not really agree with the concept, and I would like to think that I have been instrumental in rearranging the International Fibre Centre with some support from the minister, the Hon. Nick Minchin, with a contribution of $1.6 million to CSIRO. We now have a centre of excellence at CSIRO. We have the International Fibre Centre being relocated to Melbourne and, with the help of Minister Kosky in the Victorian government, that set of arrangements has been sorted out.The member for Corio says that at least I have had a consistent attitude, and I thank him for that. I well remember the debates on the fixed price reserve scheme, with the Garnaut report. Always, when you move away from a reserve price scheme with a big stockpile you have a difficulty, as we had in the dairy deregulation. I well remember the Kerin plan for the deregulation of the dairy industry back in 1984-86, where I basically supported the then Labor government proposal. The dairy industry were very unhappy with my stance. With the passage of time we have proved the efficacy of that plan both on this side of the parliament and on the proposal that Kerin put up so courageously in those early years.I would like to refer to the long saga of the wool industry and some of the highlights, this very difficult and at times nation dominating debate that peaked in 1981 and which this finalisation today brings to a close. I well remember when Minister Kerin brought about the collapse of the reserve price scheme. The price was at 870c when there were approximately 4.7 million bales in reserve and, basically, the scheme ran out of funds. I understand the pressure on the minister of the day and the pressure on those of us on the opposition benches, who were being subjected to enormous political pressure in the field—that we had to support the reserve price scheme and provide yet further funds to ensure its survival, and that there was a rainbow around the corner if only another billion dollars could be provided. The scheme collapsed in dramatic circumstances. Unfortunately that was a very low point in Minister Kerin's career. The Labor government took away the right of the minister to set the floor price and gave it to the Wool Council. I think that was a fundamental flaw; I do concede that. On the other hand, there was enormous pressure from the wool industry upon members of the government and the opposition to maintain the reserve price scheme. The scheme collapsed, as members would be aware. There were all kinds of proposals—to impose a 25 per cent tax, to slaughter all the sheep, and to burn the stockpile. Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, having a rural background you would appreciate that this was a remarkable approach—to burn five million bales, to actually burn them and get rid of them in that way. The reserve price scheme first began in 1973. For the record, we had a situation where we had a billion kilograms of wool being produced in 1988-89. Because of the reserve price scheme this distorted the market and the market signals were not being obeyed. We now have a free market. We now have a production of 630 million kilograms, a dramatic drop in the productive capacity of the Australian wool industry.Let us look at the history, just for the record, again. I am indebted to Professor Bob Richardson, who was a player in Wool International and has written a paper entitled `The politics and economics of wool marketing, 1950-2000'. Bob Richardson is currently the Dean of the Institute of Land and Food Resources at the University of Melbourne. He is well versed in the industry, and I am indebted to some of the comments that review this total scheme and the politics of the wool industry that this parliament has been involved in for so many years.I recall that in 1965 Sir William Gunn—or Bill Gunn as he was known in those days—was advocating the reserve price scheme in the electorate of the member for Wannon. They threw tomatoes at him. There was a very lively meeting with some elements of the wool growing fraternity—that was in the area of a former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser—and that is where the argument started. People were advocating the reserve price scheme. The idea came about after what happened during the Korean War boom in 1952, where wool was earning a pound for a pound. Wool growers felt they were entitled to maintain their profitability in the industry with a stabilisation or reserve price scheme. We had 30 years of political intervention, reserve potholing-type schemes and stability schemes. We had a referendum in 1951, where the wool growers voted against the reserve price scheme. We had the JO scheme after the Second World War, where eight million bales were disposed of. That gave encouragement to the political wool growers who said, `If we have a stockpile, we can always get rid of it.' We had the Phillip committee report on those activities, which again recommended no reserve price schemes, and we had the Australian Wool Board in 1965 going back to Bill Gunn. They were advocating a reserve price scheme, but the wool growers rejected the whole proposition out of hand.We have a background where the idea of reserve price schemes has been rejected, yet in a very strange way, and without being evaluated, reserve price schemes have crept into the marketplace. Wool growers—particularly in New South Wales at the height of the reserve price scheme in 1990, 1991 and 1992—jacked up the price. They said, `Look, we are entitled to a figure, and we will persuade the government of the day to put the price up, no matter what the market conditions are.' We had the situation that other members alluded to, where five million bales were stockpiled—a massive amount of credit being extended by the government to the wool growers. I want to refer to the McLachlan report. I think it is a landmark report on the wool industry. The report describes the terrible problems that the wool industry got itself into because it did not obey the basic market principle of demand and supply and because of the undue influence that the wool growers, in my view, had in the political forums of this parliament. They were able to interfere with the market in a quite remarkable way. The McLachlan report, very carefully scripted by Mr David Trebeck, sets out in a very clear fashion the background of the marketing arrangements of the supply chain and the background on research and development which supports the wool industry. This report sets in context the situation of the wool industry now that the stockpile is no longer in existence. There is an interesting headline at the start of the report, which reads: The Task Force determined that it should describe the situation as it saw it, no gilding of lilies or fudging of hard issues ...I think that is a pretty important statement of where they started. In my view, most of the arguments about wool over the last 40 years have not addressed the facts, have not addressed the market trends and have tried unreal approaches to solve the problem of price stability and other mythical things that certain growers were looking for.The chapter headed `Confronting Realities: Where Are We Now?' is interesting. The opening paragraphs describe the position of the wool industry quite well:The post World War II period introduced a further important factor for the long term behaviour of agricultural markets—significant government intervention in some countries to try and raise prices and incomes received by domestic farmers. This contributed to huge surpluses of some agricultural products as farmers lifted output to gain maximum benefit from various subsidies and price support schemes. The European Union is a classic example.Wool and other agricultural and resource commodities are not the only products to experience long term declines in real prices. Some notable non-commodity examples are personal computers, mobile telephones and air travel.The key point is that output prices say little about how profitable a business is. There are many profitable computer manufacturers and airline companies, just as there are profitable woolgrowers, farmers and mining companies.That explains the situation very well. The politics of the wool industry and the development of this wool stockpile were dominated by what I would class second-hand thinking, in trying to develop a market mechanism controlled by the legislature to improve the lot of wool growers in Australia.The report states that, of the 46,000 wool growers in Australia in 1996-97, 73 per cent were mixed enterprise and 27 per cent were specialist wool growers. This very important point about the wool industry follows:... only 2000 woolgrowers (or 4 percent) produced more than 250 bales but these woolgrowers produced 25 percent of the national clip; the largest 10 percent produced nearly 40 percent of all the wool.In other words, there are some specialist wool growers out there who are profitable, who really want to deal with the market as it is and who do not have any truck with the reserve price schemes that have been the bane of the wool industry over the last 11 years. Finally, under `Reserve Price Schemes', we have the reason why I think the McLachlan report should be put on the shelf of every young wool grower in Australia and pulled out every five years when they decide to have a look at yet another golden rainbow:One of the main reasons for the RPS as far as woolgrowers and wool processors were concerned was its capacity to deliver relative price stability.That is a very difficult call, as all of us would be aware. The report states also:The Task Force was surprised that a number of woolgrowers submissions—though a small minority overall—advocated the return of some form of RPS. To most of these woolgrowers, the concept was not wrong, merely its execution during the late 1980s. With clearer safeguards, they felt a revised RPS could work effectively in the future.That was an interesting reflection of a number of the submissions that are summarised in the back of this document. As I said, this should be put in every wool museum around Australia and noted by every farm leader. There were people out there who still advocated these sorts of schemes, where we had five million bales in stock and a massive debt to go along with that stockpile. The report continues: To the extent that woolgrowers—or wool processors—want to pursue price stability, they should do so through normal market mechanisms, principally the use of risk management tools or long term supply contracting.That is saying that there ought to be futures contracts, as the member for New England would understand. With a futures contract you can fix a price in the future. This is done in the cotton and grain industries, and the wool industry has the capacity to do likewise. Yet you had the ongoing argument that if only we had more availability of capital we could continue to provide stability in an industry that historically had highs and lows and will always be the same because of its commodity nature. I fully support this final statement:In case there is any doubt on the matter, the Task Force wishes to be absolutely clear: under no circumstances whatsoever should any form of RPS for wool ever be reintroduced in Australia. There should be no institution in place which has the capacity to make such a catastrophic mistake affecting every wool business in the country.That might be a good point on which to conclude my speech. I emphasise that, with all this debate over so many years, reserve price schemes—commodity type schemes—are dead and buried as far as the Howard government and this side of politics are concerned.The member for New England is a newer member in this parliament. I know his particular views on these matters, and that he strongly supports a market orientated primary industry. We have had readjustments in the dairy industry, as I have mentioned before. I played a significant role in the discussions involved in the deregulation in that industry.We have a situation where the dairy industry now is a major exporter of dairy products. It has moved from a position of being an important domestic industry to being a major exporter, because they deregulated the domestic market. They have taken away all the controls; they have taken away the buffer zone for some of the domestic fresh milk supply. This industry, which was subject to enormous political pressures in this parliament and in state parliaments, is an example of where those controls have been removed by the courage of this government, previous governments and Minister Kerin. That industry will now move from strength to strength, although there are some difficulties in certain political electorates around Australia where some of the old shibboleths remain.I commend the legislation. I commend the chairman of WoolStock. I commend the directors for their good fortune, in some ways, that the market rose and they were able to dispose of the stockpile in a quicker time than was anticipated. They have done it in a timely, efficient and businesslike manner—they have been an example to other commodities which get into trouble. It is possible to quit your debts if you go about it in a commercial set of circumstances, with a board with a commercial objective of quitting the stockpile in a businesslike way and in an orderly fashion to meet the market and meet the price. I reiterate that this is a historic and quite exciting day. The wool industry will now move out of the statute books here in the federal parliament; it will move to the specialist growers selling their product in the supply chain to processors who want high-quality, uncontaminated product in their mills so that they can compete with synthetic fibre around the world. Then at long last the member for Corio, the member for New England, the member for Wannon and the member for Corangamite will not be having battles over wool policies, and wool growers will have to get on with the job of running their own farm for their own profit and not worry about what the industry and the government might do for them. 11:12:0030603St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—It certainly gives me great pleasure to stand in this place. We are entering a new era, and the wool industry has gone through tremendous changes. As many in this House are aware, I live in the very small village of Guyra in the middle of New England, in the high country at nearly 4,500 feet. We are in the middle of some of the finest wool growing country in this nation, if not the world. We certainly see that. We are also in the middle of an area that has very innovative and very forward looking wool growers. I have lived in the district for the last 18 years and have seen the tremendous changes that have taken place in the wool industry. Today really is a great day. As the member for Corangamite more eloquently put in his speech on the Wool International Amendment Bill 2001, we have seen the end of something that has been held over the head of this industry and the wool growers for too long. The importance of the wool industry and wool growers to New England cannot be understated. I do take exception to the member for Wannon suggesting that Hamilton should be the centre of fine wool growing in this country. I think everyone knows that New England, because of the strength of its wool and the superfineness of its wool, certainly does not have to worry about having competitors because quite often ours are the ones that all others are judged by. It is great news that WoolStock Australia has sold the last of the stockpile that a decade ago stood at 4.7 million bales. I wonder whether, when people look back at some of the speeches that were given today by the member for Corangamite and the member for Wannon, they will understand just how many bales that really is when you start looking at the physical size of it. The suggestion—which I think the member for Wannon was talking about earlier—that it should be burnt is just extraordinary. Actually the member for Corangamite had said that. Somewhere in the vicinity of $2.8 billion of both the government's and wool growers' money was tied up in that stockpile.Of course, hindsight is a marvellous asset. When the wool reserve price scheme was established, I think it had the best of good intentions. I did not necessarily agree with them at that point, but I was not part of the industry; I was not a wool grower. It provided producers with greater price stability, and while it operated at prices that were just that—floor prices—all went reasonably well. Then, in 1989 to 1991, reserve prices were set at unsustainable levels. I remember that period; I remember it distinctly as a period of quite extraordinary activity at a time when you could just see the price rising up and up. I have spent all my life in another commodity industry, the timber industry. Our industry is governed a bit by the building industry, of course, and it is cyclical. When you are in these industries for long periods of time, you know that they are cyclical. It is a boom and bust cycle—always has been. Having seen what was happening in the late 1980s and seeing the unsustainable prices that were being paid, I knew that the inevitable had to come and, of course, it did. The stockpile soared, as we are all aware, and the scheme collapsed, and for the best part of a decade the industry had a stockpile hanging over its head. That was when the restructuring of this industry with wool growers came about.In my electorate of New England, I saw people who were able to cope with the situation; I saw people who had gained a great deal of benefit and asset building out of the higher prices that were achieved, putting money back into their places and paying off debt. But I also saw a number of people who went the other way and believed that these sorts of prices were sustainable forever and who were not necessarily as frugal as they should have been, and then they paid the penalty. I saw land prices, for example, go through the roof. An area which was always known to be sustainable in our part of the country was probably around 1,200 acres; people were paying the price of 1,200 acres but were only buying 600 acres. They were making a substantial living off that but it was unsustainable. Quite often, the older and sometimes more business orientated wool growers said, `This is not sustainable; we will pay off debt, do maintenance or bring our assets up to scratch.' Now, with the stockpile gone, the government's amendment bill will wind up WoolStock Australia and bring forward the final cash distribution to wool growers. Today's bill is a popular bill. It is something that is discussed in my electorate. This morning I spoke to a number of wool growers to say, `There are three of us on the government side talking on this important bill today and, when you look at the three—the member for Corangamite, the member for Wannon and me—we represent huge areas of some of the finest wool-growing country in this nation.' It is a good day for them today. Certainly there were times in the past decade when many of my constituent wool growers thought quite honestly that this day would not come. They were concerned. But it has come, and it is a great day not only for wool growers but for us as a nation.The wool industry is able to trade completely freely in the market. The member for Corangamite expressed his views on that, and I support them very strongly. It is able to do that now by producing a product that the buyers want and taking some responsibility for ensuring that their breeding programs on the quality, fineness, et cetera of the wool product will create a fibre that will compete in the world market, find its place and be able to have people trading in futures on wool as a fibre. More particularly, the buyers are now concerned about what happens to their product after it leaves the farm gate, rather than putting all their effort into concerning themselves with what happens on the property. They can do that now without the thought of any excess stock hanging over the market. I read in a newspaper recently of someone suggesting that it was a bad thing that the wool stockpile had gone; I could not believe such an attitude, that people could actually still think that maybe it was a great thing to have some sort of a stockpile. In my industry, as I have said, I think that that is an appalling way to do business. I am glad to see the stockpile gone and I am certainly pleased that we have finished with the 4.7 million bales in 1991 and with the debt of $2.8 billion. I do not think we can say it often enough because, when people look back and see what happened when governments got involved in industries and when select groups within those industries came into parliament to exert pressure to get their own way, quite often we find that those exerting that will on governments were not necessarily those leading the industry.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—Can you just repeat that debt?84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—Thank you very much, member for Corangamite, I will because I think that it has to go down. The stockpile peaked at nearly five million bales in 1991 with a debt to wool growers and the Australian government of $2.8 billion—that is, $2,800 million. If the act is not amended then the final distribution cannot take place until after July 2002. I do call on the Senate to give smooth passage to this legislation so that the growers can receive their payments as soon as possible. WoolStock shareholders are typically wool growers who carried the burden of the debt associated with the stockpile during the industry's very difficult years from 1993 through to about 1996-97. In my electorate some of our wool growers struggled to survive and that had an effect on the social and economic fabric of our towns and it had an effect on the personal health of wool growers in the region.The sell down of the stockpile demonstrates the success of privatising Wool International in July 1999 to allow WoolStock Australia to take over the job of managing the stockpile. In October 1998, and largely in response to the economic crisis in Asia, the government agreed to industry calls to freeze sales from the stockpile and to privatise Wool International. Wool International was originally established in 1993 to dispose of the wool stockpile and to repay the Commonweatlh government guaranteed debt accumulated under what was known as the reserve price scheme. At the time that Wool International took over, the stockpile stood at around 3.8 million bales—again a figure of astronomical proportions—with a guaranteed debt to the Commonwealth of some $2,200 million. Wool International was initially required to sell a set number of bales per quarter, but amendments to its governing legislation provided it with a selling scheme with greater flexibility. On 1 July 1999 WoolStock Australia was incorporated. It has successfully disposed of the wool stockpile and retired the associated debt ahead of schedule while at the same time maximising the net return to shareholders. Donald McGauchie and members of the WoolStock board have played a key role in this operation and really do deserve our congratulations. It needs to be said that these Australians took on the very onerous job of producing a result at the end of the day for wool growers. I believe in any talks on this issue they need that recognition, as does the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who has just come in. He has seen this pass through to this time and he, together with the government, ought to be congratulated.Shareholders were given units of entitlement to the surplus equity generated by Wool International's selling off of the stockpile. Shareholders have already received two payments from WoolStock units and will receive a further distribution of payments. While this is very positive news for the wool industry, there are many in the industry who have now turned their focus to the operations of the privatised Australia Wool Research and Promotion Organisation that is now the shareholder owner company, Australian Wool Services Ltd. Certainly Australia's wool growers now have significantly more control over the future of their industry, and so they should. It is something they have been demanding for many years.The jury is still out on the operations of Australian Wool Services Ltd. I fully welcome the new commercial focus of Australian Wool Innovation Pty Ltd. A project which is very close to my heart is the Sheep Industry Cooperative Research Centre in Armidale. This project is not being supported by either the managing director, Mr Dorber, or Australian Wool Innovation. I would like to place on record my disappointment at this lack of support both from Mr Dorber and from the company. The Sheep Industry Cooperative Research Centre is a fantastic project. It is one that should go ahead and it is one that will have all the commercial focus that is needed for the whole of the industry. It will be one of the few times that meat and fibre research has been brought together. However, having placed on record my disappointment, I do not wish to sound too negative about Australian Wool International. As I have said, the jury is still out, and I sincerely hope that Mr Dorber succeeds for the industry's sake and for the sake of wool growers throughout New England. I shall be keeping a watch to ensure that wool growers, not only in New England but around Australia, have received a fair and equitable deal, and that certainly involves keeping government out of it altogether.This amendment to the Wool International Act is without doubt one of the most popular amendments that I have had the pleasure of supporting over the last three years. Today is a great day for wool growers in New England, Corangamite, Wannon, and everywhere else around Australia, including Eden-Monaro.11:26:0030605Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—in reply—As the previous speaker said, this is a great time for the wool industry. A historic new era has begun. Some of the debris of the past, the troubles and the strife, have been put behind us. The very genuine personal hardship that many wool growers and their communities have faced over a long period of time has also been put behind us. It has certainly been a very difficult era for the industry, and it has gone on for quite some time. I noted with interest the contributions in this debate on the Wool International Amendment Bill 2001 by honourable members about their own experiences with the wool industry and about how important it has been to their electorate. I have one other small, personal remembrance of these events which relates back to my maiden speech in this parliament—which, I have to say, hardly anybody attended because most members were arguing in the joint party room about wool industry issues. So it has been going on for all that time—trouble, disputes and incredible division within the industry. The remarkable thing about the last couple of years has been the way in which wool industry leaders and producers have been willing to work together cooperatively to chart a new path for the industry. I congratulate all those who have been prepared to put aside past differences and help to develop a vibrant and successful future for the wool industry in the years ahead. They have been blessed now with some improving prices. Of course, we are not out of the woods and there will still be some difficult times for the industry, but I have no doubt that the prospects for wool in Australia are the best that they have been for a decade, and that is not before time.A lot of that has been associated with the diligence and leadership provided by a number of people. Today, in particular, we acknowledge the special contribution made by Don McGauchie and the board of WoolStock Australia Ltd in the rapid disposal of Australia's wool stockpile. The last of the bales have now been sold. That brings forward a day that I suspect a decade ago we thought could never happen. There was such despair within the industry about tumbling prices. All of that was overlaid by the knowledge that there was this huge stockpile of unsold wool. There were all sorts of innovative suggestions about how we should get rid of it—burn it, dump it, do anything with it, but get it out of the marketplace as fast as we possibly could. Eventually, it has now all been sold and a part of our history is behind us. In the end, it has been wound up faster than expected. That is the reason for this legislation being introduced in the parliament. I thank those on both sides of the House for granting this legislation a quick and smooth passage. Its only purpose is to enable the fast wind-up of WoolStock Australia Ltd. If it were delayed in the parliament, it could not achieve its basic objectives.It is my understanding that the Senate will be dealing with the legislation this week so WoolStock Australia Ltd will be able to move towards an earlier than previously anticipated winding-up. This will be a winding-up, a liquidation of a company, that everybody will welcome. There will be no losers, only winners, and indeed several hundred million dollars of payouts will go to the shareholders of this company as a result of the wind-up that we are authorising through this legislation. To ensure shareholders are not burdened with the additional expense of keeping the company running longer than would be necessary, this quick passage of the Wool International Amendment Bill 2001 through parliament is imperative.The legislation to privatise Wool International in 1999 provided for the final distribution of shareholders to follow the preparation to the final financial year audited accounts for WoolStock Australia Ltd—in essence, about this time next year. This amendment will bring forward the winding-up and the final cash distribution to shareholders without requiring the conclusion of these processes to be after 30 June 2002. The effect of this amendment is that wool growers will get their final payment flowing from their shareholding considerably earlier than would be possible under the current legislation. Because the overhead costs of maintaining the company until 30 June 2002 can be reduced, there will be cost savings which will maximise the surplus equity to be returned to shareholders. I am advised that when this legislation is passed the WoolStock board will issue an interim cash distribution, probably about early October this year. The final distribution would then be once the company is wound up, and that will obviously be a much smaller payment to finalise the assets of the company. This legislation is significant in that it will greatly benefit Australian wool producers by allowing a timely wind-up of WoolStock Australia. I again thank members who have contributed to the debate, including some of the stalwarts of the wool industry in this parliament from this side of the chamber who have made a contribution. I even listened to some comments by the shadow minister about the Wool Museum and all sorts of things like that, trying to take a bit of the credit from the member for Corangamite, who has done so much good work for the industry and certainly wool growers everywhere. Australia's greatest primary industry for a century has now reached another significant milestone, and the passage of this legislation will certainly help in that process. Thank you to all those who have contributed to build this new future for the industry, and I wish all producers every success for the years ahead.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Main Committee adjourned at 11.33 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing30608The following answers to questions were circulated:30608(Question No. 2623)262330608Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Is the cholesterol treatment drug known as LIPOBAY listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).(2) Will the Government de-list the drug from the PBS; if so, (a) when will de-listing occur, (b) why is it being taken off and (c) what process is in place to have the drug re-listed.(3) What other drugs of an equivalent kind of treatment are currently listed on the PBS in substitution of LIPOBAY that provide the same relief for the same symptoms that LIPOBAY is designed to treat.(4) Who is the (a) registered trademark holder and (b) patent holder of LIPOBAY.(5) What quantity of LIPOBAY was prescribed in Australia in 1999-2000.30608Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, LIPOBAY is listed on the PBS.(2) No, there is no proposal to delist from the PBS.(3) LIPOBAY contains the active ingredient cerivastatin which belongs to a class of drugs known as the HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (more commonly referred to as the 'statins'). Another brand of cerivastatin, KAZAK, is PBS listed. Other “statins” which are PBS listed are: atorvastatin (LIPITOR); fluvastatin (LESCOL, VASTIN); pravastatin (PRAVACHOL); and simvastatin (LIPEX, ZOCOR). These drugs all have similar effects i.e they all reduce cholesterol levels.(4) (a) LIPOBAY is not a registered trademark in Australia. (b) Bayer Australia Limited holds the patent for the product in Australia.(5) It is not possible to provide an accurate figure for the number of prescriptions written by doctors for the product. However, 149,600 prescriptions of LIPOBAY were dispensed by pharmacists under the PBS in 1999-2000. 30608(Question No. 2633)263330608Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:Will he have Fosamax® included on the list of drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.30608Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Fosamax® is currently listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) as an authority required benefit in the initial treatment for established osteoporosis in patients with fracture due to minimal trauma. The fracture must have been demonstrated radiologically and the date of x-ray must be included in the authority application.Fosamax® is also listed on the PBS for continuing treatment for established osteoporosis in patients with fracture due to minimal trauma, where the patient has previously been issued with an authority prescription for this drug.30608(Question No. 2780)278030608McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 28 June 2001:(1) What sum has the Government spent on its campaign which commenced on 5 March 2000 to advertise the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's Country of Origin Guidelines.30608Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Government conducted an awareness campaign, from November 1999, in support of legislative changes to the Trade Practices Act 1974 concerning country of origin representations. The media advertising element of this campaign , which commenced in March 2000 and ran, on an intermittent basis, until November 2000, cost $681,049. This was made up of $79,070 to Lowe Hunt & Partners Pty Ltd for the development and production of creative advertising materials for the country of origin labelling awareness campaign and $601,979 to Mitchell Media Partners Pty Ltd for booked and purchased advertising space for country of origin labelling advertisements in trade journals, consumer magazines and newspapers. The advertising promoted the legislative amendments, rather than promoting the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's Guidelines. 30609(Question No. 2781)278130609McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 28 June 2001:(1) Does the Government intend to take any steps to amend section 53(a) of the Trade Practices Act to take into account the 1998 Country of Origin defences particularly in relation to a claim that a product is “made in” Australia.(2) Does the Government intend to confer with State Governments with a view to requesting that State laws be amended to take into account those defences.(3) Pending appropriate amendment of the law, will he direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to withdraw its current guidelines and to amend its website so that it is made clear that the 1998 Country of Origin defences are of no benefit and, in particular, have no application to claims that a product is “made in Australia”.30609Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Government intends to move an amendment to section 53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to address the technical issue identified. The amendment will be included in the forthcoming omnibus bill for the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio.(2) The Government will encourage State Governments to consider complementary legislation to duplicate Division 1AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in State Fair Trading Acts in the interests of business certainty. The Government notes that while the Commonwealth legislation provides clear defences under the Trade Practices Act 1974, similar compliance certainty is lacking for the equivalent provisions of State Fair Trading Acts. While the lack of equivalent defences in these State Acts does not add to the legal risk of firms, it does add to the compliance costs. The Government hopes that State Governments will seek to address this in their future legislative programs.(3) The Government does not intend to direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as suggested by the Honourable Member. The Commission has clearly stated on its web-site and in its publications that the defences are defences for the purposes of the Trade Practices Act 1974. This statement is accurate. The Government notes that State Fair Trading and Consumer Affairs Ministers have consistently referred matters regarding country of origin representations to the Commonwealth for further action, recognising the primacy, in a public policy context, of the Trade Practices Act 1974 on this issue. Given this, the Government believes that the ACCC advice, framed as it is by the limits of Commonwealth responsibility, is appropriate.