Mr FITZGIBBON (4:43 PM) —Like the member for Aston (Mr Nugent), I do not want to use too much of my time responding to the words of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) as I have other things to get off my chest in the short time available to me. However, I will say that, unlike the member for Oxley, I believe that a net benefit for the nation will flow from signing the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

However, I believe that there is sufficient concern in the community and that sufficient questions remain unanswered to make us slam on the brakes. There is no rush, and that is why I support the call of the shadow minister for foreign affairs to have the agreement sent off to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Treaties. It is a simple request. I am also calling for that to be done before the agreement is signed.

The member for Oxley talked about foreign capital. Where would we be without it? Where would we gain the money, given the lack of savings in this country, to exploit our abundance of natural resources, for example? We could not do it without the assistance of foreign capital. I do believe there are net benefits involved but, like in other areas such as agricultural trade reform, there are going to be winners and losers. I think the Australian public, given the level of concern out there in the electorate, are entitled to see the agreement exposed to the full scrutiny of this parliament and are entitled to have an opportunity to make submissions to that treaties committee before the document is signed.

I want to turn to some important issues in my electorate. Since the razzamatazz launch of the government's new Job Network I have been trying to determine which section of the Australian community has been hardest hit by the Howard government since it was elected just two years ago—the aged, those living in rural and regional Australia, students, families or the unemployed. It is a difficult call. I believe time will show that certainly no group has been more disadvantaged than the unemployed, particularly since this latest announcement.

I have also been wondering why it is that my electorate is consistently treated so shabbily. I continually and consistently arrive at the same conclusion—that is, that my constituents in Hunter are being punished, are being penalised, for having the audacity to return a Labor member. That is my conclusion.

Mr Truss —Lack of wisdom.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I think they are fairly well informed, I respond to the minister at the bar table. I make another prediction now—that is, at the next federal election a few more will be returning Labor candidates. Indeed, it could be that there will be sufficient to give the Howard government a record—that is, to be the first government since the Scullin government not to be returned for a second period of office. That is the record you are about to match, Minister, as a result of the way you are steering this nation.

I want to turn back to my own electorate, which as I said continues to be dudded for having the audacity to return a nasty Labor member. Let me turn to the work for the dole scheme, a scheme that I was not all that enthusiastic about. Given that every other labour market program had been gutted, one has no choice if you want to assist the unemployed in your electorate in terms of labour market assistance but to support the scheme now it is in vogue.

My electorate has an unemployment rate quite well above the national average. Indeed, there are now 4,000 people unemployed in the Cessnock local government area compared with 3,000 when John Howard came to office. But of course he was going to fix unemployment. In particular he was going to fix youth unemployment. But we have seen that figure continually rise over his period in office.

There is not one work for the dole scheme in the Hunter electorate. There is not one project in an electorate with an unemployment rate significantly above the national average. The member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) has seven projects in his government held seat, but not one project for Hunter.

Let me turn to Natural Heritage Trust funding, the now infamous green rorts affair. The government claims that it is just a quirk in the statistics that all the government held seats are getting the money. It says that, because the opposition holds few regional and rural seats, it is only natural that we get less than what might seem our share under the Natural Heritage Trust funding.

Let me deal with that. The Hunter electorate—surprise, surprise!—on the AEC's definition is a rural seat. What did it receive in Natural Heritage Trust funding? It got $329,000. It sounds like a lot of money, but what was the average for government held rural seats? Not $300,000, not $400,000, not $500,000, not $600,000, not $700,000, not $800,000, not $900,000, not $1 million, but $1.6 million. That is what was allocated to the average government held rural seat. Again, what was it in the Hunter? Just over $300,000.

I can just see the big whiteboard in Senator Hill's office and, of course, Minister Anderson is in there with him. You have got the criteria. Does it meet the scheme's objectives? Yes. Is it efficient in terms of its allocation of funding? Yes. Which party holds the seat—government or opposition? I can see Hunter up there: yes, yes, big cross; you miss out. It got just over $300,000 compared with the $1.6 million going to government held seats.

Let me turn to what I call the mother of all decisions. Let me turn to the most flawed piece of public policy I have seen since I have been in this place—that is, the government's new Job Network; the government's new plan to cater for the needs of the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, in this nation.

Let me illustrate how the Hunter electorate has been dudded once again. The electorate currently has three offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service. There is a very large office in Cessnock employing in excess of 10 people. After 1 April, we will have one Employment National office in Cessnock, which will employ three people, and we will have an office in Muswellbrook, which will employ one person one day a week.

From now on, because no organisation other than Employment National got a contract in the Cessnock local government area, my constituents will have two choices. They are to get a Rover Motors bus to Maitland or Newcastle at a cost of between $6 and $16—these are unemployed people we are talking about—or to line up at Employment National where I expect they will have one case manager.

Why didn't anyone get a contract in Cessnock? Because Northumberland Network—the organisation which has been doing it so well for so long, which has better outcomes than any other organisation in the Hunter—did not get a contract. Why didn't Mission Australia get a contract? Because they did not apply. They thought it was futile. They held Northumberland Network in such high regard that they did not believe any application was likely to be met with success. Therefore, no-one gets a contract. There will be no FLEX 3 in the Cessnock local government area, an area with significantly high unemployment rates. (Time expired)