Mr JENKINS (5:23 PM) —Earlier in the grievance debate, the honourable member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) raised the question of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. I do not wish to debate fully the matter that she put to us. Suffice it to say that I understand that out in the community there are people who are from the political Right and the political Left who have some questions about that agreement, the MAI, and I understand that those questions need to be discussed and looked at.

I believe that the proposal of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), as the shadow foreign affairs spokesperson, that this agreement should go to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties as soon as possible, is quite appropriate. In fact, it is a course of action that, in discussion with people in my electorate, I have suggested the parliament should see forthwith.

I was a little dismayed at the dismissive comments made by the honourable member for Oxley about whether the referral to the Joint Committee on Treaties was worth while or not. The honourable member for Oxley should realise that one of the ways in which the parliament is able to report to the people is through the work of the committees. Whilst it was an initiative of this government—and I have to admit that I think it is a worthwhile initiative—I believe that the Joint Committee on Treaties is an appropriate body to hold a public inquiry into this agreement, and I stress that it is a public inquiry.

This committee on other treaties has gone around the nation and sought comment and submissions from the public. I believe that it is an appropriate venue for a public discussion of the matters that are covered by the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and that the referral is something that is very positive. I urge the government to refer this agreement as early as possible to the committee.

But today I wish to talk about my grievance—the way in which the community is being cut from inclusion in what this government is doing. I wish to raise a number of examples about the way in which the government has embarked upon policies that have not been inclusive of the community. One of those areas is the debacle that we see in residential aged care.

I have a particular project in my electorate which is sponsored by the Villa Maria Society. Last year, they completed a 51-bed hostel to a standard that would take both low and high level care patients in a belief that the changes that this government was making to aged care would enable them to do so on completion. Whilst they got the funding in the first place under the old nomenclature for hostel accommodation, I stress that they built those beds to the proper standards which would enable them to provide residents in their aged care facility both high and low care. The project was the subject of a question in this place back on 19 November 1997 after Archbishop Pell, on blessing the facility, had described his disquiet about the way in which aged care policy was developing. I think he might have used language to say that the aged care policy of this government was a shemozzle.

So here is a 51-bed facility that has been ready to go since 19 November but which remains absolutely empty. Forget about entering into a partisan discussion about how bad the present policies of the government are. I would have thought that a government that came into this place talking about the need for quality places in residential aged care would not sit back idle, would not sit on its hands, whilst a facility which could provide 51 beds in the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne remains empty.

What are the reasons for its remaining empty? It is simply because the government has been pig-headed. Early on in this saga, it would not sit down with the Villa Maria Society and talk through the ways in which that society could open the facilities. Back in November when the facility was blessed by the archbishop, there were some 20-odd people on the waiting list to go into the facility. The problem was that the majority of those required the higher level care. In fact, of the 21 or 22 people—I cannot remember how many it was at that time—only two required low level care. So the facility could actually provide only two people with the care. Now those on its waiting list for low level care have increased to 11, but in fact there are 54 high care patients that that facility could immediately pick from to take as residents.

So not only do I have a concern about the way in which the policy has been put in place; I question the fair dinkumness of this government wishing to provide these places. The government could have acted in a much more prompt manner and had this facility open and had clients that were requiring this type of aged care in residence. It is a disgrace that this has gone on for so long. For three months, a facility has been completed and ready to go but has remained idle.

It is not only in the area of aged care that I have some concern about what this government is doing to cut out the community. I am concerned about other areas. For instance, in the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne in quite a large area which covers nearly four federal electorates, the North East Migrant Resource Centre operates. This centre does cater for four seats that happen to be held by Labor, but that is a geographical fact. It is also a fact of the demographics of those electorates that they have high migrant populations. They are also high in the target group that this government has—that is, new arrivals, especially new arrivals who come here under the refugee and humanitarian program—for services such as migrant resource centres, and grants-in-aid.

This is an area which is quite large. The migrant resource centre for the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, which has a very good reputation, put forward a proposal to receive federal government funding to open a suboffice in the northern end of the region that it caters, in the city of Whittlesea. As yet, it has not had a concrete answer about that. The reason it has not had a concrete answer to that proposal is that the funding of migrant resource centres is under review. The centre was lucky to be advised that it has funding up until the end of the financial year, as for all migrant resource centres. We are ticking through the year and into March, with only three months to go until then, and there is still doubt about its ongoing funding.

What the government is ignoring here is that the city of Whittlesea has quite generously made space available for this suboffice in Epping. We have an opportunity where the city of Whittlesea, acting on behalf of its community, is willing to enter into a partnership with the federal government to provide services that are essential. I just hope it is not the contention of the minister that, in this case, the north-east migrant resource centre is in some way simply there because it caters for Labor electorates. That is an absolute nonsense.

This is a centre that has an inevitable reputation for providing services. If the Job Network and the new labour market programs put in place by this government were fair dinkum, the centre would have gained funding under that. It would be, in the words of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock), an infrastructure magnet, able to get valuable funding from other sources. But the migrant resource centre, like a number of community organisations in the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, missed out merely because this government wants to privatise labour market programs. (Time expired)