1998-04-023816REPS233501998-04-02Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Personal Explanations233509:31:002335Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—My personal explanation refers to an article by Kenneth Davidson in today's Age —`Is Beazley the great Telstra pretender?'—in which Kenneth Davidson repeats suggestions that I had a conversation at some point of time with Frank Blount in which I am alleged to have said to him that I favoured the privatisation of Telstra. I have never had a conversation suggesting that particular proposition on my part—as I have denied in this chamber, as I have denied out there—at any point of time with Frank Blount. I have never favoured the privatisation of Telstra.Bills23352335Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.233509:32:002335Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Today I take pleasure in introducing a package of two bills, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1998 and the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1998. The bills amend the legislative framework for the Federal interstate registration scheme, FIRS, for heavy vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce.The amendment proposed by the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1998 will provide a formula for calculating registration charges for periods of less than one year for heavy vehicles registered under FIRS. The Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1998 takes account of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory and provides for the appointment of additional enforcement officers in the ACT.The Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 provides for registration charges on FIRS registered vehicles. All revenue from charges collected by the states and territories, acting as agents of the Commonwealth, is returned to the states and territories for expenditure on road maintenance.At present this act provides only for annual registration charges. The act needs to provide for less than one year registration charges to allow charging to reflect the amendments to the Interstate Road Transport Regulations which permit less than one year registration of FIRS vehicles. The proposed amendment reflects the charging formula to be used in the Road Transport Reform (Heavy Vehicles) Registration regime, which is to be adopted by states and territories. Both the federal and state based schemes will, therefore, have the same charging formula.The general provision of registration periods of less than one year is one of the ten priority road transport reform initiatives, endorsed by the Ministerial Council for Road Transport at its February 1997 meeting. The package was developed by the National Road Transport Commission, NRTC, in conjunction with federal, state and territory governments and the road transport industry.Short-term registration provides flexibility to operators who wish to register their vehicles for periods of less than one year. This flexibility provides reduced costs to the operator. For example, farmers can nominate a period which coincides with when they need to transport crops, instead of paying for a full year's registration, and smaller operators may opt to pay registration charges at three-monthly intervals, helping to maintain their cash flow. The amendment demonstrates the federal government's commitment to road transport reform and its recognition of the important role the road transport industry plays in Australia's economy.The second bill in the package, the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1998 is required to enable the appointment of additional enforcement officers in the Australian Capital Territory. Following self-government in the ACT, the Commonwealth can no longer appoint ACT enforcement officers. The amendment will enable the appointment of inspectors by the ACT government.Other minor amendments to this act convert the existing monetary penalties to equivalent penalty units and insert appropriate references to provisions of the Crimes Act 1914. The net budgetary impact of the amendments will be nil. The amendments are to come into force on the day on which they receive royal assent. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills23362336Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.233609:36:002336Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.My comments on the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill have already been made on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills23362336Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time. 233609:37:002336Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 , which is now before the House, contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Most of the amendments have been previously tabled in this House as customs tariff proposals. I will briefly outline the amendments of substance.Schedule 2 of this bill commenced on 3 July 1997. The customs duty on aviation gasoline, avgas, contains a component to recover the costs of aviation terminal and en route navigational services provided to the general aviation sector by Airservices Australia. In reviewing the costs of providing these services for 1997-98, Airservices Australia proposed a reduction in the duty of 0.6 cents per litre on avgas, which represents a five per cent decrease in real terms.This reduction in costs to aircraft operators follows the implementation of an election commitment by this government. This commitment was to freeze the airways component of avgas duty in 1996-97, except for movements in the consumer price index, while working towards the implementation of a fairer system of funding for the general aviation sector's contribution to Airservices Australia. The component of duty on avgas payable to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the costs of aviation safety regulation remains unchanged.The amendments contained in schedule 3 of this bill came into effect on 31 January 1998. The reduction in duty rates on avgas in schedule 2 of this bill would have been superseded by the commencement of the Customs Tariff (Fuel Rates Amendments) Act 1997 on that date. By customs tariff notice published in the Commonwealth Gazette on 18 February 1998, the reduced customs rate of duty on avgas was reinstated.The other amendment contained in this schedule is of an administrative nature and results again from amendments contained in the Customs Tariff (Fuel Rates Amendments) Act 1997. Section 19 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 contains a table of paired customs subheadings and excise items. This section provides the duty nexus between customable and excisable revenue goods by allowing customs rates of duty to be adjusted in line with movements in the excise rate of duty. The amendment amalgamates the table existing prior to 31 January 1998 with the new aspects introduced by the customs fuel rates legislation. Schedule 4 is operative from 1 March 1998 and creates a new item 64 in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.At its meeting on 27 August 1997, the Ministerial Committee on the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games agreed to introduce certain import concessions for the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games and associated test events. As a result, amendments to the temporary import provisions have been finalised and a new passenger concession by-law for unaccompanied baggage for Olympic family members has been implemented by the Australian Customs Service. This amendment creates a new item in schedule 4 to allow non-personal and non-commercial goods to be imported into Australia duty free by Olympic Games family members.The reality of the Olympics and associated events is that members of the Olympic family will bring with them a variety of goods which are to be used in a non-commercial manner. These will include give-aways, hospitality samples and other consumables that will be used for team promotion and for cultural and hospitality activities. It is intended that the concession will not apply to tobacco and alcoholic products or extend to any importations of a commercial nature. Similar concessions were offered at the Nagano Winter Olympics and by host countries at previous summer and winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. The amendments contained in the other schedules of this bill are of an administrative or technical nature and will have no impact on the importing public. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned. Bills23372337Bill presented by Mr Bruce Scott, and read a first time.233709:43:002337Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Australia sent its young service men and women overseas on service with the solemn undertaking that, in the event of the war causing their death, their widow or widower would be cared for. Since 1914, that undertaking has been honoured by the payment of a war widow's pension as special compensation for the loss of the family breadwinner. It is neither taxed nor means tested, and until now it has been indexed according only to the consumer price index.This bill links the war widow's pension and the basic war widower's pension to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings whenever this measure exceeds the growth in the consumer price index. This will ensure the basic war widow's pension and the war widower's pension continue at the same level as the service and age pensions, as they have done since 1964. This bill expands on the government's 1996 election commitment to deliver a pension benchmark of at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings.The government has already delivered on this promise for service and age pensioners. Now approximately 100,000 war widows and war widowers will also share in the improvement in community living standards. The immediate effect of this bill will be an increase of $6.80, bringing the total of the war widow's and war widower's pensions to $378.60 per fortnight. Over the next four years, the cost of this new indexation arrangements for war widows is expected to be approximately $164 million. This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to protecting the living standards and financial security of older Australians. I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills23382338Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.233809:46:002338Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill gives effect to some of the measures announced in the 1997-98 budget and in other government statements. The bill also contains other amendments to the Income Tax Assessment and the rewritten income tax law.Fringe benefits taxThe bill will implement changes to the FBT law relating to record keeping exemption arrangements and provide an exemption from fringe benefits tax for benefits arising from an employer's participation in certain student exchange programs. The record keeping exemption completes the FBT measures proposed by the government in response to the recommendations made by the Small Business Deregulation Task Force. Legislation has already been introduced to deal with taxi travel, car parking and the arranger provisions. All these measures will reduce compliance costs for most employers and, in particular, for small businesses.The record keeping measure introduced in this bill is specifically targeted at those employers whose fringe benefits in a base year do not exceed an indexed threshold amount and who do not significantly alter the fringe benefits provided in later years. The benefit threshold will commence at $5,000 for the 1996-97 FBT year. Having established a base year, employers will not be required to keep FBT records and will have their FBT liability in future years determined from the base year taxable benefits. This measure will apply to benefits provided from the date of royal assent and to FBT liabilities from the 1998-99 year.The FBT exemption for benefits arising from an employer's participation in an approved student exchange program will apply from the FBT year commencing 1 April 1996. This exemption demonstrates the government's commitment to reducing compliance costs.Depreciation of plant previously owned by exempt entitiesThe Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is being amended to set a common base for the depreciation deductions for plant that can be claimed by exempt entities which first become taxable on or after 4 August 1997 in relation to plant they already own, and by taxable entities which purchase plant from an exempt entity in connection with the acquisition of a business on or after 4 August 1997. The depreciation deductions available to such entities will be limited to a choice between the notional written down value of the plant at the time it enters the tax net and its undeducted pre-existing audited book value at that time.Arrangements treated as a sale and loan and limited recourse debtThe bill will implement a measure announced in the 1997-98 budget to prevent taxpayers obtaining deductions for capital expenditures in excess of their actual outlays. The measure will apply where the expenditure has been financed by hire purchase or limited recourse finance and the debtor does not fully pay out the capital amounts owing. In those circumstances, an amount will be included in the debtor's assessable income to compensate for any excessive deductions that were allowed to the taxpayer. The adjustment to taxable income will reflect amounts that remain unpaid when the hire purchase or limited recourse debt arrangement is terminated. This amendment applies to debts that are terminated after 27 February 1998.An associated amendment will treat taxpayers who finance assets by hire purchase as the owners of those assets for purposes of applying the various capital allowance deductions. Hire purchase and instalment sales transac tions will be treated as the equivalent of sale, loan and debt transactions in assessing the taxation liability of the financier and the hire purchaser respectively. This amendment applies to arrangements entered into after 27 February 1998.Franking credit and dividend streamingThe bill will implement one of the measures announced by the government in the 1997-98 budget to prevent franking credit trading and dividend streaming, namely, the introduction of a rule to limit the source of franking credits available for trading. Subject to transitional measures explained in the bill, these amendments apply from 7.30 p.m. AEST, 13 May 1997.Sales Tax (Exemption and Classification) Act 1992The bill amends the sales tax law to correct a deficiency in the sales tax law to the exemption for goods incorporated into property owned by, or leased to, always-exempt persons or the government of a foreign country. Access to the exemption will now be available only where the property is occupied principally by an always exempt person or the government of a foreign country or where the property is used principally for the provision of services to an always exempt person or government of a foreign country.Commercial debt forgivenessThis bill contains consequential amendments arising from changes to the capital loss rules in Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 2) 1997. The technical amendments will not affect the practical effect of the debt forgiveness provisions. These amendments apply to debts forgiven after the date of introduction of this bill.New South Wales Police Integrity CommissionThe bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to enable the Commissioner to disclose information acquired under a taxation law to the New South Wales Police Integrity Commission.Deductions for giftsOn 10 October 1996 the Treasurer announced, in Press Release No. 102, the introduction of a tax deduction for gifts of $2 or more to the Menzies Research Centre Public Fund. As announced at the time, this is consistent with the arrangements as apply to the Evatt Foundation, which has had tax deductibility status since 1981. The bill will give effect to the Treasurer's announcement and amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow income tax deductions for gifts of $2 or more to the public fund. Income tax deductions will be available for donations made to the fund from today.Technical amendmentsSchedules 6, 7 and 8 contain a range of technical amendments to the rewritten income tax law to correct minor errors in translating the fine detail of the 1936 act. Schedule 9 includes in the 1997 act, the rewritten education and training payments provisions of the 1936 act as amended by Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 1) 1997 and proposed amendments contained in the Social Security (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998. It also closes off the 1936 act provisions. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. I commend the bill to the House and provide the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Committees23392339233909:53:002339Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, I present the committee's report entitled The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984—Eleventh report , together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—by leave—Because indigenous people identify with their areas, their sites and their objects of significance, indigenous heritage is intrinsically precious. Indigenous heritage is also highly valued by non-indigenous people who recognise such heritage both for its importance to indigenous people and for its own sake. For these reasons the joint committee on native title has been pleased to conduct an inquiry into the Commonwealth statute that has attempted to provide legislation of last resort for indigenous heritage—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984.This matter was referred to the committee by the Senate on 26 March 1997, prior to the third reading of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill 1996. Government members took a strong interest in the committee's inquiry and attended conscientiously. However, as chair I should record the interest that was taken in this inquiry by non-government members of the committee. I regret to note that, despite their protestations of concern about indigenous issues, not once did a Democrat member of the committee attend a public hearing for this inquiry and one of those hearings was in Parliament House here in Canberra. The Democrat members were, in turn, former Senator Cheryl Kernot and Senator John Woodley.For Labor committee members and in regard to eight days of public hearings, four members each attended only on one day. Not one Labor member attended for more than one public hearing and the shadow spokesperson, Daryl Melham, did not attend once. It is remarkable in these circumstances that all the non-government members, in particular both Mr Melham and Senator Woodley, considered that they were in a position to sign a dissenting report. Perhaps they can plead in mitigation that, being only three pages in length, the dissent can be read by anyone with three minutes to spare. This appears to be about all the time that they have devoted to this matter.Where the recommendations of the dissent diverge from the committee's recommendations, they are trite or lack any supporting argument. Indigenous Australians should examine these facts before accepting protestations of support from Labor and the Democrats. 4T4MELHAMMr Melham—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this is an outrageous abuse of leave that was given in speaking to this report. It is a misrepresentation. If he continues down this road, we would seek to withdraw leave given to this member to speak.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You cannot withdraw leave, but I suggest that the honourable member for Leichhardt identifies the honourable member for Banks by his proper title and has in mind that this is a parliamentary report. I suggest to him that it is better that he does not attack people individually. If he wishes to attack them by virtue of their policies or views, it is one thing. I am concerned that to a degree in remarks he has made he is identifying the member personally as distinct from any policies or programs he might advance.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—I now turn to the issues. The Commonwealth statute has attracted considerable comment, in particular concerning the Hindmarsh Island Bridge matter. For instance, of the 131 applications lodged under the act only 16 resulted in protection declarations. Of the four section 10 declarations, which provide protection for extended periods of time, only one has not been exposed to judicial review—the Junction Waterhole near Alice Springs is protected for 20 years from May 1992. Importantly, the three other section 10 declarations, including that concerning the Hindmarsh Island Bridge area, did not survive legal challenge. In summary, where section 10 declarations have been opposed at law, they have not survived; only one continues.This situation was reviewed by the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt AC, who was tasked by the Hon. Robert Tickner, a minister in the Keating government. On 22 August 1996, she reported to Senator Herron, a minister in the Howard government. With the benefit of Ms Evatt's report, the joint committee has conducted an extensive inquiry into the act. Following careful consideration of 35 submissions and evidence received over eight days of public hearings, the committee agreed that there continues to be a need for Commonwealth legislation concerning indigenous heritage protection and such legislation should be provided as a statute of last resort. Two functions are envisaged for this statute: the establishment of minimum standards for the accreditation of state and territory legislation, and the application based system for managing cases where the state or territory legislation has not been applied correctly.In this 11th report of the committee, it is noted that blanket or presumptive protection of heritage is provided by most states and territories. The committee supports blanket protection and considers that it should be a requirement for state and territory accreditation under the Commonwealth's last resort legislation. Further, there needs to be clear provision in the federal act for the processes of interaction between the Commonwealth and the states.One of the major issues that has emerged from the Hindmarsh Island Bridge matter is the protection of culturally restricted information relevant to heritage protection. Indigenous people are those best placed to make an assessment of significance under indigenous tradition. However, they may be reluctant to divulge such information because disclosure itself can amount to a desecration of culture. This was a major problem in Hindmarsh.The committee has concluded that, in order to establish that a site is significant, disclosure of sensitive information need not be required. Further, the issue of determining whether a site is considered significant must be separated from the question of whether or not the land should be used in a particular manner. Nevertheless, and in the interests of procedural fairness, the needs of all parties must be balanced when development proposals are being considered. This is possible under guidelines already articulated by the Federal Court in the now well known Ward cases. Importantly, the committee heard in evidence that this view is accepted by indigenous leaders. The report notes that Ms Evatt's approach to the question has been overtaken by developments in the Federal Court.The committee emphasises that one of the most promising ways in which to protect sensitive indigenous information, while allowing for development proposals to proceed, is the establishment of site registers. It is understood that such registers are already in operation in the shire of Broome, the shire of Cardwell and in the Whitsundays. In each case, the relevant indigenous people have been fully involved in the development of the registers, including the establishment of protocols for their use. Together with the availability of guidelines from the Federal Court for access to culturally sensitive information, the establishment and proper employment of site registers offers a solution to the kinds of difficulties experienced in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge situation.In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee secretariat. I make special mention of the committee secretary, Peter Grundy. I can assure you that without the commitment and dedication of Peter and the secretariat we would have had great difficulty in achieving any outcomes. I would also like to thank the committee and in particular my coalition colleagues for a very stimulating inquiry into indigenous heritage protection. I trust that the committee's report contains much that is enlightening and that it points the way forward to acknowledgment and protection of the precious indigenous heritage that is present in this country. I commend the report to the House.10:03:002341Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—In light of the earlier comments made by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch), I think it is important to put on record that opposition members and the Democrat member of the committee cannot be in two places at the one time. Perusal of the record will show that Senator Bolkus, Senator Woodley and I have been actively engaged in consideration of the Native Title Amendment Bill, as have other members.There were attempts by us to, in effect, defer the tabling of this report so that it might be possible that we come to a united view in relation to this matter. The government members, in fairness to them, felt that the need for extension had been far outlived and wanted to table the report this week—so be it. I think it is unfortunate that this report was formulated and tabled before the decision was delivered yesterday in the High Court case known as the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case. I think that has relevance as to how we as a parliament deal with heritage protection. In light of that judgment, the opposition will be considering its position in relation to the Heritage Protection Act.It is appropriate that I point out at this stage that there is a dissenting report by the minority members of the committee which is signed by Senator Bolkus, Senator Evans, Senator Woodley, Mr Quick, the member for Franklin, and me. It is only a short minority report and I will read it onto the record. It is in the following terms:The Australian Labor Party and Democrat members of the committee are unable to support the general thrust of the recommendations made by the majority Coalition members.It is neither possible, nor desirable, to approach a review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1985 without considering the political, social and legislative context of the review.The committee has approached its task at the same time as the parliament engages in a lengthy and divisive debate on amendment to the Native Title Act 1993 , the Northern Territory government is viewing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 , and community debate continues on the issues raised by the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act .The signatories to this dissenting report see the majority recommendations as substantially weakening protection for indigenous heritage, and reflecting insensitivity to the laws, culture and beliefs of Australia's indigenous peoples. It is unacceptable to propose procedures and substantive provisions to supposedly protect Aboriginal cultural heritage when those provisions and mechanisms are inconsistent with and even hostile to indigenous laws and customs.In concert with the extinguishment of native title and the erosion of indigenous rights central to the Native Title Amendment Bill , the majority recommendations represent a retrograde step in reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.Furthermore, the recommendations of the majority are inconsistent with the motion passed by the Senate when it referred review of the Act to the Committee. The Senate acknowledged:the urgent need for amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Heritage Protection Act 1984 , consistent with the report of the Review of that Act by Justice Elizabeth Evatt, in order to avoid or minimise the repetition of an further incidents, such as the Hindmarsh Island Bridge situation, in which the cultural and spiritual beliefs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not able to be properly considered under the existing legislative arrangements.The recommendations of the majority ignore the most significant of Justice Evatt's recommendations and have the net effect of reducing legislative and administrative protection and respect for "the cultural and spiritual beliefs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people".In short, the recommendations in question represent an abrogation of the responsibility granted into the Commonwealth in the 1967 referendum to legislate for the benefit of our indigenous peoples.Consequently the Minority proposes the following recommendations:Recommendation 1That the Commonwealth should retain a direct role in ensuring the ongoing protection of indigenous heritage under this Act.Recommendation 2That in so far as individual States continue to fail to meet acceptable minimum standards of provisions and procedures for indigenous heritage protection, Commonwealth legislation should continue to make specific provisions for those states.Recommendation 3That minimum national standards for both substantive and procedural indigenous heritage protection be prerequisite under this Act for the accreditation of State and Territory protective regimes.Recommendation 4That this Act should provide no presumption of ongoing accreditation for State regimes, in that any amendments made from time to time by the States should be subject of review, and that any consequent decision by the Commonwealth minister to accredit such amendment should be a disallowable instrument.Recommendation 5That an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Advisory Council, as recommended in the Evatt Report, be established under the Act.Recommendation 6That minimum national standards for substantive and procedural protection for indigenous cultural heritage be drawn up under the supervision of an independent Aboriginal Heritage Protection Agency. Recommendation 7That the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Agency should be empowered to administer the Act in those matters leading to the exercise of discretion by the Minister.Recommendation 8That procedures and other measures for indigenous heritage protection set out in this Act should at all times be sensitive to, and not inconsistent with, indigenous laws and customs.Recommendation 9That any provision for the Minister to "intervene in the national interest" must be so framed as to clearly define the protection of indigenous cultural heritage as being within the meaning of "the national interest".There should be national uniform standards. In a whole range of areas—in the criminal code, in the corporations sector—we are getting together with the states and territories to set up national uniform standards so that the borders within this nation do not represent different treatment to different people. We should have uniform standards. It can be done in a cooperative fashion. It should be done in a non-partisan fashion. The performance by the chairman in trying to politicise this earlier really speaks for itself.2343Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills2343r4212343Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Gareth Evans moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not opposing the second reading of the bill, the House notes that the Government in this legislation has:(1) broken its firm promise made before the last election to deliver the full amount of the superannuation co-contribution; and (2) instead proposed a much less valuable and much less equitable savings rebate and notes that the policy;(a) only specifically actually rewards saving in the form of superannuation contributions;(b) enables the full amount of the rebate to be received notwithstanding the taxpayer has actually engaged in dis-saving;(c) will result in the level of national savings being significantly lower than if the superannuation co-contribution arrangements were implemented;(d) is not means tested and is therefore inequitable in its impact; and(e) is so unfair that the Prime Minister announced to this House that he would not claim his entitlement".10:11:002343Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—This is a series of amendments to a very important piece of legislation that was introduced as part of the government's election policy. But the issues, both current and past, need to be further addressed, and it is for this reason that I take part in this debate. Basically, these amendments set out to address issues that have arisen since the introduction of the original legislation and, most importantly, to consider the decisions of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, which handed down its report recently.The number of amendments are fairly simple in many regards—exempt employers, employers who have reached their maximum benefit accrual and defined benefit schemes which are in surplus as of 1 July 2000 for the period of the scheme remain in surplus. These amendments ensure that the choice does not increase superannuation costs for employers, which is not the government's intention.Quite clearly, it is important that we consider the employers. However, I make the point that, when my party went to the people, we made an offer to employees, not employers, that they would have a choice in where they had their superannuation matters considered. That particular issue is of great importance. It is too simple for an employer to say—on the basis of efficiency, on the basis of maintaining the lowest possible cost for the organisation—out of the back of his hand, `I don't have any blues with the BLF or the CFMEU. I'm going to stick with C+BUS.' That was never the intention of our policy. I am disappointed that, in arriving at a proposition for implementing our policy, the accent has shifted from employees' rights to employers' rights.I am very sympathetic to employers but, on the other hand, unless employees are able to be removed from, for instance, state government awards that oblige their employers one by one to commit superannuation contributions to a variety of funds because of state award situations, or because the employer thinks it is much more simple and convenient to stay with a union fund, we perpetuate the situation which I raised in this parliament probably six years ago of small amounts going to different funds on behalf of the same individual and then being eroded by administration and other fees—into the negative on some occasions.Quite clearly, employment in Australia and probably the world is going to become more itinerant, more of a casual nature. The concept of joining someone after school and being there at retirement is, unfortunately, no longer possible for a lot of employee. More and more, people will have to seek alternative employment with a range of employers just simply because of the way business will be done.Superannuation arrangements for most people, therefore, should be something they personally negotiate with a supplier of those services—a fund manager, the AMPs and others of this world—and they should be able to have that fully portable from job to job. They should be able to enter employment with another employer and say, `Here is my policy.' This is possible today, but it is not exactly a right of the employee.The fundamental issue is that employees should be able to go from employer to employer as they wish with the same piece of paper, with the same policy, and that employer should be able to make contributions accordingly. It means that, firstly, employees know where their money is—and I suggest to a great degree today that no-one knows where half their superannuation entitlement is—and, secondly, the money is accumulating at the best possible rate and they have some say over that. By this I mean that, if they get dissatisfied with the performance of the fund they have chosen, they have the right to move to another fund which is offering them a better deal with better returns for their retirement. Without doubt, the Commonwealth should have that as a substantial target as well. The more people can obtain from these superannuation arrangements on retirement, the less has to be provided by the taxpayer.So I think this is a fundamental issue and it is addressed in the amendments. We have an amendment that seeks to make sure that choice does not increase superannuation costs for employers. Unfortunately, I think it has got to, but I am also of the view that it is all too simple for an employer, for industrial or other reasons, to find it convenient to have all their employers represented by a union scheme which may otherwise not be to the employees' benefit depending on their circumstances—it may have nothing to do with the financial returns. I find that is unsatisfactory. It was not resolved in the original legislation; it is not resolved in these amendments.However, there are other amendments to the bill, and I think many of those are quite practical. As the bill is currently drafted, an employee could make an informal agreement with his or her employer and unilaterally make another choice within 12 months. This amendment ensures that an employer does not have to act on a nomination within 12 months of the previous choice, regardless of the mechanism through which that choice was made. I find that quite reasonable, notwithstanding my previous remarks.We have another need to ensure that contributions made in accordance with certain Victorian state and individual agreements will satisfy the choice of fund requirements. Although Victoria has referred industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth, in the absence of this amendment certain Victorian agreements would not be held to satisfy the Commonwealth's choice requirements. That is a matter which I think is quite appropriate.Where we still have problems, nevertheless, is in the inflexibility of how employers can make payments and if, for whatever reason, those employers are `late' in making contributions. The reasons for late payments are numerous, and they do not frequently arise from an employer who has deliberately intended to make a late payment or who in fact was just trying to save a bit of money by making a late payment. There are many other reasons that arise and, more particularly, they occur in the itinerant sector, such as the shearing industry in my electorate where employees move around and they are often hard to contact if they are employed for only a short period.A recent example brought to my attention involved short-term employment. The employer had a contract with a person and did not deem that he required a superannuation contribution. The employee, as we will call this person, or the subcontractor, did not make any request for superannuation, did not provide a number and did not do anything to suggest he wanted a superannuation contribution.Eighteen months later, this fellow's accountant rang the employer and said, `I'm now doing this fellow's tax return'—obviously late—`could you please tell me what superannuation contributions were made during that period?' The employer did not make them. He is not objecting to making them now, but he is going to be charged double because of an issue of confusion. I think that is silly and I think it is time some flexibility was available there. There is no dispute; there was a misunderstanding on an issue. In fact, I think the employee did not believe at the time he had a right to get a contribution until he was lodging a tax return and the accountant said that he probably did. Fair enough, there is no dispute about that, except the employer is a bit upset with the fact that, because this has all arisen so late, he is going to be treated as though he were almost a criminal; and I think that is silly.The other issue in this regard which is not addressed by these amendments is, in my mind, also of concern. This arises from a personal experience, unfortunately, for our family. My younger brother died a year or so ago and I am the trustee for his estate. I had to communicate with an insurance company for the purpose of getting for his estate certain funds arising from the superannuation contributions and death cover that his employer had.Originally, I thought the amount of money was about $800, but I have since been advised that it is substantially more. Along comes a form of some pages and included in it was a request that I get statutory declarations from his three children who are dispersed around Western Australia. When I looked at the form, I thought to myself, `Okay, I'm a member of parliament, I've got some skills and understanding of filling in forms, but how would, for instance, a wife, having lost her husband, deal with this matter?' I thought the requirements associated with that form were complex and the sort of information required was excessive and, if they had to consult somebody else to do it, it would have been quite expensive. I just happened to get the feeling that, whilst the amount was only $800, a lot of people would find it would not pay them to get that money.I think the government needs to look at the requirements. You cannot just have someone write in and say, `I am the wife or children of the late Bill Smith and therefore send me the money.' Quite clearly, the funds have a higher responsibility than that. But I got the funny feeling that these forms are at a point where, on smaller amounts, many people would say that it is simply not worth it, and the fund profits. That is something that should be looked at. Ordinary people should not have to go to advisers or people who would, as we well know, charge them 500 bucks to walk through the door when, in fact, the amount to be settled could be less than $1,000. It is a matter that I wanted to raise in the context of this debate.I have already made the point that people should have single policies. It is interesting that another amendment in this legislation addresses the circumstances where there are compulsory local government schemes to ensure that an employer did not have to make payments to two schemes, that is, the state local government scheme and a private scheme or another business scheme that an employee might be involved in. That is commonsense and it was never the intention that it should happen.But it also reminds me of my experience in local government where, as President of the Country Shires Association in Western Australia, I was actively involved in the creation of the local government scheme in WA. Previously there had not been one; and local government is an area where employment and promotion, in particular, is something that is achieved by changing jobs—you just keep applying for a higher job in another local authority—and that is accepted and understood within the industry. That had created great difficulties for people in terms of long service leave and superannuation. We were supportive of a portable scheme for both.Representatives of the local government employees were involved in the considerations and negotiations, and I said to them at the time: `Why do you want a government scheme? Why don't you ask for a scheme that at least includes the right to have your own cover with AMP or someone else, and when you shift jobs you simply negotiate the contributions that your new employer might make to that scheme.' They all said, `Oh no, no. That would not be secure enough for us. The government has got to be involved.'They took that option and their superannuation scheme got dragged into WA Inc. At one stage they looked like having no money left at all. It was pretty blooming horrible. I used to chide a few with whom we had a very cooperative arrangement that that was what they wanted and that is what they got. It has recovered and I think they are now performing quite well. But it goes to show that what appeared to be the most secure line is not necessarily always the case. An employee who had made their own choice might have been better off.They are the major matters I wish to address today. There are other amendments there that I think are eminently sensible. I support them all and I hope that, over time, the government can further revisit compulsory superannuation and address some of the other issues I have raised, particularly flexibility, where some determination could be made for an employer not returning the funds on time who has a genuine excuse and, more importantly, to ensure that employees are not necessarily subjected to the needs of employers when it comes to choice. I think it is undoubtedly a very good policy that employees should have choice, particularly to avoid the situation that arises with multiple cover because of change of job, and the erosion of those funds when they are small amounts in a variety of funds instead of a larger amount in a single fund.10:38:002346Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I want to speak on one specific aspect of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 : that is, schedule 5 of the bill, which deals with choice of superannuation fund. I want to cover the problems that Labor believes are inherent in the government's choice of fund model. I want to outline Labor's proposed alternative choice of fund model, which we believe will offer genuine employee choice while avoiding the risks of the government's deeply flawed model.With the prior agreement of the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), I want to move an amendment to the member for Holt's second reading amendment asking the government to reconsider its choice of superannuation fund model and adopt the model that we propose. This model is receiving a growing level of support from the superannuation industry. Just a couple of days ago I addressed the conference of major superannuation funds in Brisbane and outlined Labor's model to them. At the close of that conference, one of the members said, `I want all those in this audience who think that Labor has got it right and the government has got it wrong to stand up.' Over 80 per cent of a 500-strong audience stood up and said that the government has got it wrong in relation to choice of fund and, in particular, has got it wrong with its indecent haste to try to introduce this model by 1 July this year.It is with some pride that I say that Australia's retirement income system, particularly our superannuation system, is highly regarded throughout the world. Many other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, consider Australia's three-pillar superannuation model to be world's best practice. Our superannuation system was praised in a 1994 World Bank report and, more recently, there was praise for Australia's retirement income system in a Wall Street Journal article by Daniel Mitchell and Robert O'Quinn, who are members of the United States think tank, the Heritage Foundation, which is not particularly well known for harbouring left-wing opinions. In their article, Mr Mitchell and Mr O'Quinn advised United States government policy makers to look closely at Australia's retirement income system as an example of how to get it right.Regrettably, since Labor lost office in March 1996, many changes have occurred to retirement incomes and to superannuation which have had a detrimental effect on superannuation. They include the decision to abandon Labor's three plus three per cent co-contribution and pay part of it in the form of a savings rebate which will do nothing to increase savings at either a public or private level. The other part of Labor's co-contribution is of course contained in the government's federation slush fund, which we are sure to hear more about in the coming months as the election draws nearer.We have seen the introduction of retirement savings accounts—low return products which will result in lower retirement incomes for those who use them. We have seen the introduction of the superannuation surcharge tax, which has been about as successful as the prime ministerial guidelines on ministerial code of conduct. We have seen the inclusion of superannuation assets in the means test for over-55s, which will see many low and middle income earning older Australians having to line up for the age pension after having run down their hard-earned retirement nest eggs.Yesterday, we commenced debate on removal of superannuation from awards, in direct contradiction of the promise given by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that no workers will be worse off under his government. Murray Wyatt of the Australian Society of CPAs was reported as saying in the Sydney Morning Herald recently that these changes, particularly the surcharge tax, have had the effect of undermining public confidence in superannuation. This bill makes the latest change: the requirement for employers to force employees to make a choice of superannuation fund.I should add that the government has circulated—and I have just received them in the last few minutes—83 amendments that it wants to move on this bill. This is unreasonably short notice to be moving 83 complex amendments without giving the opportunity to the parliament to appropriately consider these things. The Labor opposition will not be able to consider these things at the caucus. The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, which has looked at the choice of fund model, will not have the opportunity to consider these amendments. The government is proposing to introduce choice of fund on 1 July this year, and yet the superannuation funds and the employers and the employees, who will have to respond to these changes, have not even seen these changes up until now. This is reason enough that this matter should go back to the government. It should revisit the issue from scratch, listening to the people who it ought to be listening to: the superannuation funds, the employers, the employees with superannuation accounts, who, all the evidence suggests, do not require choice of fund.The requirement for choice of superannuation fund is without doubt one of the most significant changes to superannuation since the introduction of the superannuation guarantee. The House ought to be aware that in other countries which have endeavoured to introduce this kind of model, particularly in the United Kingdom and Chile, there have been unsatisfactory experiences. Those experiences, of workers being beguiled into taking out second-rate or third-rate products and therefore losing their retirement incomes, suggest that any choice of fund proposal needs to be carefully scrutinised before it is introduced.Labor is supportive of the principle of employee choice of fund provided that any choice model meets certain principles, which are that employees should benefit from choice; that employers should not be disadvantaged by choice; that choice should be consistent with broader retirement incomes policy; and that individuals must be able to make an informed choice, one where a worker thoroughly understands all of the factors and the impact that his or her choice of superannuation fund will have on their retirement income.Choice of fund ought to be based on true employee choice and not driven by ideology or vested interests. It should not be forced on employers or employees. It should be simple to understand and administer and not place onerous compliance burdens on either employers or employees. Finally, an independent arbitrator should be able to resolve choice of fund disputes between employers and employees.If the government's model had observed these principles, then choice could be a success in the Australian superannuation system; we could avoid the disasters which have befallen other countries. But the government's choice of fund model does not meet those principles. The government claims that its choice model will benefit consumers through increased competition in the superannuation industry, leading to lower fees and charges, and resulting in better retirement incomes. But the evidence suggests otherwise.A recent survey of 354 superannuation funds by Sedgwick Noble Lowndes reported that the government's choice of fund model will lead to increased costs for fund members. That survey stated that 87 per cent of funds believe that choice of fund will increase fund administration costs, with the cost increasing by some 10 per cent. Alarmingly, around 10 per cent of the funds surveyed believed that costs could increase by up to 50 per cent. That view was confirmed by witnesses to the recent Senate Select Committee on Superannuation inquiry into choice of superannuation from Towers Perrin, from the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and from the C+Bus industry fund, who all argued that superannuation fund costs would increase dramatically after the introduction of choice, particularly in areas such as marketing, administration and legal costs.In addition, the government's choice of fund proposal is certain to disadvantage employers through increased administrative costs, which even the government acknowledges in the explanatory memorandum to the bill that introduces its choice model. This comes from the government which has promised small business a 50 per cent reduction in red tape.There is also a strong likelihood that employers may be legally liable under the government's choice model in a number of ways, despite attempts to legislate away employers' potential liability through clause 32U of this bill. The Senate committee received evidence suggesting that it is impossible to legislate away the common law duty of care which employers owe to their workers. Nor is the government's choice of fund model consistent with broader retirement income policy, and the Senate committee was told by Jock Rankin from the Institute of Actuaries:. . . if choice is not properly exercised, there will be no net benefit to the individuals trying to accumulate savings for their retirement, and no net benefit to the nation.Labor is also concerned about the government's intention to implement choice of fund by 1 July 1998 for new employees in the face of overwhelming industry calls to delay that start-up date. Uninformed consumers who are rushed into choosing a fund which is unsuitable for their investment risk/return profile could end up with significantly lower retirement incomes. The government's choice of fund model is supposed to be based on deregulation and open competition, yet it does not offer true employee choice. It forces choice on both employers and employees.So from 1 July employers will be required to offer new employees choice of fund, regardless of whether the employees want it or not and the employees will be forced to make that choice. That same compulsory choice, with a gun at your head, model will apply to existing employees from 1 July 2000. Mr Peter Kell from the Australian Consumers Association told the Senate committee that, under the government's choice model:It is effectively the employer's decision over the type of choice offered or whether there will be any choice at all . . . The balance between employer cost and employee choice has shifted too far away from fund members. It is not employee choice of fund.Mr Kell is absolutely right. It is abundantly clear that the government's choice model is not driven by employee demand, which the evidence suggests is not particularly high. Rather, it is clear that the government is driving choice of fund for ideological reasons, not from any genuine desire to provide employees with a real choice about where their contributions should go.The government's distaste for industry based superannuation funds is well known and was recently acknowledged in an editorial in the Australian newspaper which discussed the government's desire to press ahead with the 1 July start-up date in the face of industry and indeed employer opposition. On 2 March, the Australian stated:If the Government remains set on its course, it would provide ammunition for critics who believe the member choice initiatives are motivated more by a desire to water down union-affiliated industry fund involvement in superannuation than by a genuine wish to empower individual savers.If the government were serious about employee choice of superannuation fund it could have chosen from a range of other choice models, some of which already operate in state jurisdictions, which would have delivered true employee choice. The government's model is complicated. It places onerous compliance burdens on both employees and employers and fails the test of being simple to understand or administer.It will create enormous confusion for employers who have workers employed under both state and federal industrial arrangements and where employees move from one industrial jurisdiction to another. There is abundant evidence to suggest that many employers, particularly those in small businesses, are blissfully ignorant, unaware, of their choice obligations. If they were aware of their obligations they would probably be in revolt about why this government, which has promised to cut red tape for small business by 50 per cent, is implementing a superannuation policy which mummifies them in packing tape instead. The government's choice of fund model when combined with the bill we debated yesterday, which will remove superannuation from industrial awards, is going to remove the capacity of an independent arbitrator to resolve industrial disputes between employers and workers about where superannuation fund contributions should go. That will remove an essential and well-established protection for both employers and employees. As I said yesterday, it will take us back to the kinds of disputes we saw in the eighties between, for example, the Storemen and Packers Union and Woolworths over where superannuation money should go without any effective way of resolving those disputes.What model does Labor believe will meet choice of fund principles? I believe we need a phased two-stage model. The features of such a model would be: stage 1, all superannuation funds with more than 50 fund members be required to offer investment choice options to all fund members; and, stage 2, after an extensive education and consumer protection campaign, implement a genuine employee choice superannuation model where employees can nominate and, if employers agree, have superannuation contributions paid into a fund other than that set out in an industrial agreement.The key features of stage 1, choice within superannuation funds, would be that funds would be required to offer all fund members a minimum of three choice of investment options but it would not be compulsory for members in a fund to exercise an investment choice if they choose not to do so.We recommend this as a first step forward for several reasons. First, the option for funds to offer choice of investment already exists. It is set out in subsection 52(4) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. Secondly, investment choice within funds is a good way to begin to educate fund members about their retirement income options and control of their superannuation savings. We had evidence to the Senate committee suggesting that members of existing funds do actively exercise a choice if it is accompanied by an adequate education campaign.Thirdly, investment choice provides real options for choice as opposed to the government's model which could see consumers faced with identical investment options. Steve Gibbs from the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees supported this view in evidence. He said:. . . if choice is going to be introduced, real options ought to be available to people so that they can choose a low risk fund or a high risk fund and there might be one or two in the middle so that at least they can make up their own mind about what it is, rather than having all the choices look alike.I suggest that there is a real risk under the government's model that that is exactly what is going to happen and we will not see employees being offered fair dinkum choices.Finally, an added feature of investment choice could be a default investment option based on age/risk profiles. This would ensure that fund members do not find themselves in inappropriate investment profiles which are not suitable to maximising fund members' final retirement income.The key features of stage 2, genuine employee choice of superannuation fund, would be that, if an industrial award requires an employer to pay superannuation contributions to a specified superannuation fund on behalf of an employee, the employee may nominate to have superannuation contributions paid to a complying superannuation fund. The nomination would be made in writing, signed by the employee. Employers must give the employee a copy of the nomination and written notice of their approval. Employers and employees who negotiate a certified agreement or an Australian workplace agreement would be taken to have exercised choice.Regulations would be drafted governing standard disclosure provisions applying to key feature statements offered by funds directly to employees, particularly to enable simple comparison of fees, charges and fund earnings—a most important issue. In the event of a dispute, the Industrial Relations Commission would act as the independent arbitrator. Where a workplace is not covered by an industrial award or agreement, the default fund would be that to which the majority of employees at that workplace belong. So, in the event of a new business which is not covered by an industrial award or agreement, the fund specified in the designated award would apply.This offers genuine choice of fund to employees. It would more accurately reflect the demand for choice of superannuation fund from workers, rather than choice driven by government or by vested interests. It would be simple to administer and avoid the complications of the government's model. It is broadly consistent with the choice of fund models which presently operate in the New South Wales and Queensland state jurisdictions, therefore leading to less confusion and creating greater national consistency between state and federal choice of fund models.Employers and employees would have the protection of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in settling disputes. It would limit employer liability compared with what the government is putting forward, it would avoid the default fund problems that the government's model has, and it would also avoid some of the transitional problems with the two models that the government's bill contains.In addition to our second reading amendment, we want to amend the government's bill at the consideration in detail stage in a number of ways. We want to delay the start date for choice until 1 July 2000 to bring it into line for both new and existing employees. We want to take action in relation to the definition of industry funds, and I will raise a number of other matters when we get to the consideration in detail stage.In conclusion, I believe that our model will provide genuine employee choice, not the present flawed, forced employer choice model. With the consent and support of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I seek leave to move the amendment circulated in my name.Leave granted.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I move:That the following words be added to the words proposed to be substituted: (3) put forward proposals for the choice of superannuation funds which are both impractical and inequitable and should be replaced by a model which(a) allows for the provisions of industrial awards and agreements to be recognised;(b) provides for more practical choices for employees and employers;(c) provides greater protection for employees and employers;(d) allows the Industrial Relations Commission to act as an independent arbitrator; and(e) is accompanied by a Government-funded education program.(Time expired)10:48:002351Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—The current RPS, PAYE and PPS tax arrangements impact on most Australian businesses. They are resource intensive, time consuming and lack the flexibility to cater for the increasing demand of electronic commerce. In addition, 10 per cent of businesses have obligations in more than one withholding arrangement. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7)1997 is aimed at relieving the burden that these arrangements place on business and bringing the method of tax payment by large withholders into line with modern business practices.These changes represent an important step towards reducing the range of withholding tax systems imposed on business with a view to establishing an efficient interface between the Australian Taxation Office and the business taxpaying community.Under this bill, remittance obligations of withholders under the RPS, PPS and PAYE systems are being rationalised by combining them under one set of arrangements. While these new arrangements are based on the existing PAYE obligations, there are some important differences introduced by this bill.For large remitters, the bill requires that they remit, on average, every seven days instead of the present 14 days. Large remitters will also be required to remit electronically—a major step in modernising the tax payment system. In addition to improving the security of tax payments, the cost of paying electronically is less than the transaction charge for cheque payments, illustrated by an estimated 95 per cent of large remitters who currently pay salaries electronically.In terms of compliance cost, five per cent of large remitters will incur an initial cost in acquiring the software to facilitate electronic payments. This cost has been estimated to large remitters as being between $75 and $440, depending on the financial institution.For approximately 311,000 small remitters, the bill provides for them to remit on a quarterly basis rather than once a month, increasing their cashflow benefits. The small remitter threshold has also been increased from $10,000 to $25,000.The net effect of these changes on small remitters is an estimated saving of $18 million per year. The bill removes the requirements for a person to apply for small remitter status, deeming all remitters to be small remitters unless they are required to remit as a medium or large remitter. More than 80 per cent of all remitters fall into this small remitter category.For small business, this represents a significant reduction in compliance costs and reduces the frequency of their transactions with the Australian Taxation Office. For medium remitters, those whose total deductions under the three systems is more than $25,000 and less than $1 million per annum, the bill aligns the remittance dates for RPS and PPS to the same monthly date for PAYE remittance. The administrative savings from these measures is estimated at $9 million next year and $11 million in subsequent years for the ATO.The bill also simplifies the capital gains tax payment system through the introduction of an asset register. This bill allows taxpayers to transfer some or all of the information contained in the records they must keep for CGT purposes to an asset register.The asset register will greatly reduce the burden on capital gains tax payers by giving them greater flexibility in how they keep their records. The asset register allows taxpayers who transfer information contained in records required under current law to dispose of those documents five years after that entry is certified by a third party.The bill is aimed at increasing the efficiency of the Australian taxation system and reducing the compliance cost to Australian taxpayers. While these amendments are welcomed by taxpayers, the pace of tax reform has the potential to be increased still further. This is particular true in the area of capital gains tax. A considerable body of evidence suggests that lowering the rate of capital gains tax would stimulate economic growth, improving the fairness of the taxation system and increasing tax revenues by encouraging individuals to unlock gains that they have been unwilling to realise due to the high rates of CGT. William Beach, a visiting fellow in tax analysis at the Heritage Foundation, in a paper entitled `How a capital gains tax cut would boost state revenues', said:Reducing the tax rate for capital gains actually increases tax revenues from taxpayers who own appreciated assets. Changes in capital gains tax rates strongly indicate that rate decreases produce more declarations of capital gains and more capital gains taxes. Owners of appreciated assets who face high tax rates generally hold on to or `lock up' their assets.That is, capital gains declarations increase when the rate of CGT decreases.The potential increase in revenue caused by the freeing up of capital assets and the corresponding increase in tax payments is staggering. In the United States, economists estimate that trillions of dollars in unrealised or locked up capital gains exist in the portfolios of American taxpayers—perhaps as high as $US7.5 trillion. Two leading tax economists at the US Congressional Budget Office estimate taxpayer response to capital gains rate reductions as being in the order of six to one. In other words, for every one per cent drop in the rate of capital gains tax, capital gains realisations would rise by six per cent.On 17 March this year, Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a comprehensive package of measures designed to promote enterprise and encourage investment in Britain. Among these changes were reforms to capital gains tax designed to encourage longer term investment. Britain has introduced a capital gains tax taper aimed at reducing the capital gains tax charge on the disposal of long-held business assets. These and other reforms are a response to what Britain has identified as a key economic challenge for the 21st century: responding to globalisation and increasing global competition.There are many benefits to be gained by tax reform, including lowering the rate of CGT. The current unwillingness to realise capital gains distorts the market and inhibits growth and employment in Australia. Businesses are being distracted from pursuing investment opportunities by the desire to reduce their capital gains tax liabilities. Australia's high rate of CGT taxes economic activity. A high rate of CGT distorts normal business practices, inhibits the rationalisation of capital holdings, delays a firm's removal of non-core assets and alters the correct response to outgrowing a firm's property—all by the desire to avoid paying higher rates of CGT.When the United States introduced a luxury tax in 1990 it was targeted towards, amongst other things, the wealthy yacht buyer, yet the burden of this tax fell on the yacht builders, who went bankrupt, and their employees, who went out of work. The wealthy yacht buyers either curtailed the purchase of yachts or purchased them overseas. Something similar occurs, of course, with capital gains tax.A high rate of CGT restricts capital formation, hurting the greatest job creator in the economy—new business. In the United States between 1982 and 1988, when the capital gains tax rate was 20 per cent, new business incorporations rose by 4.4 per cent a year. Between 1987 and 1993, with a capital gains tax rate of 28 per cent, new business incorporations rose by less than 0.1 per cent annually. In other words, when the rate of CGT was increased by eight per cent, America's new business incorporations dropped from 4.4 per cent per year to less than 0.1 per cent per year. This is significant because most new businesses are small businesses. Last September, the ABS Business Longitudinal Survey revealed that 65 per cent of the 211,000 jobs created during 1995-96 came from the small business sector, that is, 137,000 jobs were created by small business.The government has responded to problems facing small business with the introduction of capital gains tax rollover relief. This tax reform package provided small business with relief from CGT where a taxpayer realised a capital gain on the disposal of an asset, then reinvested the proceeds in the same or another business. This capital gains tax rollover relief was an important step in removing some of the barriers to investment. Australia's modern economy demands that we look at dismantling other barriers to investment such as implementing further reforms to disposal of appreciated assets for medium and larger businesses.A reduction in CGT is not a tax break for the rich because the target of a tax and the burden of the tax are not necessarily the same, as in the case of the wealthy yacht buyer. A high rate of CGT prevents the economy from operating at its optimum level, discouraging investment and hampering the creation of new jobs. A more competitive rate of CGT would make the allocation of capital more efficient, enabling investors to make decisions based on the opportunity rather than the tax liabilities.Furthermore, at more acceptable rates of CGT owners of appreciated assets would be more likely to realise their capital gain through the sale of those assets, thereby increasing CGT revenues. Removing the barriers to the sale of frozen assets will provide the incentive to invest in new ventures and also result in a higher level of capital formation. This will be an important element in stimulating new investment, improving productivity, enhancing Australia's competitiveness and creating jobs.At the global level, Australia's high rate of CGT makes Australia a less attractive home for venture capital. Firms in a competitive trading environment are more likely to invest their capital in countries where CGT rates are globally competitive.The Mortimer report of July 1997 made particular reference to the impact of Australia's capital gains tax on attracting venture capital. In reference to the merits of lowering the CGT rate on venture capital investment as a step towards increasing Australia's level of venture capital, the report said: Differential tax treatment is likely to cause venture capital to flow to low-tax countries in America and Asia at the expense of Australia.Foreign pension funds, particularly those in the United States, are the main exporters of venture capital. This venture capital goes to countries where the taxation system offers similar or better tax concessions than those in the United States.Exemption from capital gains tax is the main attraction for pension funds investing in venture capital. As these investments are generally long term, the income forgone during the early years of investment is usually compensated by high capital gains realised in later years when the investment returns a profit. Accordingly, these venture capital funds search for tax regimes where the capital gain on the disposal of venture capital investments is exempt from capital gains tax.Mr Deputy Speaker, Australia could attract a greater volume of venture capital funds if further CGT reform was undertaken. The irony is that the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 realised the benefits of attracting venture capital and exempted interest and dividends received by foreign superannuation funds from income tax. However, US pension funds—a major source of venture capital—for commercial reasons choose either a limited partnership or a unit trust for investing in venture capital projects. When resulting dividends and interest are taxed through the limited partnership, capital gains tax liabilities are incurred.The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 failed to recognise that a limited partnership was merely a conduit for investment made by foreign superannuation funds. When Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) was introduced in 1992, it taxed limited partnerships as companies. So, instead of the partnerships being taxed on the partnership profit or loss, limited partnerships became taxable entities in their own right. This does not encourage the inflow of venture capital to Australia.Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) is one element of the government's plan to reduce the burden of excessive taxation compliance and, in so doing, dismantle some of the barriers to conducting business. The introduction of the CGT assets register and the simplification of remittance obligations are part of the government's commitment to tax reform aimed at easing the burden of record keeping on business, simplifying existing taxation laws and establishing a modern interface between the ATO and Australian taxpayers.11:04:002354Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLISZJ4GellibrandALP00—I rise to speak in support of the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) and the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson). In doing so, I want to address my remarks to those aspects of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 which relate to savings. There is no doubt that improving savings in this nation is an important policy issue. We all know that the deficiency of savings lies behind our relatively high balance of payments current account deficit. What is perhaps not so well recognised is that our savings deficiency is not in the public sector but in the private sector.In the public sector, when the Labor government left office, our budget deficit was one of the lowest in the OECD—well below the OECD average—only about four out of 22 OECD countries having a lower budget deficit. Our savings problem is not in the public sector but in the private sector. The Labor government sought to address that, by spreading superannuation across the whole of the work force instead of the less than half of it which was the case when we came into office, and doing that through award superannuation, and then, secondly, spreading it further through the superannuation guarantee charge, which provided not only for a wider coverage still of superannuation but also for a progressive increase in the employer contribution from three per cent of an employee's pay—which was initially established under the award superannuation—to nine per cent by early next century.That, of course, was seen as giving a considerable boost to national savings. The retirement incomes modelling task force of Treasury estimated that that would eventually increase savings by some 2.3 per cent of GDP, which is a very substantial boost indeed.Then, in the 1995 budget, we proposed to extend that dramatically by using the second leg of the tax cuts to introduce a co-contribution for employee contributions, making employee contributions to superannuation compulsory, and then matching that with a matching grant from the government on a means tested basis, the combined effect of which would have been to considerably enhance savings, by another 1.7 per cent of GDP. This would have meant a four per cent boost in savings as a proportion of GDP, taking it up by another four per cent eventually—a very considerable change to savings behaviour in this country. Of course, it would also have greatly improved the retirement income of ordinary workers. In fact, for many of them, it would have meant they would have retired eventually on 100 per cent of their pre-retirement income—a tremendous economic and social reform.What have this government done after promising at the election to implement Labor's policy announced in the 1995 budget that they would introduce the co-contributions for employee contributions? They said they would do that at a cost eventually to the budget of some $4 billion but that would all go into savings, so there would be no savings lost. They have now welched on that promise. Having welched on that promise, they are saying, `We are doing other things which will rectify that.' The major thing that they are doing is in this bill, and I will talk about that.The government has broken that fundamental promise to the Australian people—a $4 billion promise. That is scandalous; it is also, of course, very damaging in terms of its impact on national savings. This government has acted in a very retrograde way by undertaking that step and also in relation to the superannuation contributions tax, which is scaring higher income people out of superannuation, by allowing low income people and casual employees to opt out of super, and by its precipitate introduction of the choice of fund for superannuation which is in this legislation now before the House. All of those actions are tending to undermine private savings in this country.Let me refer in more detail to the savings rebate which is part of the legislation now before us. There are two key weaknesses in this proposed tax concession. It will do nothing to improve national savings. In fact it will have a negative impact on national savings. The way it is proposed to operate is quite inequitable. As a measure to promote national savings this proposal is a sick joke. It will not improve national savings because, when it is fully introduced, it will cost the budget over $2 billion, which is a reduction in national savings. There would be a plus to national savings only if the additional private sector savings were induced by more than $2 billion. But there are no indications that this will happen.During the Senate estimates hearings after last year's budget, when Treasury officials were asked for their estimate of the impact of the rebate on promoting private savings, they were completely unable to give any figure at all. They said that it was all just a matter of judgment, and they could not say what the impact would be. So this government is introducing this measure supposedly so that it will improve national savings, without any official advice that it would have such an effect. That is an absolutely extraordinary situation. In fact, if the truth be known, it is more than likely they have been told by Treasury that it will have a negative impact on savings, but Treasury officials refrained from saying that at the Senate committee hearings. Certainly they would not say that it would have a positive effect.This is utterly irresponsible behaviour by this government, especially as it has abandoned its promise to introduce Labor's co-contribution policy, which would certainly have boosted national savings. It is not hard to see why Treasury was not willing to say that this would do anything to promote national savings, because it is so easy to obtain the rebate without undertaking any additional saving. If you already make personal superannuation contributions, you can get the rebate without making any further increase in your personal contributions at all. If people have substantial income already from other savings, such as interest income, dividends, rental income, capital gains, and income from trusts, they can obtain the rebate without any increase in their savings at all, so it is just a handout.There is no incentive for people who already have sufficient savings to get the maximum rebate to increase their savings at all. In fact people who reduce their savings in a year can obtain the rebate. As long as they still have sufficient savings to claim the rebate, they can reduce their savings considerably in a year but still claim the full rebate, which is an utterly perverse and ludicrous result. You can get the full benefits that this legislation gives, the full savings rebate, for doing the exact opposite of what the legislation is supposed to produce—that is, an increase in savings. What a perverse and ridiculous piece of legislation! It is no wonder that Treasury refused to state that this measure will have any positive effect on national savings.Furthermore, this measure is also further encouragement for people to split their income through devices such as trusts because, if they do so, not only can they reduce their personal income tax by income streaming in the conventional way, where income that would otherwise go to one person gets split amongst several people and they all get the tax free minimum area and then lower marginal taxes after that, but also now they have available a further $450 rebate for each trust beneficiary as long as the trust income is over $3,000 for each person.So it is a major further incentive for people to avoid tax by splitting their income through trusts—that is, to follow the example of the 19 ministers in this government who have family trusts. They will be able to do what they are doing and use trusts to reduce their income tax. This is a real substantial incentive to go down that path. Not only is there no gain to national savings in this case; there is a loss to national savings because people will access the rebate without saving any more and, in so far as it induces more people to utilise trusts to reduce income tax, it further reduces national savings. As a measure to improve national savings, this savings rebate is a complete and utter disaster.No wonder there are reports in yesterday's Financial Review that business and industry groups are discussing with the government, and apparently quite intensively so, the scrapping of the savings rebate. The government is talking with business about scrapping the legislation that is just coming through the House now and utilising the $2 billion for reducing marginal taxes as part of their tax reform. No wonder they are doing that. Business and industry groups all recognise that this savings rebate is a joke. Everyone recognises that except, apparently, this government. Maybe even it does now, following those sorts of discussions.It is quite clear that this savings rebate is utterly inequitable. To save time I will not go through the detail of that but, because there is no means test on it, it is utterly inequitable, and that point has been made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and will be made by other speakers on this side.I turn now to the choice of superannuation fund which, in relation to private savings, is another major piece of the legislation now before us. The government claims that the provision of choice for new employees from 1 July this year and for existing employees from 1 July 2000 will be beneficial because, through competition, it will reduce costs and increase investment returns. In fact, there is no certainty at all that such benefits will result.Indeed, especially given the way that choice is being implemented in this bill, there is a strong reason to believe that the opposite will result. This is partly because the costs may well be increased by choice. This in turn follows from the fact that, firstly, increased marketing and administrative costs for funds will result from choice. Marketing costs will increase because funds will be forced to sell their wares, to market themselves to employees and employers so that they will be the fund of choice. That is not something the funds have generally had to do before. These costs could be very considerable indeed because banks, life offices and various other public offer bodies—other financial institu tions—will be anxious to attract more of the superannuation business, so the industry funds and others will have to defend their territory. That will mean considerable additional marketing expenditure.There will also be the costs of people switching funds. Choice will mean more movement between funds so there are more administration costs of taking on new people and having people leave. These costs can be considerable, as shown in the evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation in regard to Chile. Evidence was given that in Chile, which has a compulsory superannuation scheme and a vigorous choice regime, costs of switching funds accounts for an extraordinary 38 per cent of the entire cost of managing the superannuation system—38 per cent. Thus additional costs of people switching funds may be very substantial indeed.The question is, therefore, whether the absolute certainty of substantial additional costs for the industry through increased marketing, administration and legal costs will be offset by possible inducements to efficiency and improvement through competition. The government's advisers clearly do not have any idea what the outcome will be. In evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, the Assistant Commissioner (Policy) of the Insurance and Superannuation Commission told the committee:We have not undertaken any specific research on the impact on industry compliance costs in terms of marketing for choice of fund.If the specialist regulator body does not know what will happen to costs, how can the government simply assume that costs overall will be reduced?We also have to take into account costs to employers of the choice regime being implemented. There will be considerable additional costs for employers. The reason why the Labor government provided little in the way of choice in the past was in large part to keep costs to employers as low as possible. The employers will now face the cost of having to give each employee a choice once a year. They will face costs of deciding what choice to offer and trying to ensure that they are offering appropriate funds; costs of ensuring that employees receive sufficient information on which to make an informed choice; costs of notifying each employee of the choice available; costs of ensuring that an employee's choice in an unlimited choice offer is in fact a complying funds for the purposes of the act; and costs of having to make payments to a whole host of different funds instead of just one fund as generally applies at present.These are additional costs on employers. They are therefore certain to face additional costs as well as the strong likelihood that costs will be considerably higher for the funds. Apart from higher costs, there are other factors that mean that members may well receive lower returns than they currently do. One of these factors is that people may well be induced by slick sales agents acting on a commission basis to make bad choices. There is an example of this happening in the United Kingdom.Evidence given to the Senate committee showed that, when the Thatcher government in the United Kingdom allowed member choice of funds in the late 1980s, the result was that about half a million people were duped into making extremely bad choices, especially—and almost incomprehensibly—leaving employer assisted defined benefit schemes for personal superannuation schemes that relied entirely on the employees' own contributions. To be induced to go into a scheme where they left behind employer contributions and relied entirely on their own and on an accumulation basis against some defined benefit is almost unbelievable. But a large part of the half a million people who made a bad choice to move did that and were thus worse off.It seems extraordinary, but the fact is that it has cost something in the order of $10 billion to rectify the mess in the United Kingdom. After such a disaster, one would think that the Australian government would have learnt from this experience, but the government seems to be relying on appropriate disclosure statements being available to employees to enable them to make an informed choice. This is no guarantee at all.For instance, Professor Goode, the Oxford University professor who chaired the United Kingdom inquiry into the pension fiasco, said when he was in Australia last October, as reported in the Age of 13 October 1997:The more bits of paper, the more information people are given, the more confused they become. All this volume of disclosure is counterproductive because it gets to the stage where nobody reads anything.That is the British experience. In the light of that, clearly we should be very cautious about moving to choice, and certainly we should not do it until there has been a large, intensive and effective education program to alert people to the dangers of choice and to ensure that they understand what is involved as well as possible. That is not happening.We are rushing to the introduction for new employees by 1 July this year—that is just three months away—with no education program in place. The Taxation Office has only recently completed tendering for the conduct of such an education campaign by an advertising agency, and that is yet to come into place. The funds available for education are not large. The government has allocated only $12 million over four years to deal with the administration of introducing choice of fund, including an education campaign.There will be a lot less than $12 million for education. In 1997-98, the amount is only $2 million for all the administrative costs for choice, so much less than $2 million is to be spent on education in 1997-98. Goodness knows what is going to be spent this year, as I understand there is no specific allocation for a campaign in the rest of this financial year. Potentially this is quite disastrous, especially as some two million people change their jobs each year and a couple of hundred thousand others enter the work force. Well over two million people will qualify for choice in 1997-98, but there will be no adequate education in place for them.Evidence to the Senate committee also made it clear that the employers were not ready for this change. For instance, Coles Myer, one of the largest employers in the country, said that they were not ready for this change; they would not have their administra tion ready in time for a 1 July start. A survey published in the Australian Financial Review on 22 December of last year showed 42 per cent of employers were not aware at all about the choice of fund regime to be implemented by 1 July this year.Clearly, as well as employers not being ready, the superannuation industry itself is not ready. For example, where an employer offers a limited choice of four funds to an employee, they will be required to provide the employee with a key features statement for each of the offered funds, but details of these key features statements are not yet known and will not be known until regulations are issued after this legislation has been passed by the parliament later this month, presumably, or maybe later. So again there is simply no time for all this to be decided, conveyed to funds and employers, for them to understand it and for employees to be educated as to what it all means for them.It was the overwhelming view of the evidence to the Senate select committee that the timetable is too tight. Even David Connolly, the former Liberal MP and coalition spokesman on superannuation, the author of their policy, said he was concerned about the lack of time and suggested that either it be put off for six months or it be optional for the first six months. So, too, said the Institute of Actuaries and various others.It is also the case that this choice regime will mean reduced outcomes for people in other respects, particularly in relation to insurance. David Connolly again said it was cause of great concern to him that there was not compulsory insurance provision in this legislation and people could lose their insurance cover. Also, in relation to a default fund, there is grave danger that people will be worse off by being put by employers into a default fund—where they do not make a choice, as will happen in many cases—and that fund will be utterly inadequate because no standards will apply for it. (Time expired)11:24:002358Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonLP10—I was interested to listen to the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), a former Treasurer, to get the benefit of his wisdom on some of these subjects. Unfortunately, I think all we got was a tirade of criticism of what the government is intending to do in this legislation and very little credit. In his criticism of the government's savings measures announced in this legislation there is only all of the negative side and the down side. The question being posed is: will it work or won't it work? The point is that something had to be done to address the level of savings in Australia. The question I ask the member for Gellibrand is: what did you do? You were in government for 13 years and you were a former Treasurer.ZJ4WILLISMr Willis—I just told you what we did.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I listened to what you tried to tell us you did and there were not any answers there. But if you look at the facts and the figures, you will find that Australia's savings rates during the years you were in government hovered at extremely low levels—and I am looking at household savings rates for OECD countries—in fact, they trended down from 6.8 in 1983 to below five through the 1994, 1995 and 1996 years.So Australia has a very serious problem. When you look at these figures and put them in the OECD context, the picture is pretty bleak when you compare Australia's savings performance with, say, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom or South Korea prior to the economic problems it is experiencing at the moment. In comparison with those countries and others in the OECD, Australia has performed very poorly indeed in respect of its savings rates. I do not think the member for Gellibrand has a great deal of credibility in being entirely negative about the government's proposal.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Oh, you are joking!FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—The truth hurts, I am sure. Something had to be done and something is being done. I think most people applaud these particular measures. Not only did we hear criticism of what we are doing but I do not think we got much of an indication of what you would actually do to address the problem. I am sure you have acknowledged that there is a problem with Australia's savings rates, but we did not hear—and we do not hear much—about Labor Party polices. There is a lot of criticism. Maybe that is the way you see opposition. I suppose in opposition it is an easy trap to fall into—to constantly criticise what the government is doing—and up to a point that is legitimate. But acknowledging that there is a problem with Australia's savings rates, let us hear a little bit more policy from the Labor Party; let us hear what they would do to address the problem rather than coming in here and trying to tell us that what the government is doing to address the problem will not work. So I applaud what the government is doing in this legislation to encourage people to save, because that is obviously something that is desperately needed.The other issue the member for Gellibrand concentrated on at some length in his contribution was criticism of the government's proposal to introduce choice of superannuation fund for employees. Again I think he was slightly disingenuous in his criticism of that proposal. We on this side acknowledge and understand the complexities of those arrangements. The difficulties that they may create for employers are, of course, uppermost in our minds. It will introduce some difficulties for employers, but what we need to really look at here is the intention of these proposals in terms of creating competition and in terms ultimately of providing a better deal for employees. That is the priority.The member for Gellibrand can talk all he likes about shonky insurance salesmen, as I think he described them. We are all subject to the risk of dealing, I suppose, with shonky sales people. People need to be educated and need to be aware of the opportunities, but let me put to bed the suggestion that the opposition are concerned about freedom of choice for those reasons. They are concerned about freedom of choice because it is simply going to break down the very cosy arrangements that they put in place in respect of superannuation contributions whereby all of their union mates were the benefactors of the systems that they put in place.Why wouldn't they have put those systems in place? It meant that millions—maybe even billions—of dollars were going to flow directly or indirectly into union coffers or into funds that were controlled to a large extent by the trade unions. We are not necessarily introducing this system only to break down that cosy arrangement, but it does, quite correctly, have that effect. It will give employees the sort of choice that I believe they ought to have.It is actually quite patronising for the Labor Party to talk in the terms that they do—that individual Australians, employees, are not capable of making choices. In other words, the Labor Party's attitude to so many things is that the government can do better for us than we can do for ourselves. That really shows the huge ideological divide which still exists between those of us on this side of the House and those who sit in the opposition.We simply do not want to patronise people. We want to give them choices. They certainly have to understand that the choices need to be educated and informed. We simply take the view that people are capable of making those choices, that they ought to make those choices and that when they make those choices they will make them consistent with their own objectives and their ideas about where they should put their money, which, after all, is also what we are talking about in this context. I really get quite excited when I hear those in the Labor Party talking about some of these things because it is never too difficult to read between the lines and see what the real agenda is. For speaker after speaker opposite to come in here and criticise the government without giving us the benefit of their alternatives for solving some of these problems really is a bit rich.I will turn briefly to a number of elements of this legislation that I want to speak to specifically. People listening to this debate probably get the impression that it is all terribly technical. People ought to know that with this legislation the government is doing some very simple things yet things which will be enormously worth while and welcomed by all Australians.This legislation provides for the introduction of tax deductibility for donations to the Australian services nurses national memorial on Anzac Parade in Canberra. That is something that I particularly welcome. I am sure that all members of this House and all Aus tralians would be pleased to know about this measure. The memorial is a very worthwhile project. It is temporarily in place at the moment. I am very pleased to be able to tell people, if they are not aware, that tax deductibility for donations to the memorial trust will be in place from 3 September 1997 until 4 September 1999. Hopefully, people will be encouraged to make donations to that trust because they are tax deductible and that will enable the project to proceed and to be completed on schedule. That is something that I know will be strongly supported.One other measure covered in this legislation—and there are a large number of fairly minor or technical matters but nevertheless people will be interested to know about them—is the capital gains tax register. There are a number of parts of this legislation which the government is bringing forward in response to the work done by the Small Business Deregulation Task Force. This is just another concession to small business. It may be minor of itself, but I think it adds to the very correct perception that people ought to have—that is, that this government is concerned to assist the small business community wherever possible.This particular measure was highlighted in that inquiry by the Small Business Deregulation Task Force. It brought forward a number of recommendations, some of which are implemented in this legislation. This particular measure means that taxpayers should no longer have to keep source documents for unreasonable periods of time. Instead they will only need to retain source documents for five years after the details have been extended into the asset register and certified by a registered tax agent or other person approved by the commissioner.The proposal was announced in the government's response, appropriately entitled More Time for Business, to the original task force report. Whilst these sorts of requirements that have been imposed on small businesses over the years are not great in isolation, when looked at in a cumulative sense they probably add up to some hours of work each week for the small business person. The government has, quite correctly, been at great pains to reduce the workload on small business as far as record keeping and a range of other impositions are concerned. This particular piece of legislation brings into effect a number of the recommendations of that Small Business Deregulation Task Force. I welcome them.I have a constituency made up of many small businesses, mainly focused on the tourism industry. When I visit them, as I do whenever I have a chance, they never fail to raise with me the issue of the record keeping requirements placed on them and the complexity of taxation laws and other laws. Inevitably, complying with regulations takes time. For small business—and we are talking about small to medium micro-businesses—time is money. Any time that is required to be taken to fill out forms for government or to keep records involves either employing someone to do it, which very small business cannot afford to do these days, or someone working long hours as virtually every small business person has to do these days to meet the requirements of the law. I welcome, my constituents will welcome and I suspect most people in this place will welcome the changes that respond to the concerns of small business.I mentioned earlier the savings rebate. I have already made a few comments in response to what the member for Gellibrand said in his contribution. I refute strongly his contention that this is not a good measure. He quoted the figure for the cost of this measure. I accept that this is a very expensive measure. It will cost $350 million in 1998-99, $1.370 million in 1999-2000 and over $2 billion in 2000-01.It is a very expensive measure. In that respect, it is a very generous measure, and, frankly, it remains to be seen whether it will work. But the bottom line most of us recognise is that Australians save too little and need to be encouraged to save. Many people in my community have been saying to me for years, `If you want to encourage people to save, you have to have tax incentives in place through the tax system which will achieve that objective.' That is what this legislation does. You can argue that it does not go far enough—and in time it will go further—but it is a start and it will encourage savings. Hopefully, it will have the effect of reversing the trend that I referred to earlier in those OECD figures which show the very concerning and consistent low rates of saving in Australia over many years compared to those in many of the other OECD countries.The problem we have in Australia is not only low savings but also high debt. In a sense, I suppose one is the corollary of the other but, whether you look at it on a national level or a household level, we as Australians are heavily in debt. That presents us with problems not only at a household level but also as a national economy. Much of the government's good work that has been done since it was elected has been aimed at fixing the latter—that is, making sure that Australia's public and private debt levels are brought under control.On a household level, we all know that people use credit cards extensively these days. In fact, there is almost a whole different approach now to the use of credit. My parents saved for the things they wanted. It was my generation that suffered the bankcard in the mail syndrome. From then on, we thought we did not need to save for anything, so we did not save and today we have these horrific levels of debt, both personally and nationally. It is quite correct that the government should do, as it has done, everything within its power to reduce debt levels.The savings rebate, which is at a rate of 15 per cent—except in 1998-99 it will be 7.5 per cent—will apply to a wide range of savings vehicles, which I will not go into now, up to an annual cap of $3,000. The rebate will be available for earnings from a wide range of savings and investment vehicles. The measure is intended to provide a fair incentive to save which allows individuals to choose the form most suited to their needs, recognising that individuals need to save for lifestyle needs as well as retirement.My electorate is dominated by retired people, and I have a great concern about saving for retirement. There is an urgent need to encourage people to save for their retirement in order for them to achieve a higher standard of living than they would otherwise enjoy if they did not. We have an ageing population and a shrinking tax base, and it does not take much to realise that those two competing ends create a serious problem for the government. To its credit, to some extent the previous government saw the problem and worked towards a whole range of policies which would encourage people to save for their retirement—and that is the main point of this particular piece of legislation.I talk to many people in my electorate, including so-called self-funded retirees, or members of the Association of Independent Retirees, with whom I meet in my office regularly. The irony is that, having saved for their retirement, they are actually worse off than they would have been if they had not saved. I have put a lot of effort into my work here in this place over the last eight years to redress some of that imbalance, and the government, to its credit, has recognised that imbalance in a number of ways—increasing the effective tax free threshold for low income self-funded retirees and developing health care rebates, as inadequate and ineffective as they appear to have been. A whole range of issues have been addressed to assist particularly low income self-funded retirees.Many of them are able to demonstrate that, having done the right thing all their lives, they have ended up being worse off than they might otherwise have been if they had not saved for their retirement. I believe the government has a primary responsibility to provide a situation where people are secure in their retirement. It is very saddening for me to meet people, as I frequently do, who have saved and who are now very insecure in their retirement and have great difficulty making ends meet. More needs to be done to give those people security. For future generations and, to some extent, for existing retirees, the savings rebates will have some effect, but more must be done.In the reform of the tax system, which the government is embarking on—again, much to its credit because the former government found that much too hard—it is imperative that the needs of independent retirees be addressed. I support a number of the recom mendations they have made as an association to the tax consultative task force, such as increasing the effective tax free threshold to at least $10,000. In 1987, the tax free threshold was $4,890. It has moved up to only $5,400 at this stage. It has not moved anywhere near the same rate as average weekly earnings.I could go on at length about my concern particularly for independent retirees. I did want to say one or two other things, but my time will shortly expire. Finally, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his announcement today of support for the carers within Australian society, and I note that the government will spend $270 million over the next four years to assist the aged achieve some of their desires to be secure in their retirement and to remain in their own homes. (Time expired)11:44:002362Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—This change to the superannuation industry through the workplace agreements will allow employers to meet their choice obligations through the use of both formal agreements—that is, the Australian workplace agreements and certified agreements—and informal agreements where an employee is able to individually nominate the choice of their fund, giving the employer the chance to agree to that nomination. The current system rarely allows employees the choice of which super fund their employer's compulsory superannuation contributions are distributed to. The proposal to enable employees the choice of funds was announced in the 1997-98 budget, and the introduction of choice of superannuation funds provides employees with greater control and greater flexibility. This also requires greater personal and self-responsibility.Employees will need to be able to assess which funds are most appropriate and best suited to their requirements and will need to recognise, distinguish and differentiate marketing and sales pitches that will undoubtedly become common once this choice is made formal. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 will be of great benefit to people who have had to move from one place of employment to another and, as we all know, Australians are changing jobs at a rate never seen before and also moving from city to city at a rate never seen before. There are many people, as I said, in that position who consequently have employer contributions held in many and various accounts and, since their superannuation contributions are managed by different funds, the employee incurs losses in their retirement funds as a result of the varying fees and charges associated with the management of the different funds.Allowing employees to nominate their choice of funds is but one step in enabling them to manage their own resources as they see fit. No doubt they will seek to maximise their retirement income, and they may decide to do this by consolidating all their contributions towards their retirement into one fund. That is an absolutely vital and necessary initiative that is incorporated in the bill.Whilst the government is hailing this initiative as a benefit for small businesses, many employers have indicated that they are uneasy about how this change will affect them and fear it could lead to increased management and administration costs. I have had several visits to my office from managers and proprietors of small businesses especially, and they are very concerned at the greater involvement this whole procedure will mean through advising their employees and the book work involved.There are three basic options that employers will be in a position to offer their employees under this bill: firstly, a limited choice; secondly, employers will negotiate the superannuation fund issue via workplace agreements; or, thirdly, an unlimited choice. I want to draw to the attention of the House an article which appeared in the Financial Review late December last year. It reported that:. . . [a] survey of 100 employers found that most small firms were concerned that the federal government's members' choice policy could lead to a blow-out in business costs.According to the survey, this meant restricting the choices offered to employees to a fund nominated in a workplace agreement or to a menu of four funds.Employers said that simplicity of administration, management costs and service support were the most important factors to determine the types of funds they would offer employees.Another survey conducted in January this year highlighted some concerns from Australian companies regarding the introduction of this bill, with most companies believing that choice would necessarily and no doubt involve more administration costs and fewer benefits for employees. The Executive Chairman of Industry Funds Services, Mr Garry Weaven, believes there is `not a ghost of a chance' of more than 10 per cent of employers complying with the legislation. He says that it involves an outrageous amount of red tape on questions such as when is a default fund not a default fund as well as an onerous level of record keeping by employers.This bill as it stands, without an analysis of the effects of the change and without a well-constructed, fair education campaign, may prove to be the cause of unnecessary uncertainty and confusion for all parties involved, employees and employers. The opportunity to shop around for the appropriate superannuation fund and the decision as to which retirement savings account or fund to choose will no doubt prove to be a lot more difficult than anticipated by the government.Most employees now have almost no say over the fund into which their superannuation is paid. In fact, the greatest proportion of people have their compulsory super paid into their employers' fund or into an industry fund. If the performance or investment strategy adopted by that fund is not suitable to the employee's individual preferences, there is usually nothing the employee can do about it.Surveys indicate that most members would opt not to change superannuation funds if given the opportunity but that they would like to have this option available to them. Many small business employees are unsure and uneasy of the proposed expansion of member choice, and many have suggested to me that its introduction may be fraught with problems.Not many employees are fully aware of the benefits, the entitlements and the risks associated with investing in funds. The member choice policy can be considered a good step in the freedom of the individual. However, some industry sources have expressed, as I said earlier, concern that members might not make wise choices through lack of understanding or through lack of sufficient information.A recent UK Office of Fair Trading pensions inquiry determined there were approximately 570,000 cases of mis-selling in the UK and a great deal of money then had to be found for compensation. Employees were enticed and persuaded to move to personal pension schemes that were often against their own interests through lack of understanding. The federal government's form of choice can be improved, I believe, to prevent such an outcome by the establishment of a proper default fund, real employee choice and effective consumer protection.Concern has also been expressed by members of the superannuation industry who fear that this new deal will result in an increase of costs and that the individual members of funds would not receive any net benefit. It has also been suggested that this change could transform superannuation into a user-pays system, with the added fees and charges not unlike those adopted and used by the banking sector quite extensively.Member choice will take access to bulk membership from employers away from super funds. This could leave employees with two choices: firstly, a no-frills super fund which does not provide insurance, quarterly reporting, access to investor help lines or a choice of investor options or, secondly, a fund with those added benefits at an obviously added cost.Funds would no doubt increase costs to make up for revenue lost as a result of a new system of administration procedures, increased marketing expense and the costs associated with investors switching funds. Employees need to be targeted as part of a major education campaign to inform about superannuation and associated investment matters. It is fair to say that even those who are well educated and erudite will find the superannuation process a little too confusing to fully grasp and comprehend. I suggest that we should spare a thought for the nearly 50 per cent of employees with lower literacy and numeracy skills who undoubtedly will get lost in the process.I am especially concerned about the hundreds of thousands of people from non-English speaking backgrounds who have difficulty conversing in English and/or reading in English and who may make some major miscalculations through misunderstanding the options. I am pleased to see the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) is at the table. I am sure that he will press for the greatest possible information to be put through the ethnic media, whether it be newspapers, radio or television. It needs to be well sourced, because I fear very, very much for those people from non-English speaking backgrounds who have problems conversing and reading in English.I note that the government wants to implement the bill on 1 July 1998. I fear that there may not be enough time. However, I urge the government to ensure that everything possible is done, particularly for those people of non-English speaking background, to help people to fully comprehend what this means and how this will impact on them. I will not vote against the bill. However, as I said earlier, I urge the government to ensure that red tape is reduced to the minimum possible and that a widespread educational and information program is undertaken as soon as possible to guarantee that employees are well informed about the procedures and the options so that no-one is disadvantaged.11:54:002364Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—In speaking to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 , I would like to touch on three of the areas that the bill covers: the choice of superannuation funds, the distribution of income to shareholders of private companies and the government's savings rebate. The choice of super fund was an election commitment by the coalition before the 1996 election. It was also a recommendation of the Wallis committee into the financial system. The recommendation was that employees should be provided with a choice of fund subject to the constraints of administrative costs and fund liquidity that you can get with being able to change too easily. Members should also have the right to transfer the amounts to any fund.The Wallis committee reported that most members now do not have a choice of superannuation fund and are unable to transfer their benefits between the funds. That has reduced the competition in superannuation. For example, some industrial awards name the fund where the compulsory superannuation guarantee fund must be paid. Employees under some of those awards have no choice of super fund they can be in. More than half of the superannuation accounts are in funds where members do not have full choice. The Insurance and Superannuation Commission estimates that 24 per cent of superannuation members have no choice of fund at all.The benefit of allowing choice of a fund in superannuation is to increase the competition and therefore increase the efficiency between the funds. As the financial systems inquiry highlighted, if you have free choice between the funds, you need to address the problems of administration costs with transferring between the funds, and also fund liquidity. However, in the United States, where they have a greater choice of superannuation funds, they have not had any problems with fund liquidity. Competition will ensue only if you have informed consumers—if you have education on the choice of funds, on the risks, on the returns and also the rights of consumers. That is the responsibility of both the industry and the regulators.The principle behind having a choice of superannuation fund is that with information, choice and control consumers will take a sense of ownership of their superannuation fund and savings vehicle and will take an interest in saving for retirement. As the previous member, the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) mentioned, the legislation will take effect on 1 July 1998. From then on, new employees will have a choice of where their compulsory superannuation guarantee is paid. On 1 July 2000, choice of fund will also be available to existing employees.Employers will have a choice to offer four complying funds or retirement savings accounts or, secondly, to offer the employee an unlimited choice of superannuation funds or, thirdly, to specify a fund through either formal or informal workplace agreements. If they do not do that, they will have to pay an extra 25 per cent on the superannuation guarantee charge. As was indicated in the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, many employees are likely, even if offered a complete choice, to go with the default. But you might see the level of competition occurring at the level of the company or employer, in that they will be looking at four funds or retirement savings accounts and will be trying to pick what they consider to be the four best funds.The previous speaker and other speakers in this debate have mentioned a very important point and that is that the consumers really need to be given adequate information. It is only through informed choice that the principle will work to deliver competition, thereby improving efficiency in superannuation. The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, in their public hearings on the bill, found considerable support for the broad concept of the choice of fund.The savings rebate had its origins in the l-a-w tax cuts legislated by Paul Keating in 1992 and which were never delivered. In the 1995 budget, the l-a-w tax cuts became the superannuation co-contribution. Last year in the budget, the government announced that it would offer a maximum of $225 in a savings rebate from this year onwards and then a maximum of $450 in future years. That would be offered as a 15 per cent rebate on savings from whatever means: through super contributions or from dividend and investment income or interest income from savings. This benefit is available to all those people who are either saving or who have saved in the past. It is an incentive for saving, but it is also a reward for those who are living on their investment income at the moment.The Australian Council of Social Service has argued that the benefits will not be available to those on lower incomes, but that is wrong. A Bankers Trust study released in May 1997 and reported in the Financial Review on 27 May 1997 showed that 79 per cent of all eligible savings income for this rebate is held by people earning less than $40,000 a year. The study also showed that, for the very lowest income earners, the rebate was worth between five and 10 per cent of the tax they paid. Those earning greater than $70,000 held only 5.5 per cent of the eligible savings and the rebate was only 0.3 to 0.5 per cent of the tax they paid.The ALP has argued that this is an inequitable measure. Capping the rebate at $3,000 handicaps the affluent who have more eligible savings and makes it more generous for those on lower incomes. For example, the same Bankers Trust study showed that those on incomes between $5,400 and $20,000—in other words, those who are paying tax, but at the lowest level—will be the largest beneficiaries under this savings rebate. We need to hit on the head this notion from the Labor Party that this is somehow inequitable. It is trying to encourage people on lower incomes to save. As most studies have shown, it is often very hard for people on the lower 40 per cent of income to save. This gives them an added incentive and can quite significantly reduce the tax they pay by five or 10 per cent if they take up the savings rebate.The last issue I would like to touch on is distributions by private companies. This was another announcement in the 1997 budget which aimed to deal with loans to shareholders which were not at arms-length which could be used to avoid income tax. Loan guarantees, superannuation and so on were also considered as dividends. This was an anti-avoidance measure which was designed to impact on high wealth individuals who were trying to minimise their tax and also applied to loan guarantees and superannuation payments.The unintended consequence of this measure was that, with superannuation payments made by a company to an employee, potentially the employee paid 15 per cent of the contribution, and that was debited to the member. If they were on an income over $70,000, there would be an additional super surcharge. On incomes above $85,000 the super surcharge could be as high as 15 per cent. If the employee was a shareholder, the amount that the company paid as super would have to be declared as a dividend. The government has recognised this. This was an unintended consequence of the drafting of the legislation.The announcements that were made by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) on 9 March were very sensible announcements. They still keep in mind the anti-avoidance provisions of this legislation but have removed some of the unintended consequences. Another example that came up in the legislation is that shareholders who borrow from the banks and have a loan guaranteed by the company had to declare the loan as taxable income. That has now been amended. Only if the shareholder defaults will the guarantee be considered as a dividend. It will not apply to superannuation. In fact, the government amendment says that payments made to shareholders or associates in their capacity as employees will not be treated as dividends under the new division 7A.In the area of choice of superannuation funding, the coalition is offering employees a true choice of whatever superannuation fund they would like. The savings rebate is not inequitable. It is rewarding those who are saving and who have saved in the past. As to the distributions by private companies, this was an anti-avoidance measure, which I support. But the government has recognised that in the drafting of the legislation there was an unintended consequence in that it picked up a much wider net of employees than was initially intended. Therefore, the government amendments are quite sensible. I commend the bill to the House.12:05:002366Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I wish to briefly deal with two aspects of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997. The first one relates to the savings rebate. As I was rushing out the door I heard the previous speaker, the honourable member for Boothby (Dr Southcott), refer to figures. From recollection, he said that 79 per cent of those affected were either previously low income people or people on benefits. The fact of life is that you can try to manipulate statistics in any fashion. It is not a question of whether 79 per cent of the money involved comes from that field; it is a question of how many are helped.Obviously, given the numbers, the vast majority of the amounts involved will be related to those people. Nearly 80 per cent of the money that is covered by this rebate comes from that sector of the population and that has to be interrelated with the number of people that theoretically could benefit throughout the country. Similarly, the other figures that were cited have to be looked at in that context as well.The savings rebate is a very firm repudiation of the government's commitment of 2 November when the Treasurer (Mr Costello) said that they were going to continue to implement the co-contribution. This is the biggest let-out clause that he gave himself and, if you were extremely kind to him, you can see the broad possibility that he might be trying to diminish the commitment:We reserve the right to vary the mechanism to provide the most effective and equitable delivery. . . That is what he said. He said that they reserve the right to bring the co-contribution in in a different fashion, to do it in a different style and manner. If you are very kind to him, you could say that he might have been saying that there was going to be a different mechanism. As we all know, in retrospect, the government basically threw it out the backdoor and abolished it totally.For all the talk about l-a-w, et cetera back in ancient history, in the here and now of who is in government in this country and in observing what is going on in Australia today, the clear reality is that this government has broken a very firm commitment in regard to the co-contribution. This essentially will do very little for savings in Australia. I think we all know that this has been a long-term problem over a variety of governments. Over many decades the level of national savings has been low. This measure will make no effort or contribution towards savings whatsoever.Previous speakers have alluded to it becoming virtually a requirement or stipulation to be involved in trusts before you can enter the ministry or cabinet in this country. It is very interesting that this savings rebate is essentially going to help those people involved in family trusts. When the government speculates about the possibility that they might do something about family trusts, one has to have grave doubts about whether they really have any intention of doing anything about those loopholes when we see that as many as 10 ministers involved in family trusts could all benefit by as much as $450 a year due to the fact that 15 per cent of tax that would normally be payable, up to $3,000, will go to those people.So the savings rebate is a very firm indication that the government has not kept its commitments. It is a measure that will not do anything for national savings. It will not help us reduce the interest payments we have to make overseas. It will not allow us to marshal significant amounts of money for national infrastructure projects to do the things that this country needs to do. Essentially, it will help those people on unearned incomes benefit at the expense of those people who, up to now, were receiving a co-contribution towards superannuation and their retirement income.The other aspect of the legislation I want to deal with is the measure to supposedly widen choice in this country. I heard the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) speak a few moments ago. If there is any person here who has been on the other side of politics who has had a long-term interest in small business it is that member. I think even his greatest detractors would say that he has had the ear of small business, that he has always raised a significant number of measures in regard to taxation and labour market issues that have come from that sector. You heard what he said. He has small businesses in his electorate—and I guess he is a conduit for a lot of people outside his electorate as well—and he said that small business does not think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Small business does question whether or not it is worth while.We have a government that talks about reducing red tape, helping small business. We have a government that keeps harping about the fact that small business is the major source of jobs in this country. We have a government that alleges we have to make sure we can sack people a lot more easily and give them no chance of having a day in court when they are sacked by employers. We have a government that says that we have to do all these things because small business is so desperate. Small business is supposedly going to hire hundreds of thousands of people if they have the right to sack people more easily and to deprive people of the right to try to get their jobs back.This same government, with all their rhetoric, all their polemics about how they are trying to help small business, is bringing forward in this legislation a number of restrictions on small business by making it more difficult for them to operate, by bringing in more red tape. We really have to question what this is all about. It is not about choice. I again refer to the member for Lowe's contribution. As an Independent member of this House, he does not have an axe to grind on behalf of the government or opposition and he, like me, represents an electorate with a very significant NESB population.The point he makes is quite true: many people in this country have difficulties reading the newspapers let alone trying to have an informed choice in regard to superannuation and their long-term income interests. There will be minimal education. I think the figure was $12 million over the next four years will be spent on both administration and education—not just education but the entire administration of this process. To accomplish both administration and education in 1997-98, less than $2 million will be spent on an education campaign.People are being hit with a new problem. Most of them have not had previous experience of it. They do not know much about it. Quite frankly, three-quarters of the federal parliament would know very little about the intricacies of superannuation that confront these people. It is not only people from NESB backgrounds who are affected by this government's attack on the Adult Migrant English Service and the government's attempt to deprive people of English instruction and education but also those people who have worked for decades in this country at a time when English was not required for them to do jobs such as being factory hands, digging roads and working at James Hardy and in the asbestos industry. It is those people, as well as Anglo-Saxon Australians who do not have literacy and numeracy skills, who are affected.The government are saying that on 1 July one group of people, and a year or two later another group of people, will be confronted with a requirement to make a choice. It is quite evident that there is very little preparation and very little real interest by this government in ensuring that that choice will be based on information and knowledge.Previous speakers have quite correctly made the point that there is also a very grave concern that we will have a repetition of what occurred in the United Kingdom when the Thatcher government, once again driven by ideological needs rather than an analysis of what happens and what is beneficial, decided to facilitate supposed competition. Essentially, people, selling on commission, went out in the marketplace and exploited people who had little or no knowledge and persuaded them against their very obvious interests to go into schemes. As many as half a million people changed over and many of those people made very dubious choices. You can read in the British newspapers, even in the Guardian last week, references to the huge amounts of money, billions of dollars, that were involved and the losses that people made.As I said, we do not just have the question of the information people have. The kind of parallel we have here is that of the doctor versus the patient, or the migration agent versus the person who is fearful of being kicked out of Australia and goes to that person for advice regarding migration matters. That is the kind of parallel we have here; that is the inequity between the two parties—an employer essentially putting up this proposition to the employee, and that employee having very little knowledge of the alternatives, and very little real choice.This is clearly an attempt to reduce the power in the marketplace, to reduce the presence of industry funds which have a connection with the trade union movement. They would hope that they would be undermined by people withdrawing from them over the next few years, and that is clearly what is driving this. It is not going to do anything for the people that it supposedly seeks to help.The member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) referred to views by the Heritage Foundation in the United States—a well-known, arch-conservative brains trust—that the current Australian scheme has a lot to say for itself and that it should be looked at by the United States and others. He said that it is not really an organisation that would tend to be associated with the Labor Party side of politics. It is quite fascinating that, in the course of this debate, a conservative member mentioned the Heritage Foundation on other fronts. If they are saying that there are very major beneficial aspects of the Australian system, perhaps we should sit up and listen.Labor says that there should be a more comprehensive education process, that the starting date for choice should not be until 1 July 2000 for both new and existing employees, that default funds should contain specific investment choice and that there should be insurance cover features to protect those employees who do not make an active choice from winding up in an inappropriate fund.Labor also says that commission based sales of products should be outlawed. I have referred to the phenomenon that has occurred in the United Kingdom. We also say that clause 32V, which overrides industrial awards, should be removed and that the definition of `industry based fund' should be redefined to include the requirement that such funds operate on a not-for-profit basis. Once again, we are opposed to this government's intention to, in another way, undermine industry funds by widening the definition so that every Tom, Dick and Harry can get into the operation.In regard to superannuation, we have seen that this is part of a wider pattern. In the last day or so, the government has put forward legislation to take an independent umpire out of superannuation matters. Once again, what is needed in this field is someone who can decide when there are disputes, in a very unequal contest between employers and employees. The other superannuation measure will deprive a large number of people—casuals, people earning less than $450 a month—from making any superannuation contribution whatsoever.In summing up, this legislation is not about choice, it is not about helping employees, it is not about doing anything for Australian savings, it is not about helping the person in the street. It is essentially driven by a determination to make sure that there are not industry funds in this country which might, hopefully, be more inclined to do things in regard to the national infrastructure than funds driven by other concepts.This is about ideology; it is about a determination to replace those funds. It will increase costs to the funds in regard to advertising, getting out in the marketplace and competing, and defending their section of the market from predatory moves by other funds. It will increase administration costs. Small businesses will have much larger costs because of transferring people every which-way.As was said earlier, people in this country change their jobs more often now. The career path for people staying in jobs for 20 to 30 years is no longer there. This government, I must concede, has played a very decisive role in increasing insecurity in industry in this country, making it easier for employers to facilitate terminations, making it easier for people to be retrenched. More and more people will have the need to change funds. These days, the average Australian moves house 17 times. Once again, that is going to have an impact.This legislation should be condemned. The Labor amendments go towards making sure that people have a real choice in regard to what they do—not a fake choice based on ideology.12:20:002369Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I concur with the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) in his criticisms of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, which is before the House today, and the support that he gave to the opposition amendments. I will begin my remarks today by referring to one aspect of this bill, which covers a range of areas, in relation to the savings rebate, and will then look in turn at the question of superannuation and choice.In regard to the savings rebate, I have a substantial concern in terms of who will really benefit from the measures provided and what the real intention of the government is. The savings rebate is a device which lowers the tax for all types of unearned income—that is, interest, dividends, trust and partnership distributions, rent and so on, superannuation pensions and eligible termination payments.The savings rebate scheme which is proposed by the government in this bill specifically operates in regard to unearned income. So we are not dealing here with people who work hard, put in their eight hours a day and then improve their situation. This scheme relates to unearned income, including interest, dividends, trust and partnership distributions.We know there is a significant problem in the trust area, with income splitting and so on. This exacerbates that problem in terms of the budget. Less money will be coming back to the budget because of what is provided in this bill in relation to the savings rebate.This bill will not ameliorate the problem with national savings. National savings will not be increased by these proposals; they will in fact be decreased. They will be moved from national savings to private savings. That, of course, lies in conjunction with most of the moves by this coalition government to move from national benefit to private benefit. The reward here is for those people who live off savings rather than those who engage in savings—except for savings that relate to superannuation contributions.The thrust of these measures is not to fix the problems we have with the key area that was addressed by the former Labor government: how to increase national savings. I want to look at this particular measure—where there is an increase in private savings but a diminution of national savings—because it forms part of the question about the superannuation schemes that operated and were extended during the Labor period of government and what has happened with superannuation schemes since then, based on what this federal government has done.The Labor superannuation model was extended over a long period of time. The former Treasurer took a number of decisions which fundamentally changed the impact, import and extent of superannuation provision in this country. When we came to office in March 1983, the extent of coverage was largely limited to government employees and those in management positions in the private sector, together with those in the small business sector. Through a series of reforms, Labor brought superannuation coverage to a large part of the work force which had never had that coverage previously, and they did so through the superannuation guarantee and award superannuation. It was in fact the intention of the government to continue that expansion and to move to a situation where a greater percentage of contributions was put into superannuation funds for employees by both employees and industry.It was a drive to increase national savings through superannuation by expanding the coverage to most of the work force and increasing the percentage of coverage for those people in the work force through their own contributions and contributions from employers. Through the operation of the award system, a number of industry superannuation bodies developed over more than a decade during Labor's period of office. This bill seeks to diminish the value, the extent and the work of those industry superannuation bodies.This bill talks about choice in relation to superannuation funds that employees can put their superannuation into. A direct target is the existing industry funds. This goes to the question of how those funds are seen by members of the coalition, and essentially they are seen as being ideological. The fact is that, because of award conditions, the major funds are supported by the unions, unions are represented on the management of those funds, as are employers, and many billions of dollars in superannuation are covered by funds where unions have a direct role in supervising the funds. Ideologically, the coalition is against that.The government has taken a number of decisions in an attempt to completely redraw the superannuation system that existed under Labor. Firstly, there was a decision to abandon Labor's three plus three per cent co- contribution and to pay part of it in the form of a savings rebate—which, as I said at the outset, will do nothing to increase overall public or private savings levels. Secondly, there was a decision to introduce retirement savings accounts—low return products which result in lower retirement incomes for many of the people who use them. In the first iteration of what the Treasurer (Mr Costello) intended in regard to this—where he had five choices of fund, and retirement savings accounts were one of those choices—the probability was that a great number of people would have been forced into those low return funds.On 25 November 1997, from memory, the Treasurer put out a statement which indicated that that provision would be taken out. So, from a choice of five different sorts of funds, employees were down to a choice of four funds that they could put their money into. That, I would think, is a bonus because the probability that people would be driven into those low income funds is now that much less.Thirdly, a decision was made by this government to introduce the superannuation surcharge tax. As the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) indicated in a speech that he gave on 25 March, the tax is likely to be as successful as the guidelines of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in the ministerial code of conduct. A direct result of the government decision to bring in that surcharge was that a lot of people on incomes higher than $70,000 have chosen to go out of superannuation coverage and to provide for themselves in other ways. Fourthly, a decision was made to include superannuation assets in the means test for over-55s. That will see many low and middle income earners—older Australians—having to line up for the aged pension after they have run down their hard-earned retirement savings. So the coalition has made major changes in those four areas.In the bill before us the coalition seeks to change the emphasis that there has been on industry or award superannuation funds and to substitute choice. Choice is a key and central word for the coalition, and it has been throughout the time the Liberal and National parties have been in existence.The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation brought down a report in March this year called Choice of fund. A number of the provisions that the report spoke about are contained directly within this bill. The Labor senators had a different view from that of government senators, and were joined by the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), our spokesman on this, when they said, `We think an alternative model should be put in place,' and our amendments go to that.Labor are convinced, based on the experience of our time in government, that superannuation is an extraordinarily important vehicle for increasing national savings and increasing the capacity that individual employees have to live a better retirement than would otherwise be the case before our schemes came into place.Labor has laid down a series of principles in choice of fund, which I will now go to. Labor is supportive of the principle of employee choice of fund, provided that any model meets certain underlying principles. Firstly, employees should benefit from choice. Secondly, employers should not be disadvantaged by it. Thirdly, choice should be consistent with broader retirement incomes policy. Fourthly, individuals must be able to make an informed choice. Fifthly, the choice of fund should be based on true employee choice and not driven either by ideology or vested interest. Sixthly, choice should not be forced on either employees or employers. Seventhly, choice should be simple to understand and to administer and should not place onerous compliance burdens on employers or employees. Lastly, an independent arbitrator should be able to resolve choice of fund disputes between employers and employees.Labor believes that if these fundamental principles in regard to choice are fully in place—and they will not be in place under this amendment bill that we see before us—then choice could be successful in the Australian superannuation system as we now know it. It would avoid the disasters that have occurred in other countries—in particular, in Chile and the United Kingdom—where provisions such as are contained in this amendment bill were put into place. Those provisions meant that people in those countries had much lower retirement incomes than could otherwise have been the case.In terms of alternative models, a former member of this parliament, Mr David Connolly, the former member for Bradfield—who, prior to exiting the parliament, was the coalition spokesman on retirement and superannuation matters—spoke about a choice of fund model. He spoke about that alternative model widely within the community, but that alternative has not been followed by this coalition government.When Mr Connolly spoke about it, he envisaged that super funds should be made to offer mandatory investment choice options from within the funds so that, where you had an existing industry superannuation fund—instead of the fund managers determining how they would mix the investment in property, bonds, interest gaining investments and also in the share market—it should be open to any individual employee to determine, on the basis of the advice that he got from a financial adviser, whether he could have a different mix.In the private sector and in funds such as the 23FB funds which are available with the GIO and which were available previously under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, an employee can determine what the mix will be. They can make an assessment as to whether they want to have more in the share market or more in the property market, whether they want to change and mix the balance, or they can choose to have the fund entirely managed by the Government Insurance Office of New South Wales. BT and a number of other funds offer just that flexibility.Most people continue to choose a fully managed aspect because they do not have a lot of background in this area. However, instead of Mr Connolly's approach, the government has chosen the choice of different funds. Primarily it has been a question of the employers' choice and not the employees' choice. The great change we saw between what the Treasurer had proposed previously and what he proposed on 25 November 1997 was not just a cut from five choices down to four but, because of the pressure that was put on him by employers, there was a change on the question of onus. Employers were concerned that they could be liable if they made a wrong determination in relation to which fund an employee should go into, which would mean that an employee could in fact take action against the employer for not being careful enough on the choice of fund.That was one of the reasons the RSAs went out. Secondly, it is a reason for the major change. The onus in this bill is on the employee and not on the employer. Labor argues that there is a much simpler and more effective way to implement the change from David Connolly's model to the model of choice that we see before us in this bill. The Labor choice model provides something that is direct, open, simple and easy.Labor specifically argues in our amendment for a better choice model; in fact, there is one already in existence. The New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1991 allows employees to have superannuation contributions paid into the fund of their choice—approved by the employer—despite any award or agreement. Whereas, currently, primarily the industry superannuation funds are at the behest of the employer and also, in certain cases, the majority of employees, if we are to adopt this model which is successfully operating in New South Wales there would be a choice of fund for employees. They would be able to choose their own fund, whether or not there is an award or an agreement in place.What simple steps have been outlined by the member for Wills in relation to signing up to this? The first proposition is that the employee should make a nomination in writing and sign it. Secondly, the fund should be a complying fund. Thirdly, the employer should provide written approval of the nomination. Fourthly, the employer should retain a copy of the nomination.This is an entirely simple and straightforward process—so simple, so straightforward, so practical and working so well in New South Wales that it should be adopted here. The government should withdraw their proposals in relation to choice of fund and accept the amendment that Labor has put forward today. It is simple and it works. The government's provisions within this bill that there should be choice of fund in fact still provide choices for employers and not employees. I would argue here that we could substitute for this complexity and uncertainty a dramatic onus on the employee, who is not in a position to make an educated, discerning choice about what fund he or she may choose to put their superannuation savings into. The employee is not in that position because the funds are simply not available to run an adequate education campaign in conjunction with the provisions of this bill. That has already been indicated by a number of speakers in the past. It is a very real problem.I have been dealing with two matters in relation to this bill—and the bill covers a large number of provisions. Firstly, the savings rebate concentrates on unearned income. It concentrates effectively on moving from national savings to private savings.Secondly, superannuation choice for employees is very limited, because our preferred model isn't acceptable to the government—that simple, straightforward model which exists in New South Wales. It is limited, even though they have four major choices placed before them, because they are not in a position, given the complexity of what they are asked to look at, to make a readily informed choice.There is, here, another agenda which relates directly to the move from ensuring national savings and ensuring the superannuation future of people providing funds. That move means that people will have less attachment to saving for their future through superannuation.If the government were to rethink their position, if they were to adopt the alternative model provided by Labor—that simple, straightforward, balanced and sensible model—it would provide true freedom of choice for employees and true guarantees that they would be able to put their savings aside for themselves in the future, either in an industry fund or in any other fund, and be absolutely and completely certain that those funds would be run well and run properly and that their choice could be entirely satisfied. (Time expired)12:40:002373Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Before getting into the nitty-gritty of this legislation, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, I must confer my backhanded congratulations to the government for its success in cramming into one bill so many substantial and complex changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. In doing so, I offer the opinion that the government has set a new standard in the hijacking of parliamentary debate in the House of Representatives—because the breadth of the changes that deserve thorough scrutiny simply cannot be adequately dealt with in the time allotted for the second reading. I am certain that this is no accident on the part of those who drafted the bill and others who pressed for the inclusion of some of its provisions. Add to that the fact that the minister at the table, the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile), does not have carriage of this legislation so he will not be summing up the second reading debate, the gentleman responsible presumably will do so without the benefit of listening to the debate of myself and my colleagues on all sides of the House, and there have been no advisers in the box for much of this debate so they will not be able to bring the absent minister with carriage up to date, and I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is disdain bordering on contempt for this parliament.I am particularly concerned about the provisions of schedule 8. The contents of this bill were not made public until more than six months after the initial announcement in the 1997-98 budget papers. The uncertainty caused by that was compounded by the fact that there were other measures announced about franking credits on budget night that are yet to be put into any form of legislation. The Taxation Institute of Australia, the TIA, has called on the government to remove schedule 8 from this bill and to draft new legislation that deals with the proposed changes to franking credits in their entirety, so that the matter can be dealt with in a `sensible, coordinated and cohesive fashion', to use their words. Just this morning we have seen another bill which includes amendments to franking credits brought into the House. The view of the TIA seems to contain a perfectly rational recommendation and the government stands condemned for its failure to act on it.There are four schedules, out of a total of 10, that I intend to speak to today. They are schedules 4, 5, 8 and 9. Schedule 9 seeks to incorporate new division 7A into the 1936 act. This division is being introduced in an effort to ensure that all credits, loans and advances by private companies to shareholders are deemed to be assessable dividends to the extent that they are realised or unrealised company profits. There are both strengths and weaknesses inherent in this proposal but, before I elaborate on the specifics, I wish to make an observation about the general nature of change proposed in schedule 9.Less than 12 months ago the tax law improvement team—that is the TLIP team—finalised the new and arguably improved version of parts of the 1936 act. Members may recall that the purpose behind this 1997 revision was to produce tax legislation that was more streamlined and simple to understand than the original, and therefore more user friendly for tax experts and the general public.One wonders why the amendments in schedule 9 proposed in this bill have not been made to the 1997 Income Tax Assessment Act, but rather to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. As Mr Colin Munro, partner with Decons Graham and James law firm in Western Australia, stated in a recent address, `It is a pity that this legislation matrix has been used.' Mr Munro pointed out that while section 108 will not be repealed by these amendments it is no longer relevant to tax law if new division 7A applies to private company distributions. Why not get rid of it?This is also the position of the TIA, which argues for the termination of section 108 on the grounds that if there is residual operation other than for December 1997 events `taxpayers will be left in confusion and there will be no certainty'. Despite the fact that it is section 108 that is most familiar to the tax fraternity, those bureaucrats responsible for the drafting of this legislation chose to ignore them and have proceeded to implement change that undermines the impetus of the tax simplification project. That is plainly ridiculous.Three outcomes of this schedule warrant closer attention by the government: the potential for a double taxation effect in the debiting of franking accounts; an increase in company compliance costs; and the reduced tax effectiveness of corporate trusts. Let me first address the issue of a more costly compliance regime for Australian business.While the government would have us believe that any increase in compliance costs will be minimal, the explanatory memorandum predicts an increase of around $2 million in the 1997-98 financial year. That is disputed by industry. At present, section 108 provides for the Commissioner of Taxation to use his or her discretion on the tax treatment of loans to shareholders during an audit. In contrast, this bill will automatically treat the abovementioned distribution as a dividend.While increased certainty in a tax ruling is desirable, Mr Munro points out that the new requirements for loan formality will also `undoubtedly lead to increased compliance costs for taxpayers'. He disputes the government's claim that it is high wealth individuals intent on minimising their tax obligations who will be hit hardest by this measure, but rather suggests that it is small businesses which generally have a need to access funds from private companies for private purposes and which will therefore bear the brunt of compliance.The introduction of new division 7A will bring a greater degree of certainty and objectivity in the definition of when company payments to shareholders are deemed to be dividends and when they are not. That is to be commended. However, the redefining of many key words and phrases will mean that taxpayers will have to reflect changes in the value of assets and liabilities by adjustments to their accounting records and systems. Mr Munro also noted:This may be simple enough to do in the case of easily comparable assets such as marketable securities, but what about real estate?He also asks whether shares in other private companies will also present valuation difficulties, as this will certainly see an increase in compliance costs.It is a bit rich for a government that is yet to fulfil its commitment to a 50 per cent reduction in the compliance burden on businesses to be exacerbating that same burden by successive taxation legislation. The issue of double taxation or the doubling-up effect that Mr Munro referred to in his address on 29 January 1998 is also relevant to schedule 8. Under the amendments in this section, all amounts treated as dividends will not be frankable dividends. Further, the deemed amount will create a franking debit to a private company. According to Mr Munro:This is another example of `doubling up', which again evidences the attitude of officialdom to taxation.The government's proposed changes to the distributions from private companies is also raising eyebrows among some members of the elite team of tax experts who are providing feedback to the government on the tax law improvement project.One member of that team, Mr John Kirkwood, a senior partner in taxation at Ernst and Young, has labelled this schedule an overkill. Mr Kirkwood observed that while it is one thing to treat an amount as if it is a dividend, it is quite another to deny the recipient the benefits of the formal payment of a dividend. On the one hand, we have the very logical argument put by Mr Kirkwood suggesting:If the payment should be treated as a dividend, then it should also be a dividend for all purposes, including the utilisation of frankable credits.On the other hand, we have Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office wanting two bob either way. The summation that this legislation is just another example of the ATO dominating the legislative process with its blunderbuss approach is right on the mark. It was the case with trust losses, the superannuation surcharge and the R&D syndication, and now the ATO is at it again.I am interested to hear the coalition's position on this issue and whether it now acknowledges that this legislation could see the doubling-up effect of the debiting of franking accounts. I also ask that the government come clean on the proposed application of this provision to benefits that would ordinarily be subject to fringe benefits tax and to superannuation contributions. Does the coalition really expect to be able to tax these benefits as if they were dividends?Rather than working in tandem with the FBT rules, this legislation will supersede them and create an untenable situation—one that must be corrected. As for the impact of new division 7A on trusts, one Western Australian legal practitioner said:All in all, this line of approach tends very substantially to `atrophy' the discretionary trust and indeed make it unworkable.It is clear that the amendments proposed here are consistent with the ongoing attack by Treasury and the ATO on perfectly legitimate trust structures. Owing to time restrictions, I do not intend to dwell on this point except to restate my long held position that, until Australians embrace a thorough overhaul of our tax system and until there is greater parity between the top marginal personal income tax rate and the company tax rate, vehicles such as trusts will always pose a potential threat to revenue.Another alarming aspect of the proposed changes to the franking of dividends and other distributions is the fact that the content of this legislation goes way beyond what was first foreshadowed at the time of the 1997-98 budget. Section 8.1 of the explanatory memorandum tells us that the threshold for the new general anti-avoidance provision will employ an `other than incidental purpose' test which will have a much broader application than the current `dominant purpose' minimum. As Mr Gordon Thring, a member of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants, claims, the ATO is going to have a big stick to apply against a transaction which may be a quite normal commercial transaction.The upshot of that is that it is not just those who might—and I stress the word `might'—be abusing the current streaming provisions who will be caught by these changes. Legitimate commercial transactions, including every distribution to shareholders other than a straight cash dividend, could be hit under the proposed wide ranging powers. One tax manager has labelled this move a `tightening of part IVA of the 1936 tax act by stealth' and went on to observe that `sound commercial transactions that satisfy prescriptive areas of the law can now be subject to a new veto power of the commissioner'. Mr Bob Bryant, Executive Director of the Corporate Tax Association, says that the new general anti-avoidance measures are `much wider than is necessary to address the perceived abuses'. The Tax Institute of Australia accords with that position and submits that these rules should be redrafted in a fashion that addresses a mischief perceived by the government and the ATO, but not in such a way as to effectively stifle normal, everyday transactions.The tax community is understandably uncomfortable with the `trust us' style of approach that characterises this new provision. It is not acceptable that the commissioner should have such widespread discretionary powers to decide if and when the anti-avoidance provision will be applied. The government should be averse to delegating legislative power to the tax commissioner, yet this is essentially what is being sanctioned in this bill. One does not have to improve the certainty of the tax act by increasing the opportunity for the tax commissioner to form subjective determinations rather than working within set parameters.Mr Munro is also reported as having said recently to the West Australian newspaper that the example set out in the explanatory memorandum of how the new provisions will apply to trusts is quite frightening. He notes that, because the extensive new powers will affect any person with an interest in a share—I stress `an interest in a share'—this could adversely impact on anyone who is a trust beneficiary. Under the government's plan, trust beneficiaries will not be able to utilise franking credits of shares owned by the trust unless they have an underlying interest.Importantly, discretionary trust beneficiaries can get the benefit of franking credits on the condition that the trust nominates to revert to a family trust. That is an interesting proposition because, if unit trust beneficiaries do adopt the family trust structure, they may well benefit in the case of retaining franking credits, but they will play right into the hands of the tax office in another respect. Anyone who has taken an interest in the coalition's attempts to stop the so-called rorting of trust losses will recall that many tax experts are concerned about the restrictive definition of `family' as described in the Taxation Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and Other Deductions) Bill 1997 .Specifically, individuals who are dependants for superannuation purposes and who could have responsibilities under the Child Support (Assessment) Act and may benefit from an inheritance from a deceased estate will be deemed to be not members of family trusts according to the government's definition of `family'. The government's treatment of trust losses will see small businesses being obliged to decide whether to remove key family members from having stakes in the beneficial ownership of businesses or lose potential tax losses incurred during periods of downturn in their business.In allowing discretionary trusts to continue to benefit from franking credits if they adopt the more restrictive family trust structure, the government appears to be making a concession to small business. The reality is that the clear winners here will not be small business proprietors, but rather the Treasury and the ATO. As one leading adviser suggested, many companies are frustrated that the likely outcome of any short-sighted legislation will only be a large legal bill in restructuring the group with no lasting benefit to the shareholders.In an article in the Australian Financial Review on 30 July 1997, Mr Neil Wilson, a tax partner at Coopers and Lybrand, outlined yet another consequence of this measure. He noted that shareholders of public companies using dividend access shares for legitimate purposes would be caught up in the terms of schedule 8. Mr Wilson is reported to have said that most companies were `actually moving tax within a group to the holding company, not trying to differentially stream credits to shareholders'. Mr Wilson went on to write, `Unless a distinction is made for access shares within wholly owned company groups, perfectly legitimate transactions would be denied the tax benefit of franking dividends.' While it is anticipated that ordinary share purchases will not be targeted by the Commissioner of Taxation under the proposed rules, the doubt that has been created by such extensive provisions will do nothing to encourage investment in Australia by ordinary Australians and will do a great deal to dissuade it.Because I intend during the detail stage to make further remarks on other schedules, I will simply finish on the note that, for reasons either already touched on or to be given later in the detail stage, I call on the government to slow down the passage of relevant schedules in this bill, to revisit the concerns of industry about distributions from companies, the tax treatment of franking dividends and the choice of superannuation funds, and to revise this legislation as is subsequently necessary after that re-examination.13:00:002376Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I would like to make a number of comments in summing up this important debate. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) has a number of important aspects to it. Firstly, it implements two key government initiatives—choice of superannuation funds and the savings rebate, which both commence on 1 July 1998. Secondly, it builds on the government's program of reducing compliance costs for small businesses by introducing a CGT assets register and changes to the withholding tax arrangements. Thirdly, it implements two important 1997 budget announcements which enhance the integrity of the tax system relating to franking credit trading, dividend streaming and private company loans.The savings rebate will particularly benefit Australian families and older Australians who have saved for their retirement and individuals who have built up their businesses and derive a return. The rebate will apply to undeducted superannuation contributions made by employees and the self-employed and net personal income from savings and investment, including net business income up to an annual cap of $3,000. In the first year, it will apply at a transitional rate of 7.5 per cent and increase to 15 per cent thereafter. This will deliver a tax saving of up to $450 per year. I know, after conversations with people within my own electorate on this issue, that there are many people who are welcoming those proposals.The rebate will provide an incentive to save in a way which is fair, allowing individuals to choose the form most suited to their needs, recognising that individuals have to save for life cycle needs as well as for retirement. The bill also implements the government's reforms to choice of fund arrangements. They are designed to give employees greater choice and control over their superannuation savings, which in turn will give them greater sense of ownership of their savings. The arrangements will increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading to improved returns on superannuation savings. I will be moving amendments, largely of a technical nature, in the consideration in detail stage to make some further minor improvements to the choice of fund arrangements.The bill introduces an asset register for capital gains tax purposes. This will eliminate the need for taxpayers to keep source documents for lengthy periods and will reduce the compliance costs for all taxpayers with capital gains tax obligations. The new three-tier system for remittance obligations under the reportable payment system, the RPS, pay as you earn and the prescribed payments system, PPS, will give small remitters the option to remit these payments on a quarterly basis rather than a monthly basis. This will provide over 300,000 small businesses with the opportunity to defer the remittance of $500 million in withheld amounts in 1998-99. That is certainly a very substantial number of business operators who will benefit from this.The bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to ensure that payments and loans made by a private company to a shareholder or a shareholder's associate are treated as assessable dividends to the extent that there are realised or unrealised profits in the company. I will be moving amendments on this measure in the consideration in detail stage. This measure, together with the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule and anti-streaming measures which form part of the 1997 budget measures to prevent franking credit trading and dividend streaming, is designed to protect the integrity of the tax system.The bill will implement two further budget measures relating to tax deductibility of expenses incurred in contesting election to the Constitutional Convention and donations to the National Nurses Memorial Trust. In addition, the bill gives effect to part of the status of forces agreement between Australia and Malaysia to allow certain personal effects to be brought into Australia sales tax free by members of a Malaysian visiting force. Finally, the bill makes some technical changes to the income tax law. Opposition speakers have made a number of outrageous remarks in their comments on this bill, particularly their comments on savings policy. Labor's record on national savings is indescribably abysmal. Let us go back over that. Labor speakers failed to note, for example, that, under Labor, Australia's national savings rate reached, apart from the world wars and the Great Depression, its lowest level since Federation, since 1901. They did not mention the $10.3 billion budget deficit that they left us when they were thrown out of office.Not only that, but many of us are very much aware of the $70 million worth of deficits they ran up in the last five years of office. That is a huge amount of money. There is a description we could use, but let us say that for members of the opposition to come here and vigorously debate this issue in regard to savings does not stack up with the history of members of the opposition when they were in government. Nor did they mention that general government net debt ballooned from four per cent to 19 per cent of GDP in the 13 years of Labor government. They are now making outrageous spending commitments which would blow the budget back out of the water. So to talk about sav ings is something which I hope members of the opposition have been doing with tongue in cheek and that they do not really mean what they are saying.We say that the savings rebate is fair and equitable, unlike Labor's never delivered l-a-w broken promises of co-contributions. I want to underline that. We believe it is fair, that it is equitable and that it will be beneficial to the overall structure of this industry in Australia.With regard to the savings rebate and why we say it is equitable, I make the following points. Really, the opposition's spokespeople in this area certainly have no right whatsoever to talk about equity. They opposed the biggest move by a government in recent history to improve the equity of Australia's retirement income system by their opposition to the superannuation surcharge. That superannuation surcharge was placed on those people with high income earnings, yet they opposed that. The super surcharge vastly improves the equity of our super system. The bulk of the savings rebate will flow to people earning less than $40,000 per annum. Seventy per cent of Australian wage earners earn under $40,000. This really is a benefit flowing to the overwhelming bulk of Australian wage earners. In contrast, not one of these people need to pay the super surcharge. The opposition has also been highly misleading in their comments about the benefits that the battlers will get from the rebate. About one-third of wage and salary earners earning less than $40,000 made personal super contributions, at an average of around $1,300—that is, they already pass the test for getting the $195 rebate. We have given them the opportunity to get an even higher rebate by increasing their contributions. For those who are not making personal super contributions, they have a big incentive to do so. Each dollar they put in will give them back 15c. Not only that, but six million Australians will benefit from this rebate, the vast bulk of whom are low and middle income earners.For a person in the lowest tax bracket, the rebate means that the person pays just five per cent tax on their savings income up to the cap. For a person in the highest tax bracket, the rebate drops their tax rate on savings income up to the cap to 32 per cent. Labor never once gave an incentive for personal savings. The savings rebate is a good measure, a fair measure and a measure welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Labor's policy on choice of fund is equally poor and equally bad. Labor had 13 years to provide for choice of fund, and they never delivered. Again, I guess it was something they were going to do in the 14th year. I think the Australian people woke up to the fact that they were never going to do some of these things, and that is why there was a change of government in 1996. Now the Labor opposition want to stop us from delivering our reforms, which were election commitments. Make no mistake: that is the real Labor agenda. People can come in here and wax lyrical about various issues on this matter, but that is the agenda of the Labor opposition.Labor's choice model guarantees no choice to workers at all. Labor's attitude to choice continues to be the old Labor model of paternalism where workers cannot be allowed to look after their own interests. The government and the unions have to tell them what they can and cannot do. I remember that, between 1984 and 1986, many people in Australia were being told that there was only one superannuation scheme they could join. That was dictated to them. They were absolutely appalled that there was no choice. I can say to the Australian people that the proposals being put by the Labor Party now are no different. They want to corral the Australian people to determine where their superannuation goes. We are a government that wants to give people choice. We are opposed to the amendment moved by the opposition. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Gareth Evans's amendment, as amended by Mr Kelvin Thomson's amendment) stand part of the question. 13:16:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio)80Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Brough, M. T. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M. Zammit, P. J.38Albanese, A. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Anderson, J. D. Sawford, R. W.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Reid, N. B. Martin, S. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2379Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:20:002379Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 6 and 8 to 10:(1) Schedule 5, item 12, page 47, definition of industry-based superannuation fund, (lines 9-20) omit the definition, substitute: industry-based superannuation fund means a complying fund or complying superannuation scheme that: (a) has 2 or more employer-sponsors; and (b) is a fund which operates on a not-for-profit basis; and (c) complies with section 89(1) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (basic equal representation rules); or(2) Schedule 5, item 28, page 52 (lines 16-21), omit proposed subsection 32C(2), substitute:Contributions under AWAs, Certified Agreements or Federal or Territory Awards(2) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements if the contribution is made under or in accordance with, an AWA, a certified agreement under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 , a certified agreement under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 , a Commonwealth industrial award, or a Territory industrial award.(3) Schedule 5, item 28, page 53 (lines 10-15), omit paragraphs (4)(a)-(c), substitute "before 1 July 2000".(4) Schedule 5, item 28, page 56 (line 15), omit "(1) If:", substitute:(1) Subject to subsection (2A), if:(5) Schedule 5, item 28, page 56 (line 30), omit "(2) If", substitute:(2) Subject to subsection (2A), if:(6) Schedule 5, item 28, page 56, after proposed subsection 32H(2) (after line 34) insert:(2A) A fund is not a default fund for the purposes of this section if a commission is payable to any person in respect of the addition of employees to the fund, scheme or RSA or in respect of the payment of contributions to the fund, scheme or RSA.(8) Schedule 5, item 28, page 59 (lines 8-12), omit proposed subsection 32N(1), substitute:(1) For a limited choice offer to be valid, the offer must give the employee at least 4 choices from which to choose. Each choice must be a complying superannuation fund, a complying superannuation scheme or an RSA. No commission must be payable to any person in respect of the addition of employees to the fund, scheme or RSA or in respect of the payment of contributions to the fund, scheme or RSA.(9) Schedule 5, item 28, page 60 (line 3) at the end of paragraph 32P(a) add: provided that the fund, scheme or RSA must not be one in respect of which commission is payable to any person in respect of the addition of employees to the fund, scheme or RSA or in respect of the payment of contributions to the fund, scheme or RSA.(10) Schedule 5, item 28, page 62 (lines 19-26), omit proposed section 32U.These amendments taken together set out our concerns regarding the government's choice of fund proposals. In moving these amendments, I make it clear at the outset that we do not intend to proceed with amendment No. 7. In so moving these amendments, the first area I would like to speak to is amendment No. 3, which relates to the issue of timing. The Senate select committee which dealt with this issue received an extraordinary amount of evidence in support of delaying the start date for choice. The arguments for delaying the start date included the need to allow additional time for a comprehensive education campaign, superannuation providers having to prepare administration arrangements, employers having to prepare for choice of fund, and the development of adequate and appropriate disclosure standards.The advantages in the proposal that we put forward for 1 July 2000 are, first, this is what the industry wants; second, this is what employers want; and, third, this is what employees, through their representatives, want. We see a situation where the government itself has set a start date for existing employees of 1 July 2000. We would say, firstly, that the confusion of having two separate start dates for new and existing employees is unnecessary and unwanted. Secondly, it ought to be said that the superannuation industry is still reeling from the changes enforced on it when the government rammed through the superannuation surcharge tax.Given the importance of choice of fund, it is essential that any teething problems have an adequate lead time to be sorted out before choice of fund takes effect. Thirdly, it would allow the government, in consultation with industry groups and consumer groups, to conduct a comprehensive and targeted education campaign. Fourthly, a delay would enable appropriate disclosure standards to be settled, a most important area about which we have so far heard precious little. We are also concerned that choice of fund is going to generate a lot of complaints in future from disgruntled employees and indeed from disgruntled employers.We have had the Federal Court decision in the Bishop case effectively gutting the powers of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. It is absolutely vital that the issue of access to a cheap, fast, independent complaints body gets resolved before choice begins. For all those reasons, we believe that the government's timing is almost bizarre—1 July this year—and that there is a need for a significant change to the proposed start date. I draw attention to the editorial in the Australian on 2 March, concerning the issue of timing, which said:If the Government remains set on its course, it would provide ammunition for critics who believe the member choice initiatives are motivated more by a desire to water down union-affiliated industry fund involvement in superannuation than by a genuine wish to empower individual savers.I point out that there was a survey conducted by GIO in December last year which revealed, most disturbingly, that the vast majority of employees are blissfully ignorant about the fact that choice of fund is about to be introduced. That survey revealed that 78 per cent of employees and indeed 42 per cent of employers who are going to be forced to participate in this scheme are totally unaware of it. They do not even know it is going to happen. It is most unsatisfactory for the government to say, `We are going to be able to introduce this on 1 July,' and expect that it is going to be anything other than a comprehensive debacle.We have seen the industry urging delay on the government. Regrettably, the government seems to be taking no notice of it, but the industry believes that 1 July is a completely unrealistic starting date. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia have called for the start up to be delayed by at least 12 months, and I know, from speaking with them more recently, that they believe that 12 months is an absolute minimum in terms of delay. (Extension of time granted) Not only has the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia called for delay but we have seen the Institute of Actuaries pointing out that more time is needed to agree on disclosure standards and to address what it describes as the asymmetry of information between providers and consumers. Jock Rankin from the Institute of Actuaries said:If choice is not properly exercised, there will be no net benefit to individuals and the nation. If consumers cannot make a reasonable comparison of products, choice will fall in a heap.Even the architect of this government superannuation policy, a former member of this House, David Connolly, now director of Phillips Fox, supported a deferral of the start date to 31 December this year and also noted the need for a holistic education campaign to encompass broad savings and investment strategies. Even David Connolly, architect of this scheme, says, `You cannot proceed with this by 1 July. It is simply not going to work.'The superannuation industry are saying to the government that 1 July will be a debacle. They are concerned at the level of general knowledge. They note that the government is not showing any signs that it is proposing to use that $16 million that it has collected from the industry, that kitty which it has in surplus, for superannuation purposes. The indications from the government are that this government's contribution to those most important issues of education and consumer protection will be of a very generalised and, indeed, superficial nature.Against that background, the industry is indeed appalled and alarmed at the government's desire to press ahead with a 1 July start-up date. I note that the Chairman of the Superannuation Centre of Excellence of the Society of CPAs, Murray Wyatt, summed up the industry's view pretty well before the select committee when he said, `Choice of fund could turn into a disaster, a treasure map without any clues.'Similarly, the Credit Union Services Corporation have also expressed concern about whether the government is fair dinkum about education and consumer protection. Their comments have pointed out that it is important for the education campaign to be up and running before choice of fund is implemented. They say:Access by employees to timely and appropriate information and advice, together with an effective education campaign, will be critical to the success of employee choice of fund. A more comprehensive program will be needed than `new pamphlets in a question and answer style, the ATO's existing Internet facilities and the ATO's existing telephone help lines'.That is what the government says is going to be provided. The Credit Union Services Corporation indicate that is simply not good enough.To add to those calls, we have heard the Australian Retirement Fund say that almost 50 per cent of Australians risk disaster with their superannuation if the government does not launch a public education campaign ahead of changes to superannuation. They have said that the government has to educate people on issues they should consider when they have to choose their own superannuation funds under the approaching member choice legislation.We have also seen evidence from the Australian Bureau of Statistics saying that more than half of Australians have poor literacy skills and may not be able to cope with the new system. The ABS figures indicate that many people will have difficulty in understanding these most complex matters.In addition, the Australian Retirement Fund made reference to the experience of the UK which, under Margaret Thatcher, went down the same choice of fund model road. In the UK some 570,000 people were enticed and lured out of well-performing funds into poor funds. Ultimately that gave rise to $10 billion in compensation claims. That scheme was introduced into the United Kingdom in the mid-1980s and we still see a lot of that $10 billion in claims outstanding. It has been a comprehensive disaster. (Extension of time granted)I was referring earlier to the concerns expressed by the Association of Superannuation Funds, as put forward in their submission to the Senate select committee. They are most concerned that the education campaign be conducted before the government rushes to introduce choice. They say:The funding as proposed in the last budget of between $2 million and $4 million per year will not be sufficient to fund a fully effective public and employer education campaign. Funding of public education programs at the rate of around 50c per employee per annum will only achieve at best some very basic outcomes. While constraints on budget expenditures are acknowledged, levies currently imposed on superannuation funds raise more revenue than is spent on the regulation and supervision of superannuation funds.They point out that, if the current levies on superannuation funds are to continue, at least part of their proceeds ought to be used to fund public education campaigns on choice of funds and other issues of relevance to fund members. The other point they make about timing—and I think it is a very valid point—is that we are seeing at the moment the demise of the ISC and its replacement by two new regulators arising out of the Wallis recommendations, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and what has been known as the Australian Corporations and Financial Services Commission. I think I heard the Treasurer (Mr Costello) recently giving that body a change of name. In a discussion paper on member choice of fund which it released in December, the ISC pointed to the prospective impact of a change of regulator. The ISC is saying that they are not intending to undertake any broad review of the existing disclosure rules as this could pre-empt the work of the new bodies. They say:The ISC stance is not intended to in any way pre-empt how the ACFSC might approach the issue.They, therefore, indicated that the new regulator could have a completely different viewpoint in relation to regulation of disclosure documents in a choice regime. ASFA goes on to say:A change in regulatory policy by regulators during, or shortly after, choices implementation will only contribute to confusion about compliance for funds and employers and add additional administrative expense for the superannuation industry as it struggles with the new or additional demands of a different regulator.Of course, consumer confidence would be undermined if you were to have a change of regulatory regime. For all these reasons, it seems to us that the government's proposal to proceed with the introduction of choice by 1 July is completely out of whack.We would like to raise the idea that something similar to the call number display requirements be considered concerning the issue of choice. Members will be aware that the government has an arrangement whereby they need surveys showing some 80 per cent awareness of the issue of calling number displays before these are to be introduced. It does strike me that, if perhaps you were to have a survey by a credible authority such as the ISC which demonstrated that 80 per cent, for example, of employees have an effective understanding of the issues of choice and are capable of making an informed decision, that would be a legitimate basis on which to introduce the model. That is something that we think the government ought to be thinking about rather than rushing head-first into the 1 July arrangement.Frankly, if they were to proceed with this and choice of fund were to become mandatory from 1 July for new employees, it simply would not happen. There would be all sorts of employees coming into workplaces, unaware of their rights and responsibilities, and choice of fund simply would not occur. We would have this period where the government says it is going to happen but it simply does not happen. Even worse, in some cases employees would make choices without adequate information, not based on their appropriate risk/return profiles for them. (Extension of time granted) They would end up in years to come with retirement incomes which were less than they would have got without these changes.Other amendments of ours address issues which go to the definition of `industry based fund'. In particular, amendment No. 1 deals with the definition of `industry based fund'. What we are wanting to do here is to insert the not-for-profit basis for industry based funds. It is pretty clear what the government is endeavouring to do with this legislation, because when you ask, `Do employers want it? No. Do employees want it? No. Who is this being done for?'- it is an attack on the industry based funds.The industry based funds have a proud record of performance and achievement which many workers are and should be aware of. But if we do not define industry based funds in the way that we are proposing, it will open up the prospect of employees being offered not a series of choices which are different but a series of choices which are in fact identical. As an example of this, I was addressing a conference in Sydney last week at which, amongst others, there was a presentation form MLC which set out what they refer to as their `four-fund choice'. In fact, what they are proposing to offer employers is a thing called the `universal super scheme' which they say qualifies under each of the four funds being proposed. So they have a scheme that is the employer sponsored fund or default fund, they have a scheme which meets the RSA requirement, meets the industry fund requirement and meets the public offer fund requirement. If employers were to pick up such a scheme and offer it to their employees, clearly, this is what MLC and others would have them do and, clearly, this would be attractive to many employers. And, given that the choice of fund is simply going to be a pain in the posterior for them and it is going to be more work and nothing in it for them, the employers may well be attracted to such a model. If this occurs, then you will not get any genuine employee choice at all; you will be offered the universal super scheme. That will be your choice. So we would say that without change to the definition of industry funds that is exactly what is going to occur.I also come back to the experience of the UK and Chile where you had commission based sales, you have people who have incentives to lure employees out of those not-for-profit schemes and into personal superannuation schemes away from the occupational superannuation schemes, even away from schemes that had, in those cases, any contribution from the employers. Ultimately, they proved to be disadvantageous to the employees themselves and those schemes have been quite discredited.One of the other things that I think we ought to understand about the operation of the industry based funds is that they have marketed their funds with an insurance policy cover, most of them having death and disability insurance. With a lot of industry funds, where an employee joins an employer they are deemed to become, from the moment they start work, a member of the industry super fund, which means that they get the death and disability insurance cover, regardless of whether they have actually started contributions to the fund.What we have under the government's model is the prospect of a gap period of the order of 28 days and so on where, if employees do not choose a fund and something were to happen to them, then the death and disability insurance cover would not be there. Government senators at the Senate select committee acknowledged that this was a serious problem. But if you look at their report you will see that there is really no answer being proposed for it; they are hoping, in the words of one witness who appeared before them `that the market would come up with a solution'. We would say that that is not quite good enough and we do need to have a situation where the industry funds are there to provide death and disability cover and to give people those sorts of options. (Extension of time granted)It ought to be said too that the performance of the industry based funds has been excellent in reducing fees and charges, producing maximum returns, providing things like death and disability cover free of charge and that their performance, by and large, has been excellent and superior to that of other funds.For example, there was an article on master trusts in the Personal Investment magazine in December of last year. That survey covers 65 major master trusts and includes one industry fund, Sunsuper, and it provides a table of projected end benefits after 20 years. Of those 65 trusts and funds being surveyed, guess which one was at the top of the list. It was the industry fund, Sunsuper, and their projected outcome was over $100,000 better than the average master trust and over $200,000 above the lowest master trust. That is a clear demonstration of the impact that the higher fees charged by these trusts can have on the retirement benefits of members.The other thing that we are concerned about in the involvement of this area of the for-profit funds and the like is the potential impact of exit penalties on members' benefits. I have with me a number of examples of exit fees and their impact on member fund balances. I will read to the House a couple of the worst of these. One involved the life company Australian Eagle where the account balance for the member was $4,779 and the exit fee they were charged was $3,801. That is to say, 79.5 per cent of their account balance was eaten up by the exit fee. With Legal and General there was a case where the account balance was $1,054, and $929—that is, 89 per cent—of that account balance was eaten up in the exit fees.Even where the account balances are higher, there are still cases of exit fees eating them up. An example with Prudential was $14,503 in account balance and a $4,846—or 33 per cent—exit fee. Those sorts of situations are outrageous. They relate to personal superannuation policies which are generally unsuitable for occupational superannuation but which are sold for this purpose nonetheless. And we are concerned that the government's model is going to move us back in that direction, with people being penalised and suffering much poorer retirement incomes than those to which they are properly entitled.13:45:002384Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—At the invitation of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) I will make a few remarks on schedule 5, although later I hope to have the opportunity to talk a little bit more about schedules 4, 8 and 9.At the outset, I want to say about schedule 5 that I support in principle the concept of individuals having greater influence over the manner in which their retirement savings are invested—and that is essentially what the measure is all about. However, I am not convinced that the 1 July 1998 deadline for new employees is the most appropriate, nor do I believe that the government has adequately dealt with the concern that this measure could be challenged on grounds of constitutionality.If anyone needed convincing that past and current savings incentives have failed to bring about reasonable improvements in household savings, they need go no further than a recently published report by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. I was pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) refer to household savings. What he had to say about Australia's performance in domestic savings and private savings under the previous Labor government was essentially correct. Perhaps he also might be interested in what the review to which I refer had to say. That review, released in November of 1997, analysed levels of household debt and showed that the trend towards indebtedness in Australia is consistently increasing and that debtor households are now paying, on average, 22.7 per cent of their income in the form of debt repayments.As if that trend is not alarming enough in its own right, the report also shows that deposits in banks and other financial institutions have declined as a form of saving since the start of 1997 and that the number of households reporting some form of employer based superannuation has fallen markedly since February 1997. So that is the other side of the coin which the parliamentary secretary flipped in the air. The institute observed that this latter trend, in particular—that is, in relation to employer based superannuation—should be of concern to government policy advisers. And indeed it should.Despite the fact that there is now a greater awareness than ever before of the benefits of—indeed, the need for—long-term savings, fewer Australians are embracing this behaviour. Neither the introduction of the general savings rebate nor the concept of the retirement savings account by this government has as yet done anything to boost national savings. It might be very early days, and I would acknowledge that.Perhaps increasing the range of superannuation options available to employees is the answer to this government's prayers. Perhaps not. But one thing is certain: unless the coalition takes heed of industry concerns about the timing and constitutionality of this measure, it will find itself facing a similar public relations disaster to that of the superannuation surcharge.As Ms Beth Quinlivan, a journalist with the Age, suggested in an article published on 2 March 1998:People attempting to make long-term plans regarding their super have faced an uphill battle. Just as one new set of rules and regulations was announced, another statement would introduce yet more complex variations.Ms Quinlivan goes on to write:Still, even for the change-hardened veterans, the number and scope of the proposed variations in current superannuation legislation . . . are almost eye-watering. The Jaques Martin superannuation fund choice survey, conducted some five months ago, found that while 74 per cent of employer respondents support the move to give employees a greater choice of fund, `only 16 per cent believe they are sufficiently expert to deal with all the requirements of fund choice'.In other words, up to 84 per cent of employers will most likely have to seek professional advice on how to best meet their impending obligations under these regulations. (Extension of time granted)That will represent yet another impost on the business sector. However, it is not the additional cost that is causing angst amongst employers as much as the timing of the introduction of the new arrangements. The coalition has made a number of substantial amendments to the original choice of funds initiative, outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) at the time of the 1997-98 budget. Despite the fact that these amendments were made available to industry only last December and that we are only now beginning to debate the detail of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 , the government is resisting all calls for a delay of the 1 July 1998 implementation date for new employees for a further 12 months.The editorial in the Australian of 28 March 1998 predicted:The government will do more harm than good if it rushes the introduction of the scheme, because while member choice will deliver enormous power to some four million employees, it is a power that most of them are not yet equipped to exercise.And with that I agree. The British and American experiences in increasing fund choice demonstrate the disaster that lies in wait if consumers are not provided with sufficient information to judge the relative performance of competing superannuation funds.As one submission to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation makes clear, there is a very real threat that section 32V of the legislation—that which removes employer liability to compensate an individual for damage or loss as a result of the former complying with this legislation—could be deemed unconstitutional. Put another way, employers could find themselves the subjects of litigation by their staff if a service provider presents employees with inaccurate information about their fund.That that law could be interpreted in this way is by no means a certainty. But surely it would be prudent to establish that employers will not be held liable for the information provided to their staff by competing superannuation funds before this legislation is passed in this place, not later or after the government has learned nothing from its diabolical handling of this surcharge legislation. Obviously it has not. Member choice is one thing; informed member choice is quite another.All the evidence suggests that employers will not have implemented the necessary internal procedures to meet their pending obligations by the 1 July 1998 deadline. A huge amount of confusion remains amongst employer circles as to whether it would be most practical to stick with an existing in-house fund, to utilise a workplace agreement to determine a superannuation fund or to offer employees a minimum of four superannuation funds.Also, unless the government amends its legislation, employers will be obliged to take out insurance to cover their employees in the event of accident or death during an interim employment changeover period. That is totally unsatisfactory. It is also doubtful that employees will have had the time to digest the information afforded them to be able to judge which fund best suits their needs. If reports are accurate that three in four employees are not even aware of the coming of the choice of funds arrangements, then the superannuation industry has a long way to go in educating the general community, and it is nonsensical to rush this legislation through this place.Already there are examples of industry experts offering employers advice on ways in which they can defer offering their staff multiple funds until this legislation is well understood. While one can empathise with employers and understand their not wanting to proceed until they have all the facts, surely that potential behaviour totally undermines the purpose of the initiative.Mr Jock Rankin, Executive Director of the Institute of Actuaries, is quoted as saying, `If choice is not properly exercised, there will be no benefit to individuals and the nation.' (Extension of time granted) If the coalition is as committed to encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own economic wellbeing in retirement as it says it is, then it will postpone the implementation date of increased fund choice for at least 12 months.Assuming that the choice of funds initiative is not rushed through this place, there is a very real possibility that the increased competition between funds for employee patronage will see an improvement in the servicing of fund members and the products on offer, as well as more competitive fees.I now wish to turn briefly to schedule 4. I remind the House that in my contribution to the debate on the Trade Practices Amendment (Fair Trading) Bill 1997 on 2 December 1997, I noted that while there was a very good case for the coalition to proceed with its proposal to protect small business in their dealings with larger corporations, it should not fall into the trap of always painting these larger companies as the guys wearing the black hats. I suggested then that the market is too complex for it to be viewed simply as a case of small business versus big business.The same is applicable to schedule 4 of this bill where the coalition is seeking to mandate that all PAYE, PPS and RPS taxpayers be required to make payments to the Australian Taxation Office by electronic means. Under this proposal, affected taxpayers will not have the choice to remit by way of cheque or any other commercially accepted method of payment. In ruling out this choice, the government stands to undo an otherwise commendable initiative.The explanatory memorandum states that the impetus behind this proposal is to provide compliance cost relief for small business. The government rightly notes that the burden of managing multiple taxation regimes is particularly onerous for the small business sector. But it is difficult to understand the logic behind this initiative, which simply shifts that burden from one section of the private sector to another. Had the government elected to give private corporations the option of continuing with their current manner of payment or taking up the new electronic method, I suspect there would have been widespread support for the initiative. Instead it is seeking to enact legislation that will punish remitters because of their size rather than for being late with their payments.Unamended, this bill will impose a minimum penalty of $500 for every remittance paid by a business by any means other than the one outlined in the bill. Given that 1 July 1998 marks the date of the new fortnightly schedule of payments for large enterprises, these businesses stand to be hit by a minimum penalty of $13,000 per annum if they do not comply with the new electronic method of payment. For those enterprises which remit on a weekly basis, the maximum penalty would double. It is ironic that in another schedule in this bill the coalition is seeking to give individuals greater choice in the way in which their superannuation contributions are invested.The choice of superannuation funds proposal is underpinned by the belief that better informed consumers will yield greater power in the marketplace and force the superannuation industry to become more competitive. The government appears blind to this dichotomy in policy which encourages improved market efficiency by way of increased consumer choice on the one hand but which prevents businesses from remitting by the most efficient method possible for that business.It has been suggested to me that the Australian Taxation Office must not be able to dictate how business should be run, and that is a sentiment with which I am fully in accord. If the bureaucracy is concerned about some businesses forwarding their cheques later than the due for payment as a means of delaying their payment, then there is a simple solution. It needs only to have the current act amended to reinstate the measure.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 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.Condolences238723872387Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Before I call questions without notice, I have two matters I wish to raise. Firstly, I have to announce that Kevin Chapman, the doyen of parliamentary broadcasts, died in Canberra on Tuesday. He was 71. Many of us will first remember Kevin's voice as a national newsreader on ABC radio in the 1950s and 1960s. Later, of course, we remember him for his parliamentary commentary. When television came to Australia in 1956, Kevin Chapman was on camera on channel 2, again as a national newsreader in those far off formal days when rounded tones and meticulous punctuation were absolute minimum requirements.For those of us in parliament he is affectionately remembered for his parliamentary broadcasts and for the fact that he called himself Kevin Chap-person. For 29 years, on a part-time and full-time basis, he was in fact the voice of many of us to the people of Australia. He always spoke in a masterful way. He was well informed. He gave insightful commentary, sometimes covering division after division. He was a fine example of the art of broadcasting. For those of us who had the privilege of sitting in the broadcast booth with him, his off air comments were no less insightful and, I might add, pithy. On behalf of all members of the House, I extend our sympathy to his family.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!14:01:002387Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I would like briefly to associate myself and the members of the government with your remarks. I remember, along with you and the late Mick Young, who was then the Leader of the House, making some remarks on Kevin Chapman's retirement in 1986. He was as you rightly say the voice of parliament to millions of Australians. For those of us who listened to parliament on the radio before entering this place he was absolutely synonymous with the institution. I therefore extend to his family my sympathy and that of the members of the Liberal and National parties.14:02:002388Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to join with you and the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences to the Chapman family on Kevin Chapman's passing. I had only been in parliament for six years at the time he retired. As the Prime Minister said, at that point in time both he and Mick Young had remarks to make on his contribution. I remember him less in that six-year period than I do as the voice constantly intervening to report on progress at points in time when I was trying to listen to my father participate in debates in this parliament. I did from time to time turn on the radio to do that.There was a marvellous sort of comfort in the voice and the way in which he expressed himself. This parliament and this chamber never has been a quiet meadow, but it was the sounds of a quiet meadow that essentially emanated from Kevin Chapman in the quiet way he would introduce what would then become a complete barney across the chamber. He was the voice of the parliament for many people for a very lengthy period of time.The other thing about him was his dress sense, which was, of course, appropriate to the dignified status of the House. He always had a flower in his lapel which changed on a day-to-day basis. This parliament is surrounded by great figures and great characters, not necessarily simply on the floor of the chamber, and he is one of those characters. We very much regret his passing and I join with the Prime Minister in expressing condolences to the family.Miscellaneous23882388Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The second matter which I wish to draw members' attention to is photographs that have been brought to my attention which appeared on the front pages of today's Age and Canberra Times , photostats of which I will table at the end of these remarks. The captions accompanying each photograph suggest a reaction by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives yesterday to the High Court's decision in the Hindmarsh Island matter.A perusal of Hansard of that day does not reveal any reference by the Prime Minister during question time to the decision by the High Court. I propose to refer each photograph and its relevant editorial comment to the House members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings to consider whether the photographs and editorial comment breach existing guidelines regarding these matters as well as request that those members consider the wider issue of the guidelines themselves. I table the two photostats.Questions Without Notice238823882388Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family Services. Does the minister now acknowledge that the $1 billion this government has cut from nursing homes, home and community care and disability services has imposed an unfair and heavy burden on families who care for a child with a disability or an older relative? Is not the Prime Minister's restoration of $270 million an admission that his savage budget cuts went too far? Minister, why have you only repaired one-quarter of the damage?2388Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The question from the opposition is absolutely amazing. The $1 billion figure that the member for Jagajaga was referring to has no relation to reality at all. What took place today was the first time in Australia's governmental history that a government has targeted a program to assist elderly Australians to stay in their homes. It has not been done before.Let me refer honourable members to sheet No. 5 that we issued this morning entitled `Assistance for ageing carers'. Do you know that there are about 3,500 age carers, parents who have mature children who have a disability, who have been looking after their children for 30 years and not one government has ever done anything about a targeted program for them. What absolute hypocrisy to come in here and say that this is a program that ought not to be supported. Do you want to look at the figures?PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Yes, tell me the figures.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—Where your $1 billion comes from is an absolute nonsense. What about the money? In 1995-96, $2.4 billion was spent on recurrent aged care. The next year—listen to the increase; this is why your figures are wrong—in 1996-97, $2.618 billion was spent. In 1997-98, $2.76 billion will be spent, a nominal increase of 5.7 per cent. What are you talking about? It is an absolute outrage. You are trying to perpetuate a myth. You had the opportunity to address these issues and you never did, and the first question that you ask today ignores the fundamental good that has been done here to date.It is interesting to have a look at the member for Werriwa's book. He talks about the need to develop social capital, to recognise volunteers and networking in the community, to bind a good community. We have recognised that there are 540,000 principal carers in this nation, and today, for the first time, a government has taken steps to support these people. You talk about social capital. We are doing it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Macquarie, I ask all members to keep the level of conversation down. The noise in the chamber is such that everybody is flat out hearing what is being said.23892389Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is to addressed to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the House how the government is enhancing the care of older people in the community and providing greater recognition and support for carers?2389Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would like to take the opportunity, in replying to the honourable member for Macquarie, to endorse everything that the Minister for Family Services has said about the figures being flung around erroneously by the member for Jagajaga. The reality is that the package I announced this morning to the annual meeting of the Carers Association was an Australian first in terms of encouraging and supporting older Australians to remain in their own homes.All of my colleagues know, and I think all members of parliament know, that the heart felt desire of older Australians is to stay in their own homes. That is what they want to do. Whilst governments have responsibilities in relation to residential care, they also have a very strong human responsibility to provide resources to enable as many Australians as possible in their older years to remain in their own homes.That is why we have decided to put an additional $92 million over a period of four years into community aged care packages. The effect of this, along with the growth of the existing programs, will be to more than double to 22,000 the number of elderly Australians who will be cared for in their own home environment. Community aged care packages are about providing services in the home to enable Australians to stay in their homes. There is nothing more important to elderly Australians than the opportunity to remain in their own home, and it is overwhelmingly the preference of older Australians that they remain in their home rather than go into residential care.I am also very proud that the announcement I made this morning to the Carers Association broke new ground in recognising the contribution to our community of those who care for people with frailties and disabilities. They are, without any doubt, the unsung heroes of any civilised and compassionate society. They have for a long time deserved more recognition, and it is a real privilege to be at the head of a government that will provide an additional $92 million over a four-year period from 1 July 1999, which will bring about the merging of the domiciliary care benefit and the child disability allowance.As a result, there will be an additional 14,000 carers in the Australian community who will receive the benefit of the new carer allowance. This will include many thousands who are caring for elderly Australians with dementia. It will also include people who are looking after their relatives and friends with profound intellectual impairment. It is by any measure a compassionate new policy. It is by any measure a recognition that for too long this dedicated band of Australians has been ignored. One of the special features of this new package is that we are recognising the particular concerns of elderly Australians who have often been caring for 20, 30 or 40 years for a disabled or impaired adult child. Their greatest worry is what will happen to their son or daughter when they themselves are too old to look after them. This policy will provide additional resources to address that particular group—some 8,000 very old Australians with a particular need. That particular measure is at the heart of the compassion which underlines this policy.I thank the Minister for Family Services and I thank the Minister for Social Security. I believe this is an excellent policy. It is the sort of policy which exemplifies a caring, compassionate and civilised society. It is a policy that the coalition is proud to present to the Australian community.DT4CREANMr Crean—It's not the carers he's looking after; it's the Parers.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Hotham will keep quiet if he wants to stay here.23902390Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the caring, compassionate and civilised Prime Minister.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the government will resume their silence.MG4Mr LEE—Is the caring, compassionate and civilised Prime Minister aware that, as a direct result of his decision to abolish the Commonwealth dental health program, there has been a dramatic increase in waiting lists of people who are in desperate need? Is the Prime Minister aware of the case of a woman who has been informed that all of her teeth need to be extracted and, despite living in constant pain, it will be 18 months before she can be treated, and even then she will have to wait for each individual tooth to cause her pain before she will be entitled to have that tooth extracted? Prime Minister, what more evidence do you need that your $400 million reduction in federal funding for dental care is causing real pain?2390Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I just say again to the member for Dobell that you know as well as I know and everybody in this House knows that, if you had won the last election, you would have got rid of that program. You also know that, historically, this has been a program which has been the responsibility of the states. You made no reference in the 1996 election campaign to a continuation of the program. You did not. You made no commitment to continue it over the four-year period, and you are being quite duplicitous and very hypocritical in continuing to ask these questions.23902390Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Family Services. Minister, how is the government ensuring older Australians have a real choice in determining whether they stay at home or whether they choose to enter residential care? How will the government also ensure that elderly Australians receive a higher quality care than that which they have received in the past, particularly in my seat of Makin?2390Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I thank the member for her question. As one of the very few nurses in this chamber, she understands the need for quality care for older Australians and has been an advocate for the need for us to come up with policies that give a continuum of care.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Bruce.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Bruce.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—We have focused on getting right the residential aged care arrangements in this country to address the neglect which the Labor Party left us with. Today, we have taken a step to focus on the need to provide additional care arrangements for those people who choose to stay in their home.One fact that people should be aware of is this: 93 per cent of older Australians are ageing in their home and that is their prefer ence. That is where they would rather stay. What we are doing here today is taking for the first time a concerted, considered approach to providing assistance to those people who want to make that choice. That is the key word: it is choice. We want people to have a choice. We want there to be flexibility in the range of opportunities there are to deal with those issues that I have been talking about in this place for so long—that is, the increasing number of Australians who are moving into the aged category. They are the ones who are deserving of a good mix of public policy, an ongoing, rolling commitment of resources from the broad taxpayer. Where they have the capacity to contribute to the cost of their care, we are asking them do that and that policy is now in place. I know that the member for Makin has been a dedicated supporter of these policies and, as it is her birthday today—DT4CREANMr Crean—Happy birthday.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—Yes, why not recognise that fact, because this is a package that should be celebrated. Let me just make mention of some public comments for the benefit of the opposition. The Council on the Ageing in Australia put out a press release this morning strongly endorsing the statements made by the Prime Minister this morning. They said:Altogether, we see the package as a significant advance in the Governments' relationship with those older, frail Australians who wish to continue living in the community.We had from the Carers Association of Australia some 600 people gathered in Canberra to hear the Prime Minister deliver this package. There was total and complete acclamation for what has been achieved here today. Let us have a look at some of my critics. We had Norah McGuire, someone I well remember from when I appeared on a television show and she kicked the tripe out of me. What did she say today? She said:After what happened about aged care restructuring, you know, the Minister, we knew, it is logical that he has to do this because aged care restructuring, it is good to hear something that is positive now.We are addressing these issues because we know there has to be a sustainable aged policy in this country. There has to be a mix of policy to provide choice and real support for aged Australians in a meaningful way, whether they choose to go into residential care or whether they choose to stay in their home. This is a policy package that deserves the support of every thinking Australian.I have to say that I am absolutely amazed—and, Mr Speaker, I will conclude on this—to see that there is an MPI today. The only person in this country who is against this package is the member for Jagajaga. I will be very interested to hear at the end of question time why this ridiculous MPI has been put forward by the Labor Party.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—Why are you against older Australians? How are you going to pay for it? Where was your policy prescriptions at your convention? Not a word! Not a word! There has not been a constructive contribution to this debate from the member for Jagajaga or the Leader of the Opposition from the day this debate started.23912391Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question again is addressed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive a letter from the member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, dated 15 November 1996, requesting that as a matter of urgency he review the decision to abolish federal funding for dental care? Did the letter state:Prime Minister, as you would understand, people do not stomach cuts to basic health needs particularly well. Indeed, they are outraged at our insensitivity, and I have a lot of trouble defending the decision to abolish the scheme?Did the letter from the member for Gilmore go on to state—3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order, although I do not doubt that the Prime Minister is happy to respond. I rely on standing order 142 and, in particular, page 510 of the House of Representatives Practice , which suggests that questions referring to the attitude, behaviour or actions of a member of parliament or the staff of members are out of order. Mr Speaker, the question relies entirely on an issue of that nature and I ask you to rule it out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is in order, but I think the honourable member for Dobell needs to have in mind the constraints of the standing orders in proposing it.MG4Mr LEE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did the letter to the Prime Minister also state:People needing tooth extraction are being turned away each morning in agony because they can't be seen. Surely we can't stand back and watch a disaster unfold?Prime Minister, do you intend to stand back as the disaster unfolds, or will you now concede that your dental cuts are causing real pain?2392Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I get a lot of letters and I will check whether I got such a letter.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Questions without notice will continue when opposition members resume their silence.23922392Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the outcome of the Australian Bureau of Statistics quarterly job prospects survey—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He writes letters on behalf of the AMA.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Banks will remain silent. Would the honourable member ask his question again? The noise level in this House makes it impossible to hear it.RW5Dr NELSON—Can the Treasurer advise the House of the outcome of the Australian Bureau of Statistics quarterly job vacancies series released earlier today? What does the survey indicate about the job prospects for those seeking work in my electorate of Bradfield and those of my colleagues?2392Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Bradfield for his question. I think he will be interested to know that this morning the Australian Bureau of Statistics released job vacancy figures showing that in February 1998 trend estimates of vacancies were 71,600 in the public and private sectors. For the quarter of February, job vacancies rose by 4.1 per cent, and over the course of the year job vacancies rose by 14.6 per cent. I think all members of the House will welcome the fact that job prospects are growing in Australia. I think everybody on both sides of the House would welcome the fact that job opportunities are growing. I am sure—certainly on this side of the House—that there is wide acclaim of a 14.6 per cent increase in job opportunities. Isn't that good news for Australians?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—It is show and tell over there. Who's being stood over?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Prospect is one of the deputy chairmen of this place. I suggest that she should show an example to people with her behaviour.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Brisbane, the honourable member for Grayndler and others who are making a noise, I suggest you remain silent. To those of you who are conducting a ballot, I suggest you do it without making it quite so overt—a problem from which some of those casting their votes seem to suffer. When the House comes to order, I will call on the Treasurer who is giving us a very interesting answer.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Your whips should have blue ballot papers!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Banks will remain silent. The honourable member for Corangamite, can I suggest you pick up the ballot papers later. The honourable member for Corangamite, would you resume your seat!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Oppositions members will resume their silence. The honourable member for Corangamite is quite at liberty, providing he is not intervening in debate, to speak and to sit anywhere in the place.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I can understand the interest of the Australian Labor Party in a trip to Malaysia and Korea, but we on this side of the House are interested about jobs in Australia and the fact that job vacancies in Australia have gone up 14.6 per cent.Also released today were the Drake International employment forecasts, which show that there is an improving labour market despite the downturn in Asian economies. The Drake survey concluded that employers continue to sidestep any significant jobs fallout from the Asian currency crisis with just five per cent of firms nationwide suffering reduced business opportunities as a result of the Asian financial crisis. The ABS job vacancy figures which were released today show that private sector job vacancies are at their highest level since June 1979, the highest level since we have been taking these statistics.What is the picture that is emerging of the economy? A low inflation economy with low interest rates and increasing job opportunities: the lowest inflation rate since 1963—that's great news—the lowest interest rates since 1969—that's great news—and the best job vacancies since we started recording in 1979. These are the results of policies. You do not produce outcomes like these without policy. The government's economic approach to getting the budget back into control, to reducing debt, to getting interest rates down and to getting job opportunities going is real policies. It is regrettable that we find an opposition which has been absolutely incapable of coming to grips with policy prescriptions. There can be no greater indictment of the failure of the Leader of the Opposition than that one of his frontbenchers has to write the ALP policy in a book. There can be no greater indictment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition than his failure to ask a question on economics for the whole course of the parliamentary sitting.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point on relevance. He was asked a specific question on the job figures, to which he is giving bogus answers. Now he has gone way off the point—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not reflect on an answer in that way.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—All right, he has gone to the point of irrelevancy.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Mr Speaker, before you call the Treasurer, standing order 55, for the benefit of members, reads as follows:When a Member is speaking, no Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance . . . Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable members of the opposition will remain silent. The honourable member is raising a valid point of order.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—There is a constant cacophony of noise that makes it impossible for members to hear, let alone the public in the gallery. I ask you to take some action and ask members to refrain and stay quiet while a contribution is being made in the parliament. The public is watching the behaviour of the opposition. They do not seem to realise how bad they appear.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The member raises quite a valid point of order. There is a real difficulty in hearing anything in this chamber when there is such a loud level of conversation and a loud level of noise.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Seeing we are all being so conscientious about standing orders, standing order 58 says that when members enter this House they should take their seat. We have obviously got a ballot going on which is distracting the Treasurer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison will resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I was talking about job vacancies and increased employment opportunities for Australians. I was speaking about the lowest inflation rate since 1963—since the Beatles sang Twist and Shout ; the lowest interest rate since 1969—since Neil Armstrong said, `One small step for man'; the lowest unemployment rate since 1990—since Paul Keating said, `This was the recession we had to have'—all creating job opportunities for Australia.What do you find from the opposition? No questions about the economy these last two weeks, no interest in inflation or interest rates—just the muckraking of the member for Hotham. We saw the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at it this morning, making one of the most disgraceful statements you will ever hear. He came in this morning and spoke about the Prime Minister and said, `This bloke seems to be never so happy as when he's bashing black fellas.' That is what you said this morning. Disgusting statement about the Prime Minister!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, point of order!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Show some leadership!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer is straying way from the question he was asked. I suggest that you return to the question you were asked, whatever the merit of the comments you are making.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If that is the best economic statement you can get out of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the so-called economic spokesman, disgusting racial slurs which he is throwing around this place, he ought to be condemned and the leader should make him withdraw.23942394Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. It follows the answer he has just given. Treasurer, is it not a fact that these are the best job vacancy figures only since February 1996, as opposed to what you actually happen to be saying.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham!DT4CREANMr Crean—Ha, ha, since you came to power!PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Isn't it a fact that since you came to power there has been job vacancy growth of 18 per cent in the last two years as compared to job vacancy growth of 40 per cent in the two years prior to when you came into office? Isn't it also a fact that the other figures out today show a decline in weekly overtime hours per employee of some 2.4 per cent in the quarter for an annual decline of 7.3 per cent? That indicates something about where this economy may be going. Instead of boasting bogusly, Treasurer, start dealing with some real figures.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.2394Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Don't we love it when he asks a question about the economy? Don't we absolutely love it when he shows his ignorance in this House about all things economic? The strongest private sector vacancies, the highest level ever in the history of the series since the June quarter of 1979. Isn't that great news? Don't people welcome the highest private sector vacancy since the series began in the June quarter of 1979. Read the document. It is there, you poor old thing.Then he says, `Oh, yeah but there were good vacancies coming back into 1994.' Why? Because we were coming off the worst recession in 60 years. He goes back and he says that Labor ought to be congratulated for taking unemployment up to 11.3 per cent and then he says, `Why don't you congratulate us for getting it down to the nines again?' This is the lowest unemployment rate since who put Australia into recession? Since you put Australia into recession. Who was the employment minister when unemployment hit 11.3 per cent? The Leader of the Opposition. Who was the finance minister when Australia went $25 billion into deficit? RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: earlier today you raised the point—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?RH4KERRMr Kerr—That ministers should address their comments to the House through the chair.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—And so they should. The honourable member should resume his seat.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Repeatedly they have not and the Treasurer is not now.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Denison, resume your seat. The minister should direct his answer through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I direct my answer through you. I love getting questions on unemployment from the Leader of the Opposition who, as employment minister, presided over an unemployment rate of 11.3 per cent. Let us have a guess at who was the employment minister during Australia's worst post-war period of unemployment? He knows all about it. He produced the best unemployment rate Australia has ever had and we do not congratulate you for it.Distinguished Visitors239510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the next question, there have been and there are still a few left of some 240 students from around Australia here for a National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and Values. To those who remain and those who have left, we extend a very warm welcome to you.Questions Without Notice239523952395Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, members of the Maritime Union of Australia have lifted their industrial action in Sydney. Could you advise the House of the nature of that dispute and how the Workplace Relations Act operated during the course of the industrial action?2395Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Cook for his question. What has happened is that the wharfies union have taken their campaign from Sydney and now they are going to Brisbane to wreak as much havoc as they possibly can against the Patricks company which gives them the jobs which they enjoy. So in Brisbane we are already starting to see the damage being done by the MUA, by the wharfies union—450 tonnes of export steel are being held up, 26 containers of cotton going to north Asia are held up by this vandal action of the MUA, and all along the Labor Party are basically publicly supporting them.It is interesting that when you look at the key elements of this dispute the fact of the matter is that you can see the beneficial effects of the government's Workplace Relations Act in operation. For example, we are told now that as they have decided to wreak havoc in Brisbane the wharfies have decided go back to work in Sydney. Part of their complaint about Sydney was that they were not going to be paid whilst they were taking industrial action; namely, whilst they were running an overtime ban. It is very interesting. This is a reflection on section 187AA of the Workplace Relations Act.The Labor Party complained about that when it was revealed about 10 days ago, but they suddenly went quiet when they realised the New South Wales Labor Party had the same law in state industrial relations law. But further what is particularly interesting is that as the wharfies are going back to work in Sydney they have decided to lift the overtime ban. I tell you why they have lifted the overtime ban. That is because of the operation of our Workplace Relations Act.Last week or the week before the latest industrial disputes figures came out. Remember that before the last election the Labor Party said there would be mayhem and there would be economic chaos if we were elected and basically it would be World War III. But when the official dispute figures came out, did we have industrial mayhem? No, we had the lowest level of industrial disputes since before World War I and the actual number of disputes was the lowest since 1940 at the start of World War II. What this shows is that we have implemented policies which really work and which really are, in the area of workplace relations, getting down the level of disputes.What is Labor's policy? Labor's policy is basically dictated to them by the ACTU, part of which is to repeal the Trade Practices Act, which is the one law which keeps a leash on the industrial thuggery in the trade union movement, supported by the Labor Party. On the balance of their policies, what are their policies? Actually, they do not have any policies other than that which is directed to them by the ACTU.So, as you watch the doorstops in the morning, as the questions go the Labor Party, `What are your policies?', what do we get? All we get is the muckraking that we have had from the Labor Party, which reached an all-time low with the sleazy, slimy, racist slur from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This just shows the low depths to which you people will go, and the Leader of the Opposition, on the industrial dispute on the Australian waterfront—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the answer to the question.WI4Mr REITH—This is a demonstration—when you look at the waterfront dispute—that when there is a national interest to condemn the industrial action of these industrial thugs, the Leader of the Opposition fails to publicly condemn their actions and cannot even bring his own frontbencher to meet reasonable standards of reasonable behaviour.23962396Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSONBK6OxleyIND00—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is the minister aware of reports that people are flying to Australia and upon arrival destroying their passports and then attempting to claim refugee status? Can the minister explain what steps are taken to identify people who attempt such illegal entry to our country? In such cases, is fingerprinting used to identify those who may be international criminals?2396Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I do thank the honourable member for her question because it does give me the opportunity to say a little about the way in which the asylum system—of which we are very proud here in Australia—is, by larger numbers of people than I think desirable, being the subject of very considerable abuse.This last year we have received something of the order of 11,000 asylum claims in Australia. Those numbers are very much larger than we have experienced in recent years. I think back in the early 1980s it was something of the order of 500 such claims that were received. Many of them come from countries where one does not ordinarily expect asylum claims to arise and the difficulty is that you have to assess each claim case by case; you have to make provision for people to be able to have their circumstances reviewed. There seems to be a desire on the part of some to perpetuate an arrangement where access to the courts is also provided, and we had something of the order of 900 cases where people are expecting to get judicial review on top of all of the other access that is provided.This system is in place to ensure that we do not refoule to any country a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution. But when we get manifestly unfounded claims, they damage irreparably our opportunities to deal quickly with the circumstances of people who may have been tortured and traumatised and are in need of assistance. When people who are seeking to do that often want to disguise their identity, to dispose of documentation that might help us in a proper investigation of their claims and sometimes to be able to put a story that would be inconsistent with whatever documentation they may be carrying, it does make our task very much more difficult.But I want to ensure the member that the approach that we take is one that deals with these matters with integrity. We do seek to ensure that the system is not abused, but that any genuine refugee does receive protection in Australia. We use every avenue available to ensure that, in respect of people who have been known to authorities in other countries, those matters are properly checked, that the character issues are addressed in the process and that we use the appropriate means for ensuring that they are properly addressed.Distinguished Visitors239610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I want to extend a welcome to the Minister for Education from Samoa, who I see sitting in the gallery. Welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice239623962396Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is also to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the government's progress towards providing more flexible English language tuition to migrants through the competitive open tendering of adult migrant English programs?2396Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question on this matter because it does enable me to tell him what is happening in relation to the area of adult migrant education and to brief other members who have spoken on these matters in both grievance debates and in the 90-second statements—and, I might add, for the benefit of the honourable member for Werriwa, who has expressed some interest in these matters and notes very much the importance of English language competency in ensuring that people are able to settle effectively here in Australia. He looks puzzled.K26LATHAMMr Latham—English language? There is nothing about English language.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I found a reference on page 250.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Did you buy it or borrow it from the library?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I will tell the honourable member himself if he is interested in that matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will address his response through the chair.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Mr Speaker, let me just say that I want to take the opportunity of addressing this question in a factual way because it is important that we deal with the facts rather than the myths that are often created. The first point that ought to be made is that there have been no reductions at all in the way in which the teaching of English language to new arrivals is resourced. Provision is made by law for us to fund appropriate tuition of 510 hours to all new arrivals in Australia.On top of that, because that is a requirement by law, we provided this year an additional $17 million over four years to provide assistance for those who are refugees and humanitarian entrants to address their English language needs. We also need to ensure that there is the provision of money so that we can provide the most flexible service with regard to time, location and type of tuition received by those new arrivals. We are endeavouring to ensure that the best service is provided, along with value for money, and we have put the system out for tender.What we have found is that, in those states where the bodies that deal with these matters evidence a deal of desire to adjust their manner of conducting the contractual arrangements, enter into partnerships with other organisations to put in place more flexible arrangements—in other words, are imaginative in the way in which they deal with these matters—they have been able to win the tenders. In most states, that has happened. In one area, perhaps because of the activities of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, where the organisation itself has proven to be more inflexible, they were not able to win three of the tenders that were offered in five regions in New South Wales.The honourable member for Prospect, in some comments that she made, said in relation to the tenderer, the Australian Centre for Languages, that they had no experience in providing English as a second language courses for poorly educated migrants or humanitarian refugees. I have to tell the honourable member that that is untrue. The organisation has had considerable experience in relation to those matters. It held a number of contracts for teaching to those very groups of people, through the programs that were funded previously by DEETYA and also through programs that have been funded in New South Wales.They also brought into their consortium partners with very considerable experience—Mission Australia, the University of Wollongong, the Macquarie University College and the St George and Sutherland Community College. In other words, they have as partners people who have a wide range and wealth of experience in English language teaching. Those services are related very much to teaching amongst those migrants who have a poor level of literacy in their own language, particularly those who have come through the refugee stream.I want to make it very clear that the government is committed to maintaining high quality education for English language migrants here in Australia.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister should draw his answer to a conclusion.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is important to talk about these matters in a factual way. We do not need myths. Another area in which there are myths has been Labor's protestation that it does not want a race election. One of the comments that worried me greatly this morning was the comment by the honourable member for Banks, who had the audacity to say that there is only one thing missing from this debate, and that is the white sheets and burning crosses. It does the honourable member no service, and it brings the whole question of debate into disrepute.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Where does that appear in Hansard ?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Prospect will remain silent.Government member interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Government members will remain silent. I call the honourable member for Dobell.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Don't misrepresent me, you fraud!Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that petulant behaviour on all sides is not really a great tribute to this place. The honourable member for Dobell.DT4CREANMr Crean—Set a standard.23982398Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Have you found Joanna's letter yet? Have you found Joanna's letter yet?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Dobell will resume his seat. If he does not have a question, I will call for the next question.MG4Mr LEE—My question without notice is addressed—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Cowan.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker—2398Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Cowan. You will resume your seat. You did not ask your question.3V5Mr RICHARD EVANS—Could the Treasurer inform the House what progress has been made by the government—MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Cowan will resume his seat.MG4LEEMr Lee—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is not a practice in this place, if you are called on to ask a question, to carry on with an interchange across the House. You did so. You did not, by waving a letter across the chair, asking the member of the Government, ask a question in the normal way. There are proper ways by which you direct a question—MG4LEEMr Lee—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Let me respond to you first. You know the direct way by which you ask a question. I call the member on a point of order.MG4LEEMr Lee—My point of order is that you called the member for Cowan before he stood, when I was on my feet seeking your call.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You had been seated because you had not asked a question.MG4LEEMr Lee—How could you call the member for Cowan before he stood up?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. How about a bit of procedural fairness in this place? We put up in this chamber with repeated abuse of relevance as far as question time is concerned. You sit there smiling and you know exactly what is going on with that repeated abuse of question time. There is one element of retaliation here and you rule that person out of order.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Where is the procedural fairness in that?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent, and so will members of the opposition.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. There is a proper procedure for asking questions. In the present instance, the honourable member for Dobell was not addressing his question as he should.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. The honourable member for Hotham will behave proper ly. Don't shake your head like that. If you want to—righto, I name the honourable member for Hotham.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the honourable member for Hotham be suspended from the service of the House.A division having been called and the bells being rung—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You are a disgrace.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will deal with the honourable member for Batman after the division.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that honourable members remember that there is no sanctity within a division and, consequently, any matters that you may advert to outside a division are not subject to parliamentary privilege.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Your behaviour does not enhance your own status in this society.The bells continuing to be rung—DT4CREANMr Crean—Who gave these instructions? Who gave these? He started a question, Mr Speaker, on the basis of `Have you seen the question?' Isn't that a question? Do we have to put a question mark in front of it for you to understand? `Have you seen this letter?' sounds like a question to me.UNKNOWNA Government memberA Government member—Beazley! Get control of him, Beazley, or you will lose him for two days.DT4CREANMr Crean—`Have you got the letter yet?' was the question. You say that is not a question. Are you wrong in that way or do we have to take the seat from you again?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thought even the Manager of Opposition Business would realise that if he wishes to take a point of order and address the chair during a division the custom in this place would be to put something on your head.DT4CREANMr Crean—I have a point of order. Mr Speaker, you ruled the member for Dobell—you asked him to resume his seat—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is a point of order relating to the proceedings. It is not a matter relating to the division. I will take a point of order relating to the conduct of the division. That point of order does not relate to the proceedings now before the House.DT4CREANMr Crean—The question of the division—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is unfortunately now past that stage. We are now at the stage of the division. You can only take a point of order related to the division itself.DT4CREANMr Crean—We are having a division and can I take a point of order relating to what led to that, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, you may take a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are having this division because you warned me—Government members interjecting—DT4CREANMr Crean—when I was attempting to get up and take a point of order. The point of order I was taking was that the member for Dobell had prefaced his question properly because the words he used to the Prime Minister were: `Have you got the letter yet?' It clearly flowed from an earlier question that he had asked, it was in the knowledge of the Prime Minister and it was completely in order. That is why we have reacted to your ruling. If you are going to give these sorts of inconsistencies you will lose control of this House and you will not get our cooperation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will not threaten the chair.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House resumes some silence—the honourable member was named because he constantly ignored the chair and abused the privilege and responsibilities it has.The bells continuing to be rung—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—He was shaking his head. Do you get named for shaking your head now?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member knows it was not for shaking his head—it was far more than that. It was for disorderly conduct, which is the basis of the standing order. I suggest you look at standing order 303. DT4CREANMr Crean—I suggest you look at the tape and I suggest also that you have a look at the question that the member for Dobell asked. You have ruled that—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member knows the way in which questions are to be addressed, and they should be addressed properly.The bells continuing to be rung— Question put: That the honourable member for Hotham be suspended from the service of the House.14:45:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)86Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Filing, P. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Howard, J. W.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.41Albanese, A. Baldwin, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Anderson, J. D. Sawford, R. W.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Reid, N. B. Martin, S. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham is suspended from the service of this House.The honourable member for Hotham thereupon withdrew from the chamber.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call anybody, I ask the honourable member for Batman to withdraw that reflection on the chair he made during the division.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, which reflection was that?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw the reflection, about which he knows, on the chair.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, is that the question that—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Will the honourable member withdraw the reflection?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I am asking which reflection—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Will the honourable member withdraw the reflection?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I will withdraw the reflection—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I name the honourable member for Batman.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—that you made on numerous occasions about the—Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member for Batman be suspended from the service of the House.15:03:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)87Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.40Albanese, A. Baldwin, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brown, R. J.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Anderson, J. D. Sawford, R. W.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Reid, N. B. Martin, S. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours.The honourable member for Batman thereupon withdrew from the chamber.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Cowan will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Dobell, in light of the circumstances, to address his question.24022402Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that his office called the member for Gilmore seeking help for a person who needed urgent dental care—and in the member's words `his plight was so bad that the PM's office needed something done urgently'—and that the member for Gilmore prevailed on a local dentist to help out? Prime Minister, are you also aware that she went on to say in her letter to the health minister:That is a one off, which I cannot continue to do. This man's crisis was not isolated and those who continue to suffer will not be so lucky because they will not know who to turn to.Prime Minister, will you now admit that you have dramatically increased waiting times for dental surgery, or is the only way left for people in need of urgent dental care to call you on 026 277 7700?2402Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not personally aware of the circumstances to which the honourable member has referred. I will, naturally, investigate them. Can I say in relation to the issue generally that it remains the case that, if you had been re-elected, you would not have continued this program. You made no commitment to a four-year continuation of the program during your campaign.MG4LEEMr Lee—I seek leave to table the two letters I have referred to.Leave not granted.24022402Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the department established a unit called Images of Australia to ensure the tolerant, culturally diverse and decent values of most Australians are transmitted to the international community?2402Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Lindsay for her question. I know she and many other members of the House would appreciate the efforts that are made by my department internationally to put Australia's best foot forward and to ensure that our country is understood for what it really is, which is a culturally diverse, very tolerant and very decent country. The Images of Australia unit has been a very great success in promoting those images of Australia. I think they are values in this country which we have great pride in. It is a great thing for us to be able to go around the world and say that in Australia people from 130 different countries of the world have come together and that, on the whole, they live very harmoniously together. It is a great thing to be able to say that we are one of the world's oldest continuously operating democracies. But our democracy works on the basis of some unwritten rules—unwritten rules of public debate and unwritten rules of decency.Most Australians uphold those unwritten laws of public debate. But, Mr Speaker, there are the occasional exceptions. There are the exceptions who undermine the image and reputation of this country. We saw a very good example of it this morning. We saw an example of it this morning when somebody in the senior position of Deputy Leader of the Opposition—one of the significant people in the political spectrum of this country—made a statement saying of the Prime Minister, `This bloke seems to be never so happy as when he's bashing black fellas.'For the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—the alternative Deputy Prime Minister of this country—to be reducing public debate in this country to that level is not only shameful but it does indeed damage the image of decency and tolerance in this country. Coming from a man who was once the foreign minister, I say: I regard that as particularly surprising.It would serve the House well if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did the honourable and decent thing and apologised to the Prime Minister and apologised to this House for what he has done, because if he did that he would uphold at last the standards of decency and tolerance which this country promotes internationally so strongly. But to leave a statement like that on the record without apology is damaging to this country and, of course, very damaging to the opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order: there was nothing in that question which provokes or legitimises an outburst like this from the foreign minister, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The foreign minister was asked a question regarding the general status of Australia and I believe that the answer to a degree was relevant, but I suggest that the foreign minister is now moving far from the question. I suggest that he return to specifically answering the question.4G4Mr DOWNER—Mr Speaker, at the end of the day, behaviour in this parliament is relevant to the Images of Australia. It is relevant to the way the world sees Australia. This parliament is shown on Australian television into many countries of South-East Asia and even North Asia. Some of the things that are said in this parliament and some of the things that are said in public debate—FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—On a point of order: for the minister to address the issue—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—What he is doing exceeds the forms of the House for taking exception to the behaviour of a member of this House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The question was regarding standards in behaviour. I have asked the foreign minister to return to answering the question.4G4Mr DOWNER—And, Mr Speaker, indeed I will because this is about the image of the country. It is about what is transmitted to our region through news services, through Australian television. It's about what is read and understand about this country. One of the things that is understood about this country today is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition accuses our Prime Minister of being somebody who is happy when he is bashing black fellas. He should withdraw that statement.QI4PRICEMr Price—A point of order!4G4Mr DOWNER—He should apologise and, Mr Speaker, if he doesn't apologise, the Leader of the Opposition should make him do so for the integrity of the Labor Party, the integrity of the parliament and the integrity of public debate in this country.QI4PRICEMr Price—A point of order!RH4KERRMr Kerr—On a point of order: this House and the public will believe the processes to be partisan if a minister can repeatedly defy your ruling and can continue this personal attack.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Chifley.QI4PRICEMr Price—I have been on my feet for five minutes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry, I did not see you.QI4PRICEMr Price—On a point of order: Mr Speaker, twice you have asked the minister to return to the point of the question and he is neglecting to heed your advice and guidance. I'd ask you to rule that he return to the point of the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Chifley.24032403Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in answer to a previous question persists in this myth that the Labor Party intended to shut down the dental care program. My question is this: were that the case, Prime Minister, why in these budget papers of your first budget statement 1996-97 does there appear this item:Cessation of the Commonwealth Dental Program savings in the budget, minus $55.6 million; savings 1997-98, minus $112 million; savings 1998-99, minus $114.5 million; savings 1999-2000, minus $116.5 million.Were you misleading the House or was your Treasurer on that occasion?2403Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I was not misleading the House. The situation remains that you had no indication during the campaign of your intention to continue the program.24032403Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what is the government's response to the High Court's decision on the Hindmarsh Island issue?2403Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Could I say in reply to the honourable member that, as expressed by the Special Minister for State yesterday, the government welcomes the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Hindmarsh bridge case. It brings, I hope, to an end a very sorry chapter in which there was an enormous amount of money expended. I think there was ill will generated in the community between Australians of different backgrounds. But in the course of commenting upon the government's reaction to the decision of the High Court, I want to draw attention to some remarks that were made in the press this morning, and in particular some remarks that were made at the doorstop this morning by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Put them in context. Read the lot.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will put them in context.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Thanks for that.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will certainly put them in context, and the first context that I should put them in is, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows, I made no reference at all in the parliament yesterday to the Hindmarsh Bridge case. Absolutely no reference.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—You danced a jig and it was all over the papers.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The jig to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition refers, as a perusal of both the video of question time yesterday and also the transcript of Hansard will record, which is this, was a reference I made to the Treasurer when he interjected, `Why did you give tax deductibility to the Evatt Foundation?'CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—That's what it was about.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is what it was about. It had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Hindmarsh bridge. What is appalling about the behaviour of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that, unlike the—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order that deals with the validity of this question and whether it is within the framework of the standing orders. I draw your attention to page 509 on questions. The underlining principle is that ministers are required to answer questions only on matters for which they are responsible to the parlia ment. Consequentially, speakers have ruled out of order questions to ministers which include, for example, statements by people outside the House, including other members, notably opposition members. I would have thought that, given that it was not a statement made inside here and given that it is absolutely not within any portfolio responsibility of his, the question is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—On the same point of order?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—On that point of order, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to two factors. The Leader of the Opposition is referring to constraints placed by the standing orders on questions. The time for him to take such a point of order is at the end of the question, not halfway through the answer, which is not so constrained.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. There is no doubt that the question from the honourable member for Hindmarsh related specifically to a matter pertaining to a decision of the High Court yesterday. While I take note of what the Leader of the Opposition has said, the answer being given by the Prime Minister relates directly to reporting in today's media on that question. I, therefore, call the Prime Minister to continue his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I was saying, the truth of the matter is that I made no reference yesterday to the Hindmarsh bridge decision. The photograph to which the honourable member refers, the jigging one as he calls it—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—This one here.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That one. That was in the course of an answer I was giving to a question asked of me by the member for Hotham. Any kind of decent person would have perused that. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has no excuse. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, unlike the leader writer of the Melbourne Age , was present when the incident took place. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knew that I did not mention Hindmarsh. The Deputy Leader of the Oppo sition knew he was being deceitful at the doorstop.That is only the half of it. What we have seen here is very much of a kind with the remarks that were made by the member for Banks, the remarks to which the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs drew attention, some remarks that were made some months ago that likened the attitude of members of my party on the native title issue to the behaviour and the attitudes of the Ku Klux Klan. That was something that the Leader of the Opposition had neither the power nor the intestinal fortitude to do anything about. The Leader of the Opposition failed to discipline the member for Banks. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition has failed to discipline the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said at the doorstop this morning—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this is irrelevant to the question on Hindmarsh. How could it be relevant to it if he is referring now, though he got Ruddock to talk about this as though it was something that happened today?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Address him properly.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Well, the minister for immigration.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that this matter has been canvassed extensively in today's media. The question was raised by the honourable member for Hindmarsh pertaining to a decision by the High Court. The Prime Minister is identifying comment in today's media regarding what was said to be reactions against what he said on that subject.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Let me for the benefit of the House—and I want the House to listen very carefully to this, particularly members of the public in the gallery—repeat what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: `This bloke seems to be never so happy as when he is bashing black fellas.' Let me say that again: `This bloke never seems to be so happy as when he is bashing black fellas.' You should apologise.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will resume their silence.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on the perceivable relevance. It has to relate what I said to the circumstances that occurred in this place yesterday and that relationship is evident when you read the whole sentence of which that was the tailpiece. Read the whole sentence if you are going to be fair. I will give it to you if you want it. Read the whole sentence.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The House will come to order before I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You talk about relevance. If you are to have any relevance to decency in politics you should apologise. You should at least have the courage to apologise, because both you and your leader are deliberately inflaming the temperature of this debate.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. We are having a personal attack from a man who does not even have the decency to apologise for the stolen generation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. The Prime Minister needs to respond to the question put. I believe he is now doing so.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have to say that I find myself in agreement with Father Brennan when he said a few weeks ago that there are people in the Labor Party who are hell-bent on having an election of this particular issue. You are the people who want an election on Wik. By the Leader of the Opposition's failure to restrain the deputy leader, he is giving evidence of that.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. This is a question about the Hindmarsh bridge. There was a specific question directed to him. He has canvassed everything except that particular judgment here in this place. He is massively irrelevant and massively disorderly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As the Leader of the Opposition would know having been a minister in this place for many years, a ministerial response can relate to the breadth of a question put. The Prime Minister is entirely in order in responding to the question of the honourable member for Hindmarsh.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Not only were the motives imputed to me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to my alleged response to the Hindmarsh bridge decision absolutely baseless, wrong in fact and completely without foundation but the manner in which they were made, the particular language used, was deliberately calculated to inflame the temperature of this whole debate.You in the Labor Party run around in your self-righteous fashion, you say, `Those terrible people over there on the government side,' you want to have a race election yet you dare to use words like `This bloke seems to be never so happy as when he is bashing black fellas.' I not only find that offensive to indigenous people but also find it personally very offensive. I find it highly offensive to the motives of millions of people in Australia who happen to agree that we have taken a principled stand not only on the Hindmarsh Island Bridge issue but also on the native title issue.When the judgment is made on this issue by the Australian people, the person who will have failed the test of leadership will be the Leader of the Opposition. It is the Leader of the Opposition who has failed to discipline the member for Banks. It is the Leader of the Opposition who has failed to discipline the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is the Leader of the Opposition who has allowed others in his party to run the agenda on the native title issue. It is the Leader of the Opposition who is now allowing members of his own party to run amuck and to make inflammatory comments to turn up the temperature of this debate—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was a very specific question on Hindmarsh Island. Apart from being about a 10-minute answer in which he goes round and round his polling he is absolutely way off anything that can conceivably relate to the Hindmarsh judgment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that the answer of a minister can range fairly widely. The Prime Minister is in order. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Bogus points of order will not relieve the Leader of the Opposition from his responsibility to lead on this issue. Bogus points of order will not absolve the responsibility that he carries, along with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Banks, for tainting the character of this debate. It is a difficult issue. It is a sensitive issue.When the final chapter is written on this debate, three remarks will stand like stone and they will condemn the people out of whose mouths they were uttered. The first of those was the reference to racist scum by Noel Pearson. The second was the reference to the Ku Klux Klan by the member for Banks. The third was the remark made this morning by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If he had any sense of decency and courage he would apologise and withdraw. Obviously, he is not going to do so, so I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations240615:32:002406Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented most grievously by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard).10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Earlier in question time today the minister stated:One of the comments that worried me greatly this morning was the comment by the honourable member for Banks, who had the audacity to say that there is only one thing missing from this debate, and that is the white sheets and burning crosses. It does the honourable member no service, and it brings the whole question of debate into disrepute.A moment ago the Prime Minister said that those remarks were made in the context of the native title debate some months ago. Any person listening to that answer would have believed that I made those statements this morning.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members of the government will remain silent. The honourable member for Banks has the call.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—In fact, the minister was selectively quoting from a document given to him by Mr Tony Nutt, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. It was in fact a Media Monitors document that the minister handed to me. It is dated 29 May 1997. It states:CH2 7.30 ReportSubject Stolen GenerationsIntv. Daryl Melham, Opposition Aboriginal Affairs spokesmanSarah Henderson, reporter:Today no-one in the government was talking off the record. But the opposition was.Daryl Melham —and this is the full quote—In terms of stolen generations—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The requirements for any member making a personal explanation are to quickly state where they were misrepresented and deny it if that is the case. They are not to go through a lengthy debate on the issue.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—That is a quote from 1997.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Prospect will remain silent. The honourable member for Banks is dealing in a sensitive area and all members should allow him some latitude in explaining the circumstances of his alleged misrepresentation. I would suggest, however, that the honourable member for Banks has in mind the constraints on personal explanations and restricts his remarks entirely to them.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—I again say that the comment on the document is, `Mr Ruddock for your use, Tony Nutt'. This Media Monitors document is dated 27 May 1997 and has `confidential' written on it. This is the exact quote:Daryl Melham In terms of stolen generations, what we have to do is have a considered response, and it's about time the Prime Minister showed leadership. There's only one thing missing from this debate, and that's the white sheets and the burning crosses—and that's been the undercurrent in this debate.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Ah, ha!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Honourable members of the government will remain silent.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Those comments were made in relation to stolen children. There was no reference to the Ku Klux Klan. They were made on 29 May 1997.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Government members will remain silent.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—There was no statement made by me this morning. There was no statement made by me in recent months. I ask that the minister and the Prime Minister apologise to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member has finished his personal explanation.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members of the government will remain silent. They are not helping in maintaining some decorum in this place.15:36:002407Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—Among the various bits of free character analysis I received today at question time were a number of statements to the effect that in what I said about the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) this morning I had been guilty of a racist slur. May I make the point at the outset that it is not racist to suggest that someone has behaved offensively on a racist matter. As to the substance of what I actually said—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you sit down please?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, standing order 64 says:Having obtained leave from the Chair, a Member may explain matters of a personal nature, although there be no question before the House; but such matters may not be debated.Every word of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is debating the issue.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is explaining the context of the matters where he alleged he has been misrepresented. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to keep in mind the restrictions of the standing orders.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—May I continue by saying that the words I used immediately preceding those that have been quoted are these:I do find it somewhat tacky, however, that the Prime Minister reacted with the exuberance that he so obviously did when he was given the news of the 5:1 decision against the Aboriginal women.Then I went on to say the expression that you have quoted in that particular context. I was simply suggesting that the Prime Minister was behaving offensively on a racially sensitive matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member has now finished his personal explanation.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—No, there is one further point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are restricted to a personal explanation.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Apologise.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—I have been asked to apologise. Can I respond to that request for an apology?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—It is obviously a matter of contest between us as to what precise form the Prime Minister's exuberance took yesterday. I accept the Prime Minister's explanation, because he made it in this House—and I would not presume that he would mislead the House—that this particular photograph was not—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call, but I suggest he finishes his personal explanation.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—I am responding to a request for an apology. If the Prime Minister says that the photograph was not the occasion that he was expressing his delight at the news, I accept that. However, he was given a bit of paper in this place yesterday, as I understand. You were laughing your head off at that stage when you were given that bit of paper—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat!Questions to the Speaker240824082408Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. I raised a point of order earlier, and I draw your attention to standing order 76. It would seem to me that a request for an apology by a member of this place imputes another member. Standing order 76 rules such imputations out of order. I would ask that you consider that and respond at some later stage.2408Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As the honourable member would know, you are allowed to direct questions on matters of administration. Frankly, I do not see how that is a matter of administration. In terms of the phrases used and expressions made inside and outside this place, the honourable member would know better than most that many people say things which they do not necessarily mean. The procedures are intended to allow for some flexibility in considering them.24082408Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, my question to you relates to your rulings that ministers are not required to table confidential documents from which they are quoting, when we request so under the standing orders. Earlier today, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs gave me a copy of a Media Monitors report that had been given to him. On the back it says, `Mr Ruddock, for your use. Tony Nutt.' It is a Media Monitors extract and on the top it says, `Confidential.' Media Monitors is a public document. Mr Speaker, it was a partial quote from the transcript. My question to you is: does he have to table the whole document when asked? If `confidential' is put on a Media Monitors document, does that preclude the tabling of that whole document by the minister, or does the minister have to table the whole of the public document? What we have here is cut and paste.2409Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As the honourable member for Banks would know, the Speaker has no control over determining what documents are claimed to be confidential and those which are not. I have a responsibility to ask a minister whether or not the document is confidential, and that I do. In this instance, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was not asked to table the document. Therefore, I do not see the relevance of the question.Censure Motion2409240915:42:002409Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Banks apologising for trying to slur the Prime Minister with racism.We all know that, when one is debating issues of land rights and native title, passions can be inflamed.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was actually on my feet before the Treasurer was called. I had a question to you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry. We are now into the motion. I will ask you to direct your question after we have finished the motion before the House. I am sorry, I did not see you. Members rise in this place and, frankly, it is very difficult at times to work out the purpose of their rising.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—We all know that passions can be inflamed in a debate like this. We all know that it is very easy for people to come along and inflame passions for their own political advantage in relation to this. At all times on this issue, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has shown absolute leadership—absolute leadership in securing justice between the rights of native title claimants and those who have pastoral lease. For my own part, for the part of this government and for the part of the joint parties, I want to say that the Prime Minister has done that with distinction.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in the day I raised with you a question about a substantive motion being on the matter we are discussing now. You ruled it out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is a motion for the suspension of standing orders to allow the motion to be considered. The Treasurer has moved a motion, and the House is considering it, as the procedures require.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—When the Prime Minister made the allegations earlier in the afternoon you ruled him in order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister responded to questions entirely in accord with the standing orders. We are now dealing with the substantive motion moved by the Treasurer. I call the Treasurer.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—I want to say it again, and I want to say it on behalf of this government, on behalf of the members of the parties which the Prime Minister leads. The Prime Minister has served and led Australia in relation to this issue with distinction—with utter distinction. The despicable and premeditated attempts by the Australian Labor Party to put racial slurs into this debate and to inflame passions ought to be absolutely condemned—and we condemn them. We want to give those members who have injected those racial slurs into this debate the opportunity to come into this parliament and apologise. This is the apology squad. These are the people who love apologies. They ought to come down here and apologise for the things for which they are responsible.This morning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans), in one of the most tacky performances you will ever see a parliamentarian engage in, walked up to a doorstop and said in a quote which he has now confirmed:I do find it somewhat tacky, however, that the Prime Minister reacted with the exuberance that he so obviously did when he was given the news of the 5:1 decision against the Aboriginal women.The first point to make about this is that he says he was running off the front page of the Age . You were actually in the parliament yesterday. You were here. You know that the Prime Minister made no reference yesterday to the High Court decision. You also know that the Prime Minister stood here yesterday and, in response to an interjection from me when I complained he had given tax deductibility to the Evatt Foundation, turned around and that is when that picture was taken. The picture on the front page of the Age today was false and you knew it, but you took the opportunity to walk in—and this is now your defence—saying, `I was misled by the Age .' You were not misled by the Age . You very deliberately and in a premeditated way came in this morning, determined to put a racial slur on the Prime Minister. And these are the despicable words that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to say:This bloke seems to be never so happy as when he's bashing black fellas.What were people expected to understand by that comment? They were expected to understand one thing. They were expected to understand that the Prime Minister was pleased or would be happy about bashing black fellas. That is the imputation you were trying to put on the Prime Minister. There is no other explanation as to those comments. It was not a discussion about the rights of native title. It was not a discussion about the High Court decision. It was not about pastoral leases. It was a racial slur, pure and simple, and you did it in a premeditated way.If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had any decency—and I say this to him now before this debate finishes—he would walk to that dispatch box and he would say to the Prime Minister, `I apologise.' That is all you have got to say: `I apologise. I withdraw.' That is all you have got to say. And what are you being asked to withdraw? You are being asked to withdraw a statement which is so palpably false and despicable that a decent person would withdraw it. You are being asked to withdraw these words:The bloke seems to be never so happy as when he's bashing black fellas.You are being asked to withdraw a racist slur which is despicable.Then we come to the member for Banks (Mr Melham). The member for Banks came into this parliament and essentially confirmed the statement he made on Channel 2 on the 7.30 Report on 29 May 1997. He confirmed this quote:. . . it's about time the Prime Minister showed leadership.Again, do you see the way in which they try to sneak the Prime Minister into these debates? He said:. . . it's about time the Prime Minister showed leadership.And here is the quote which he confirmed:There's only one thing missing from this debate, and that's the white sheets and the burning crosses—and that's been the undercurrent in this debate.I will tell you what the undercurrent in this debate has been. The undercurrent in this debate has been a premeditated, conscious campaign by the Australian Labor Party to try to put slurs on members of the government. That has been the real undercurrent of this debate. You can see it from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, you can see it from the member for Banks.Mr Speaker, I will tell you what the undercurrent is; they are trying to put into the subconscious, into the minds of decent Australian people, a despicable slur on the character of the Australian Prime Minister and, if they had any decency, they would withdraw it.The member for Banks knows that, when he talked about white sheets and burning crosses, there was only one image he was trying to conjure up. You were trying to conjure up the image of the Ku Klux Klan, one of the most notoriously racist groups this century has ever seen. You know that you were trying to conjure up that image and you were trying to project it onto the Prime Minister. You know that. That is why you made that statement. It was a despicable allegation and a despicable statement, and you ought to withdraw it.This is a time-honoured tactic of the Australian Labor Party. I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when a recent appointment was made to the ABC board, got up and said it was like Louis Farrakhan being put in charge of the holocaust museum. Didn't you? Again, you were trying to put the racist slur on it. The Australian Jewish community came out and condemned you, and they were right. They were absolutely right to do that.K26LATHAMMr Latham—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: there is no reference in the motion to the matters that the Treasurer is now referring to. The motion on the suspension of standing orders is fairly specific and fairly narrow in the parliament.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Werriwa should know that, in the suspension of standing order motion, the Treasurer is entirely in order.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—This is a sleazy pattern of behaviour. It is a pattern of behaviour which has been repeated on numbers of occasions. It is a pattern of behaviour which now draws in numbers of the front bench. It is a pattern of behaviour which has been put together to try to blacken the Prime Minister's name and to try to poison race relations in this country. This is a pattern of behaviour which ought to be repudiated. It ought to be repudiated by those who started it but, if it cannot be repudiated by those who started it, it ought to be repudiated by one person. It ought to be repudiated by the person who claims to be the leader of this little outfit, the person who claims to lead the member for Banks, the person who claims to lead the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the person who would be a Prime Minister, the person who ought to have some decency and some leadership, the person who is too weak to turn to his own deputy, too weak to turn to his shadow minister and too weak to stand up to the racist slur. Why? Because he condones it. He condones this kind of behaviour while he refuses to make them apologise. We do not condone this kind of behaviour. This is dangerous behaviour in Australia and those members ought to come in and apologise and, until they do, they stand absolutely condemned.15:52:002411Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We of course oppose this motion, for many reasons, not the least of which is that we do not accept strictures from a man who has no code of ethics as far as his ministers are concerned, who has no moral ground to stand on, who has sat here in this place over the course of the last two weeks and defended the absolutely indefensible in his minister for mines and who has allowed a minister in this place to operate and continue to operate with a massive breach in a conflict of interest.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Following on from the point of order from the member for Werriwa, the Leader of the Opposition is not addressing the substantive issue before the House. It is a totally unrelated issue.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will have the same licence as the Treasurer exercised.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. That licence would allow me to roam very far and wide as far as this matter is concerned. This Prime Minister (Mr Howard) claims weakness on this side of the House when he cannot stand up to his own flatmate and assure a level of standard in this place that any other leader has been able to enforce in the past.Let me go through the facts of this particular set of propositions and paint a picture of where the government is coming from on this matter. I am afraid to say that it is often the pattern in politics that those who intend to victimise claim themselves to be victims. This is not a particular attribute unique to this government. It is in fact a very old-fashioned piece of right-wing information and right- wing tactical determination as to how you operate. When you wish to victimise somebody, claim you are a victim. When you wish to victimise a community, claim you are a victim.We have seen that pattern from this Prime Minister as he has repeatedly clothed himself in unction on these issues. We remember well the time when there was an invitation by this Prime Minister to freedom of speech. He said something new to the Australian population in that invitation to freedom of speech. He said that the thought they had had in their minds for years past that freedom of speech was a feature of Australian society had in fact unbeknownst to them been a situation repeatedly violated and, indeed, they had had no freedom of speech until he had liberated them. Everybody on this side of the House and everybody out there in Australian politics—and I suspect everybody on your side of the House—knew precisely what code the Prime Minister was talking in.The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) tried to come into this place and claim damage done to our society on these matters. Nothing compares with the damage that was done to our society and our international reputation by the view that had widespread acceptance overseas that the Prime Minister had deliberately coddled the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) and her position. As a result of that, serious damage was done to our society. Nevertheless, this Prime Minister felt that he was well served domestically, no matter what might be happening internationally. That is another reason why we do not accept any strictures from this particular Prime Minister.It is very difficult to get genuine passion from this Prime Minister, but we well remember when he was up in front of the Aboriginal Reconciliation Conference a year or two ago and had a set of victims in front of him. He was up there ebullient, ranting, hectoring and creating an environment in which he was saying to the rest of the Australian population: here I stand with you against them. That was the precise intention of the Prime Minister. If anybody in their right mind, if anybody who is a political analyst in their right mind, assumes that the Labor Party wants an election on Wik, after we have seen Mr Borbidge out there wandering all over the backblocks of Queensland trying to drum up an opportunity in that regard and after we have seen the Prime Minister out there repeatedly giving assurances to those who do not need assurance on these matters—do you think we have got 24-hour memories on these matters?—everybody who knows anything about politics in Australia knows that for 12 months now the Prime Minister has been trawling for a Wik election. That is why he has not seriously negotiated with all parties. He has been trawling for it.Therefore, we must interpret the events of today within the context of what is intended by the Prime Minister. I can ask for no further evidence to be provided than this. Here we have a document from Rehame Monitors. Here we have `Confidential' stamped across the top. Here we have the quote marked that the person is supposed to use—in this case Mr Ruddock—`The white sheets and the burning crosses'. What we have had is a repeated effort so that if we asked—Mrs Bailey interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The reason, my friend, why `Confidential' is stamped there—and I do accept you backbenchers are a bit naive and innocent, but those on front benches understand these things—is that, if the member for Banks (Mr Melham) were to get up and say in his defence, `Read the whole quote, Mr Ruddock,' or, `Table the document from which you are quoting,' he would be able to say to the Speaker, `No, it's confidential.'4G4DOWNERMr Downer—He handed it to him. He walked over and gave it to him.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—And Mr Ruddock was a fool. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was a fool. He had a document properly prepared for him by the Prime Minister's office, and indeed here it is, `Mr Ruddock, for your use—Tony Nutt.' He had a document given to him by the Prime Minister's office and he was dopey enough to give it to us.So we go on with this set of propositions. There it is underlined: `Daryl Melham: go to the white sheets and the burning crosses.' So innocent was Mr Ruddock of the content of this matter that Mr Ruddock assumed that it had been made today, which is why, and I now quote—Mr Ruddock interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am afraid I am about to quote you, old son, so you can get up and give a personal explanation in due course. Ruddock says here:. . . one of the comments that worried me greatly this morning, were the comments of the Honourable Member for Banks. The Honourable Member for Banks, who had the audacity to say that, `there's only one thing missing from this debate, and that's the white sheets and burning crosses'. . . Mr Bob Baldwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Paterson. Remain silent.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Two mistakes, Mr Ruddock. Two mistakes, minister for immigration. The first was to hand it to Mr Melham and the second was to be so unoffended by the comments that you had not been aware that they were made a year ago. Then what we go through were the actual comments:In terms of stolen generations, what we have to do is have a considered response, and it's about time the Prime Minister showed leadership. There's only one thing missing from this debate—He has gone on to the general debate, because if you actually go through more than just simply this—and I am just using your paper—you will see they were a lengthy set of comments by the member for Banks on the totality of the issue related to the stolen generation. In continuing in reflection of that particular debate, he said:There's only one thing. . . and that's the white sheets and the burning crosses—I do think that the member for Banks was excessive in this regard, which is why at the time I said to him, `Don't you introduce that topic into these debates again.' But, of course, I knew thoroughly that the member for Banks was not in fact referring to the Prime Minister; he was referring to a generality of the debate, and that is consistent with what is here. It is consistent with what is here, but not consistent with what was given to Mr Ruddock to underline, because what the Prime Minister wanted out of this was the exercise: `I intend to victimise; therefore, let me deal with the victim. I intend to have a race election; therefore, blame the other side for the race election.'There are still a few of us with our teeth in our head and a few friends downtown. We know your tactics, friends, and we are not the least bit impressed by them.16:02:002413Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The truly interesting thing about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) was that not once in his speech did he in any way criticise the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) or the member for Banks (Mr Melham); not once.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Why should he?4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—The member for Denison, on behalf of the opposition—he is from the front bench—says, `Why should he?' In other words, it is all right for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—not a wayward backbencher but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—to say that this bloke, meaning the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), seems to be never so happy as when he is bashing black fellas. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that is all right. You think that is a satisfactory thing for your deputy to say. You are quite happy with that. That is a standard that you will now bear right up until the election. That is your standard.But what is so hypocritical about the Australian Labor Party, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition, is that when anybody on this side says something inappropriate he holds a doorstop, he runs to the television cameras and says, `The Prime Minister should make that person apologise. Make him apologise.' I am sure the member for Swan (Mr Randall) will excuse me for raising this again, but the member for Swan did make inappropriate remarks about Cheryl Kernot. The Leader of the Opposition and figures in the opposition all rushed to the television cameras—of course, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was one of them—saying what a shameful thing this was to say. Cheryl Kernot was suggesting the Prime Minister had written the speech for the member for Swan and an apology had to be given and it was a test of the Prime Minister's leadership! The point is that the Prime Minister demanded an apology and he got an apology. That is the standard that this Prime Minister has set, but the Leader of the Opposition will not make his deputy apologise and he will not make the member for Banks apologise.Senator Lightfoot made some very inappropriate remarks in the Senate when he first took up his seat in the Senate. The Prime Minister rang him and told him to apologise; he did and he withdrew those remarks. But the Leader of the Opposition, without any leadership, without any courage and, frankly, dare I say it of the man, without any decency at all, will not ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to apologise. Why? Why?There are two reasons why. One of them is that you agree with him. You think it is all right for him to say, `This bloke seems to be never so happy when he is bashing black fellas.' You think that is all right, do you? Let us just get this straight: do you think that is all right? No. You see he says nothing. Why does he say nothing? Why does he not say, `Yes, I think that is all right'? Because in the back of his mind he knows it is all wrong. You know it is all wrong.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister appears to be asking you a question again, Mr Speaker, and I suggest you answer him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—That will not save the Leader of the Opposition; he knows what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said was wrong. He knows it. But what he will not do is make him apologise. Why not? Because you are weak. You are a weak man and you have no authority over your deputy. As your shadow minister for Aboriginal Affairs, you have a junior shadow minister sitting down there. Of course what he said was appalling. Anybody knows that what he said was appalling: to talk about the white sheets and the burning crosses. Of course it is appalling.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—When? When?4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—`When' is your big argument. When? It is all right, is it, if you said it last year? Last year it was free rein. You can accuse people of being members of the Ku Klux Klan, but this year it is not all right. Is that your standard? I must say, Mr Speaker, that I have been here for 13 years and I have heard a lot of arguments, but the argument that I heard today from the Leader of the Opposition was not only the weakest that I have heard in all the time that I have been here but, frankly, was of very questionable morality.Question put:That the motion (Mr Costello's ) be agreed to.16:12:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)84Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.38Albanese, A. Baldwin, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brown, R. J.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Anderson, J. D. Sawford, R. W.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Reid, N. B. Martin, S. P.* denotes tellerQuestion resolved in the affirmative, with an absolute majority.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As the motion has been agreed to, I will allow the members identified to approach the dispatch box, if they so wish, for the purpose stated in the motion.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—I am happy to approach the dispatch box.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No, seek leave to address the House on the matter.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Do you want me to seek leave?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?WI4REITHMr Reith—Apologise.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—No. I seek leave to respond to the motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?WI4REITHMr Reith—No. Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the motion allows them to apologise and only to apologise.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave not granted.Matters of Public Importance2415241510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The heavy and unfair burden imposed by the Howard government's policies upon families caring for older relatives and children with disabilities.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— Motion (by Mr Reith ) put: That the business of the day be called on.16:21:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)84Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Filing, P. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.34Albanese, A. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Ferguson, L. D. T. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Anderson, J. D. Sawford, R. W.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Howard, J. W.Beazley, K. C.Reid, N. B. Martin, S. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Special Adjournment2416Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 6 April 1998, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Bills2416r4232416Bill presented by Mr Moore, for Mr Williams, and read a first time.241616:26:002416Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The introduction of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 comes after a long process of consideration and review of the current regime for protecting indigenous heritage areas and objects in this country and will replace the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984.While the 1984 act was intended to be interim legislation which would operate as a forum of last resort when state or territory processes were inadequate, this aim has not been realised, and considerable difficulties have been experienced with the act as illustrated in the long running dispute over the proposed Hindmarsh Island bridge. Apart from the repeal of the sunset clause in 1986 and the insertion of part IIA in 1987, which applies only in Victoria, the 1984 act has not changed in the last 14 years and reform of this legislation is now long overdue. Indeed, a review commissioned by the previous government was already under way when this government came to office in 1996 with an election pledge to reform the act. There is common agreement on the need for reform.Indigenous Australians are often in a situation where places that hold particular cultural significance for them are located on land that is either privately or state owned. Sometimes these places are in remote and relatively undeveloped areas where they are safe from disturbance and no specific protection of them is required, nor indeed does the location of the significant area necessarily need to be revealed to anyone. However, there are times when new activities can pose a threat to a particularly significant area. Indigenous people require that, where the integrity of such an area is under threat, there is a means available by which they can seek protection of that area. For the parties who are proposing to undertake an activity that may disturb a heritage area or object, it is necessary that any claims for protection are dealt with in a fair, transparent and timely manner.In order to achieve a fair and effective process for indigenous heritage protection, a number of important changes are being introduced in the bill. In particular, the Commonwealth heritage protection regime will be reformed to address a number of difficulties with the operation of the 1984 act and to clarify the respective roles of the Commonwealth and the states.One of the major problems with the 1984 act was the requirement that the minister personally satisfy himself about the significance of areas or objects to indigenous people. The bill establishes a Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection, a statutory office holder who will advise the minister on heritage protection. In particular the director, rather than the minister, will make assessments of the importance of areas or objects to indigenous people.Another improvement in the operation of the Commonwealth's regime arises from our recognition that most heritage protection cases have more than one solution, and that with goodwill and a spirit of compromise on all sides problems can often be resolved by the parties sitting down together and negotiating through the details of the case. The Commonwealth will therefore attempt to resolve cases through negotiation and mediation whenever possible. Furthermore, to meet a concern expressed by indigenous people, all activities undertaken by the Commonwealth under the bill will be subject to an improved process for protecting culturally sensitive information.A significant objective of the bill is to strengthen state and territory heritage protection regimes and to reduce the potential for confusion between the roles of the Commonwealth and the states and territories. State or territory regimes that meet a set of specified minimum standards will be accredited by the Commonwealth. While some state or territory regimes may already come near to meeting the minimum standards, in others the move to accreditation will bring with it significant improvements in those regimes.Let me now turn to the detail of key aspects of the legislation. The 1984 act was reviewed by the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt AC who reported to the government in 1996. Her report recommended a number of changes to the current heritage protection regime. One important recommendation was that the role of assessing the significance of an area for which protection was being sought should not be undertaken by the same person or body that would make the final decision about whether protection should be afforded or not. In order to implement this recommendation, the Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection will be the primary administrator of the act, and will undertake a wide range of tasks in support of the minister who will be the final decision maker in relation to long-term protection of areas or objects.The bill applies in the same way to both significant indigenous areas and objects. However, for simplicity I will just refer to areas. The scheme of protection where a state or territory has not achieved accreditation is as follows. If an indigenous person has unsuccessfully pursued all possible remedies under an unaccredited state or territory regime for protection of a significant area, then that person will be able to apply to the Commonwealth for protection of the area. The Commonwealth may provide emergency protection if the area is under immediate threat, and interim protection while the application is being considered. The minister or the Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection will be able to reject an application that is judged to be frivolous or vexatious.To ensure that all other potential applicants are aware of the application—and to preclude belated applications once an issue has been resolved—the director will advertise seeking further applications at an early stage in the process. Once all applications have been received, the first step the Commonwealth will take is to facilitate negotiation and/or mediation to try and resolve the situation. Where an agreement is reached, the parties will be able to register the agreement under the new act.If mediation or negotiation is unsuccessful, the director will prepare a report for the minister that includes a finding about whether the area under dispute is significant in accordance with indigenous tradition and whether it is under threat. The director will have at his or her disposal the means to investigate the veracity of claims, including through the engagement of expert consultants. In addition, the director will seek submissions from other parties on the likely effects of protecting the area. The findings in the director's report on significance and threat will be binding on the minister, and will not require the minister to view any information that is culturally sensitive.This process will rectify a significant flaw in the 1984 act, namely, the need for the minister to be personally satisfied as to significance and threat. These issues will no longer be matters for the minister to determine. Accordingly, any judicial review of the minister's decision on whether or not to protect an area will not require indigenous people to `prove' the issue of significance in public.If the minister has grounds to believe the director's findings are flawed through an inadequate process having been undertaken or through new information that has subsequently emerged, then the minister may appoint an independent reviewer to make further findings, which in turn will bind the minister.In the interests of efficiency the minister will be able to delegate many of the operational powers in the act to the director, but the minister will always retain the final decision in relation to making long-term protection orders and the decision to accredit a state or territory regime. The power to issue a seven-day emergency protection order in an unaccredited regime will be able to be delegated to specified officers, not only the director. This will allow people on the spot to assess a possible emergency situation with the benefit of local knowledge. However, as a check on this delegated power, any extension of the seven day emergency protection will have to be approved by the minister.Consistent with the 1984 act, the discovery of indigenous human remains in an unaccredited regime will be required to be reported to the director. Where remains are delivered to the director, he or she will consult with the relevant indigenous community about their appropriate handling.In order to ensure that any of the processes undertaken under the bill do not require indigenous people to unnecessarily reveal confidential indigenous information, such information will be exempted from demands for public release under both the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Archives Act 1983.Given that the states and territories are generally responsible for planning and development decisions in relation to land management, we are prepared to accredit state or territory regimes that meet the minimum standards in the bill. The incentive for states and territories to achieve accreditation will come from the Commonwealth absenting itself from involvement in state or territory decision making once a state or territory is accredited, except in cases when protection may be in the national interest.Honourable members should note that these standards are a minimum, and they will in no way prevent states or territories from going further if they wish, or retaining their existing legislation if it already represents best practice. In recognition of the importance of the decision to accredit a state or territory it will be subject to disallowance by the parliament. In addition, where an accredited state or territory changes its legislation in such a way that it no longer meets the standards, the Commonwealth minister will consult with that state or territory, and may then revoke the accreditation.In order for a state or territory to achieve accreditation it will need to include a number of features in its heritage protection legislation. Firstly, the state or territory will need to provide protection of significant indigenous areas and objects, and that protection must be backed up by adequate penalties. Indigenous people must be recognised as the main source of information about the significance of those areas and objects. Secondly, to ensure that indigenous people can speak freely and, if necessary, in confidence under the state or territory legislation, it must provide protection for confidential indigenous information and prevent it from being publicly revealed if such a revelation would cause harm or distress. However, while these restrictions are necessary, other parties must still be treated fairly and be given an opportunity to put their views and be told the reasons for decisions to protect areas or objects.In relation to indigenous human remains, the minimum standards will require state or territory legislation not only to protect those remains where they are significant to indigenous people but also to ensure that any remains that are found must be reported to the relevant state minister so they can be dealt with appropriately. Alongside the processes of protection of heritage areas and objects there must be a system whereby other parties can seek approval to undertake activities in relation to such areas or objects. This will ensure that unnecessary delays or court battles, such as we have seen with Hindmarsh Island, can be avoided. Therefore the minimum standards require that a state or territory promote negotiated outcomes between those who want to undertake an activity and the indigenous people concerned to protect an area.In addition, the minimum standards require the provision of a process whereby a developer can seek early approval for a proposed activity. This may include relevant indigenous people and an appropriate state authority assessing the proposal and determining whether there are any heritage sites at risk. Once a state or territory has a legislative system in place reflecting the minimum standards, the Commonwealth minister will be able to accredit that state or territory regime for the purposes of the Commonwealth act. Where a state or territory has achieved accreditation, all indigenous heritage protection will be dealt with by the state or territory. However, in rare cases there may be a need for the Commonwealth to step in where, at the state level, a decision not to protect an area reflects the local interests in the case, but does not recognise that the area is one that should be protected in the national interest.Given the significance of such a case it will be handled by the minister who may facilitate negotiation and require a report to be made by the director. However, these processes will not be mandatory, given that an accredited state or territory regime will already have undertaken a thorough assessment of the case. The only requirement on the minister will be that he or she consult the relevant state or territory minister about the case and the consequences of protecting the area in question.Transitional provisions are included in the bill in relation to part IIA of the 1984 act which applies only in the state of Victoria. The Victorian government plans to pass new state indigenous heritage protection legislation, and to ensure that that legislation will be able to operate part IIA will be repealed simultaneously with the enactment of the state legislation.In conclusion, I would like to say reform of indigenous heritage protection legislation is long overdue. The 1984 act was introduced as a temporary measure only and has presented many difficulties for indigenous people, other interests and governments administering the act. I am pleased that we will be able to address these problems through this new more comprehensive legislation. This bill will ensure that a fair and transparent process is established for the protection of indigenous heritage at both the Commonwealth and state levels, that duplication and overlap are diminished and that nationally significant areas can be protected. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Tanner) adjourned.2419Motion (by Mr Moore)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the minister moving a motion to refer the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund for consideration and an advisory report by 22 May 1998.Motion (by Mr Moore) agreed to:(1) That:(a) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998, be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund for consideration and an advisory report by 22 May 1998; and(b) the terms of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing and sessional orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders.(2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this reference to the committee.Bills2420The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 Bills2420Message received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill: Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Bills2420r4822420Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.16:44:002420Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—I rise tonight to speak on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . This is a very important bill and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on it. There are three issues I would like to address. Firstly, I want to highlight the considerable benefits to the nation, and particularly to the people of the far north coast of New South Wales, which will derive benefit from further privatisation of Telstra. Secondly, I must respond to some of the outrageous claims made by the Labor Party in this debate. If these claims go unanswered, there is a chance that someone outside the ALP may believe them. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to discuss what privatisation means for rural and regional Australia generally and, in particular, for the electorate of Richmond which I represent.The first point is the benefits of privatisation. The partial privatisation was extremely popular, with the float significantly oversubscribed. The benefits went well beyond allowing ordinary Australians the opportunity to share in our largest company. In particular, over $1 billion was poured into the Natural Heritage Trust—Australia's largest ever environment package. This has been a huge benefit to rural and regional Australia. Community groups and local councils in Richmond put in excellent bids for the Natural Heritage Trust grants, and were rewarded accordingly. Natural Heritage Trust funding has flowed into projects all over the electorate of Richmond, in particular in the Byron area and the Tweed Valley, but also in Lennox Head and Wollongbar.The Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund has also been a major beneficiary. With the partial privatisation, $250 million has been earmarked for Networking the Nation. An early beneficiary in Richmond was the Regional Internet Marketing Cooperative, which aims to market our primary produce directly to our overseas customers through a new Internet service.The independent Networking the Nation Board has just announced another 49 projects which are receiving Networking the Nation funding totalling $21 million. In particular, over a quarter of a million dollars has been allocated to two North Coast projects. The Northern Rivers Social Development Council will get $105,000 for its community service and access project, which covers areas from the Tweed down to Ulmarra. This project will allow the disadvantaged to get online and discover the Internet.Likewise, Norlink has been allocated $150,000 for its networking the northern rivers project, which also runs from Tweed down to Ulmarra. This ambitious project aims to develop an integrated regional telecommunications strategy for the northern rivers region. So $49 million has now been approved by Networking the Nation. This obviously means that there is another $200 million remaining over a five-year period, and I would certainly like to encourage communities in my electorate of Richmond to continue applying for funding.The remainder of the funds raised by the first sale are being used to repay the national debt—$90 billion worth of debt, including the disgraceful $10.5 billion in the last 12 months which was accumulated by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand (Mr Beazley) in his last stand. Paying off government debt benefits all Australians, whether they choose to participate in the float or not. The $8 billion we spend each year servicing Labor's debt could instead be put to the benefit of the nation.The full privatisation of Telstra will allow us to move more than half the debt levels of two years ago and still leave over some money for a new fund, which the Prime Minister has called a social bonus. It is my view that this bonus should primarily be directed towards looking after older Australians and those who care for them. May I remind the House that when the ALP was in government, it ran down capital stock in nursing homes by 75 per cent in its last three years in government. In contrast, this government yesterday announced a package of over $270 million called Staying at Home—Care and Support for Older Australians.Telstra needs to raise money to expand and to compete with private sector phone companies like Optus, AAPT, Primus, Northgate and others. That is why taxpayers should not have to bear the burden or risk any of this extra debt in its further capitalisation.Let us look at why Labor cannot support privatisation. There are seven reasons why Labor opposes this bill, and all of them, quite frankly, are bogus. The Leader of the Opposition wants to privatise Telstra. He has said as much. `You could privatise Telecom if you put your mind to it,' he said on Meet the Press on 5 June 1994 when he was Treasurer. Kim did not put his mind to it, for the seven reasons I will reveal. Four of these reasons are public—what they are telling their electorates—and three are reasons which they keep private.What are the ALP's overt reasons for opposing privatisation of Telstra? Let me go through them. The first public reason is that we should not sell Telstra because it is a monopoly. What a load of rubbish. It was the current Leader of the Opposition as Minister for Bankruptcy—Minister for Finance, I beg your pardon—who brought competition into the telecommunications industry with Optus and Vodafone. This government enhanced the competition with the introduction of new players last year. The results have been spectacular, with international calls falling by up to 75 per cent, and domestic STD calls falling by almost a commensurate amount.The second argument is that the government will lose money on the deal. This is ridiculous. The Labor Party line is that it is in Australia's financial interest to sell Telstra and that we should not forgo the annual dividends from the company. I can understand its thinking because, when Labor embarked on its selling spree in its last eight years of government, it paid all the money from privatisation into day-to-day spending.I remind the House that it was not just the Commonwealth Bank that the member for Brand promised employees he would never sell. It was also the following: the Commonwealth accommodation and catering services, the Defence Service House Corporation loan portfolio; ANDEL; the Australian Defence Force home loan franchise; the Commonwealth housing loan assistance schemes in the ACT; Australian Airlines—to Qantas; the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation; the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories; the Moomba to Sydney pipeline; the uranium stockpile; Qantas; and Aerospace Technologies of Australia. The list went on and on.In contrast, we do not use the proceeds of privatisation to fund recurrent expenditure. In fact, most of the proceeds from the first part of the Telstra privatisation went to paying back the family farm; paying back Labor's debt which alone was costing us $8 billion a year in interest payments. Part 2 of the Telstra sale will allow us to pay off over 40 per cent of the Beazley debt, giving us an immediate massive saving on interest payments. We will be able to reduce ongoing interest payments on the government debt by more than the government receives in the dividends from Telstra—around $1.5 billion according to Access Economics.Another argument of Labor's is that the bush would suffer. Labor's argument against full privatisation of Telstra is that Telstra would not look after regional Australia in private hands. I am one of 40 coalition members who represent a rural seat. Labor holds three. The ALP has never really cared about regional Australia and it is not going to start today. In many ways, this is a shameless scare campaign by a cynical and desperate opposition. Rural and regional Australia suffered from 13 years of neglect by Labor, particularly in the area of telecommunications. While the coalition government has addressed many of these problems, my constituents naturally still have some concerns which I will address shortly.Another public argument is that it will all be gobbled up by foreign interests—foreign shareholders. This is both hypocritical and untrue. In Labor's 13 miserable years, net foreign debt rose from $24 billion to $87 billion, a threefold increase. In that 13-year period, foreign interests took over a plethora of Australian icons including: Tooheys, Castlemaine, Swan, King Gee, Brashs, Arnotts, National Mutual, BTR Nylex and Peters ice cream—just to name a few.In the same period, foreign investors also gained large chunks of Qantas, Fairfax and the Ten Network, just to name a few. Speaking of foreign interests, under Labor's plan there would be two publicly owned telecommunications companies in the world which would remain in public hands—they would be, in the People's Republic of Korea, Telecom under President Kim Il Sung, and Australia's Telstra under perhaps Prime Minister Kim Beazley.As the ALP well knows, there are stringent restrictions on the ownership of Telstra. By law, Telstra will be at least 65 per cent Australian owned. The chairman of the board will have to be an Australian citizen, as will most of the directors. Telstra's headquarters will have to remain in Australia. Telstra will be exempt from restrictions emerging from the Multilateral Agreement on Investment—that is, if we choose to sign it; and many people have reservations. Telstra will remain Australian. Labor knows that and it hates us to say that.Let us look at some of the opposition's covert reasons for opposing privatisation. I know the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay) will listen to this carefully. The first of these covert reasons is that it was not their idea; the coalition thought about it first. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you remember the ALP talkfest in Tasmania only a few months ago? Then again, maybe you do not. Most Australians do not because it was a while ago. Let me remind you. Two things happened: firstly, Labor's lady-in-waiting, perhaps now Cheryl `Scarlet' Kernot—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I have been intrigued by the member's speech. He has swayed off and on, has not said much about the sale of Telstra, which is what this bill before us is—the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 —10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—What is your point of order?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—My point of order is: while many of the things he said had nothing do to with the bill, what he is saying now has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bill. I draw your attention to that and ask you to bring him back to the matter before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is not a valid point of order. I am satisfied the member for Richmond is within the context of the legislation.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Secondly, Labor briefly decided to advocate selling 16.5 per cent of Telstra. At that conference Cheryl did apologise and in many ways the unions ordered Kim to do a backflip and that was the end of their proposition of selling Telstra. One must wonder about the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), about relevance deprivation syndrome. In other words, they see their duty as opposing anything the government does, good or bad, rather than presenting themselves as a government in waiting.Another argument is that perhaps it is too popular to sell Telstra. That is the second covert reason. Privatisation mark 2 will probably be just as popular as, if not more popular than, privatisation mark 1. The opposition cannot have been too happy when they read in the Australian Stock Exchange share ownership survey released on 2 March 1998 that the total share ownership now stands at 40.4 per cent of the Australian adult population. I might add that there is very little variation between metropolitan and regional areas—metropolitan 41.1 per cent, versus 39.4 per cent in regional Australia. Actually around 1.1 million Australians have now entered the share market for the first time in the last nine months.It does get worse for Labor—96.2 per cent of the people who purchased Telstra shares have kept their holdings intact. They have not sold any Telstra because they believe in this company, our company. Labor realise they won't get any of the credit because they were opposed to the initiative every step of the way. Labor ran an ambush privatisation campaign. Who were all the beneficiaries? I mentioned all those icons that were sold off. In many ways they were the previous government's mates and the big end of town. By contrast, it is the mums and dads who benefit from the coalition's privatisation of Telstra. Australia now enjoys the second highest share ownership ratio in the world after the United States.Another reason is that the unions will not let them. This perhaps is the most important and perhaps the most embarrassing reason for the ALP's opposition to this bill. They have been told by their union paymasters that they are not allowed to support it. ALP members of this House in many ways do have a high record of union bosses who did not quite make it. Some of those left this House a little unceremoniously in question time. The member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) is a case in point. He has been rewarded with a shadow ministry, in spite of his extraordinary performance as the Pied Piper of the ACTU. In his six years at the helm—and some elements of the right wing of the Labor Party would probably agree with me on this—over 300 workers resigned from their union every day. That is a total of 665,000 Australians.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I again raise relevance. This clearly has got absolutely nothing to do with the legislation before the House today and I ask you to call the member to order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member is in order, though I do remind him of his need to be relevant to the legislation before us.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Ninety-two per cent of Telstra employees took up the government's share offer, in spite of the opposition.Let us look at rural Australia. This is the third and perhaps the most important part of my address—what privatisation means to rural areas, particularly the people I represent on the north coast of New South Wales. My position and the position of the people of Richmond is simple: service to rural Australia must not just be maintained but improved. Let me say again telecommunications services to rural Australia must not just be maintained but improved. However, the issue of untimed local calls and service levels in the bush have nothing do with the ownership of a particular carrier.Let us look at untimed local calls. Untimed local calls are a legislative right. Indeed, this government has strengthened the law to include data as well as voice for residential customers. Business customers can also now get untimed local calls. In addition, from the end of this year 17,000 telephone users in remote Australia who do not have access to untimed local calls will be rebated up to $160 against pastoral call charges. This is a good initiative. This is an interim arrangement as Telstra does not have the capacity to cope with the anticipated increase in demand which untimed local calls in remote Australia will create.Let us look at the customer service guarantee. The customer service guarantee which we introduced will continue to apply for a fully privatised Telstra. This guarantee ensures that customers get the compensation for inadequate service, if that is what happens. The compensation will be paid by the telephone service providers. Under the legislation this is not the only penalty they will face if they are not up to the task. The bill gives the Australian Communications Authority power to order changes to the way a provider operates if necessary.Let us look at the universal service obligation. It was the coalition government which introduced the universal service obligation. Telstra and other carriers will continue to be subject to the USO. This USO is a law which compels Telstra to provide a standard telephone service and pay-phones to all Australians no matter where they live or work.Let us look at the cost of services. Competition is likely to develop more slowly in some country areas than in capital cities. The government has recognised this and established price control mechanisms. This means that, when prices are forced down by competition in metropolitan areas, they must also decrease in rural areas, regardless of the effect of competition there.Let us look at the area of mobile phones. The previous Labor government decided on an arbitrary phase-out of analog phones by 1 January 2000. This government is concerned that regional mobile users, whether they are using Telstra or one of the other two carriers, do not lose out. The government has introduced a package of measures to ensure that all areas in regional Australia that currently receive mobile coverage will continue to have equivalent coverage. This certainly was a significant win for the member for Hume (Mr Sharp), other National Party members and members in regional Liberal Party seats. The digital service is still not as good as the analog system in parts of my electorate of Richmond. Obviously, those services will not be diminished until we have adequate digital coverage.Bagging Telstra certainly suits the political purposes of the Australian Labor Party and some of their soul mates in the Democrats. The fact is that Telstra is and will remain a great Australian icon which we can all be proud of. Telstra spent over $1.5 billion on capital telecommunications equipment in Australia in the last six months of 1997. Of that, $587 million was spent in rural Australia.The benefits of privatisation are obvious. Those benefits go to all Australians not just the many who will participate in the float. This government has provided the guarantees that ensure that areas in regional Australia will be catered for. The government has clearly enhanced consumer protection for telecommunications users over the last two years. However, being better than Labor is not exactly an ambitious benchmark. I want continually improving telecommunications services for the people I represent on the north coast. I certainly will continue to stand up in this place and ensure that that is precisely what the people of Richmond and the people of Australia get.17:02:002424McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—We have just heard another unfortunate sell-out of the people of the bush by the National Party, this time by the previous speaker, the member for Richmond and National Party deputy whip (Mr Anthony). What the member for Richmond and the National Party do not understand is that the people who live in regional Australia will suffer the most from the sale of Telstra and, more particularly, those who live in the far reaches of our country. The people who most need telecommunications services will be the ones who will most likely receive fewer services after this company is sold.In recent days we have seen the government again step back from an election promise that they made to the people in the country about telecommunications. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said during the last election campaign that they would provide Internet services to the country. We have found that they will provide Internet services to you in the country if you live than less seven kilometres from a telephone exchange. A lot of members on the other side might not realise that there are a lot of people in the bush who live more than seven kilometres from the telephone exchange and they do not want to pay the extra money that Telstra will charge to have this put on in a hurry. The government is certainly not doing anything to ensure that people in the far reaches of Australia have any access to the telecommunications service that would give them parity with people who live in the cities.It gives me no satisfaction to acknowledge that the opposition's worst fears about the government's real agenda are now being realised. When the government introduced the original Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill in 1996, almost two years ago, we said that it was the start of a process leading to the full privatisation of Telstra. I said in that debate on 9 May 1996:This is just the first shot across the bows; it will be a salami slice job where one-third goes now, one-third later and one-third after that.It would seem that the government was even more greedy than we thought then. It has turned out to be far worse than that. The government is now proposing to sell off the remaining two-thirds of Telstra in one lot. The reason it has given for that is that the response to the 1997 one-third share offer indicates that the public approves of the full privatisation of the company.They have this bizarre mantra that selling a business that all Australians own to a select group of Australians who buy shares is somehow or other making the business more Australian. If you sell something that the people already own—the people of Australia own the shares in Telstra—it makes the business more Australian.BI4MILESMr Miles—What did you do with Qantas? Did the Labor Party sell the Commonwealth Bank?4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—The parliamentary secretary asks: what did we do with Qantas and what did we do with the Commonwealth Bank? If the parliamentary secretary does not understand the difference in the 1990s between a monopoly telephone company and a bank of which there were a number and an airline of which there are even more then he has lost the plot.The Commonwealth Bank provides banking services to Australians who put their money into that bank. Qantas provides airline services for very few Australians—that is, those who choose to fly internally or overseas. Telstra provides telephone services to 99 per cent of Australians. There is a big difference. Qantas does not land out on your property in the back of Bourke. The Commonwealth Bank are taking all their branches out of small country towns. They were never providing services to all Australians. Telstra put a telephone on for you if you live in the back of Bourke or up at Quilpie or out on one of the islands off the coast. They provide a service. If the government do not understand that then they have lost the plot.BI4MILESMr Miles—They will still do it in the future too.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—The Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister , who is at the table, says, `They will still do it in the future.' That is the nub of the government's argument: we will sell this off and they will still do it in the future. Of course, he might just go back to the argument he had a few minutes ago when he said that we privatised the Commonwealth Bank, but I see all these National and Liberal members who represent small country towns in here whingeing all the time. They have set up an inquiry about the private banks who are closing down branches in country towns. They have the banking committee looking at that.So private enterprise is not fulfilling the job that you thought it should, but all of a sudden you are saying, `It doesn't matter that the private banks are closing down branches in the bush, but you can trust a private telephone company to keep looking after the bush.' If country voters believe that, they are sillier than I think they are. That is the truth of it. The people who are going to have their service reduced will be those people who live out of the metropolitan areas of Australia where it costs thousands of dollars to repair a fault compared to $10 or $20 in the city. A serviceman can repair 20 faults in a day in the city, but in the country he can do only one every two days because of the distances and the intricacies involved.The government needs to have a close look at that, and the voters need to have a close look at what the government is up to in this. Particularly, the voters outside the metropolitan area should have a look at what the government is going to do with this great Australian company. Currently, two-thirds of it are owned by all Australians, not just some Australians.The government have made some very spurious claims in this. As I said earlier, they use the argument that the take-up rate from so-called ordinary Australians of shares in Telstra indicates broad public approval for full privatisation. But I would say to the government that, just because people—including a large number of Telstra employees—availed themselves of the opportunity to acquire shares, many for the first time, it is drawing a long bow to say that the majority of Australians are in favour of full privatisation.For example, Telstra employees were offered strong and, at the time, irresistible inducements to invest in the Telstra shares. The situation now is very different, and the government does the Australian people a great disservice when it takes for granted people's views about the provision of telecommunications services. Telstra provides almost all of Australia's telecommunications services. It is the largest company in the country. It is an asset that is owned essentially by all Australians, and it is an essential part of Australia's infrastructure.Telstra has a universal service obligation to provide those people who live in the furthest reaches and nooks and crannies of our country with the same basic telephone service as people who live in the main capitals. That is a very important part of Telstra's role; but, no matter how the government legislates that, I believe we will see some difficulty with that. That universality of service is one of the most important things that Telstra does.What profit making organisation is going to be interested in providing potentially unprofitable services in an equitable way throughout Australia? Private companies, like the banks, are about making profits for their shareholders, first and foremost. In fact, the law requires them to do that. The government can claim that there will be safeguards, service guarantees or whatever they like to dress them up as, but we all know how difficult it is once the government has no direct control or responsibility for a function to make that function work in the way that we would like.The government can try to insist on guarantees, but who is going to insist that they work? How is the average person supposed to know all that they will need to know in order to ensure that they get the appropriate level of service? Most people are not experts in telecommunications, nor do they always fully appreciate their rights or how to seek redress when they have justifiable complaints. The government can say it is up to people themselves to find out these things, but it is often difficult, particularly for those who are disadvantaged in some way or otherwise isolated. Guarantees are worthless if customers do not know what they are.That, of course, brings me back to the dilemma for those who live outside the cities, those who live in the bush where already the service is different from that available in many densely populated areas where the provision of telephony services is more extensive. What profit making company is going to be interested in investing in potential loss making businesses?It is bad enough that the government is totally selling off Telstra, but it is also going to allow foreign ownership of up to 35 per cent of the company. One of Australia's success stories—Telstra, an organisation which all Australians are familiar with—will no longer be totally Australian. We saw yesterday how the government allowed Vodafone to remain a non-Australian owned property. A few weeks ago we saw how the government had the Treasurer (Mr Costello) remove the foreign ownership provisions from Optus's articles of association. We are seeing an absolute move away from Australian to foreign ownership of these companies.The member for Richmond talked about buying back the farm. This legislation and the regulation changes made yesterday allow the farm to be sold off. When the Labor government gave them telecommunications licences, Vodafone and Optus were required to become majority Australian owned by 2003. Under this government, Telstra, which is currently totally Australian owned, will now be allowed to be 35 per cent foreign owned; Optus and Vodafone can be 100 per cent foreign owned. The government is using its position with a majority in this House to implement a mad ideological view on telecommunications in this country. That is all it is—ideology.I am sure the government would corporatise the Commonwealth of Australia if it thought it could get away with it. It is all about money, but its views are short-sighted and flawed. For a short-term, apparent financial gain to help the government in its election campaign, the government is prepared to destroy an Australian icon. I fear that the Australian people, particularly those in the bush, will suffer the inevitable consequences of this privatisation of the telecommunications industry and will suffer a double loss in the fact that the two private telephone companies will be able to be totally foreign owned and that over one-third of Telstra will be able to be foreign owned. This is not buying back the farm; this is selling it off to foreign hands.17:15:002427Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I do not think the opposition has any sincerity whatsoever about this debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . It is interesting that last week I was reviewing some of the advertising that occurred at the last election, particularly the television advertising. Wasn't it interesting to see the opposition's commercials indicating that, if you elected a Howard government, you could expect timed local calls? It just has not happened and it is not going to happen. The government has made a guarantee in that respect, and the fear and the scare campaign from the opposition on what might happen in selling Telstra certainly will not be substantiated.I was having a look through my records and I had some photographs of polling booths at the last election, and there were kilometres of plastic put out by the Labor Party and the message was, `Keep Telstra Australian.' That is what the government has done, and that is what the government will continue to do. Telstra will not have majority foreign ownership. It will have a majority Australian board. It will have Australian management. The management will be located in Australia. I think we will keep faith with everything that we have said we would do. We have been honest, we have been direct, we have indicated to the electorate and they voted. I think we have a clear mandate to do what the government has intended it will do.We seem to have come the full circle with the Labor Party on this debate. We have come the full circle in terms of what the former Labor member for Herbert has said in relation to the sale of public assets. We have gone the full circle from the early 1980s rhetoric of Bob Hawke saying that there was no way institutions like Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank would be privatised, the point the member for Braddon (Mr Miles) was making earlier in the debate. In the late 1980s, pressure was mounting and Labor began to waver on this issue, except whenever an election loomed. By the time Keating finally knocked off Bob Hawke for the top spot, Labor were proudly announcing the 100 per cent sale of Qantas. Now Labor are out of office and in opposition and, once again, they are opposing the sale of public organisations.In the former member for Herbert's case, it is like he has forgotten altogether, because the Townsville public were treated to this little gem of a quote in the Townsville Bulletin on 30 October last year. In relation to the sale of Townsville airport—a sale which, incidentally, Labor initiated—the former Labor member said:I deplore the sale of a publicly owned asset.It really bears repeating. After selling in government over 13 years the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Williamstown dockyard, Aerospace Technologies of Australia, Garden Island dockyard, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, Ted Lindsay suddenly got struck by lightning and said, `I deplore the sale of a publicly owned asset,' yet he voted for the lot. Ted Lindsay should enter a springboard diving or gymnastics competition after performing a backflip as good as that. The point which needs to be noted from this is that Labor will say one thing in opposition and do another in government and this certainly appears to be the case with Labor's candidate for the seat of Herbert. He will do anything, say anything and support anyone in order to get back into office.I thought the warning from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) yesterday during question time was quite apt and can be applied just as easily to Ted Lindsay as the Prime Minister applied it to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). The Prime Minister said:This is the man that no doubt the new Labor candidate for Dickson had in mind when she said:I think Labor in opposition won't sell Telstra, but I'm more worried about Labor in government.I think that is a quote which deserves some attention. On the contrary, the coalition has always been up-front and honest about its position on public assets in a modern economy. We have always been up-front about where we stand on the sale of Telstra. Unlike the Labor approach to privatisation, the coalition in opposition before March 1996 went to the people and said, `If we win office, we'll sell one-third of Telstra and use the proceeds to fund Australia's greatest ever environmental package.' But we also said that, if we were going to sell any more, we would go to the people and let the people decide—and that is the purpose of this bill.BI4MILESMr Miles—Did they tell them that they were selling the Commonwealth Bank?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—No, they said they were not selling the Commonwealth Bank, and what did they do? I could not help but laugh at the Leader of the Opposition's claim that taking the question of the full sale of Telstra to the Australian people in a national federal election does not constitute adequately consulting the public. I do not know how else you would do it. I can think of no better way of involving the Australian people in this decision.Contrast this with the Labor way of doing things in the following example. The Hon. John Moore, a great Queenslander and then in opposition, made an interesting point in question time back in October 1990, when he asked former Prime Minister Hawke:. . . no doubt he— meaning Mr Hawke—will recall writing a letter to the Federal Secretary of the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association on 21 February this year . . . Among other things, it said the following:My Government is not contemplating the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank. We oppose not only the proposal put forward by the Opposition to sell the Bank, but also question the economic and financial rationale on which they base their short-sighted propositions.That was an Australian Labor Party Prime Minister saying that his party would not be selling the Commonwealth Bank and, of course, we know what happened shortly thereafter.Contrary to the opposition's claims, the government is not engaged in the full sale of Telstra purely for the sake of privatisation. The Liberal Party and the Prime Minister have always been consistent and have always applied standards in the sale of public assets. Just as the Prime Minister said at the Liberal Party national convention in Brisbane earlier this year in relation to the full sale:Good economic policies, sound and prudent fiscal management always return a good and useful social bonus—so he said in opposition on 24 November 1987, more than 10 years ago:We have always said that we have to run the test of public and consumer benefit over the proposed sale before making an affirmative decision.A very consistent policy.What are the public benefit tests? For a start, taxpayers will directly benefit from the wiping out of 40 per cent of Australia's public debt. Last year, $8,000 million of taxpayers' money went into just paying interest on the public debt the Labor Party ran up over 13 years. That is $8,000 million which is not available to spend on things like education, health, aged care, defence and addressing unemployment. Access Economics' Chris Richardson said on this point:If we pay off government debt, then we're saving money forever, and the net balance . . . is in favour of the Telstra sale to the tune of $1,500 million a year. That's the saving in interest versus the . . . loss of income from Telstra.By tackling Australia's debt problem, we free up funds to spend on the things that matter, and this directly benefits all Australians. The first one-third sale of Telstra provided over $1,000 million to fund Australia's largest ever environmental protection and renovation projects right throughout Australia.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Pork-barrelling!HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—It was not pork-barrelling. It just so happens that the people of rural and regional Australia voted for the coalition, and I do not think that you can have desalination projects in Melbourne! In Townsville the Natural Heritage Trust is funding grassroots landcare and coastcare projects and I have always said that environmental awareness needs to begin in our very backyards. With the money being provided through this government's Natural Heritage Trust, this is precisely what we are achieving.If, in the full sale of Telstra, we can guarantee services and quality of service to regional and rural Australia and, at the same time, address public debt and generate capital for projects of national significance, then we should. An extra $8,000 million a year will be targeted at improved health, education and regional development. Are you against that? That is what we will be able to spend if we do not have to service the debt that you people gave us. But, as the coalition government recognised from day one, we cannot simply sell Telstra for the sake of privatisation. Being a representative from a major regional Queensland centre, I recognise that there are genuine and serious concerns with this proposal.The Leader of the Opposition argued that by selling Telstra we are losing a great, if not the greatest, Australian company. I would be interested to know who here in this parliament would argue that the Commonwealth Bank is no longer a great Australian business. I would be interested to know who here would be willing to argue that Qantas is no longer highly respected as an Australian flagship company. The Commonwealth Bank and Qantas are both companies which were privatised by the former Labor government, but that did not make them any less great. Indeed, over the years they have gone from strength to strength.In a truly democratic society like Australia, governments should not be in business against business. As the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) noted in the second reading speech of this bill, the business of government is to set the framework within which business operates. It is for government to set the conditions under which companies operate, to establish and police safeguards for consumers and to place service obligations on those companies.This bill sets out the regulatory safeguards in no uncertain terms: a clear universal service obligation; continued access to untimed local calls; a customer service guarantee; special benefits for rural and regional customers; a price cap regime; and a flexible regulatory structure designed to stimulate competition in the telecommunications market—one of the fastest growing areas of the Australian economy. If the government has the will and the commitment to enforce the regulations and safeguards it will lay down, and I believe that it does, then I can find no reason to oppose this bill.I noted the comment from the member for Boothby (Dr Southcott) earlier that communist countries around the world are divesting themselves of state run or controlled organisations. So why can't the ALP? In reply to the member, I believe, in the lack of other sound evidence, that it has everything to do with the ALP's belief, deep down, that nobody can do it better than the government. It is a paternalistic feeling they cannot help expressing, and it is showing though in a range of other policy issues.I was initially going to give credit where credit is due in relation to the recent sale of the Townsville airport—a sale of a so-called public asset in Townsville which has been widely welcomed by the local community. It was also a sale which Labor first initiated. I was going to congratulate Labor for this the other week at the announcement of the successful tenderer, but I was reminded of a comment made by the former member for Herbert. This goes back to what I was saying in reply to the member for Boothby about the paternalistic nature of Labor. Not only was the former member, Ted Lindsay, quoted as saying he deplored the sale of publicly owned assets but he also said, `The government is the only party with the capacity to ensure international services are attracted to Townsville.'Townsville airport once used to cater for international services, in and out of the city, when it was government owned. But the very fact it was government owned meant that it could not keep up when Cairns emerged as a commercial rival. Today Cairns has all the international flights and Townsville has none—under government ownership. The new operator who has bought the 99-year lease of that asset has now said that they are going to reintroduce international flights to Townsville. That is what competition and privatisation can do.I have no hesitation in supporting the bill before the parliament tonight, and I know that when the next election comes along the majority of the Australian people will also be in support of the government.Debate interrupted.Adjournment243010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.243017:30:002430Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Mr Speaker, you would recall that today you acknowledged the presence in the gallery of some 240 student leaders attending a conference entitled `National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and Values'. This afternoon I went and had a look to see exactly what that National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and Values was all about. It makes interesting reading because it has an itinerary which has a number of seminar topics over the next few days. It has been organised primarily by the federal member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) and other people across the parties but particularly dominated by members of the Lyons Forum. The names of Abbott, Abetz, Andrews, Bradford, Cadman, Cameron, Chapman, Miles, Slipper and Tambling roll off the tongue.And what is it that the Lyons Forum sees as the leadership which should be put in tomorrow's leaders of Australia? What is it that they are training them in? Tonight there is a dinner at this parliament and tonight in this parliament—this fine democratic institution—the person who will be lecturing Australia's future leaders on faith and values and, one would assume, on democratic faith and values, is none other than the Hon. Major General Sitiveni Rabuka. I just think it is a bit hypocritical for the Lyons Forum, who lecture us about morals and lecture us about values, to bring someone to this democratic parliament to lecture Australia's future young leaders and to present him as a role model because, Mr Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that role models for Australian democracy do not come in the form of people who enter parliaments with guns and gas masks.I well recall a few years those horrific scenes in the Fijian parliament where, after losing a democratic election, General Rabuka staged and led a military coup in 1987. As a result of that coup, there are a number of constituents in my electorate who are refugees of that military takeover of that country, who were forced to flee that country due to the oppression which took place, particularly against the Fiji Labour Party, after that coup in 1987.When you look at the speaker profile that, one would assume, the member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) has put out, it says: `Prime Minister Rabuka has been an integral part of the most fundamental and political constitutional reform Fiji has ever experienced.' That is true; you lose an election, so you come into parliament with a gun and I just think—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the honourable member needs to be careful. I know he is treading a fine line, but I think you need to be careful in what you are saying.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I am sure you would agree that the role models we present for young Australians are important. I just think that in terms of the role models that should be presented, particularly in a country which embodies democratic values as we do, it is important who we pick. I wonder if, when the member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) presents his seminar topic, which is called `Leadership motivation: case studies in overcoming disappointment', he looks at General Rabuka. General Rabuka overcame disappointment of losing an election. He found a very unique way of overcoming that disappointment.I really think it is inappropriate. I came into this parliament on 2 March 1996 after 13 years of Labor government and there was a majority across the other side. That is democracy. It is very important that we provide appropriate role models for young Australians and it is particularly important that in this parliament we have a consistent view of democratic values and oppose breaches of them, whether they be of the extreme left or of the extreme right. It is particularly important.I expressed my concern because I am sure that the students who have come to this conference have come with goodwill. I certainly wish them all the best and hope that they enjoy the experience that they have here. I think that it is a very good thing to happen, to have students coming here and learning from our processes. But I certainly hope that they learn and go away having a great commitment to democracy and the values which Australia holds dear. (Time expired)243117:34:002431Jeanes, Susan, MPMs JEANESEK6KingstonLP10—Today the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced a package that will provide further assistance to some of Australia's most needy people and to those who assist them. The package announced by the Prime Minister will provide an extra $270 million over four years to assist frail and elderly Australians, people with disabilities and their carers. The package will provide an extra $92 million over four years for community aged care packages to assist around 3,900 more frail and elderly Australians with high levels of dependency to stay in their homes—something we as members are so often told by them that they want.The package will also provide an extra $15 million for continence assistance; an extra $30 million for 15 more carer respite centres; an extra $10 million for additional respite care places for people with dementia; an extra $15 million for accommodation services for the adult children with profound disabilities of elderly carers; an extra $91 million for expanded eligibility for the domiciliary nursing care benefit; and an extra $13.7 million for aged care assessment.The frail and elderly, those with disabilities and the people who care for them really are some of our most outstanding people. It is often easy to become disheartened by the people you come across in this job, who think that the world owes them something, who hate it when someone gets something that they do not and therefore deem it to be wrong. They often fail to see the needs of others and to accept that the best person who can help them is indeed themselves. But the carers and the people they are for are so often the people who restore one's faith in human nature. The carers work tirelessly and selflessly to care for those that they love, because they have to.One of the aspects of the Prime Minister's announcement today that particularly delights me is the extra money for community aged care packages. In my electorate, a number of organisations receive money from the government to manage these packages for frail and elderly people, to assist them to stay in their homes. One such organisation is the Aged Care and Housing Group Inc., which arranged for me to visit families receiving help from the packages.On one visit Joylene Thomas took me to meet Dorothy and Dennis of Morphett Vale, who have been married for 58 years. Their story is a great story of a lifetime of commitment and love. Dorothy is very frail and she has dementia, but after 58 years of living together Dennis could not bear to have her leave him, so the Aged Care and Housing Group Inc. and a number of other organisations provide assistance to help Dennis manage Dorothy's needs. The services, in fact, feel that Dennis and Dorothy have taught them a lot in terms of how to improve their service delivery and how to deal with clients who, better than anyone else, know just what they need.One of the organisations which also provides help to Dennis and Dorothy, and to many other families in Adelaide's southern suburbs, is the City of Onkaparinga's respite service for frail and elderly people and younger people with moderate to severe disabilities, run by community development support officer, Pauline Smith. Pauline and her staff are tireless workers and advocates for the people they assist and they have deeply impressed upon me the need for the government to invest further in assisting their families, as we have done today.There are two people in particular that I would like to pay tribute to at this point, Jean Leigh-Tamblyn and Jocelyn Gibson. Not only do they have their hands full with their own children who have disabilities; they provide great support to each other and to other parents in the southern suburbs of Adelaide through their group, Parents of the Disabled or PODS. Jean and Jocelyn will never let me forget their situations and today's announcement is a great tribute to people like them who not only deal with their own situations but who help others deal with theirs.People with disabilities and those who care for them are some of the most fatigued and forgotten people in Australia. It is worth noting why it is difficult for them to gain acknowledgment of their needs. The elderly, the frail and the disabled are often disenfranchised because of their difficulties in communicating their needs, and their carers are disenfranchised because they have little time or energy to do anything else but provide care. There are many programs that provide assistance across the health and family services and social security portfolios and the government has built further on its commitments to frail and elderly Australians, Australians with disabilities and their carers today.The government has had a difficult task over the past two years in dealing with the budget deficit. The aim of the government's economic management has been to reduce its deficit and thus the amount of taxpayers' money going to pay interest bills, to reduce interest rates and inflation to provide an attractive destination for investment and thus to provide employment. To do this it has had to reduce its own spending. In spite of this aim, the government has recognised the need to boost spending on services for the most needy people—the frail and elderly, the disabled and their carers.Today's announcement will go a long way to fill the gaps in services and entitlements for some of Australia's most vulnerable and tired Australians. I am pleased to be a part of a government that recognises their needs and I am most proud of the people in my area who have helped me understand these needs.243217:38:002432McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I wonder if members of the government are proud of the government's treatment of ordinary wage and salary earners. This government is to be condemned for its complete incompetence in the industrial relations field. I note that the government is opposing any pay rise in proceedings currently before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for any wage in excess of $451.20 a week. That is poverty level wages—$23,400 per year. Even for those people they are only agreeing to a two per cent increase when executive salaries over the past 12 months have risen by about six per cent. That shows the priorities of the government in terms of being against the interests of ordinary wage and salary earners.Even more insidious is what is happening on 1 July. What will happen on 1 July is the gutting of industrial awards back to 20 core conditions. We have already seen an example in respect of one hospitality award where the Australian Industrial Relations Commission applied the government's legislation. I should note from the government's own explanatory memorandum what this is going to mean for job security. While the act allows redundancy pay to be included in an award, the explanatory memorandum prepared by the minister explicitly states that section 89A of the act will not operate to allow the inclusion in awards of provisions which will affect the capacity of an employer to determine the number or identity of a person who may be made redundant. Equally, the provisions will not allow the inclusion in awards of procedures that must be followed before notice of termination is given.Let us look at how that has been applied in a specific incidence—and that is in respect of the hospitality award. The commission gutted from that award the following provisions. They have been taken out of the award and will no longer be available to workers in that industry. From 1 July these provisions will not be available to any worker under an industrial award.Those provisions which have been removed are: the employer no longer has an obligation to notify and consult about the introduction of change—gone. There is no longer a requirement for discussions to take place prior to redundancies—gone. There are no longer provisions requiring the employer to notify the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of impending redundancies—gone. The employee is no longer protected from receiving notice of termination of his or her employment while they are on authorised leave—so the employee can get the bullet while they are at home sick. No longer is the employer required to provide employees with a statement of employment on termination—gone. These provisions have been around since 1984. On 1 July for all Australian workers these provisions have gone out of their awards—gone, dead, kaput.The provision that termination of employment shall not be harsh, unjust or unreasonable has gone. Overnight that has been taken out of the award. There are a number of other significant provisions that have been taken from awards, for instance, provisions for the employer to provide items of clothing, tools, equipment, laundering and accommodation—gone; provisions relating to sexual harassment—gone; provisions regarding the provision of a first aid kit—gone.ML6GRACEMrs Elizabeth Grace—You negotiate them in an agreement.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The honourable member on the other side said that they are all up for negotiation. That is all right if you have some industrial strength or might behind you. Those workers who are in unionised establishments might be okay. The member might have a look at the fact that the government has taken out section 170QK from the act which enabled the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to make an order that the parties bargain in good faith. So no longer do we have a situation where the outcomes are determined on the basis of reasoned argument.What is going to happen under this government is institutionalised anarchy. The victor out of this institutionalised anarchy is going to be the one with the economic might or the one with the industrial might. Reason and logic will not prevail and those workers who are without industrial strength are going to be the ones who suffer. Paradoxically, this government has hit non-unionised workers the hardest because from 1 July their fundamental employment security provisions are gone. (Time expired)243317:44:002433Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I wish to raise an issue this evening about an abattoir in my electorate where there are some very serious concerns for the employees and creditors in the city of Grafton. In about September last year the abattoir went into an administrator's hands appointed by the company itself—a company called R.J. Gilbertson. The administrator had to settle the affairs of the company, which found that it could not continue to trade.Apparently there were debts to the ANZ Bank of some $3.2 million, and there were debts to the employees themselves for entitlements, and some of those entitlements go back 30 years. People have had entitlements owing to them for 30 years, some $3 million. Creditors around the town—which included many small businesses, some cattle producers, who find it very difficult at the present time, let alone when they lose their money, and agents who dealt with the cattle producers—are owed some $3 million.This caused great consternation in the community, particularly for people who were unaware that there were troubles with the abattoir. They had managed their affairs in such a way that they believed their employ ment would continue. There was some consternation, of course, when the company said that, even though there was a valuation on the abattoir of some $8 million, which would have gone a long way towards paying the creditors, it seemed that a sale of the abattoir would not realise much more than $3 million, which would only pay out the secured creditor, the ANZ Bank.I became involved with this matter because of the concern of the company's workers and its creditors. I also had some support from Senator Bill O'Chee, a National Party senator who has had experience in this area of company law. We found that some very interesting things had taken place. For instance, on 27 June 1997, two cheques were drawn on the company and paid to other companies in the ownership of these people. Cheques which came to something like $5.845 million had been transferred.This, in itself, seemed quite strange. I immediately contacted the Australian Securities Commission to see whether they would have a close look at the operations of this company and the performance of the directors. I also got in contact with the administrator to ask some questions about these payments. The administrator, Mr S.L. Horne, from a firm of chartered accountants in Melbourne, said they had not realised these payments until I drew them to their attention. They did speak to me some weeks later and said that the directors acknowledged the fact that there were some concerns and there would be some more guarantees forthcoming from the directors of the company.In the last two days I have received a couple more letters from the accounting firm. One that came yesterday causes me some concern. What it says, if you read it carefully, is that the guarantee that is being given may be of little value, if at all, to the creditors. The letter from Clarke and Company referred to the company's assets. They say clearly that they may not yield any funds available for distribution for some 2½ years and that they are fully encumbered. Moreover, it would appear to have escaped Clarke and Company's attention that, in the interim, these companies may well incur other liabilities over which the creditors of the two companies currently under administration will have no priority. The only way in which existing unsecured creditors of the meatworks could possibly be protected from this is if a charge or charges are created in their favour. This has not been offered.The letter from Clarke and Company indicates their intention to only call a meeting of creditors in the event that Messrs Ferrier Hodgson fail to confirm the directors' representations, whatever that may mean.I do believe this matter, which is within the discretion of Clarke and Company, to be very serious. Creditors have a right to have all the facts. They have a right to have a meeting. Messrs Clarke and Company have no right to execute a legal document that precludes the creditors from having the opportunity to decide the future of these companies.I have been in touch with the Australian Securities Commission and they share the worries I have about some of the actions of the directors of this company. They believe that the creditors should be given a chance to have another meeting and they believe that the creditors should retain their own advisers to protect them. (Time expired)243417:49:002434Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—One of the most insidious `isms' that has ever been created must be economic rationalism, especially as it has been practised during the 1990s. Throughout both the private sector and the public sector there have been decisions under the guise of economic rationalism that have dehumanised society at the community level.Take, for example, the wholesale closure of bank branches throughout Australia. The effect of this has been to see, in the last 12 months, a shedding of 10,000 full-time jobs and further promised cuts of 10 per cent. This comes after the big four had already cut 6,300 positions in 1997. Figures show that between 1990 and 1996 employment by the big four banks had reduced by 26 per cent. Also, there has been the closure of something like 20 per cent of branches in similar periods.In my own electorate, we see that the ANZ Bank is to close a branch in the suburb of South Morang on 15 May—a branch that ANZ only opened in 1991. South Morang is a developing suburb in the electorate. Although the population is only 2,500 at the moment, it is predicted to be, by 2010, a thriving suburb of 23,900.Some of the other suburbs in the western side of the electorate of Scullin fare little better. In the Mill Park suburb, with a population of 26,500 and still growing, only two of the big four are present. In a suburb like Thomastown, with a population of 22,200, the ANZ is to merge its branch in High Street, Thomastown, with its Lalor branch. The National Bank closed its Thomastown branch and has told people living in the residential areas of Thomastown that they should bank at its business centre in the industrialised areas of that suburb.One has to ask what it is that the banks are setting out to achieve. At a time when there are record profits, we see this wholesale reduction of the number of employees that the banks have. We see this in the guise that this is a service industry. Anybody who visits local branches knows that there are long queues, that when people approach and finally get to do their business, the employees of banks are forced to badger customers into considering new products, when all they want to do is simply go into the bank, do their business and get out.We see this phenomena throughout Australia—not only in the urban fringes like the electorate of Scullin, but also in rural areas of Australia. Of course, this gets a lot of coverage in this place and a lot of government members shed crocodile tears about bank closures. But we must also consider that the basis of these decisions, as I said earlier, is the economic rationalism theory of downsizing and greater efficiency. What have we seen in the public sector under the Howard government? Downsizing and closures.If we look at rural Australia, we see the closure of tax offices. If we look at what has occurred throughout Australia, we see the closure of Medicare offices—of course, predominantly in Labor electorates, but that is another argument. In the city of Whittlesea there has never been a Medicare office. The nearest Medicare office is in the suburb of Reservoir in the seat of Batman, and that, of course, closed last month. Now, people who want to do business direct, face to face—people such as the elderly and migrants prefer to do that—have to go an extra five to 10 kilometres to centres like Northland in Preston or to Greensborough.Under this government we have seen the closure of CES offices. Some continue under the label `Employment National', but in my electorate the CES office in Epping is to be closed on 1 May. It did not get a tender in this brave new world of labour market programs, so another public service will be denied the people of Scullin. If we look at post offices, the post offices at both Thomastown and Bundoora are presently under investigation because it is claimed that their activity is not enough to make them profitable.We see this continuing phenomena where people feel remote from their communities because the things that they thought were part of the community—banks, post offices, and so on—are being denied them. Whereas the postmaster and the local branch manager were part of the local community, now everything is so remote. This leads to dehumanisation of communities where people feel less secure, they feel remote from the processes. They feel uncomfortable that all this is going on and they are helpless to do anything about it.Hopefully at some stage we will see the counter to economic rationalism, we will see that people want to put back that human factor, we will see that people are not satisfied with just dealing with machines. People want to be counted as people; they want to be provided with direct face-to-face services. These are the things that both the public and the private sector need. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Makin and, even though it is a bit late in the day, I wish her a very happy birthday.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!4T4MELHAMMr Melham—From this side, as well.243617:54:002436Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the birthday wishes. I rise tonight to speak on the $270 million Staying at Home: Care and Support for Older Australians package which was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) today. Once again, the government has shown its commitment to and support of older Australians and their right to age with independence, choice and dignity. The government's aim is to ensure that older Australians have a real choice in determining whether they stay at home or choose to enter residential care. This new package has been welcomed across the board and I am sure that the Australian community will be delighted. I am particularly delighted on behalf of my constituents in Makin.The government's new package will demonstrate its underlying commitment to respect the rights of elderly Australians and to provide the support they need where they want it and when they want it. The Staying at Home: Care and Support for Older Australians package includes $92 million, to more than double the number of people who receive support through community aged care packages. The number of community aged care packages will be expanded by 3,900 over the next four years. Together with the growth in existing programs, this will more than double the number of people assisted to 22,000.The package will also cater for people with more complex care needs, including nursing care: $131 million has been allocated to secure increased eligibility for a carers allowance, the expansion of the carer respite centres and additional respite care places for people with dementia; the successful carer respite centres initiative will be expanded from 58 to 73; funding for aged care assessment will be indexed to growth in the older population to enable people to access care appropriate to their needs; and $15 million has been allocated for the development of alternative accommodation options for ageing carers of an adult with a disability. About 8,000 people aged 65 years or more currently care for adult children with a profound dis ability. Many of them have been carers for 40 years or more.We will spend an extra $15 million over four years on accommodation services for this group through the Commonwealth-state disability agreement. Fifteen million dollars will be spent to improve information and training about continence management, a major factor leading to entry to residential care. Continence assistance will make it easier for older people to manage at home and avoid unwanted admission to residential care.The Prime Minister's announcement has shown that the government is listening. I have spent a lot of my time here in Canberra discussing these issues with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) on behalf of my constituents. I am delighted that the government has undergone extensive consultation processes with carers and community groups to ensure support for people who generously provide an important service to the community as carers for the elderly or the disabled.The new package will ensure that the aged care sector is strong and viable. This includes ensuring that staying at home and receiving community care is a real option for those older Australians who choose to do so. Our government is committed to fostering a sense of pride in the achievement of older Australians and recognising their continuing contribution to the community. As Australia's population ages, we need to take up the challenge to make the most of this invaluable resource—our aged.243617:58:002436Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I am concerned about the practice that has crept into the House of selective quoting of public documents and public records. That occurred today in question time when the minister selectively quoted a selective quote that was used on 29 May 1997 in terms of something that I said in relation to the stolen generations. The other thing that concerns me is that a practice might come into this House whereby public documents that have been circulated by ministers are marked `Confidential' with the intent to selectively quote and use the marking of `Confidential' on a public document, perhaps circulated by the Attorney-General, in an attempt not to have that document tabled so that it is not taken in full context.Mr Speaker, I would implore you to look at this practice so that we do not have a repeat of today's situation. If this House is to be held in standing, there are certain rules. What is happening here is that we are all being brought into disrepute.Also, I was ashamed when I was sitting in the High Court during the challenge to the Hindmarsh Island bridge case to hear the Commonwealth government's legal representatives say to the court and submit to the court that the constitution was an inherently racist document and that the 1967 referendum meant that the whole of the constitution now has the value system of 1901. I was disturbed.I am pleased that the High Court did not buy that argument and that two judges of the High Court yesterday ruled that the races power could not be used to the detriment of Aboriginal people. There were two judges who said that it could be used to the positive or the negative but it was qualified and that it might be an abuse of the power and reserved the definition of what abuse of power was, and there were two judges did not comment. Fortunately, the government submission was not picked up by any of the judges of the High Court. But I do implore you, Mr Speaker, to look at what happened in question time today and probably come back to the House to improve the standards so it cannot be repeated.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The debate may continue.243718:00:002437Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—I begin by taking the point that the member for Banks (Mr Melham) made that there is far too much cheap point scoring in this House. If there is one thing which demeans the dignity of the parliament and destroys our reputation in the eyes of the public it is the eagerness of some of us to rush into the fray not well armed with the facts.Earlier tonight the member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese) came into this House and declared that the National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and Values currently taking place was some kind of front for the Lyons Forum, a Liberal Party and National Party organisation, an internal discussion group which has been demonised far too often in this place.For the information of the member for Grayndler, I should point out that there are about 40 parliamentary hosts for the National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and Values. They include Senator Andrew Bartlett, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja and Senator John Woodley from the Democrats and Ms Annette Ellis, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, Mr Mark Latham, the Hon. Michael Lee, Senator Kate Lundy, Mr Robert McClelland, Mr Daryl Melham, Mr Frank Mossfield and Mr Harry Quick from the ALP. I am quite happy to admit that I have been to quite a few Lyons Forum meetings, but I have never seen any of them at any of the meetings.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the member would know, my point earlier on tonight was not, as he suggests, that it was organised by the Lyons Forum—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member is not making a point of order. I am afraid you will have to leave that for a personal explanation when the House resumes.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—It was on the basis of the fact that the Lyons Forum dominates the list of parliamentary people who have been invited.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member is out of order.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—I have not known anyone to dominate the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham). Not even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) can dominate the member for Werriwa, so I certainly do not think that the member for Werriwa is going to be dominated by any members on this list who might also happen to be members of the Lyons Forum. In fact, this forum is one of those all too rare occasions for members of parliament to come together in a leadership context to celebrate with other young Australians those things that we have in common rather than the things which divide us.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Do you endorse Rabuka as faith and values?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—The member for Grayndler mentions General Rabuka. It is true that General Rabuka, now Prime Minister Rabuka of Fiji, will be the guest of honour and principal speaker at a dinner tonight. Like the member for Grayndler, and I dare say all members of this House, I was appalled by the coup that took place in Fiji in 1987. Last night in fact a number of members of this House—Liberal, Labor and Independent—had a dinner with General Rabuka where these matters were discussed. It turns out that he was appalled by what happened in 1987. He judged that it was necessary, given the exigencies of the situation in Fiji at the time.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—It's like the holocaust?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—My judgment is that he was wrong. My judgment is that nothing short of the direst civil strife can ever justify the sort of thing that was done. I judge General Rabuka to have been wrong. I judge what he did to be appalling. I think that what General Rabuka has been trying to do since that time is to bind up the wounds of the nation. I am pleased to see that under his sponsorship a non-racial constitution is about to be implemented again in Fiji.The simple truth is that there are many speakers who will be gracing the National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and Values. The purpose of the forum is `To inspire young people to a life of leadership based on a commitment to serve others'. That is why I am delighted that people like the member for Banks and the member for Werriwa will be amongst the many people who will speak to the forum and who will share their insights with the youngsters who are attending it.The leaders who are talking to the forum include John Howard. No doubt the member for Grayndler will say, `Well, there you go; John Howard addressing this forum,' but I have just come from part of that forum and who was speaking? None other than Kim Beazley himself.It gives me no pleasure to come into this House and take issue with the member for Grayndler on something which really should be a unifying feature of this parliament. I think it is a great thing that so many members of this parliament are prepared to come together and co-sponsor this forum. (Extension of time granted) The member for Grayndler has perhaps allowed his exuberance to get the better of him. I think that the member for Grayndler's understandable desire to attack his political enemies has in this case caused him to take several steps too far. I say this not in any desire to embarrass the member for Grayndler but I really think he would be doing himself a favour—he would be honouring his Labor colleagues who are participating in this forum and his fellow members of parliament who are participating in this forum, and he would be paying due respect to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition who are participating in this forum—if he were to offer some kind of explanation and perhaps even some small apology for what he said.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I adjourn the House, I should just remind the House that General Rabuka is in fact at present the elected Prime Minister of Fiji.18:06:002438House adjourned at 6.06 p.m.Notices2439The following notices were given:Mr Price to move-That this House notes with concern that:(1) the National Competition Council (NCC) has recommended the closure of mail sorting centres at Albury, Goulburn, Dubbo, Kempsey and Casino;(2) both the Treasurer, Peter Costello, and Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, have welcomed the report;(3) up to 300 postal workers' jobs in regional New South Wales will be put at risk; and(4) the NCC has recommended that business mail in metropolitan areas be provided by private companies denying Australia Post the ability to cross-subsidise and guarantee a quality service to rural and regional New South Wales.Mr Fitzgibbon to move-That this House:(1) notes mining giant Rio Tinto's (a) record of human rights violation, (b) breaches of international labour laws and (c) failure to provide a safe working environment for many of its employees around the world; and(2) condemns the Howard Government's support for Rio Tinto's attack on Australian working conditions.Mr Laurie Ferguson to move-That this House:(1) notes with alarm that the three official reports, Mortality of Vietnam veterans (May 1997), Mortality of national service Vietnam veterans (November 1997) and Morbidity of Vietnam veterans (March 1998), all confirm that the health status of Vietnam veterans is appreciably worse than that of the general population;(2) expresses concern that the Government has not allocated any additional resources to the provision of an action program of health education, promotion and screening as foreshadowed by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in May 1997;(3) calls for speedy action to put into place new or amended statements of principle for disability pension purposes for those medical conditions where further validation is clearly unnecessary;(4) supports the involvement of organisations representing Vietnam veterans in oversighting the validation, by reputable medical bodies independent of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, of the latest findings regarding other medical conditions;(5) notes that the US Government provides substantial financial assistance to Vietnam veterans whose children have spina bifida; and(6) requests the Government as a matter of priority to make a ministerial statement to Parliament before the end of the 1997-98 financial year on its strategy to assist Vietnam veterans and their families to deal with the physical, psychological and financial consequences of their war service.Mr Campbell to move—That the Carrier Licence Conditions (Spectrum re-allocation) Declaration 1998, made under subsection 63(2) of the Telecommunications Act 1997, be disallowed.Documents2439The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 2 April 1998:Customs Act—Manufacturing in Bond (MiB)—Business plan outline.Export Control Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 54.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 53.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. 7, 8, 9.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11.Statement.Sales Tax Assessment Act—Determination 1998 No. STD 3.Superannuation Act 1990—Twelfth amending deed to the deed to establish an occupational superannuation scheme for Commonwealth employees and certain other persons, pursuant to section 5, 25 March 1998.1998-04-02Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members2440244009:40:002440Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to draw the attention of the Main Committee to the plight faced at one stage by Marrickville Job Club and its subsequent resurrection. As members would be aware, under the Howard government since 1996 the cutbacks that have occurred in labour market programs have had devastating impacts on job clubs throughout Australia and, indeed, on skillshares and other labour market organisations. The Marrickville Job Club has been doing a fine job of assisting unemployed people from all over Sydney to attain skills and access job seeking resources for a period of over 10 years.Marrickville Job Club learnt some three weeks ago that its funding would be cut as a result of the government's new job network initiative. As a result of that, the Marrickville Job Club, which runs out of the May Murray Neighbourhood Centre, was forced to announce its closure. The President of the May Murray Neighbourhood Centre, Mr Michael Christodoulou, stated:It is the saddest day in the history of our neighbourhood centre. After helping the unemployed for more than 14 years we are now forced to deny our unemployed access to the very tools they need to find a job.This was indeed a very successful organisation. In fact, during the last federal election campaign the then Treasurer Ralph Willis paid a visit to the Marrickville Job Club with me to see first-hand the facilities that these people offered.Fortunately, just as the Marrickville Job Club planned a last supper to mark the death of the job club, two people from the private sector, when hearing of the plight of Marrickville Job Club, stepped in and provided some personal funding. They are the owners of the 2MM Greek radio station and the Hellenic Vema newspaper, Mr Greg Gav and Mr Bill Gertos. It is to their great credit that they are prepared to step in and offer funding to this organisation.It has to be said, however, that it is a tragedy that it takes this sort of individual community spirit to replace the government funding which should never have been cut. I congratulate Marrickville Job Club on their survival.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Great philanthropists.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Mr Gertos and Mr Gav are great philanthropists, and I am pleased to call them my friends. I thank them on behalf of the community in Grayndler for their assistance.244009:43:002440Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTONNL6CanningLP10—Today I want to praise the efforts of the many people in my electorate of Canning who so strongly support and contribute financially towards the chaplaincies programs in high schools in Western Australia.On 21 August 1997, the West Australian featured an article titled `Discipline chaos in state schools'. It talked about the effect of dysfunctional students who often have severe behavioural problems and the disruption that they can cause in schools. It went on to say that it is certain that many of these young people may become involved in truancy, drugs, vandalism, break-ins and bashings. Such actions not only create social problems in our neighbourhoods, but also add an additional financial strain on individuals and communities.It has been estimated that it costs approximately $45,000 a year to retain a full-time high school chaplain, yet to keep a person in prison costs around $68,000 per year. Simple arithmetic tells one where the social benefits will be. In a recent letter from the Gosnells District Churches Commission on Education, I was advised that the state government's annual grant for chaplaincy support has remained at $90,000 per year for the past six years.I have met several of the non-denominational chaplains who work together with the counsellors and the teachers in high schools. Stuart and Margaret, to mention just two of the young chaplains that I have met, have created a very non-threatening environment which encourages students to discuss their problems. These chaplains have impressed me with their positive approach toward problem solving and their attitude to bridge the emotional gulf that exists between some of the students and their families, friends and the wider community.The chaplains' non-judgmental guidance has helped to bring many students back from the brink of contemplating suicide, homelessness and drug addiction. Yet, because financial support for the important work that the chaplains do comes mainly from personal contributions from the community and local businesses, Stuart and Margaret can only work part time throughout their week. This means that some of the students may reach crisis point without help when they most need it, leading to possible consequences which will be far more costly for governments in a socioeconomic sense.I conclude as I started, by praising the efforts of the people involved in the chaplaincy program. I believe that their guidance and friendship towards the young people whom they support is very necessary in our schools today. This government has already released policies that will tackle youth homelessness, drugs in our community and the unacceptable high level of youth suicide. I urge the government, in further developing such policies, to recognise the valuable work that chaplains can do in our schools.244109:46:002441Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to talk about an announcement by the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, John Aquilina, entitled `Widening horizons: a strategy for expanding educational opportunities in Sydney's west'. I have spoken about the campaign in my own electorate to have a senior high school, which resulted in the first public senior high school in St Marys some 10 years ago. I am pleased to say that in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Mossfield) we now have a second, different model of senior high school, one with junior feeder schools.The most exciting feature of this new approach is that students will actually be able to take TAFE subjects at school. They will also be able to take university subjects at school. Nirimba has these facilities at the educational precinct by way of the TAFE and the university campus there.I know many of my constituents are going to be disappointed that there was not an announcement made about the Mount Druitt college system. I want to assure them that my colleagues, state member Jim Anderson and minister Richard Amery, and I are continuing to have a dialogue with the department of education. I am pleased to see that what we are developing will be put out into the public arena this month for consultation and it will be possible in the 1999 school year to have the Mount Druitt super-high up and operating.These changes have arisen following the dogged campaign in my electorate to improve the educational structure and outcomes for young people in my electorate. We have had two successes without actually having the change in my electorate; it will be a very proud moment for me and many others to see that up and running at the commencement of the 1999 school year.244209:48:002442Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I rise today to bring to the attention of this House a fate awaiting the electricity industry in the Hunter. The Bob Carr state Labor government and Energy Australia are walking away from a contract signed two years ago with National Power to build a power station, employ some 1,200 people during construction and, once completed, offer 200 full-time and contract positions in this $315 million project. The anniversary of the signing of that contract two years ago occurred last Saturday. But now Energy Australia and Bob Carr want to break that contract, claiming as the reason that there is not enough financial viability in the company. Yet this company is backed up by the likes of companies such as ABB, National Power, our own AIDC and LG&E.This project would inject some $10 million annually into the Hunter's economy and, in the initial stages, reduce the unemployment in the Hunter by some five per cent. This is not a project to be sneezed at or walked away from. To show that the federal government was absolutely committed to this project, last September we provided $30 million in infrastructure borrowings tax rebates. At the time, the National Power Australia director, Mr Roy Alper, said:We are delighted by the Commonwealth Government's decision to assure the project support under a new infrastructure investment program.It means we can proceed to close our financing and start construction. It also means we will be able to proceed with Redbank No.2, a project of very similar dimensions in the same area.What we have seen as a result of this action, the step taken by this spineless Carr Labor government and the absolute silence of the members from the Hunter in this House—because they have been stifled in their approach and stymied by the right wing of the Labor Party—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You haven't been silent.LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—I have not been silent—you are correct, Mr Whip. I have not been silent at all because we want those jobs in the Hunter. We see lots of screaming by the Carr Labor government about jobs. But what seems to happen is the federal government takes one step forward on the investment front and on the job opportunity front in the Hunter but the Carr state Labor government and all its silent cohorts in this House drag us back two steps.If they are serious about addressing the unemployment problem, if they are serious about addressing investment confidence in the Hunter, then they will not ask but demand that Bob Carr develop some intestinal fortitude and spine and take on Energy Australia and deliver on this contract, which was signed two years ago and which, as I said, will reduce unemployment in the Hunter by some five per cent by the sheer magnitude of it.244209:51:002442Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—When the coalition government's new bill for the superannuation surcharge tax was announced some 12 months ago I received a phone call, to arrange a meeting, from Paul Dovico and Warren Duncan, partners of Duncan Dovico, one of Sydney's most astute, progressive and switched-on chartered accountants, to express their misgivings at the inadequacy of the bill and all the consequent problems and anomalies that will flow.They gave me a detailed breakdown of their concerns and, since the bill was enacted, all their warning signals have in fact eventuated. I received a memo from them only this week that I want to incorporate into the Hansard and I want to ask the Treasurer (Mr Costello) to address as soon as possible their 13 points of concern. I seek leave to incorporate the memo into Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Problems/Anomalies/Issues re the Superannuation Surcharge (Tax) LegislationHidden CostHas the Government appreciated the hidden cost of implementing the surcharge legislation, effectively penalising every member of every superannuation fund? ie., the superannuation provider will have to send details of every member each year to the ATO by 31 October?Golden HandshakesIf a golden handshake is paid to a taxpayer, then, the taxpayer is liable for the surcharge if his or her adjusted taxable income is greater than the threshold. It is said that an assessment for the surcharge will be issued to the member at the time the income tax assessment is issued.Apart from the funding issues, has the Government considered timing anomalies that may arise if the income tax returns are lodged through a tax agent and the lodgement does not take place until the following year and the member is not aware that he or she would be liable for the surcharge?Who is responsible for advising the member?Inequity in Administering Death BenefitsHas the Government considered the inequity in relation to the timing and payment of death benefits and the levying of the surcharge?For e.g., where the payment of the contributed amounts or the commencement of a pension is made to a person other than the member (e.g., death benefits paid to a relative) then no surcharge is payable. If, on the death of a member, contributed amounts have not been paid before an assessment is issued, then the superannuation provider holding the contributed amounts must pay the surcharge. All in all, this seems some what inequitable.Dividend ImputationHas the Government realised that there is a partial erosion of the benefit flowing from the dividend imputation rules by including the `gross-up factor' in calculating the taxable income, but not making provision for the franking rebates which are available to reduce income tax otherwise payable?Averaging Provisions—Fluctuating IncomeWhy hasn't the Government made any allowance for those taxpayers who have high income in a certain year because of fluctuating income patterns? Why aren't there any averaging provisions available in the context of the superannuation surcharge?Different Rules Depending on Whether the Amounts are Rolled-Over to a Superannuation Fund or RetainedWhy is the calculation of the surcharge different between ETPs rolled-over and ETPs retained?ie., as the legislation presently stands, where an employee retains such an ETP, it will only be the post—20 August 1996 portion of the ETP on which the surcharge will be paid, not the whole post—June 1983 component as is the case where the ETP is rolled-over. What's more, the position changes after 20 August 2001, from which time the whole pre- and post-June 1983 components (subject to a limited exception) are subject to tax if retained by the employee but only the post-June 1983 component is taxed if rolled-over to a superannuation provider.Late Payment PenaltyWhilst the fund is said to be initially liable for any late payment penalty of 20%, has the Government made allowance for tax advisers who may be preparing accounts and tax returns for hundreds of smaller superannuation funds and therefore only have limited time available to comply with the reporting obligations and have genuinely not been able to meet the deadline?Does the Government intend to surreptitiously shift that burden on to the tax advisers and accountants and also create ill-feeling between advisers and clients?De-minimus RulesWhy hasn't the Government incorporated de minimus rules regarding late payment penalties?i.e., interestingly, the legislation does not contain any de minimus rule providing for assessments not to issue where less than some nominal amount (e.g. $20) is payable?Partial Roll-OversIn relation to partial roll-overs, the legislation is silent on the issue of whether a member will have a choice as to which parts of a partial roll-over the surcharge will come from?Variation of Advance InstalmentWhy is there no provision for variation of advance instalments?No Interest on RefundsWhilst the legislation makes provision for a late payment penalty, why isn't there a corresponding provision for interest on refunds of surcharge, where an advance instalment was paid, but in fact no surcharge liability arose in respect of that member in the following year?Anti-avoidance LegislationWill the Government undertake not to introduce anti-avoidance legislation at a later date and make it retrospective from the date of the commencement of the surcharge legislation?Public Sector Superannuation Funds (Unfunded)Has the Government considered fully the number of anomalies in relation to public sector superannuation schemes?244409:52:002444Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I want to say a few words this morning about the current mobile phone discussions. As we well know, the 1992 agreement which we were locked into by the previous government did create some inconvenience. But the government and the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) have worked very hard over the last couple of years to make sure that all that could be done is being done to provide services—and this may come as a surprise to many Australians—to those areas which do not have mobile phone services.We hear that 94 per cent of the population of Australia has access to mobile phones, but that in fact means to only 10 per cent of the land mass, so 90 per cent of the land mass has no coverage whatsoever. With the negotiations that the minister has undertaken over the last 12 months with Telstra, Optus and Vodaphone, there have been significant steps forward. The advent of the new technology out of the US, I understand, like CDMA technology which gives equivalent coverage to analog, provides us with significant hope that the advantages of digital can be brought into the bush, particularly to those areas which are seen to be too sparse for the carriers now. With digital technology or the GSM technology and with the CDMA technology with the auction of the new spectrum now, they can be brought into play in those areas which currently do not have the terrestrial based mobile phones.For the more remote areas of Australia, probably the low earth orbiting satellite option is the best option that is going to be there and available in September this year. I must compliment the government—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It is a good government.0V5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—It is, Mr Whip. We are very pleased that we are able to serve in government. The government has worked diligently to provide the most up-to-date technology and to provide competition within the carriers of telecommunications around Australia. There is no doubt in my mind that as the years go by we will be seen to have had a government which had the foresight to make the investment particularly through the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund to allow regional Australia to have the best possible communications available to us.244509:55:002445Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—Anyone reading the Australian newspaper this morning—and I assume some people do—will see a letter to the editor from Senator Bob Brown, which is thoroughly dishonest and misleading. Bob Brown says that the government and the Labor Party have sold Aboriginal people out. He says that in fact all that is at stake in native title is the right to negotiate over mining. The senator knows this is simply not true. Should you be seeking a road or a tourist development or a pipeline easement, you are stuck with the right to negotiate. As the former Governor-General Bill Hayden said, the right to negotiate in its present form is nothing more than extortion.I think it is about time these green fairies got off the magic mushroom and looked at what actually is happening to Australia. In my own town of Kalgoorlie, things are grinding to a halt as the mines close. These are opportunity mines and usually have a fairly short life. They rely on drilling around them to maintain their ore bodies. That has not happened. When this came in, I warned the Labor Party that the upsurge in drilling that they saw—exploration was on brownfield sites—was in fact being concentrated on there for the very reason of native title. What has happened is that that ground has now been largely explored. They have got the details, development has taken place on that and those mines are running out. In the last three months 15 or 16 mines have closed—none have opened—because there has simply been no exploration on these greenfield areas. The reason there has been no exploration is because of native title—entirely because of native title.People say, `Oh, there is a downturn in the price.' Yes, there has been a downturn in the price of gold. But in terms of Australian dollars, it is not all that significant. In any case, had we not been held up by native title, these sites would have gone ahead and they would have been developed. They would have been so far down the road that the price of gold would not have stopped them. They would have forward sold their production and they would be in production. In the life of those mines, I would confidently expect the price of gold will turn around and will go up again. (Time expired)Bills2445r4372445Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:002446Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—I rise today to talk about the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 which contains a number of measures to reform the child support scheme. While these changes will go a long way to assist both custodial and non-custodial parents, they only touch the surface of the problems faced by the people involved in the child support scheme.I would like to talk on a couple of these changes that will be implemented by this bill but before I do, I want to relay to the House a situation that occurred recently to one of my constituents, a custodial parent. Although I am often on my feet referring to the inequality or the inequity in the system on behalf of the non-custodial parent, I am just as concerned about the unfairness of the system on custodial parents as well.The matter I wish to raise concerns Mrs CC of Moranbah who had two children by her husband before the marriage broke up. The husband moved away from their home and set up his own. He did not pay child support maintenance because he was an unemployed motor mechanic but he was provided with full access to both children, which is fair enough.After a couple of years on struggle street, the wife approached the husband and asked if he would be prepared to look after the male child while she continued to look after the female child. He agreed.Shortly after this agreement was reached, the husband decided to move interstate to New South Wales with his son, and nothing was heard of them for five years. Let us be clear: the couple had been living in Moranbah but they split up, and he moved away and has not been paying any child support or any maintenance at all to the custodial parent. She has had to look after both of the children. What has now happened is that, because of the financial burden—and because, I guess, the son may even wish to live with the father—the son has moved away and is now living with the dad. The mum has the daughter, and the dad has the son.Suddenly, out of the blue, the husband applied to the Family Court in New South Wales for access to his daughter, even though he originally had access provided by the Family Court: he had had access but now he wanted greater access. As a result of this, the wife was required to attend the New South Wales Family Court but could not afford to do so because, obviously, she did not have enough finances to be able to travel from central Queensland to New South Wales. However, a family friend kindly provided the necessary funds to allow her to meet the obligations and to take her daughter with her.In the hearing, the father claimed he wanted to see his daughter during summer and winter holidays but that he had no money to travel to Queensland to see her and he requested that the court order the wife to pay half the costs to fly the daughter to New South Wales to visit the father. The judge granted the request, and now the wife has to pay the airfares to send the daughter twice a year to see her father so that he may meet his new access requirements. This is absolutely outrageous. He has never paid maintenance, and now the custodial parent has to actually fly the child to him. It is absolutely crazy. The father has never contributed towards the upkeep of the family since he departed seven years ago and now he expects the mother to pick up half the tab so that he can gain access to the daughter during the school holidays.This is the problem with the child support system and the Family Court—the whole thing. It is nothing but a shambles. From what we see here, there are basically two ways of looking at child support and the Family Court. There are two fundamental factors. The most disadvantaged person gets all the help, and the system works on the capacity to pay. If you have any capacity, you will pay. The thing is that because—SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—Even if they have no capacity.LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—That is right. Exactly: even if you have no capacity. What we need to do is to try to be fair and to even this thing out so that everybody gets a fair deal. It is heavily swung one way or the other, and it needs to be smoothed out to give everybody a fair run. The cost to the mother is thousands of dollars that she does not have, in this particular situation. She has a small income from part-time work and from the family allowance payment for the daughter. Now she is expected to pay—and with great difficulty, I can tell you—this impost so that the father can meet his obligations. The father is required to pay the return airfare for the daughter, but, as experience has shown in this family, the father is unlikely to have any money, and there is a real possibility that the daughter will be left stranded in New South Wales unless the mother can find the money for the return fare.Although I appreciate that the judge may have had a difficult situation to resolve—because neither party has any money—I cannot support the judge's decision that imposes a large debt on the custodial parent, when it is the non-custodial parent's responsibility to meet the costs associated with this particular circumstance in relation to access. As I said before, the non-custodial parent has never paid any maintenance towards the upkeep of his children. The Commonwealth has, to date, paid for the upkeep of his two children.As we all know, it is difficult enough for people in this situation to manage, and it will be even harder in the future for this mother to manage with the additional costs now imposed on her by the New South Wales Family Court judge. The only way we can get this changed is for the mother to legally challenge the judge's findings, but this costs money, a commodity the mother does not have, and so she has had to grudgingly accept the decision and meet her obligations. She is but one of many people who have obviously been unfairly dealt with through the Family Court child support system.I appreciate that it is important for the father to have access to his children, but I now wonder how the custodial parent will be able to manage on an income of $3,000 a year because of the non-custodial parent's predicament. As I said, he never pays.The Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill is a small step in the right direction for custodial and non-custodial parents. We can do better, we must do better, and I am quietly confident that we will do better. In this regard I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has agreed to establish a government child support working group or task force to bring some of these issues to the fore.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Are you on it?LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—Yes. As I said, we have only touched the edges of this problem. The government has looked previously at amendments via a subcommittee, but we need to really focus strongly on the problems and this task force will have a great opportunity to address a lot of these issues. I would like to see this working group provide some definitive recommendations to the relevant ministers that will clear up the problem once and for all.People can rest assured that my view will be that there be no fudged, grey areas. People can rest assured that any points that are made will be addressed, that we have an agenda and that the agenda will be to fix the problem. That is where I am coming from. Unless we bite the bullet our electorate offices will continue to be inundated with complaints from both sides about the scheme's inequity.Raising the non-custodial parent's self-support component by 10 per cent is a nominal gesture but it does not address the inequity that continues to exist. The self-support component for a non-custodial parent is currently $9,006 and it will increase to $9,947. Someone on $42,000 a year would pay about $370 a year in child support. Big deal!The self-support component may be appropriate for someone on basic wages but a lot of my constituents earn higher wages and this amount would not pay their food bill, let alone a mortgage. The self-support component must reflect the non-custodial parent's income and must be increased accordingly. When a family lives together, everyone in that family shares the tax burden imposed on the breadwinner. Yet, when a family breaks up the breadwinner has to meet all the tax burden. This is unfair and I would like to see the self-support component reflect the taxation burden in such a way that it helps reduce the maintenance that some of these high income earners are paying.Additionally, we should look at the custodial parent who reaps the rewards of the non-custodial parent who does overtime or improves his employment status. Many years after the family has broken up, surely any improvements in the status of the non-custodial parent must not result in those benefits going to the custodial parent who is no longer part of the non-custodial parent's family. Basically, the situation is that a person has been in a relationship and the relationship has failed. It is a sad thing but it has happened. We are talking about emotions, we are talking about people's lives. These things do happen. People must have the opportunity to be able to better themselves and move on. If you cannot move on, what is the good of it all? That is the problem we are having with a lot of people out there.I am so passionate about this issue. People are looking at suicide. It is absolutely imperative that we do something about this. That is why if the non-custodial parent has the ability to better his life later on, after the family has broken up, then that new income, that new amount of money that he is on whether it is through overtime or a better job, a better salary, should now not reflect on the lifestyle of the previous relationship. Certainly, I hope that can be taken on board.At the same time, I would like to see the self-support component for the custodial parent reduced even more than is proposed by the legislation. At the moment the self-support component for a custodial parent is $39,295 which is based on full-time average weekly earnings, plus an amount for child-care costs for each child under 12 years of age. Removal of the child-care component will reduce the disregarded amount of income for the custodial parent to $30,347. While this is a move in the right direction, it still provides the custodial parent with a disregarded income of over $20,000, which is more than the non-custodial parent self-support. Why is this?The reason given is that the custodial parent must be paid for raising the child or the children. Now, $20,000 equates to about $400 a week so no matter how many children a custodial parent has, they are entitled to an allowance of $400 to raise them, even it equates to one child. For $400, one could leave a child in a child-care centre all week and still have plenty left over. The $400 is still the gross amount above and beyond the actual cost of raising a child.This government has to review further this part of the legislation and bring it into line with the more acceptable amounts similar to that afforded to the non-custodial parent. For example, $25,000 is an adequate disregarded amount for a custodial parent to raise a child before they then make some form of contribution themselves. That still provides the custodial parent with $14,000 more in disregarded income than the non-custodial parent, which should be more than sufficient to raise a child.I have heard that the opposition is planning to move some amendments to the government's legislation, which is somewhat hypocritical of them, frankly. The Labor Party had 13 years to do something about the Child Support Agency and the system that it operates under but they ended up doing absolutely nothing. They passed it off to a committee and the committee buried it. The former government's Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues headed by the member for Chifley (Mr Price) started to investigate the problems with the child support scheme. The committee was inundated with 6,800 submissions from all around the country, the most submissions made to any joint select committee, or a standing committee, on any issue investigated by this parliament. That in itself indicated the enormity of the problem. Yet, what did the Labor Party do between the report's findings in 1994 and when they were turfed out of office in 1996? Absolutely nothing. They had the evidence before them; they had the answers before them and they did absolutely nothing.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And they ran away from the problem.LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—Most certainly, and that is what they are doing here today: they are out of office and they want to get back on the bandwagon. The Labor Party wants to dictate to this government what they want, yet they never had the guts to fix the thing themselves. It is absolutely pathetic. To emphasise the Labor Party's failure, we have the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham)—or `Where are we,' whatever he calls it—attempting to move amendments to the legislation that only reflect on this government's actions and not on the child support scheme. The member for Werriwa, `Where are we'—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Werriwa. Where is he?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member will refer to the honourable member by his correct title.LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—The member for Werriwa moved an amendment expressing concern at the failure of the Howard government, after 12 months in office, to respond to the recommendations of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues. The member for Werriwa also moved an amendment to note with concern the failure of this government to implement some of the report's recommendations, and that this has caused parents and their children to suffer needless hardship. He was not much concerned about the inordinate lack of action by his own party which, two years after the report had been handed down, had done nothing to alleviate the concerns of the non-custodial and custodial parents who had made submissions to the committee.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—They are hypocritical.LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—Absolutely hypocritical. We have here a situation where the Labor Party found out what the problems were and did absolutely nothing about them. Yet, here they are trying to take the agenda off us and basically trying to run the agenda. It is absolutely hypocritical. As far as I am concerned, his thoughts and his amendments can go where they want; the government will run the agenda on this legislation. The government has done more in two years than the previous government did in 13 and this government will continue to ensure that the child support system becomes a more equitable and more accountable system.I notice that we have some people in the chamber today who are genuinely concerned. They are the representatives from the Lone Fathers Association and Parents Without Partners. These people do not just want to drive the debate for their agenda; they are trying to do something for the people of this country. They are representatives of a group of people who have been picked up by a system—the child support system—that does not really care.The Family Court runs its agenda and, from what we hear and see of the problems people are having in their lives, things just do not seem to be working out very well at all. I believe that the new task force which the Prime Minister has announced and which several of us are on will have a great opportunity to address a lot of the problems.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—We inherited the problem. It was not our fault but we will fix it.LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—That is absolutely right. The member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) makes the very valid point that we are picking up a problem that the Labor Party introduced. Yet that party is trying to imply that it is this government that instigated the problem. That is an absolute farce; it is not true. The Labor Party has no clothes and no credibility on this issue. This government, with this task force, will fix the issues and the people who are representative of those lobby groups can rest assured that they have a front door key for dealing with this task force to ensure that their problems are addressed for all the people of this great nation.10:16:002450Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I note the words of the member for Capricornia (Mr Marek) that the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 is a small step in the right direction. That is certainly not understating the implications of this bill.The one thing that surprised me when I first came uninitiated into politics as the member for Calare was the overwhelming number of constituents who came to me with family law and child support related problems. It started out as about a quarter of my workload and has not got much below that fraction ever since.Such is the anguish of many people coping with the child support regime that I was concerned enough to set up a loose network of support in my electorate, where at least people could talk to others in similar circumstances, so emotionally drained were they by not only their family break-up but the frustrations associated with the child support system.By far the major concern has been expressed by non-custodial parents, who find the 18 per cent, 27 per cent, 32, 34 and 36 per cent formulae crippling. The money is determined on gross salary but paid out of net. In one case, I had a former senior education executive with just $25 left—after renting a modest little home—to start a new life, while his former partner not only received the child support but enjoyed the benefits of a very generous property settlement and also the trappings of a very comfortable new relationship. There were five kids aged between 14 and two. I have custodial parents come to me time and time again unable to get anything out of their non-custodial former partners. They know he or she is earning good money but it does not show up in any declarations or tax returns. Members would no doubt be aware of these sorts of situations.The common thread through it all is the inevitable, clinical way in which these cases are dealt with by the Child Support Agency. I know these people cannot get personally involved in individual cases—quite frankly, theirs must be one of the most depressing, frustrating vocations on offer—but there certainly seems to be a lack of resources to deal with individual cases face to face.Child support is not social security, it is not about pensions or Austudy, it is not about unemployment—as emotional as those issues can be. The victims are vulnerable, angry, bitter, confused and exasperated. For the non-custodial parent the imposition of the payment formulae on overtime makes no sense at all when he or she is trying to build up a small bank outside their child support commitments to get on with their life or to organise a few treats for those kids when they see them.In this regard I commend the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) for his positive contributions to this debate in the course of this parliament. He has come up with a suggestion, as a barrister experienced in some aspects of family law, for a child support tribunal. I have sought some expert opinion on his suggestion from family law practitioners, and, while there appear to be many areas needing clarification and perhaps modification, he must be congratulated for trying to find a means to overcome the inherent unfairness in the child support system which these government amendments address in some ways, though only very marginally, but certainly do not solve.As we know, the amendments contained in this bill stem from the 1994 Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues, which made something like 164 recommendations for reform of the child support system. The complexity of the changes needed is evidenced by the fact it has taken so long for any meaningful changes to find their way to the parliament by way of these amendments. I welcome the adjusted formula income amounts contained in this bill, but they do not go far enough.The administrative formula will be modified by increasing the liable parent's exempted income, including an allowance for a shared child, and reducing a carer's disregarded income. However, while welcome, the increase in the paying parent's exempted income by 10 per cent really does not address the problem at all. For a non-custodial parent earning $42,000 a year, the exempted income is increased by about $940 and the child support drops by about $360. That is less than $7 a week, according to my arithmetic.The constituent I mentioned, with the five kids under the age of 14 for whom he is paying a small fortune in child support, has an extra $7 to add to that $25 he now has, after board and reasonable living expenses, to start a new life. The Lone Fathers Association called for at least a 20 per cent increase in the paying parent's exempted income. I understand there are amendments coming from the opposition that speak about 15 per cent, but I have not seen them yet. I will look forward to seeing them, as I guess this bill will be referred back to the other place. The 20 per cent that the Lone Fathers Association is suggesting is, to my mind, a very reasonable and meaningful amount. We will have to come back here after several more years, if we do not adjust it now, and adjust this figure to a more sensible one.The problem is that the Institute of Family Studies has determined that it costs $243 a week to keep a teenage child—I think from age 12 or above. That sort of mathematics lies at the heart of the problem with the child support formulae, problems these amendments do not address. There are also concerns that the superficially sensible extension of child support until a child finishes school could lead to manipulation of children on the basis of financial gain and further discriminates against the paying parent who has no say in the current or future dispersal of child support provisions. In fact, figures compiled by the Lone Fathers Association show that the extra payment for children completing school could increase from $115,000 to $122,000 over the school life of three children, irrespective of, and despite, these reforms we are speaking about here.What we really need is to determine the rates of child support on after-tax income to be set at levels that do not wipe out the incentive for non-custodial parents to work. After we take 49 per cent of an income for tax and Medicare levy, 32 per cent for child support for three kids, six per cent for compulsory super and 10 per cent costs in earning our income, we are left with three per cent disposable income—hardly fair and not addressed in these amendments.The Lone Fathers Association quite correctly points to another aspect of the bill that seems to address only half the problem. It is proposed that payers with second families will now be able to claim 50 per cent of any child support paid as a deduction for the household used for determining the family's entitlement to family payment and child-care assistance. The association rightly asks: why will payers with second families only be able to claim half of such child support? Surely they should be allowed to claim it all.You are basically making the kids of that next relationship, or the ones that are inherited into that next relationship, pay for the fact that there are kids of another relationship for which child support is due. They should not be punished, and this certainly does not address their concerns. It amounts to a compulsory further payment out of gross income for non-custodial parents in addition to their tax, their child support and their other commitments. The figure does not take into account things like medical or insurance payments and other school or education payments. Really, the non-custodial parent is left high and dry.I notice the cost to the budget of this 50 per cent concession will be about $10 million by the year 2000. It should be $20 million, the whole tab, with the Commonwealth assuming all the costs, because it was unfair as it stood and it is still unfair by a factor of 50 per cent.This bill also makes amendments in the area of parents' rights and responsibilities. There are some useful reforms in this area, particular in enabling parents to move from child support collection to private collection and the limit on the information shown on assessment notices in relation to children of a liable parent.The introduction of child support minimum liability sends the right message to those who would choose to avoid their responsibilities but the minimum of $260 a year is hardly attacking the major problem, which is that many non-custodial parents will continue to take the dole option because of the punitive effects of the formula applied to wages, notwithstanding the changes to the exempted income contained in the bill.Mr Deputy Speaker, I would have liked to have added more to this debate, but time constraints on my research capabilities prevented my doing so. I urge the government to take on board the recommendations from the Lone Fathers Association, particularly in relation to upper limits on child support percentages and the gross versus net income arguments.I agree the child support rate should not exceed 50 per cent of net income after allowing for reasonable deductions to allow the non-custodial parent to get on with a new life. The bill does not address those issues. It is a great disappointment to me and a source of continued anger and frustration to hundreds of people in my electorate that we are not yet close enough to a fair and equitable child support system.The amendments moved by the member for Dickson are certainly worthy of serious consideration. I have sought some expert opinion on them and I do have difficulty with a tribunal that excludes lawyers. As much as lawyers are not entirely objective, when it comes to talk of excluding them from court or quasi court proceedings such as a tribunal, I accept the advice that I have received that there could be very grave difficulties with the tribunal as envisaged by the member for Dickson's proposal.I cannot see the two antagonists in a child support dispute sitting down unrepresented in such a tribunal and achieving very much at all. Someone described it to me as the fox chasing the chicken in the pen. The illiterate and those unable to cope with the tribunal atmosphere would also seem to be in a position which would work against any positive outcome.Unfortunately or fortunately, legal representation needs to be available to make the system work fairly but I agree totally with the member for Dickson that we need to consider the particular circumstances of such couples. I have managed to get the Child Support Agency to visit my electorate—as they do now visit most electorates after a lot of pressure from members all across the political spectrum in this area as we came into this parliament. The Child Support Agency did react to the concerns of members. Once about every six months, they talk with the most pressing cases but this only helps about five or six of the 50 or 60 cases I have got on my files at any one time.While the suggestion of the member for Dickson of a tribunal is a welcome endeavour to quarantine the child support area from the other complexities of the separation and divorce process, I am not convinced it would work and I am not prepared to support his amendments at this point. However, his very thoughtful addressing of this critical issue is to be commended. He shows the need for more compassion and face-to-face treatment of the parties to child support proceedings. There needs to be a far more user-friendly way of handling the appeals process and there needs to be a far more sensible application of the formulae.The member for Capricornia mentioned the government task force. I would suggest, if the government is dead serious about this, that this task force should be non-partisan, non-political and should be extended to include members from all sides of the House. It is a non-political issue; it cannot be politicised. It is a problem that we have all got to address out there. I know every member—I can see it in their eyes here in this place—is confronted with the same number of complaints and concerns that I am in my electorate. We should make it a non-partisan thing if we are serious about what this parliament is all about. I appeal to those members on the government side to take that suggestion to the minister and expand this. I have got enough on my plate but I would certainly like to contribute to whatever deliberations are occurring in this area.I support these government amendments not because they are ideal but because they move reform of child support in the right direction. But it is a glacial movement and these amendments have not been received with any great enthusiasm by either child support parties or the family law specialists whom I have consulted.10:30:002453Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—First of all I would like to thank the opposition for cooperating and agreeing to allow me to continue in the debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . I do apologise: I was interrupted yesterday by a division in the House of Representatives, and I was tied up with delivering a report in the main chamber as the chair of the Joint Statutory Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund.I have one comment on the suggestion of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Andren) for bipartisan support. I certainly agree that I can see some merit there but I suppose that with some cynicism I have to say that the Price report, from where a lot of these recommendations have come, is not something that has suddenly appeared. It had been around for a long time before we came into government and, prior to our coming into government, much of that report had actually been either left on the table or rejected or not accepted by the previous government.I am not suggesting that members on the other side now have not got commitment; I am sure they have and I would certainly appreciate their bipartisan support in dealing with this very emotional and difficult problem. But we need, as a government, to go through and identify areas that we feel that we can address immediately. With support from members of the other side and from the Independents, I am confident that we can eventually find a solution. We certainly have the will to do that.Going on from yesterday, the government must address ongoing reforms in the following areas. The formula is one of the problems that most of my constituents agree about: some type of formula is needed to arrive at a reasonable amount payable for child support. However, we all believe more flexibility must be introduced into the assessment process by having a formula that not only will enable paying parents to meet their liability but will also firmly establish the role they are playing in the upbringing of their children.The formula as it now stands is based on a certain percentage of the paying parent's gross or taxable income. This percentage varies, depending on the number of children. Whether the paying parent has one, two or three jobs makes absolutely no difference: they still pay the same percentage of that income. Flexibility must be introduced to allow child support to be calculated on the net income of the principal job only.Capping is another area, and fixing child support at particular rates is another measure that many payers support. The capped rate would be expected to accurately reflect the genuine cost of maintaining a child or children from the age of one through to 18. Accountability is another problem: a mechanism must be established to ensure that child support payments are actually used for the children and not for maintaining the custodial parent's lifestyle. We must never forget that this scheme is all about child support.Another area is taxation: I feel that rebates on child support payments should be made available to the paying parents. These people pay a high rate of tax, a single rate, while custodial parents are able to claim dependant rebates. There are a lot of other hidden costs, of course, and a mechanism must be established to identify the value of extra expenses that the non-custodial parent incurs in having to provide a suitable home for access visits. Relief could be provided by way of tax relief for mortgage payments or rent. Many parents also incur considerable expense in the provision of air fares for access visits and in the provision of clothing and personal items. These must be identified as legitimate expenses by child support agencies, and relief granted for the paying parent.One of the other problems we have is in regard to self-employed payers. The collection of payments from self-employed payers is a matter of increasing concern in the child support area. One particularly sad case brought to the attention of my office involved a lady who is self-employed and whose ex-husband manipulated his real income and seriously distorted his capacity to earn a proper income, in order to avoid paying his fair share towards the upbringing of his three children. This resulted in her having to repay almost the total amount of child support he had paid to her over a five-year period.The woman's mother had to sell her own home and purchase a larger house to accommodate her daughter and the three children. If it had not been for that mother, the woman and her children would have been literally living on the streets, whilst her ex-husband received cash in hand from two companies: he was a silent partner in another company while all the time operating a company of his own and paying almost nothing to his family.I am pleased that we have the child support scheme in place in this country. I sincerely believe that we need it. However, what is of enormous concern to me and many of my constituents is the apparent inconsistencies and inequities in the current system and these must be addressed as a matter of urgency. We need a better scheme, a scheme which focuses on the best interests of the child.Reform of the child support scheme must also include family law and the Family Court. A mechanism must be established to separate family law from child support matters. It must provide fairer access to legal aid; it must address the issue of abuse of access agreements; and it must also address the abuse of domestic violence orders which are being used by lawyers as an interim measure to strengthen the negotiating position of custodial parents. However I will deal with these issues in another place and at another time. I commend this bill to the House.10:36:002455Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I wish to speak in this debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . The 148 federal electorates are very different in many respects and the problems and issues put to local members vary immensely, but there is one issue that is prominent in each and every electorate in Australia. That issue is the anger, frustration and disillusionment caused by the child support legislation and, in many cases, the Child Support Agency.At the outset I want to pay tribute to the Child Support Agency office in Wollongong. My office has a very good working relationship with the Wollongong office and because of this relationship we work together to calm some situations and try to resolve the problems that are raised. I note that the honourable member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) has expressed similar views on the relationship her office has with the Wollongong CSA.In many respects the Child Support Agency offices, spread around Australia, are as much victims of the legislation as are local members, and certainly as much as most of our constituents. The whole area of child support, while so necessary, is for so many people an absolute nightmare.I heard some of what the government members said yesterday. It is all very well to make cheap jibes at the opposition but even government members cannot deny that the original legislation is an example of legislation introduced with the best of intentions to remedy a serious problem but that it has become legislation that has gone horribly wrong.Few people are satisfied with child support legislation. Most people are angry, bitter and very disillusioned. It is a very dangerous cocktail of emotions. Like many members, I can remember the days when women were left partnerless and without financial support to raise children. The unfair burden this placed on these women, because their male partners would not recognise their responsibility for their children, was the primary motive for introducing the child support legislation.I never want to see a return to those days when the custodial parent was left in the financial lurch. But there must be a better way to address the issue of continued support for children from broken relationships. The legislation as it stands today clearly discriminates against the non-custodial parent, be it man or woman, although it just so happens that most non-custodial parents are men.I say this because of the many cases I have dealt with in my electorate. Just as it should be the responsibility of each parent to support his or her children, both emotionally and financially, it should also be the right of each parent to begin and establish, where appropriate, a new relationship. I have dealt with too many cases where the potential to establish a new relationship is flawed because of child support burdens.I have seen the custodial parent, usually a woman, establish a new relationship. Let me be clear, none of us begrudge them this, but in the same circumstances the non-custodial parent, usually the man, because of the financial burden of his child support obligation, is left with not enough to get by on from week to week let alone try to establish a new relationship.Unless you experience this; unless you can see the frustration of non-custodial parents, you cannot appreciate the built up anger they have against this legislation. It is very rare for me to hear any non-custodial parent tell me that they do not recognise or accept their responsibility to support their children. The vast majority of non-custodial parents are responsible and supportive of the children, but they are being treated unfairly by the legislation.I like to pride myself on being a good local member, as we all do, dealing with the problems of my constituents and hopefully having some success. Yet, on child support issues, the dominant feeling in my office, and I suspect the offices of each of us, is utter hopelessness. I know that each of us can present various cases and I want to outline a couple now.Take for example the case I have seen recently of a woman with two children. She is not yet divorced but has had the property settlement. She had to pay the husband $75,000 to get the house. She took out a mortgage on the understanding that the husband would pay child support. She is on a single parent pension, and this is a little like the example given by the member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch). The husband left his job and purchased a business as a silent partner. He has had all his assets transferred out of his name and he has said that he will never pay child support. The woman has had to seek financial assistance from her parents but her husband is getting away with it because the CSA enforcement team is taking such a long time to investigate the matter.Another case involves a man who must pay $850 per fortnight for three children. He sold some shares and received $28,000. He used the money to pay off the mortgage, which benefited his former wife because she has the home. The CSA have added the proceeds to his annual income. Instead of being assessed at $50,000 a year, they added the $28,000 that he got for selling the shares and he has now been assessed at $78,000. This man's average fortnightly net pay is $1,197, less child support, superannuation and private medical insurance and he is left to live on only $167 per fortnight. This man cannot afford to rent, to live or to pay for his car. He lives with his parents. I ask: what chance does he have of establishing a new relationship?I would like to talk about how some of these cases are assessed. A man came to see me once as he was having difficulty with the payment. He had two children and he was paying child support for them. As so often happens, he was quite bitter about the relationship. On an occasion that the children came to visit him, he thought that, considering the amount he money he was paying each fortnight, their clothes were not appropriate—they were torn and so forth—so he formally complained about that. The agency then said that as he had complained about it he obviously was not paying enough for the woman to adequately clothe the children so they hit him with a bill for a couple of hundred bucks and added $20 a fortnight to what he was paying.I know that I could go to every member of parliament and they could all tell me of these sorts of examples. The cases are just unbelievable. I know that many men feel that it is discriminatory against males. When I said I was going to put that in my speech one of my staffers said that I should not because, as they said, the system discriminates against the non-custodial parent rather than the male; it just so happens that many of the cases we see in our offices are men.The tragedy of relationship breakdown is the raw intensity of the bitterness involved. We always think that we are mature enough to handle the emotional aspect of a breakdown in a sophisticated manner but, more likely than not, this never happens. I have enormous sympathy for the innocent parties in a relationship breakdown—the children and the other family members. Grandparents are one such group of innocent people. They are in an impossible position because it is either their son or their daughter that is involved. They are caught in the middle of a raw emotional battle. This has happened in my own family. I know of cases where grandparents are not permitted to see their grandchildren—they are lost in the hostile bitterness between son and daughter-in-law or daughter and son-in-law in the ending of the relationship. Often the grandparents are quite friendly or quite sympathetic to the two warring parties but then they become victims when they are denied access to the grandchildren. There have been cases recently where, in a way, that is now being remedied. But they can get caught up in a legal situation—in an incredible, immensely emotional battle.I do not profess to have all the answers but there are some issues the legislation must recognise, including the formula used to assess contributions. We all say that the amount under the formula is too high, but it has never been addressed.Child support assesses a person's gross income, not their net. Nobody receives a gross income and it should not be used in any assessment. Most non-custodial parents are forced to work overtime to make up the shortfall in their pay at the end of each fortnight. But this increases their assessable income and for so many people it is a catch-22 situation. What is the point of working overtime when your payments are going up all the time? People come and say to me all the time, `I would be better off just going away somewhere on the dole'. That is happening time and time again.In my view, direct payments made by non-custodial parents to assist in raising their children, such as payments of boarding fees, health fund fees and tuition fees, should all be assessed as part of the child support payment, not in addition to it. Nobody can get blood out of a stone, nor should non-custodial parents be relentlessly squeezed.While the opposition does not oppose this legislation, we do believe a number of amendments need to be made. I support what the government is doing. At least it is a move, but it is a very tiny move. This legislation is not going to solve the problems. It is not going to stop the anger, the frustration and the disillusionment out there. It is a move but a very slow move. I agree with what the honourable member for Calare (Mr Andren) said.What I would really like to see—I know it is impossible but I would really like to see it—is the removal of party politics from this debate. I would like to see a solution based on some consensus which is fair to both of the parents of the children and, most importantly, to the children themselves.I believe honestly that each of us should be allowed a free vote on this issue. In this way and only this way will we begin to address this problem. It is a problem that we all have in our electorates and we must do something about it. I believe that, for once, on this issue—as on the abortion issue, as on the euthanasia issue, where we found on both sides of politics that we took different points of view; I do not think that on this issue we would, and the divide will not be so great—we should be permitted a free vote.It is not so much about a vote on this legislation. What we have got to do is just to get together sensibly and cut out the party politics, because we are dealing with human lives, we are dealing with kids' lives, we are dealing with emotions. What we have got to do is to sit down as mature adults, come up with some workable solution to what is a problem out there in the community and then cut the party politics out of it, bring it in to this place and pass it on a bipartisan basis.That may be unrealistic or an idealistic dream, but it is the sort of thing we are going to have to do. What really frightens me is that out there in the community there is so much frustration. There is so much bitterness in the people who are coming to my office that I just think, `What can I do?' When I have not been able to solve their problem they go out of the office with this bitterness built up inside them.Unless we address the problem urgently we will have created a generation of bitter, frustrated parents at each others' throats, using their children as pawns in an emotional game. More important, we will have created a generation of bewildered children continually torn between conflicting loyalties. For God's sake let us all get together and do something about this monstrous problem out there in the community.10:49:002458Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonLP10—The words of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) are very wise words. I believe that in many respects party politics have to be taken out of this. Goodwill, I believe, does exist on both sides of the House. I believe that there needs to be a thorough discussion in the House and a free vote in relation to the matter. We certainly need to get together on it.The issue of child support has received considerable airing in this parliament since I have been here. In fact, I think that it is probably the most talked about issue next to tax. The fact is that the child support system has been under considerable criticism for all of that time. Much of the criticism is, in my view, quite justified because of the division that the activities of the Child Support Agency cause, and the surrounding circumstances involving family law. These things lead to division. These things tear people apart. These things tear people's lives apart.I will make some brief preliminary comments on what has been said already. The member for Chifley (Mr Price) made some comments about the need for a fresh approach. I thoroughly respect the member for Chifley. He was involved in the previous government's committee on the matter and said some wise words. I am concerned about his comments in relation to the bill—I have not been able to check these comments out—which suggest that the effect of the bill is that there is going to be somewhere between $47 million and $26 million more going into consolidated revenue. I do not know whether that is correct, but I would be concerned if it were.The member for Calare (Mr Andren) made some comments in relation to the tribunal question. I am going to go into that shortly, but let me just turn now to briefly enunciate on a couple of matters that I think have to be addressed by way of preamble. When a marriage has broken down, one thing is absolutely certain: nothing can ever be the same again. The lifestyle that the couple once had together as a couple has henceforth ceased. It does not lie in the mouth of any party to that relationship to say that the lifestyle has to be maintained. It cannot be. It can never be. There is a philosophy, in my view, that has insinuated its way into the child support act, such that it is a lifestyle thing.What people are saying in this debate, and what people are saying about child support, is that it is unfair. If it is not child support, it is unfair. It is about child support and not lifestyle. But there is no doubt at all that this particular act is about lifestyle. Unfortunately, these amendments do not address the key element, and that is whether we are able to make child support really child support.I believe that the golden principle of maintenance of children is that it is the responsibility of parents capable of supporting the needs of the child, or the children. That principle of maintenance, as I say, has been abrogated. That is not to say that the Child Support Agency has not effected some good work in relation to gathering in its net people who did not adhere to orders. But prior to 1989, orders for maintenance were made by the Family Court and the Magistrate's Court and the system worked reasonably well. The problem was in the collection.With the advent of the sole parent pension introduced in the 1970s, unscrupulous use was made of the Australian taxpayer to fund children's maintenance, and parents avoided their obligations to their children. This situation had to be addressed—there is no doubt about that. But, really, instead of rejigging the enforcement structure that already existed in the Magistrate's Court and the Family Court, we have gone to this overarching and overreaching monolith called the Child Support Agency.There is no area of the public service that is growing at a faster rate than the area of the Child Support Agency. It has produced more heartache, more conflict, severed more families, driven more people to suicide, provoked more people to despair, alienated more children from their parents, and provoked more anguish amongst grandparents, than any other area of public service.There are some little-known statistics. I am not one who blindly accepts statistics, but in the course of thinking about this particular matter, I said to one of my staff who had been married for more than 20 years to the one person—and neither of them had been married before—`I believe that you are in a significant minority amongst Australian people. Let us look into it and find out what the statistics are.'I found out that there are fewer than 10 per cent of Australian families regarded as traditional. That means that the child support system touches a great mass of people across the country, but this is not realised by the government. It is not sufficiently realised by us all that it touches this great mass of people—grandparents, great-grandparents in some cases. All these people are caught up in this terrible net and the terrible anguish. The statement that we have to look after Australian families does not wash too well with the people who are caught up in this system, which is the vast, overwhelming majority of people. We have to realise that for a start. In devising policies, we have to realise that and to appreciate that that is the case. The bill before the House, while providing some relief, does not go to the heart of the problem. As I said, that is unfairness.Of the many hundreds, if not thousands, of people I have spoken to about this issue since becoming the member for Dickson, let me tell you about one of the most moving cases I had just recently. A deputy principal of a high school came to see me. He had 20 years experience as a counsellor, a relatively lengthy marriage and three teenage children. You could not find a more loving and caring father. Now he is living in a small flat. The property settlement gave him $15,000 but gave his wife $125,000. He had put $18,000 from his father's estate into their home three years before, and he got $15,000 back—less than what was put in from the estate. He did not even get that back.Apart from the incredible depression of having lost his position as a father and mentor to his children—and nothing is ever the same once you lose that bond—he has to contend with the ravages of the agency. Out of approximately $58,000 a year, he is left with about $250 a week on which to live and to provide entertainment and some sort of lifestyle for the three teenage children.He told me his story and a portion of the conversation was almost indescribable. When I asked him, `What are you going to do?' he stopped and he could not talk. He physically could not talk—he tried to but he could not move. He was trying to speak, and before my very own eyes he aged 10 years. It was incredible. There were tears in my eyes when I saw it, and afterwards I needed half an hour before the next appointment to get over what this man had gone through. I said, `I want the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Security to be here to see you, because they do not understand what is happening.' This is what is happening and we are seeing it. We are saying this but we are not getting listened to, I am afraid.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—It's in all our offices.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Across Australia we are all getting it. I think some offices—and the office of the member for Throsby probably gets more than some—do not get it as much as others, but we all get some of it. Finally, the man said to me, `All I can do is give up being a principal and go back to supply teaching,' because he could not stand it any more. What a loss that is.Let me tell you about one other case. This fellow had worked for the Victorian transport commission for seven years before he was married. He had a seven-year marriage, and there were three children. At the end of that marriage, his wife left and went to Queensland. He tried to see his children. He had had a property settlement, and he had lost his house and his car—it was a house he had before he was married, by the way. He had all of these things taken away, and he finally had to say to his employer, `I will have to take a redundancy. I cannot afford going backwards and forwards from Victoria to Queensland to see my children.'He came to Queensland, where he has a $2,000 bomb car and is living in a very modest rented home in Keperra in my electorate. The Child Support Agency said, `Hey, you got a redundancy and it was X amount of dollars. We are going to hit you for 30 per cent of all of the redundancy'—the redundancy from before he was even married. I said to a senior member of the Child Support Agency, `This is absolute theft. This money belonged to him from before he was married.' Unfortunately, that is an anomaly in the system.How can we possibly stand here in this House and say, `We have made a few adjustments to it,' when that situation is not addressed. In that particular case, his wife is living in a lovely home, she has a $30,000 car and, he added, `For good measure, she's had her boobs done.' That is the sort of situation, funny as it sounds, that is absolutely tragic. It is lifestyle and we need to do something about it.I intend to move some amendments to this bill and I want to outline some of these things. But, first of all, I want to talk briefly about why we need amendments. We need amendments to make it fairer and we need to end the farcical review process. I will quote a wonderful passage from a decision of the House of Lords in Scott and Scott in 1913. Lord Shaw said:It is needless to quote authority on this topic from legal, philosophical, or historical writers. It moves Bentham over and over again. `In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is not publicity, there is no justice.' `Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.' `The security of securities is publicity.' But amongst historians the grave and enlightened verdict of Hallam, in which he ranks the publicity of judicial proceedings even higher than the rights of Parliament as a guarantee of public security, is not likely to be forgotten. `Civil liberty in this kingdom has two direct guarantees; the open administration of justice according to known laws truly interpreted, and fair constructions of evidence; and the right of Parliament, without lot or interruption, to inquire into, and obtain redress of, public grievances. Of these, the first—that is, having the courts open and having processes affecting people's rights open—is by far the most indispensable; nor can the subjects of any State be reckoned to enjoy a real freedom where this condition is not found both in its judicial institutions and in their constant exercise.'QI4PRICEMr Price—Has the Family Court heard of this?SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—They have not heard of Scott and Scott and they need to be reminded of it. The review officers need to have this principle. That is why we do not need reviews. These people are being kept locked up out of the glare of publicity, where some of them, I am told by many constituents, have had terrible things said to them by the review officers. For example, when one fellow said, `I will have to give up and just go on the dole—I can't stand this,' the response by the review officer was, `You would do something like that.' This is in the privacy of a little room with a glass partition between the two. You would not be game to say that out in the open, yet those people affect the rights of the people who come before them. Yes, they can go on appeal—yeah, like fun! Pigs might fly. Their rights are affected there and that is the end of it. No-one can afford to go to the Family Court and appeal.QI4PRICEMr Price—But it is internal review. It is not external review.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Yes, but by the amendments I hope to establish a small claims child support tribunal, which will be established at the magistrates courts all over the country. The tribunal will be cheap and inexpensive. No lawyers will be allowed, save in exceptional circumstances—for example, if a person is illiterate or under a disability or has some language problems—but there is a discretion there. The member for Calare (Mr Andren) said something to the effect that we could not have a situation work properly in fox and hounds stuff.But it is amazing what happens when people get together confronting an issue. Frankly, I believe that a lot of that emotion is dissolved in the argument that takes place. The argument and frustration is because you cannot sit down and get it made justiciable. That is the problem. The right to be heard, and the right to be heard in an open forum, is a key to all of this. The tribunal will exercise a discretion. The criteria to depart from such orders will be on the simple basis of the needs of the child and the capacity to pay of both parents.I expect that in most cases this will reflect a much more accurate assessment of child support, rather than the random high-level assessment as at present. No-one at any time that I have ever spoken to about this issue has said, `I do not want to pay any child support.' No-one has ever said, `I do not want to pay it. I do not think I should pay it.'They all accept it but they want fairness and equity and they do not want to pay for their ex-partner's lifestyle. They want to get on, as the member for Throsby said, with their own life. They do not want to be paying for the boyfriend or the girlfriend of the ex-partner; they want to get on with their own life and that is what this is all about. We have got to let these people get on with their lives and get away from this lifestyle thing.The tribunal will be able to dispense with administrative assessment altogether in certain circumstances. And this is an important point. Where it is shown that the applicant has deliberately denied access, the tribunal will have discretion to dispense altogether with administrative assessment. That will, in my belief, get people to adhere to orders of the Family Court properly, instead of the current system where people disobey orders of the court and the poor old person who is the subject of it spends $5,000 to drag them before the Family Court only to have a judge say, `Well, what do you want me to do? Will I put them in gaol or will I fine them? I probably will not do anything.' A judge actually said that in a case that I am aware of. That is another thing: the Family Court does not have the respect of the community, as the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) said, because it will not enforce its own orders. This is a subtle way of using the tribunal to do that.Evidence will be given on oath but the tribunal will have teeth. This applies to the people that the member for Throsby was talking about who through business arrangements are avoiding paying child support. Under my idea, these people will be summoned to appear. Where it is shown by the Child Support Agency that these people are deliberately withholding payment and deliberately avoiding their obligations, they will be summoned to appear, orally examined on oath and they will have to bring forward documents about any company or trust structure. They will be subpoenaed and, if they do not appear, they will be arrested. It will be as simple as that: get them there and make them pay. This is the thing that we have got to do. This will give it teeth. There are people who are avoiding their obligations now. In some circumstances, deliberately wilful failure to pay without lawful excuse will be a contempt of the tribunal with consequences to follow.That may be criticised, but let me say this: we have in our criminal laws now a duty provision. Certainly in Queensland, and I believe at common law, you have a duty as a parent to maintain necessities for the children. It is in the Queensland criminal code and a breach of that duty is a criminal offence. I am not devising anything new whatsoever. I am putting something in here that gives teeth to a duty which is at common law and at statute law.There are many documented cases of this system going wrong, but let me conclude with an example that was given to me by a chap who lived not quite in my electorate. He wrote to me last year and I telephoned him. He is a prison officer. Six years ago he was in an unfortunate break-up of his marriage. His present wife cannot work; she has children. The father of her child disappeared and pays no child support. Prior to the marriage, she was in receipt of a pension and various benefits. Since the marriage, the pension and benefits have disappeared, his stepdaughter needs urgent orthodontic attention and treatment for scoliosis and he cannot afford private health cover, et cetera. Any costs come out of his pocket. He is a prison officer. He is good at his job; he says he takes pride in his work and is incorruptible.I cannot mention his name or even the prison because of the problems that could arise security-wise. Despite his financial plight, he cannot make his position public because of the security factor. He has got a very stressful job; he works in a prison where there are very hardened criminals. He says he is working 60 to 72 hours a week. He is exhausted, running on empty, having to pay child support for his previous relationship, having to pay for the present child and trying to make ends meet. He is now getting a bill for outstanding arrears. Because he is working harder—working more overtime—he is paying more. He has got a penalty of $3,000 and is working 90 to 95 hours a week.On it goes, on it goes—he is at the end of his tether and he has got a heart condition to boot. We need to do something with this to fix it up. (Time expired)11:09:002463Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—We all understand the background to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . The bill implements the package announced by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) in September last year. It is the second stage of the government's reforms and it builds on the changes made last year to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. The 1994 Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues made 163 recommendations, and the chairman of that committee is with us in the Main Committee today. The interim response of the government to that report canvassed 53 of those recommendations and, last year, amendments addressed a further 11. The legislation before us brings the total addressed to 111.This package is based on the principle of parental responsibility, with a preference for private arrangements and with the government acting as a safety net for those unable to access such arrangements. The details of the bill are basically to do with enhancing the parents' capacity to provide financial support. Payers of child support will have more of their income exempted from the CSS formula, and the disregarded income level for carers will be reduced.To tackle the apparent evasion of child support, rental property losses and previously exempt foreign income will be included in the assessable income of non-custodial parents. Furthermore, the registrar of the CSA will be given powers to better assess the declared financial circumstances of parents, in order to ensure calculation in as fair a way as possible. In order to make payments more flexible and to ensure fair and reasonable calculations, certain care arrangements will be taken into account in the calculation process.In terms of parents' rights and responsibilities, the bill provides a number of additional rights and responsibilities for parents, both custodial and non-custodial. Some of these changes include allowing either parent to apply for administrative assessment of child support; and allowing the registrar to suspend payments of child support where the Family Court has been asked to make a decision. Private collection will be encouraged. Child support may continue until the end of the school year or until a child who is still a full-time student turns 18.The bill also includes measures placing a greater onus on parents to notify changes in their circumstances to the CSA. There has been great criticism of the CSA and CSS, criticism which I am sure every member and every senator would be aware of, as there is an unwieldy bureaucracy involved in its operation. This bill will remove retrospectivity in relation to the commencement of a liability; it will enhance payment options for liable parents; and it will allow the registrar to offset debts between parents.That is the basis of the legislation, as we all know. I will now make a few personal observations for five or six minutes and I look forward to enjoying the contribution from my colleague from Western Australia, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron).The Child Support Agency is an offshoot of the Australian Taxation Office, as we know. It has about 2,500 employees, public servants, costing the taxpayer in excess of $125 million per year, I understand. It has been attempting, over the past decade, to deal with a very deep-rooted community change to do with the changing stability, if you like, of life contracts in marriage or in relationships. Parents are changing their circumstances and therefore the support arrangements for the children of those relationships are becoming increasingly complex in some cases. At the time, some 10 years ago now, the legislation was seen as being to offset, as I understand it, the increasing social welfare bill: parents who had conceived children would accept the maximum possible responsibility for their care, according to their means.But, as ever when the government gets involved in matters of human activity, it is less than perfect. From my experience in my electorate office, I do not think there is an issue which evokes more emotion, difficulty and frustration than this one does. It is a blight on our society that we have not been able to be more successful. I do not blame anyone for that: the previous government made some genuine attempts, and this government has made some genuine attempts, but we have not addressed the issue at anywhere the level that we need to in order to bring about a reasonable acceptance of parental responsibility and the proper balance of the law.I will give you a couple of examples and as I talk about them I will think of another 10 and so maybe I will pick out another one. This particular example will stay with me forever. I had a chap come into the office, a man in full-time employment, and he told me his story. His daughter had brought a child support scheme action against him, her own father, for the care of her younger sister, his younger daughter. I checked with the minister's office. I could not believe it; I did not think that would be possible. However, after checking with the minister's office, I found that it was true.He told me his story with great dignity and great strength. He told me of his comment to his 19-year-old son when his son endeavoured to understand this: `We're not worth as much, mate, because you're over the age of 18.' That explained to me the complex nature and the difficult nature of the legislation that we have got ourselves involved in.I have found the issue of the Australian Taxation Office to be less than satisfactory. In these matters where people are in the most difficult circumstances they will ever confront in their lives, a relationship breakdown, we need an organisation with a little more care and a little more compassion. I do not believe the Australian Taxation Office is where this organisation should be.In the two or three minutes I have remaining I want to raise three matters where I think the cause may be advanced, because I do not want to see these amendments as the final chapter in this thing. I do not think they can be. I think we have at least two more stages to go over the next year or two to bring it to some reasonable conclusion. Like all speakers on both sides of this debate, I want to enable people to have some kind of a new life once a relationship breaks down, and the focus of all that is reasonable care for the children.I will offer three points. Firstly, I believe the parliament must look at proper incentives for private arrangements. If we bring children into the world then we have a responsibility to care for them. I guess we have that responsibility to the day we die, but certainly until the child's legal age of 18. Whatever our personal relationships might be with the other parent, we must always respect that. That is the principle we have to bring from the parliament to the people on this issue. We have to bring it home to people who have children that they have that responsibility to make sure they care for their child to the best of their ability. The government has to offer the proper balance and incentives to make sure that they can do that. The government has to ensure that there are incentives for private arrangements for payments to be made for the care of a child when a relationship breaks down.I mention again the 2,500 public servants, the $150 million of taxpayers' money, just to say that parent A should pay parent B. Surely it is better for parent A and parent B, as difficult as that might be, to come to their own arrangements. Hundreds of thousands of Australians do that. Therefore, we want incentives for those other hundreds of thousands of Australians who cannot do that to be brought into that net as much as possible.The second point I wish to stress is the imbalance in the equity between the custodial and the non-custodial parent. Many speakers have spoken of that. We cannot have this imbalance between the custodial and the non-custodial parent. We must move to complete fairness. It has to be gender neutral. It is not a matter of female or male. It is a matter of the overall responsibility and fairness. We have to ensure that people can begin their lives and give maximum care to their children.The last point I will make is that it must come back to a reasonable philosophical base. It must come back to what I talked about earlier, about respecting the fact that parents do have that fundamental responsibility. In regard to the responsibility of MPs, I guess that will be never ending and I believe it is totally unsatisfactory under our current structure.One particular issue that I would wish to bring to the public mind is that, in regional Australia, it is significantly difficult because the Child Support Agency does not have offices readily available around Australia and, therefore, access to the offices of that organisation is somewhat more difficult. That is just another issue that regional Australia has to contend with.There are a couple of other smaller points. I believe we have the technological ability now to reflect the fortnightly wage, and if we must stick with this gross wage formula we do have the ability not to go on some historical 12-month basis. With computers these days, there should be no trouble reflecting the actual wage of that fortnight. It should not be difficult to do that. These historical arrangements are just so unfair. They only further provoke people and lose greater credibility for our system.I do not wish to go any further. I am sure many other speakers have canvassed the range of issues on this matter. It is terribly difficult, but we have to keep trying. We are a number of years away from the proper answer on this matter. The overwhelming thing that I would like to leave with the Main Committee is that we must allow people to get on with a new life and to give those children the best chance.11:21:002465Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—I welcome the introduction of this Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . I do not think I would be an orphan in this place if I said that child support problems were amongst the most complaints that my office received, and certainly they cause the most headaches. Prior to my election in 1993, I had never before in my life seen so many men breaking down—emotional, nervous and physical wrecks. I think everyone has their particular horror stories to tell. I have too many horror stories to mention in the time that we have this morning.One particular case saddened me greatly and this legislation will go a long way towards sorting it out. Obviously, names cannot be mentioned. A gentleman's marriage broke down. He had two young children. His wife moved with the young children to be closer to her immediate family in the eastern states. Because of work situations, he had to remain in Western Australia where he had a job.As a result of some of the treatment meted out to him, he was working extraordinary hours to the stage that he was a mental and physical wreck. The only times he got to see his two young children were when he would fly them to Western Australia twice a year to spend a week with him each time. Because of his financial circumstances, he would try to get the best air fare imaginable. By booking with the airlines well ahead, he would manage to get a cheap deal. For three consecutive years—that is, six consecutive trips—the day before the children were due to board the plane in the eastern states to fly to Perth, his wife would call and say, `So and so has got a cold and cannot fly.' This would mean that he had to rebook. The child, of course, would have a miraculous recovery the next day. He would have to rebook and pay the full fair. It was just sheer spite. Stories like that are legend. I think so many of my colleagues can tell stories like that. The fact that the wife had remarried and was a millionaire was beside the point. She was just meting out all kinds of vicious treatment when she could.When Benjamin Franklin said the two certain things in life were death and taxes, he obviously did not foresee the Child Support Agency and the associated problems there. Unfortunately, we will never have adequate legislation in the eyes of those affected by the child support act. Either way, one party will always be in dispute with the other and I do not have enough feet and hands to count the number of allegations that have come into my office of former partners evading tax, hiding income, ripping off Social Security and the like. Nevertheless, while this act will never be amended to the satisfaction of everyone, it can be improved, and I am confident that the changes proposed to this legislation do go some of the way towards fixing the child support act.The important principle highlighted by this bill is that the parents hold primary responsibility for the financial support of their children, and it is high time all parents adhered to this principle. Children come into this world, more often than not, from a loving partnership. Too often, that partnership dissolves and too many parents do their utmost to avoid contributing to the upbringing of their children.In the House the other day I spoke about domestic violence and mentioned that children learned from their parents. It is such a shame that many children learn these days that it is easy to divorce, that it is worth while fighting over evading responsibility for the upkeep of dependants. One aspect of this legislation I particularly support is that the minimum child support liability for all payers should be $5 per week, including for those receiving income support. I wholeheartedly agree with that particular policy for it is a sign to parents that they cannot evade their responsibilities altogether. It reinforces the principle that parents should share in the cost of supporting their children, and there is nothing wrong with the notion that parents accept responsibility for their children. I do get extremely cheesed off when people threaten to quit their job and go on the dole so that they do not have to carry out the responsibility of providing for the upkeep of their offspring. By taking a token sum from the social security payments of parents, it reinforces the principle that both parents are responsible for the upkeep of their children, irrespective of their source of income.A further pleasing aspect of this legislation is that it allows parents to move, by agreement, from Child Support Agency collection to private collection. I have had parents come and see me seeking this option. If parents can take on that responsibility, they should be allowed to do so. Furthermore, the registrar can also require parents to move to private collection if it is considered that regular payments will continue—and that, indeed, is a welcome sign. The less government intrusion into the lives of Australians the better. The Child Support Agency will still provide parents with a service to determine the amount payable and to register parents' agreements and court orders.The bill also recognises the difficulties for some paying parents in maintaining their own life, notwithstanding the responsibility to their children. Paying parents still have a right to a reasonably normal life, and to have another relationship and family if they so choose. This legislation makes amendments to better recognise the capacity of parents to pay, which is, of course, a source of numerous complaints to my office and, I am sure, the offices of my colleagues.I am pleased to support the legislation. It meets with the satisfaction of a number of my constituents who have contacted me since the changes were announced—in fact, they were delighted with the proposals. I must say this is not the end of the government's changes to child support. I welcome the fact that a task force of government members will be established to examine further proposed changes to the child support scheme. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to fewer complaints about the child support scheme.11:27:002467Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—Madam Deputy Speaker, I have entered the debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 for two reasons. One is that there has been some confusion arising from the speakers list, as you would be aware from your position on the speakers list. The other is the opportunity, particularly after the address to the House by the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), which I thought was extremely well balanced, to speak on this issue that confronts us. He suggested, and I had discussed this previously with the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), that we have here an issue, about which there is a legion of evidence, of how the system, as it was originally proposed, is not working. The member for Throsby made the point that there should be a bipartisan approach to address all the problems in a fair and equitable way. In my view, that is a matter that we should deal with very seriously. I think it is something that the parliament should try to do more frequently.In Western Australia, the people there found themselves confronted with an unacceptable law on abortion. There has been quite magnificent debate on it. I am not nominating where I might stand in that debate. All the feedback I have from state members of parliament is that a huge social issue is being addressed by a conscience, as we call it, and that the level of debate has been excellent. Nobody has been saying, `It was all your fault.' Nobody has been trying to score points. They recognise it as a great social issue. Huge courage has been demonstrated by a large number of people who, under substantial pressure, are taking their responsibility as a member of parliament and setting out to address the issues.This is another one of those sorts of circumstances. I think it would be better the sooner we and our leaders got together and said, `Let's treat this in a bipartisan fashion, if not a conscience fashion, and let's get a common position to address the difficulties.' You cannot put percentages of somebody's salary down as a means of addressing the amount of money needed to look after children. That is just plainly silly. It will not work and it should stop. That, to me, is a fundamental.It is going to be extremely difficult legislation simply because, when a marriage breaks down, people want to turn to the law to punish the other member of the family, and both sides try to do it. That is a tragedy. I have been close enough in a family situation—not personally; I celebrated my 40th wedding anniversary the other day—HV5WAKELINMr Wakelin—Congratulations.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Thank you very much. The realities are that in everybody's family, and in their extended family, they have to confront as a family the issue of marriage breakdown. You have one partner telling you, `Never talk to that so-and-so again,' and the reverse discussion in another family. We will never legislate that sort of emotion out. It is just another reason why we need sensible legislation that recognises these facts and does its best to find solutions. I can tell you that, while formulas might be fine in science, they are certainly not suitable for social issues. Unfortunately, we handed it to, of all people, the Australian Taxation Office, who are all about formulas, tables and a very impersonal and penalising approach to life—`If you don't do it, I'll tax you; I'll apply a penalty.'A constituent of mine the other day sent a letter he got on to me. The letter points out that this person got into arrears with obligations under the Child Support Agency and was immediately taxed 17 per cent. That was not as a charge against the amount but as a continuing amount. That same person is under a garnishee order and his employer sent me the garnishee order. It is the most insulting document that anybody could ever receive. The employer is not in dispute with the employee's spouse. The employer just happened to give a job to someone who has this problem. If you read the letter you would think the employer was a crook. He is threatened with 12 months gaol if he does not comply with the order, when it would strike me that a letter asking him to assist the government would have been a nicer way to put it.Again, it is all this confrontationist type of approach to a very sensitive issue. It is silly. I think that, of all the people we could have given the job to, in terms of sensitivity the tax office was probably the last one that should have been chosen. Personally, I think they need to be further down the chain. We have a thing called the Family Court. We are appointing judges to that court who, hopefully, understand the difficulties of these things. Quite frequently, I am not sure that people involved in the system have that view.It is an amazing thing—and this might be attacked by some—but we are told each day there is equality between the sexes. I would like to contribute to that view. We cannot suddenly go to a point in time and say that it does not exist when it comes to looking after children; that no man has any special qualifications to do that when, of course, there is ample evidence they do. In our extended family, I can identify a family with a wife who is a highly paid professional and her husband, from day one, has stayed home and looked after the kids. He does an excellent job of it and that is their choice. Why is it that, when people go before the Family Court, there is an immediate decision that the supporting parent will, in nearly all cases, be the wife and that the male will therefore be subject to having money taken from their wages by government to support that situation? The logical argument would have been for the court to say, `Okay; you are both here'—although I know that in some cases they are not both there: someone has bolted and that creates other difficulties. It is not all simplistic. In these circumstances why cannot the court first ask, `Who has the financial resources to look after these children?' and custody be granted accordingly? If that is not satisfactory to the person who has the financial resources, or there is evidence that that would be inappropriate, you go to step two.But in so many cases I think it would be appropriate. That is why we have courts, to determine when it is appropriate—but at the moment that is not considered. They are all issues, from my point of view, that we as a parliament have an obligation to resolve. As is typical in so many of these cases, once we get into the parliamentary scene we are confronted with party politics and we always get a second-best solution.The member for Throsby is the person who stood up in here, to his great credit, and said, `Isn't this an issue on which we should all get together?' We might be astounded at the outcome that collectively we could achieve. We have got the evidence, as members of parliament, because the people have come to our offices. We know it is not as simple as to say that the blokes have had all the problems. We know it is not as simple as that. But the reality is that collectively we have gained a great deal of experience. Surely, then, we could get together, go back to the Family Law Act and write something that is proper, fair, and above all, addresses the needs of the children—not the supporting dad or the supporting mum, but the children.Let us be a little bit broader in our approach and find out why it is that the people more likely to escape the measures of the child support legislation are those who do not admit who the parents are. It is pretty easy to establish who the mother is, but it is not so easy to establish who the father is. I will give another example: the young daughter of an employer of mine had twins. I asked, `What are you going to do about the father?' The reply was, `We don't want to know about him.' Why? Not only because that person might have some access to the children but because it complicated their access to welfare. What is the difference? It almost raises the question, `Are you so silly as to sign a contract called marriage?' because it makes you so easily identifiable. But it is just another issue.Clearly, on the grounds of equity, if you have got some rules relating to the protection of children and their upkeep, all parties that father children should have a similar responsibility. It should not relate simply to those who have made the process for the Child Support Agency relatively simple by having got married.All these issues are before us. I think we understand them. I would hope that we, in our party room, can convince our leaders that it is time to sit down. We do not want a committee such as was formed just the other day in our party room of Liberals and coalition people, to address this issue. We want a committee of the parliament. That need not be select or standing, and I do not know that we want to go into all the formalities of taking evidence. We know what the problem is. What we want is a group of people to sit down with goodwill and sort out a piece of legislation that works. I repeat that that must start with the Family Law Act.The means by which we pursue those who refuse to meet their financial contribution is the secondary issue. That is easy; it is probably a role for the tax office, collecting the money as determined by others, but certainly not by a formula.I was in the hotel business for all of my younger life under the old rules relating to maintenance, as we knew it. The further north you went in Western Australia—and I suppose on the east coast—the more maintenance dodgers you had on your staff. I would like a small contribution to my campaign funds for every time that I found myself going up to the court as the employer, paying money on behalf of, and in advance, for a staff member to keep that person out of jail. That is where such people used to go, and the maintenance used to tick up while they were there.We set out to address that gross inequity—a very stupid way to address the matter—and we rewrote the Family Law Act. And what did we say in it? We said that welfare should fill the gap. Of course it should not. Of course people have a responsibility. But having got the changes, we then went about setting up a collection process which is just patently wrong and unfair, and everybody knows it.I now see that there are many people on the speakers list who are wishing to continue with the debate. Probably, I should have spoken for fewer minutes, but having joined the debate, I wanted to demonstrate that I understand the problems. I make that appeal and I hope that the member representing the opposition here in this chamber today, the member for Bruce (Mr Griffin) will be joining with Mr Hollis and going off and saying to his leader, `Let us get together on this thing. Nobody needs to win the next election on this issue. We should get together and come out of it with a fair and equitable arrangement for all Australians, but most particularly for the children involved.'11:42:002470Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I would like to commence by giving my sincere thanks to the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). It was a difficult time there for the Chair and Mr Tuckey stepped into the breach very well. I do not think that he spoke for too long at all and the points that he made were very well received and pertinent to the difficulties that we face with the Child Support Agency and the legislation.I rise today to speak on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 and I would like to deal with some background on how this legislation came about. The foundations of the child support scheme are found in four separate statutes: the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Family Law Act 1975. So there are four statutes, and the fact that there is this level of complexity within the legislation certainly does contribute to some of the difficulties encountered.Let me say at the outset that this is one of the most contentious matters that comes into my electorate office. And every member who has spoken here today, and previously, has highlighted the fact that this is one of the most difficult constituent problems that comes into an office.I would like to thank the Child Support Agency in Townsville. We do not have a Child Support Agency in Mackay, but we certainly have one in Townsville and the officers there lend support to my electorate officers to a great extent. I do want to make it clear that criticisms of the inherent difficulties in the acts, and so on, do not apply to the staff of the Child Support Agency. Many of them work long hours under difficult conditions with what is a highly emotionally charged issue. I would also like to register the work that our electorate staff do. In my office the staff encounter many heart-rending situations. They offer assistance above and beyond the call of duty of an electorate officer, I think.I would like to move on now to some of the changes that are contained in this bill. The reforms are based on the principle that children are the financial responsibility of their parents and that government should not seek to intrude unnecessarily into people's lives. Government involvement should, however, provide a safety net to ensure that children of separated parents are adequately supported and that the general community is not asked to carry an undue burden. We are all aware that non-custodial parents, by and large, want to maintain a relationship with their children. They want to assist in supporting those children. Goodwill can and should prevail.This is a very difficult issue because we have brought into it, I believe, legislation that is unnecessarily harsh in many instances. In a situation where we should be working towards goodwill between both parents for the sake of children, the harsh regime in the legislation which does not take account of many facets of the custodial or non-custodial parents' lives adds rancour to the whole debate and to the situation that separated parents face.I will go through some of the measures in the package proposed in this bill. There is a change to the calculation of the child support liability payments, recognising that some payers do not have sufficient means to support themselves and their second families. There is additional assistance to many thousands of children by introducing a minimum payment of child support and by including a wider range of income when assessing child support liability.One of the difficulties that we face is that while some non-custodial parents are left in a very difficult financial situation after taxation and the payment of child support, there is another group of custodial parents who receive no child support payment whatever. They make up, I understand, about 40 per cent of custodial parents. So there are difficulties for both a particular group of non-custodial parents and a particular group of custodial parents.The measures in this bill are directed to both custodial parents—I prefer the term `residential parents' used by Attorney-General (Mr Williams)—and also to non-custodial parents—and for that the Attorney-General has wisely brought in the term `non-residential parents'. Custodial implies an ownership of the children, which is certainly not the case. Nobody owns children, but everyone loves their children, and I think the terms residential and non-residential are far more applicable to the real feelings of the parents in these cases.For the residential parent, and particularly that 40 per cent who receive no payment, the bill introduces a minimum payment of $260 a year. This translates to about $5 a week. I have to say that at the meetings where I have spoken this minimum payment has been well received. Unfortunately, there is a group who have opted either to become permanent students or to go on unemployment benefits to avoid their obligations. The recognition must be there that each parent has an obligation and a responsibility to their children. No matter how modest that financial support might be, the obligation is there and the community expects that both parents will make a contribution, no matter how modest. This $260 payment has been welcomed.The other thing that we have done in the bill for residential parents is to broaden the income base. Net rental property losses and exempt foreign income will be added back to the parent's taxable income used to determine the child support liability. This, again, is a move that has been long overdue. Regrettably, there are some non-custodial parents who do avoid their responsibilities. It is far easier for those perhaps self-employed to be able to use, as I have seen, some imaginative schemes to lessen their taxable income and hence avoid child support payments. We all respect the parent who makes a contribution and we agree that there need to be changes to the formula. But it is wrong, and I am sure every right thinking person would agree, that somebody is able to totally escape responsibility for their children. So broadening the income base, I believe, is a sound measure.For residential parents, there is another measure as well, addressing family violence and the issues concerned with that. The Child Support Agency will introduce case management to assist parents at risk of family violence to commence or continue child support collection wherever possible and will amend the legislation to allow for parents to end assessment or collection where family violence is proved.I will move on now to non-residential parents. What we are doing with non-residential parents and their concerns is to increase the exempt income—the self-support component of payer income. This is the amount that is allowed to be deducted from the income to allow for living expenses. That is going to be increased by 10 per cent such that the self-support component for a single non-residential parent will increase from $9,006 to $9,907 a year. As well as that, there are other measures for non-residential parents: there is a lower payee's disregard and an allowance for child-care costs as well. The residential parent who is in the work force could previously earn up to $37,424, also taking into account child-care add-on costs, and not have that taken into account when the child support payment was calculated for the non-residential parent.This, as we have seen from various cases mentioned today, has been most unjust. It can well be that the residential parent goes on to a career where there is an excellent income or, as the case may be, takes on part-time work, again, where there is an excellent income. The non-residential parent who may have a modest income is left in a very difficult financial situation. There is a difference in the quality of living for those two groups—the residential and non-residential parent.It is very important that the financial situation of the residential parent be taken into account as it is in here. That disregarded income threshold is going to drop, as I said, from $37,424 to $29,598 with no fixed child-care add-ons but there is an ability for re-assessment where there are high child-care costs. This is a much fairer reflection, I think, of the circumstances of both the non-residential and residential parent.There are a number of other changes which I will not go into at this point in time. What I will do is give an overview of the number of families that are going to be affected by these changes. For the residential parent, with the change to a minimum payment of $260 and broadening of the income base, it seems likely there will be 175,000 families who will receive more child support. There will also be 9,000 families who will receive less family payment. For the changes relating to non-residential parents—the increase in the exempt income and the lower disregarded income amount—we are looking at 300,000 non-residential parents paying less child support and 15,000 families getting more family payment. These substantial changes are going to be reflected in a great number of families across the nation.I would like to speak about some of the cases that come before my office. We have all heard today of the tragic situations at both ends of the spectrum for residential and non-residential. I do not wish to dwell on it unduly because I know the same situation is coming to every electorate office but I feel I would be lacking in my duty to my constituents if I did not mention some of the more difficult cases that have come to our office and some cases where I believe the Child Support Agency has been overly zealous. One, in particular, concerns a father—a non-residential parent—who took a job after the Family Court removed most of his property, regrettably. He took a job with his mother and father on a farm. He had not worked on the farm for many years—he had been employed in another capacity—but, following an injury, he was unable to continue working in that capacity so he went back to farm work, which he had not been doing for many years.As a result of the changed circumstances, his older brother had far more experience with farm machinery and was undertaking a far more responsible role on the farm with regard to machinery, but he himself was working largely as a labourer. Naturally enough, there was a difference in the amount the parents were financially able to pay both of them. It was quite a difficulty for them to take the second son in on the farm, but they did so because he needed somewhere to live.However, the Child Support Agency did not accept that two brothers working on the farm could have different incomes, and they rang up to interview the older brother with the higher income. They interviewed his wife—and I consider this most inappropriate—and said that they would ascertain that both brothers were going to earn the same income. Whether the brothers did or did not in fact do so, the CSA were going to take it that both brothers earned the same income, regardless of the type of work they were doing on the farm; and this was in fact how they did assess the child support payments. I consider that most unjust. I also believe that it is inappropriate for the Child Support Agency to interview other parties in trying to determine what the level of income is.I could mention another case, again dealing with a non-residential parent. We have a lot of seasonal work in our area and, during the sugarcane crush, wages are high. That means of course that for non-residential parents the child support payments are at an equally high level, reflecting that higher income. However, when the crush finishes, the seasonal work ceases, and many of the non-residential parents fall down to a very low income during the maintenance period in the mills.I had a non-residential parent who literally could not live come into my office. He could not get his review through quickly enough to take account of his changed income and was destitute. He was living with a friend in a flat underneath the house. He was borrowing to pay bills and buy food and was in a very difficult situation. We were able, with the help of the Townsville office, to rush through another review of that case, but it certainly left him in a very difficult situation.Moving on to the case of a residential parent, as I have said, 40 per cent of residential parents receive no payment. I do know of a case where a residential parent who was regrettably in very poor health received no payment at all, despite the fact that the non-residential parent was a well-to-do businessman with three successful businesses. The family was living in a condemned house. Because a re-assessment was made, the residential parent, the mother, had to repay some money to the Child Support Agency.For that and a variety of other reasons that I will not go into but that were associated with her illness, she was in the situation at one stage where, again, there was no money for food for the children. She rang our office in desperation, and we were able to get her some assistance from one of the charities with regard to food. I visited her home, and there was no doubt that that little family was in a very difficult situation.There are sad and tragic circumstances on both sides of this very vexing question. I would like to recommend to the House the changes we see before us in the bill. There is no doubt that they need to go further, and the government is looking at an additional group of measures to address some of these very sad situations that come into our offices, right across Australia.I would welcome a third tranche of changes. I do believe that we need to address the question of the exempt income amount and see that raised. I certainly believe there needs to be more accountability for the way in which child support payments are spent, so as to ensure that in fact they are spent on the immediate needs of the children and their long-term welfare.There are a number of amendments that have been foreshadowed as coming before the House and some of those are worthy of consideration. The proposed amendments of the honourable member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) contain a great number of good measures in them. I have looked at those that are proposed by the opposition. I think that the one involving the assessment of fringe benefits for a non-residential parent would impose a great burden on small businesses. They already find the burden of paperwork quite a task and that proposal would add a considerable burden to small business.Certainly, some of the others have merit. I am aware that the backbench task force on child support will be looking very closely at the proposals put forward that have merit. One of those proposals is the one to have more accountability in the way in which additional measures such as the payment of school fees is taken into account in child support payments. Some of the amendments have merit and should be looked at further. Others, unfortunately, will just be too cumbersome to implement.The bill is a significant step along the way towards achieving fairness and some reconciliation between parents caught in the difficulties of family breakdown. I certainly hope that it will assist in focusing attention on the most important aspect of family breakdown, the welfare of the children. I commend the bill to the House.12:02:002474Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I rise to speak to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , and I would like to say that it is with great pleasure I do so. However, the unfortunate thing about lifestyle is that government has to get involved in making regulations. In the early days it interfered, perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly, and took steps to correct the effects of the breakdown in a marriage, the support provided to ex-spouses and the support provided to their children.One thing that life should be about, and particularly where children are involved in marriage failure, is a thing called equity and fairness. On a regular basis my office seems to become a war office as parents, both custodial and non-custodial, come in and put forward their case in pain, and sometimes with children in tow. The way that this affects my staff and myself, after listening to some of the horror stories that go on from both sides of the argument, is unsettling. I understand that agencies have trained people in these areas, but unfortunately neither I nor my staff are trained in dealing with these matters; all we can do is listen and offer a soft heart.From the outset I would like to say thank you to people such as Barry Williams from the Lone Fathers Association and the former president of the Lone Fathers Association of Newcastle, Richard Filewood, for the work that they have done in briefing me, in assisting me, and in providing support for some of the non-custodial parents. There is a misnomer in their name of Lone Fathers Association; it should be `Lone Parents Association' as quite regularly I am visited in my office by women who are also non-custodial parents and who are facing exactly the same trials and tribulations and emotional breakdowns as lone fathers do because of the way that acts are administered.This legislation is the second tranche of what should be a never ending effort to bring about an easier legislative framework, an easier structure, that removes some of the spitefulness and vindictiveness of partners in addressing the situation. One thing that I have always believed in is that children should be supported by both parents. I do not think that any parent should be able to avoid contributing towards the care of their child or children.For that reason I see the $260 minimum payment as something about ownership of children. One of the things that we do not seem to take into consideration when parents get divorced is the fact that it is the parents who are getting divorced, not the children from their parents. The children still have an emotional involvement, an attachment to both parents. But very often we see an attempt by the custodial parent to have their children divorce the non-custodial parent. By having a minimum contribution of $5 a week it puts a sense of balance and ownership in it, albeit that $5 a week does not buy much these days.Also importantly, I see that, with the broadening of the income base, for people who were in a position where they were able to reduce their income through investing in net property losses or foreign exempt income, this figure will be added back for the assessment basis. As I said, it is all about equality. On their many visits to talk to me, one of the things that Barry Williams and Richard Filewood pointed out was that they were not interested in supporting anyone who was not prepared to support their own children. That is a very simple message. This is not an organisation that wants to pay nothing, that wants to have no responsibility. It is an organisation, first and foremost, committed to the care and upbringing of their own children. They are not interested in walking away from their children or their responsibilities. For that, they are to be commended.There are other aspects of the bill that address family violence. I want to come to those later. For the payers of child support, there are some very well received and welcomed changes in there, albeit they are considered not to go far enough. One is the increase in the exempt income. Whilst it is only by 10 per cent at this point, from $9,006 to $9,907 for the 1997-98 self-support year, at least it is a step somewhere. We have to start somewhere. To make sudden change perhaps would not bring about fairness and equity. But we have got to get the train moving in the correct direction so that we can pick up all of the passengers on the way through and take them along with us in bringing about some equity.The other thing that is critically important in here is the deduction of 50 per cent child support paid from family payment incomes, where payers with second families will now be able to claim 50 per cent of any child support paid as a deduction from household income used for determining a family's entitlement to family payment and child-care assistance.One thing that really concerned me was the difference between the Department of Social Security and the Child Support Agency. What we would see there is that the Child Support Agency would deem a child to be dependent and then get into an opposing mode to that with Centrelink, as it is now called. I think that needed to be addressed. To show that I have an understanding on how detailed some of these cases are that come to us, I would like to refer to a couple of the situations that have been brought to my attention.One chap from Motto Farm and others from Thornton—and I do not wish to use their names—talked about the child support for a child by a previous marriage. When it is reviewed, when another child is born in the second marriage, the equation rate for that second child is 20 per cent. If we talk about equity and fairness—and yes, we have responsibility—why should there be a different value placed upon a child in a second marriage as opposed to the children from the first marriage? What we are doing is carrying through legislation—which is not contained here, but is existing—that actually discriminates between children. It costs no less to raise a child in one household or another. I think that should be addressed. I do not think the situation stands up to much credit when you are trying to instil some faith and hope in children, when you have to say no to one child and yes to the other child because the child is from the former relationship and is able to access income to carry out what they want to do.Another interesting case brought to me by a few families in my electorate is where same-sex partners, lesbians or gays, are not assessed as having a combined income where the custodial parent is living and partnering in a same-sex situation. Only the income of that parent is taken into consideration. The child support paying parent is therefore placed at a greater disadvantage. If we talk about equity through the whole of our society, it should carry through. We do recognise the rights of all people in Australia, and the rights of the paying non-custodial parent should also be fairly recognised.Another example was where the children who belonged to the second partner were not taken into consideration for review as being dependent on the paying parent. Centrelink will. However, even with a court order clearly announcing that the stepfather is the custodial parent, the Child Support Agency cannot accept this as evidence that the child is dependent.The inequity between the definitions of a child's support value by the Child Support Agency and Centrelink is something that concerns us very much. The paying parent will be paying three to four times more child support than that paid by Centrelink when the paying parent goes on newstart allowance.Perhaps someone can explain to me where fairness, equity and incentive go when we have non-custodial parents who have had good jobs and good incomes driven to a point where they are no longer financially able to support themselves or to provide any semblance of a lifestyle. Even when they take their children back with them for a holiday or a visitation, they can do absolutely nothing with them, and so it becomes a game of dollars.The custodial parents who are getting the relief have the money to be able to provide the niceties of life, but unfortunately the non-custodial parents who have got into this position by themselves—let us be honest about it: nobody other than someone who is in the relationship causes it to break down—are left being unable to support themselves. Along come the children for the weekend, for a week's holiday or for the whole school period, and the non-custodial parents are not able to provide the support for them because they get no relief at all from the payment during that period.We often see people giving up. The greatest sadness I see in the Australian lifestyle is when people give up, when they lose the will. They give up in a variety of ways. They throw the job in because they say, `I cannot afford to live on the $30, $40 or $60 a week that is left, and I am better off going on the dole.' So all of a sudden we have taken one person out of the work force, and we have put them on unemployment benefits.What is even sadder—and it has happened on many occasions in my electorate—is where people commit suicide. They are driven to that point not just on the economic basis but also on the basis of the mental torture. Whilst it is very hard to prove at times, the scenario and the threats seem to go like this: `If you don't keep up the payment or if you don't do as I say, I am going to get an apprehended violence order against you because I feel under threat from you. I feel that you have been stalking me.' This goes on and on.The second situation is where there are allegations of sexual abuse having been committed against the children. All of a sudden this is the way of stopping the non-custodial parent from having access to the child. This is not the Australian society that I would like to continue to live in, where we can play off through the courts the emotions of parents for selfish benefit.But by the same token, I am not taking a one-sided view on this. Quite often examples are brought to the attention of my office where these supporting custodial parents, whether they be male or female, are struggling to support the children whilst the non-custodial parents claim they have a very low level of income, yet still manage to drive around in the flash car and to have the flash life and a lot of money to spend, whether it is obtained through the black market economy, through black cash or from ways of minimising income. That is why I said that the part of the bill which addresses the net losses on real estate or foreign exempt income goes a way towards that.Equity needs to prevail in the long term. We need to make sure that people do support their children and that they support them properly. Legislation needs to be evolving and to continue along in that direction. It also needs the support and input from community groups like the Lone Fathers Association, to mention just one. The reason I mention them is that they have been the most progressive in coming to me with information and support.I understand there are also amendments about to be tabled before the House by the opposition. On the surface, one could perhaps believe that this was the right direction in which to go. But I sit and think back to those colourful days of 1994 and the report into the child support scheme, otherwise known as the Price report. The print had barely had time to go dry in the book before the report was rejected in total and out of hand by the former government. They did not want to know about it, they did not want to debate it, they did not want to discuss it and, more importantly, they did not want to implement it.There are some things in that report which go well and truly over the top, but there is some very strong core stuff in there that needs to be implemented. A lot of that has been introduced in the first tranche legislation, now the second tranche, and will continue to be worked on. The report is too valuable to be put down. I understand that some 180,000 calls were received on a hotline from people wanting to express their concerns. That is a large percentage of people in Australia. It is not something that can be ignored.Let us say we have a pie chart that shows the people affected by this legislation. In other situations, we would normally find that 90 per cent of the people represented by the chart are happy to go along with whatever, that three or four per cent will be a bit concerned and that one or two per cent will make a lot of noise. However, in this situation with this legislation—and this is must be considered—we have large numbers of non-custodial parents and custodial parents demanding that there be change, change that was ignored by the opposition. The opposition walked away from it, despite the immense cost of the committee's inquiry.Some of the amendments that the opposition is looking at putting down have not been thought out. They have not even been properly drafted or prepared. The one on fringe benefits, as we understand it, will have an imposition on small business that is unconscionable and unfair. But then again the opposition has walked away from impositions on small business, to such an extent that when this government came to power we had to work through ways of cutting the red tape to make things fair and equitable.I do not believe there can ever be a perfect solution, and at least I am honest enough to say that. When I go to the meetings for the Lone Fathers Association in the Hunter and see the hundreds and hundreds of people in the hall, and lined up outside, because there is not enough room inside, it sends a very clear message to me that this is a serious problem. This is a problem that takes away self-esteem. It is a problem that takes away the pride of people. It is a problem that takes away lives. When you have that situation occurring a responsible government reacts and does something, and this government has done that.We have introduced legislation which will work and will go a long way towards helping. This legislation is fair and equitable because this government has a plan. It has a plan to fully explore all of the options in the Price report. Indeed, a task force specifically focused on looking at further amendments has been set up to make sure that we listen and that we act on those things that people demand us to in the interests of fairness and equity. I have said enough on this occasion but I intend to speak again and again as this legislation evolves and develops into bringing about what is right for all Australians.12:18:002477Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—On rising to speak in the debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 I do not wish to indulge in generalities and macro concepts, which seem to be the hallmark of Canberra. The reason that Canberra so often uses acronyms—little series of letters to describe everything—and so often speaks in generalities is because Canberra is cut off from specific realities. People talk about a general principle but they do not talk about the individual and what is happening out there. I wish to refer specifically to two cases, which I have referred to before in this House, because I think they are very illustrative of what the problem is that should be addressed. The point I make is that, whilst the changes that are being made here are quite good, they fall far short of coming to grips with this problem.When the committee chaired by the member for Chifley (Mr Price) brought down its report in this place, I did not think that the recommendations of that report came to grips at all with the problem. I was bitterly disappointed that not only did the report itself not come to grips with the problem but, worse still, the legislation fell far short of the report. There was virtually no movement at all.When this matter was debated last time, one of the members from Queensland, the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), compared the number of complaints made about the Child Support Agency with the number of complaints made about Telstra. I think there was a 10 to one ratio in favour of the Child Support Agency, which was bad enough in itself, but when one considered that Telstra had some 20 million subscribers and the Child Support Agency had only 200,000 clients, the number became quite horrific.Most of the members that spoke then on the bill said something like 30 per cent to 40 per cent of all of their time was taken up with Child Support Agency problems. I doubt whether there would be too many members in here that deserve their pay who would not have had some very heartbreaking cases flow through their office.Let me give you two cases from my electorate. I will be very specific about them. I am quoting from when I presented these the last time in the House. The pay slip is dated the fortnight ended 4 September 1994. The employer is Mount Isa Mines Limited and Mount Isa Mines Operations. I have whited out the name and pay number of the employee. His classification is diesel fitter. His income tax payable for the fortnight to which his pay slip refers is $301. His child support payment is $267. His phone calls are $4, his superannuation is $37, his `guardset'—whatever that is—is 50c, his National Mutual deductions are $32, his union fees are $8, his ambulance payment is $2.60. The rest of his pay, which is $240, goes into a savings account with the Queensland Country Credit Union.His income for that fortnight was a gross of $1,266, which was quite a reasonable income. His total deductions were $893. That left him with a disposable income of $613 for the fortnight, which is $307 a week. He has health fund payments for medical benefits of $17 and that covers his kids as well as himself. He has tried to keep them going because he wants to look after his kids and see that they have medical benefits available.His wife left Mount Isa and went to live on the coast at a place in the region of Maryborough-Hervey Bay, which is about 1,600 road kilometres from Mount Isa. If he sees his kids twice a year, he has to save $54 a week in order to go down there, stay there and come back. I am not including there his loss of pay for the time he is away. Presumably he does that in his holidays.This is a pretty reasonable figure. Like most people who have come into my office, and I suspect everybody's office, he has legal debts hanging over from his divorce. He is paying $44 on a weekly basis because he borrowed money to pay the legal debts. Those three deductions—travelling to see his children, repayments of his legal debts for the divorce and his health fund payments—total $115 a week. This leaves him with $182 a week to live off in Mount Isa.That is an average case coming in from Mount Isa. To try to stay alive in Mount Isa on $182 a week most certainly is a challenge. Let me just point out two small factors with respect to Mount Isa. The ground temperatures during summer are over 200 degrees Fahrenheit. The houses are alway built now around airconditioning. You have to keep an airconditioner going to live in those houses. If you do not, the temperatures inside can soar over 200 degrees Fahrenheit, because the heat is locked in and there are very few windows because the house is built for airconditioning and not for the flow of air. He has an expense there that other people in Australia really do not have to meet.Everything has to be taken to Mount Isa, so there is a cost of living difference. It was estimated at about 25 per cent in the mid-west region and I think it would be much the same for Mount Isa. If he gets $200 a week, you can take a further $50 off that for cost of living differences between Mount Isa and a city like Brisbane or Sydney. That, of course, would take him down to $150 a week.Mount Isa is a very spread-out city and to get anywhere can be difficult. There is no commuter transportation system; we do not have a big, subsidised commuter system such as Sydney has. The big cities have $4,000 million of taxpayers' funds to pay for their commuter systems. We do not have any commuter systems. So to get to a supermarket, he has to walk—when the ground temperature is 200 degrees Fahrenheit—or he has to have a car. The cost of keeping a car on the road would take a very large proportion of that $150 he has left. That is an average case.What is far worse in regard to the Child Support Agency is the non-average case, the hard case which is so common. I very much doubt whether there are people in this place that have not met the same sort of situation. This is the second case from Mount Isa: an employee of Queensland Railways. Every fortnight the person pays $235 in income tax; $28 for his quarters—we have included that in his income so I am not including that in deductions here—$200 to his bank, the Queensland Credit Union, which of course we do not include as a deduction; $74 to his medical benefits fund; $45 to his Queensland government superannuation, which is compulsory at his workplace; $1.50 for the QRI, which I do not know; $488 in child support payments; $6 to the ARU, the Australian Railways Union; and $43 to National Mutual Life. That is also part of his income, and we include it as part of his income, not as a deduction. This creates for him an income of $1,127 gross a fortnight. After those deductions, we find him left with $116 a week.This is where the problem sets in. If there is any extraneous matter that intrudes upon his income, then he is in desperate straits indeed. In this case, he has to repay a legal debt for the divorce, at $54 a week. That leaves him with $62 a week to stay alive on. It really would be a challenge to stay alive on $62 a week in Mount Isa. This gentleman, whom I know well, is very thin because he cannot afford to eat very much. At the point of time I am referring to, he was not in a very good way at all.We wrote to the then head of the department, Moira Scollay, and then I saw her personally and put these two cases before her. I must say in fairness to her that, like a lot of other senior public servants, she probably just signs letters without taking much note of them. Whether that is the case or not, we got back a letter signed by that head of the department, saying, `We see nothing in these two cases that would lead us to believe that there should be any changes in the administration of the Child Support Agency arrangements or any change in the legislation which governs Child Support Agency.' She refused point-blank to make any changes in the administration or to recommend to her minister any changes in the legislation.This woman, the head of this department, who I presume would be on a salary package of about $100,000 a year, thinks it is quite acceptable for this fellow to try to stay alive on $62 a week in Mount Isa. Clearly the man must starve to death. Whilst there are things that occur in our society that lead people to starve to death, this is a situation created by the laws of this country. This is the government forcing a human being to starve to death.For an exercise in callousness I must give this the all-time prize, in my 23 years as a member of parliament, by a fair stroke. For an exercise in stupidity, to sign your name to a letter which says that it is quite all right for a bloke to have an income of $62 a week to try to live on in Mount Isa is a most extraordinary and, I would think, foolish thing to do. But let me be kind and say that she just signed 100 letters that day and did not really pay a lot of attention to any of the letters. But I give the two cases.Adjournment248010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! It being 12.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.248012:30:002480O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I want to raise a matter today relating to jobs in regional areas, in particular, the siting of the east coast armaments complex. Jobs are hard to come by in regional areas such as the one I represent in this parliament, especially in view of the assault that has been made on Geelong jobs by the Howard government since it has come to power.At the stroke of a pen the Howard government destroyed 450 highly skilled jobs at ASTAS in Avalon. It has also engineered some significant reductions in employment at Deakin University, and we have lost jobs in the Australian Taxation Office. We have lost the immigration department office and the customs office, and we have lost jobs in Telstra. These all add up to around 1,000 public sector jobs lost since the Howard government came to power.If you take the Barwon south-western region, of which Geelong is a part, in the last two years we have lost in the region of 20,000 jobs. So it is with dismay that I observed, when the Howard government came to power, its proposals to scale down the east coast armaments complex which was scheduled to be built at Point Wilson in my electorate.The particular facility was going to be some form of compensation, if you like, to the Geelong community for the destruction and the havoc that had been wrought on it by this particular government. It was with dismay that I saw that the government scaled down this particular project from $260 million, which was going to deliver us 600 jobs in the construction phase and provide over 200 jobs in the operational phase, to $70 million. And what Geelong is to get out of this is 60 jobs. Destroy 1,000 jobs in Geelong—the Howard government has done that—and in return we were to get a scaled down east coast armaments complex proposal that was to deliver 60. It is with some degree of concern that I have come across a release from the member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Nairn) who has called on the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works to visit Eden on this particular proposal—and I note his presence in the chamber here today.What an extraordinary situation that we have the public works committee going to Eden to look at situating the proposed east coast armaments complex there, when we have had a committee of inquiry conducted by the government, costing a lot of money, which has indicated that the most appropriate site for the east coast armaments complex is Point Wilson in my electorate. I find it an absolutely extraordinary situation that the chairman of that particular committee could trot his members down to the electorate of Eden-Monaro in the face of a report, done over two years and involving all the defence forces, which came to the conclusion that the most appropriate site for this particular facility was at Point Wilson in Geelong.The Geelong community has been rolled over and trodden on by the Howard government. We have lost 1,000 jobs since this government came to power. We have one of the highest regional unemployment rates in this country and since the Howard government came to power we have lost 20,000 jobs in the Barwon south-western region. I would have thought that any government that had an ear or an eye for regional development would have grasped the opportunity to support a local community and situate the full east coast armaments complex in the Geelong region.We do not want a scaled-down $70 million facsimile of the project. We want the full monty; we want the $260 million project that is going to deliver us 600 jobs, not the paltry 60 being doled out now by the Howard government. It is an absolute disgrace how this government has driven the boot into rural and regional communities around this nation. And it has done it without putting any sorts of adjustment packages in place to support those communities. I am demanding that this particular proposal, this idiotic proposal, be taken off the table and that that complex be located in my electorate. (Time expired)248112:36:002481Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I might respond to the member for Corio (Mr O'Connor) on that subject at another time. I could also talk about the hundreds and hundreds of jobs lost in the timber industry in the south-east of my electorate under the government that he was part of over a number of years which just devastated an industry to keep some people in city areas happy. But that is not the reason I wanted to speak in this adjournment debate.I want to say something in relation to the ongoing and almost desperate situation that is occurring in many parts of my electorate due to the ongoing drought. On the Monaro in the February just gone I was able to announce exceptional circumstance assistance to a number of the farmers who are really going through an unbelievably bad time. This drought, not only in my electorate but in many parts of New South Wales, is probably one of the worst on record and the ramifications are starting to flow in areas that people just would not have believed.The federal government was able to announce exceptional circumstance assistance to quite a number of people in that drought area. It gives some short-term help. It is over initially a 12-month period, then an additional 12-month period. It gives some interest rate subsidy. It allows people to access a health card and Austudy, where they normally would not be able to because of asset tests, and, in some circumstances, gives them an exceptional circumstance relief payment. That is good news. What they really need is rain and rain and rain, but that does help a little bit to get them over a number of difficult situations.I hope the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) will be receiving next week a further report from the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council, RASAC, about an extended area which is, I believe, even worse than the area that has been declared to be in exceptional circumstances. I am getting phone calls constantly in my office as the drought is basically expanding.One of the worst things that happened in the last couple of months was that the New South Wales government withdrew their drought freight subsidy to farmers who were sending stock away on agistment and those sorts of things. The timing of withdrawing that subsidy was just unbelievably bad. I cannot believe that they would do such a thing. I understand the long-term reasons for making these changes. There have been agreements between the New South Wales government and the federal government—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Federal cutbacks to the state.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—It is not federal cutbacks at all. That is absolute garbage. In relation to the ongoing situation with drought assistance, there have to be structural changes. We agree with that. But to pull off the subsidies in the middle of what is now being recognised as probably the worst drought on record in this area is just unbelievably heartless.I call on the New South Wales government to put those subsidies back in. I just could not believe the timing. The minister said at the time, `It is all because of structural adjustments for drought and agreements from 1992,' but he did it when his own department were supporting very strongly the assistance that we are giving through exceptional circumstances. Members of that department have been very helpful in that regard.The extent of the drought I think is now really starting to hit home. It is not only the Monaro. Down on the coastal area as well, the dairying industry is now starting to see some difficulties and, if they do not get some rain that can give a little growth before winter comes on, they also will be in trouble. On top of that you can see it extending right up around the Canberra area and I am sure if visitors and members who come from elsewhere in Australia to Canberra to parliament go a little bit beyond the precincts of parliament, they will also see what is happening. On some of the hills you will see even native trees dying. When you start to see native trees dying because of a lack of water you really know that there is a problem.QT4FILINGMr Filing—It is a very serious problem in Western Australia.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—It is a major problem that is extending right throughout the south-east and I note the honourable member for Moore commenting that it is similar in Western Australia. I was talking with some people from New Zealand earlier today, and they said the same. (Time expired)248212:41:002482Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to draw the parliament's attention to the potential crisis emerging over the issue of Cyprus. As the parliament would be aware, Cyprus has applied for admission into the European Union and European Union negotiations are occurring at the moment. The Turkish government is attempting to derail the Cypriot entry into the European Union and I hope that the EU negotiators judge the application on its merits. I think that, if that occurs, there is no doubt that Cyprus will be accepted as a full member of the EU.Turkey has responded to this by threatening to annex northern Cyprus into the Turkish state if the EU agrees to Cypriot membership. I think that that, whilst it should not be all that surprising, is an extremely dangerous and volatile move. In the northern part of Cyprus 37 per cent of the island is occupied by some 35,000 Turkish troops. The northern part of the island only survives on the basis of being propped up financially by the Ankara regime. They already share telecommunications facilities and currency with Turkey. The response of Rauf Denktash, the leader of the bogus regime in northern Cyprus, to reject the Cyprus government's offer to allow for Turkish Cypriot representation in the EU negotiations highlights the fact that they are not serious about a peaceful resolution to the Cypriot question.This will be the 24th year since the invasion by the Turkish army. Once again we have a situation whereby Turkey is saying that they will annex, formally and illegally, the northern part of Cyprus. That will then undoubtedly lead to the potential for war in the Mediterranean. That would be a disaster, most importantly, for the Cypriot people whether they be of Turkish or Greek origin. I visited Cyprus on a delegation with the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay) and the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth) some 18 months ago. What is clear is that the Cypriot people, regardless of their origin, do want a peaceful resolution to this crisis.If it is the case that in my electorate of Grayndler and in other parts of Australia—I note that the member for Moore (Mr Filing) is here today and he is a great friend of the Cypriot people—we see Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots living next to each other in harmony as part of our multicultural society, it should surely be possible for a bi-communal solution to the Cypriot question. But what we have is intransigence on the part of the Denktash regime and their masters in Ankara; bullying and threats of coercion against the European Union; and a situation wherein the ethnic cleansing that occurred after the 1974 invasion of Cyprus continues to be the fundamental basis of that regime. That is something that all Australians who support multiculturalism should find unacceptable. It is certainly something that the international community—which, with the exception of Turkey, refuses to recognise the Denktash regime, as it is a renegade regime—should be acting on to ensure that there is a peaceful solution to the Cyprus question, and it should be rejecting the bullying by Turkey over Cyprus's entry into the European Union.248312:46:002483Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—Deputy Speaker Jenkins, as you and other members would know, under the former government, telecommunications infrastructure was virtually a question of open slather, and we had mobile phone towers popping up like loathsome toadstools all over the cities of Australia. We had overhead cable being strung like spaghetti in the garden suburbs of our great cities.I am pleased to say that last year the current government changed the law. As of 1 July 1997, major items of telecommunications infrastructure, such as mobile phone towers and overhead cabling, could go ahead only with the consent of local governments or state governments. Of the changes brought in by the government, it is one of which I am most personally proud. In addition, last year, the government announced the spending of more than $4 million to study the possible health effects of this type of electromagnetic radiation on nearby residents.There is, however, an ongoing problem in my electorate. Next week, Telstra will be turning on a mobile phone base station at Dalwood in Seaforth. No work substantially commenced before 1 July last year. There has been no agreement from Manly council. When Telstra indicated that they were going ahead, Manly council took them to court. Unfortunately, in the first instance, Manly council lost in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court—which I am afraid has taken a very liberal and, one may even say, idiosyncratic view as to what counts as commencement. My understanding is that the current position of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court is that mere design work constitutes the commencement of these stations.I want to make three points. The first point is that Manly council is considering an appeal, as I understand the situation, and it would be most unwise of Telstra to go ahead with the switching on of the base station before that appeal has been decided. The second point is that Telstra is a fine Australian company—it is obviously our telecommunications flagship—but, in that position, it does have very special corporate responsibilities. It is still in two-thirds public ownership and even after it passes into private ownership, because of its semi-monopolistic nature, it will operate under special conditions. Telstra, of all companies, cannot afford to act like a corporate bully. I believe that Telstra should sit down with Manly council and enter into further negotiations, in the spirit of the law introduced by this government.The third point I would like to make is that, plainly, some telecommunications companies—perhaps in anticipation of the government's law last year—have been pulling swifties with their local communities. They have put up a sign here, they have turned a sod there and they have begun design work somewhere else. Quite frankly, this should not be enough for work on these installations to go ahead without proper local or state approval. I will be asking Senator Alston to consider changing this legislation, in order to prohibit the erection of these facilities without council consent, unless they were substantially commenced before 1 July 1997. I notice that I have one minute left and so I would like to draw the attention of the committee to some statements made by the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) in his new book which was, as we know, a long instruction manual for his colleagues, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley).I am sure members opposite will be delighted to know that the member for Werriwa says on page 104 of his new book:The quest for full employment has actually been achieved—in this country, which is an interesting position for a member of the Labor Party to adopt. He also says:. . . high unemployment is not a problem across the macro economy.This is an extremely interesting position for any member of parliament in this place to have, given that unemployment is still over eight per cent.The truth is the Leader of the Opposition has a big problem with the member for Werriwa. The member for Werriwa thinks he is running policy; he thinks he is running the opposition. He needs to be disciplined. He needs to decide what political party he wants to join because, quite frankly, he is too right wing for the Labor Party.248412:51:002484Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—We saw recently the extraordinary spectacle of the state premiers, most of whom come from the coalition parties, walking out at the Premiers Conference following their obvious belief that they were getting nowhere with the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in negotiating what they consider to be a satisfactory regime for the provision of health care facilities in the state infrastructures.I might add that I have issued an enormous number of press releases in relation to health problems in my own electorate, particularly concerning the northern suburbs, the new developing areas. I have often come across the situation where I have had the state minister blaming Canberra—he says that Canberra is not giving him an adequate amount of money—and when I ask the Prime Minister he will say, `There is no problem. In fact, Western Australia is doing very well out of its arrangements with the Commonwealth.' It is an interesting situation because whenever I have tried to raise these issues on behalf of my constituents, as I am obliged to do as their representative, I have found that there is duck shoving between the two levels of government. That is very unfortunate, given the problems we have.My electorate is in a key location in the city of Perth. It spans a coastal development corridor for expansion of the city northwards and it is experiencing a growth rate of around 24 per cent per annum in some places. People are drawn to the area by the opportunity to build or buy new homes, and raise families, and they can look forward to a relatively high standard of living. However, their dreams are beginning to unravel as the state government finds it increasingly difficult to provide from its own revenue sources the necessary range of services to foster and support this growth.This is something I have spoken on a number of occasions—the vertical fiscal imbalance in the Commonwealth-state fiscal arrangements—and it is something that the incoming coalition government promised to address. Certainly, when I was a member of the Liberal Party I was told it was going to be addressed when we got into government. Now that I am an Independent member I have found that no change has been made and that it is not even mooted to be discussed by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) as part of taxation reform measures.OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—Yes, it is.QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—No, it is not. Essential services in this region are reaching a crisis point. Health care, in particular, is an area which cannot be ignored. Let me make a list of some of the problems. There is a lack of out of hours health care. Emergencies are being transferred to the city, which adds an extra 20 minutes travel and puts people at greater risk. There is a lack of beds for care, and people are being sent home in an inappropriate state of health to make way for other patients.I had a particular case of a frail, elderly patient who was sent back to one of my local retirement estates with tubes still attached to her. This is an extraordinary situation. No out of hours medical care was available at that particular facility. When I went to the state minister and complained about that I was told by him there was nothing he could do and he suggested I negotiate with local medical practitioners to see if any of them would provide the service.There are ambulance problems faced by seriously ill people. There is a lack of locum services, and inadequate support for or access to mental health services in my area. The state promised to improve the situation based on the planned hospital at Joondalup, but that has been dogged by problems, especially revenue shortages. The most recent problem, as recently as last week, was the announcement by the hospital chief executive at Joondalup, Ian MacDonald, that all elective surgery was cancelled from 6 April to 1 May because of underfunding by the state government.I cannot express enough disgust at this particular decision. We always know that elective surgery is one of those definitions which is very nebulous. It makes it extraordinarily difficult for my constituents, in particular, considering that this hospital is a privatised hospital. One of the things that I tried to achieve, when the matter was originally being planned—and as a consequence of some of the shortfalls in its operations—was to have a local board of management appointed with true provision for accountability. Unfortunately, they chose instead to have an advisory board, which means not much at all, and the situation is that there is no direct accountability for the local community other than via their local state members, who presumably toe the party line and say nothing if they are put on the spot by their respective parties.In conclusion, we have a situation which is unacceptable. The health care scenario in my electorate is substandard and needs to be radically addressed. It needs to be urgently sorted out. I might add that, when my constituents saw the state premiers walking out on the Prime Minister—taking their cricket bats and going home—at the Premiers Conference and they saw the Prime Minister stonewalling for his own particular reasons, I am sure they, like many other people in this country, wondered how and why our system of governance had got into this state, and they scratched their heads and thought, `Well, if this is the way government is going under our two-party system, there also need to be changes to that'. (Time expired)248612:56:002486McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—At no time did I doubt the success of this government's work for the dole program, but in my wildest dreams I did not expect such positive results within the first few weeks. I must admit that I am fortunate that the two organisations in my electorate to be awarded the work for the dole projects are run by remarkably dedicated and motivated people. One is run by Craig Belmanno of Norman Park. Craig was a finalist in the Young Australian of the Year in 1997. A dedicated environmentalist, he established the Moreton Bay Marine Association and galvanised local environmentalists to his excellent cause. He now has more than 120 young work for the dole volunteers who have discovered what it is like to work with community groups on environmental projects. The Moreton Bay Marine Association work for the dole project is revegetating and cleaning up the creeks and rivers which run into Moreton Bay, including Bulimba Creek in my electorate, an important catchment for the city of Brisbane.Craig Belmanno reported to me earlier this week that, since he started his work for the dole scheme in December, one in five of his volunteers have left to take up a full-time job. While this situation interrupts his work flow, he said, `It is absolutely beautiful to see.' Craig reinforces the view of this government that, if you give a person a goal, a reason to get up every morning, their life is greatly enhanced.The second work for the dole project in my electorate is run by the South East Training Centre, formerly skillshare, at Coorparoo. Shane Cowan, the manager, has been involved in the training and job placement of long-term unemployed in my electorate for the past eight years. He knows his job and he has a good rapport with employers in the district. The suburbs that the South East Training Centre service, particularly within Griffith, are made up of a broad mix of people from many different parts of the world. As English is not the first language of many of the residents, employment options have been limited.Shane has reported to me this week that his work for the dole participants have responded to his programs with enthusiasm, and all the participants in my electorate on both programs have been volunteers. One of Shane Cowan's work for the dole projects has been the restoration of the Cannon Hill School of Arts building. Of his team, already 11 young people have found full-time jobs. Others have been offered traineeships and a handful have been motivated into developing business plans to set up their own small business.When I visited Cannon Hill School of Arts recently, I met with the team of eight working with Shane and their supervisor. They were restoring the original timber windows, painting walls, repairing the roof and the floor and generally giving this wonderful old community hall a much needed new lease of life. On the way, they have been learning to work as a team and, more importantly, discovering that their services are needed and appreciated by the community.All the young people working on that day said that they were enjoying being part of the work for the dole project. The tradespeople of Cannon Hill and surrounding suburbs have also responded to this work for the dole with vigour and support. They have assisted with tools, equipment, advice and encouragement. Both organisations tell me that their work for the dole project has given everyone involved a new focus. Employers are attracted to the fact that the program reveals the determination of some of the young participants to get a job.The Labor Party has bagged this program from the day it was announced, not because they thought it would not work, but because they simply did not want it to work. They do not want to see any reforms introduced by this government to improve the lives of the unemployed. The opposition are not interested in reform; they are only interested in power at any price. Work for the dole is working and I have proof of it in my electorate, in these projects alone.Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing2488The following answers to questions were circulated:2488(Question No. 2622)26222488McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Family Services, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a joint venture between the Hurstville City Council and the Australian Taxation Office for the development of a child care centre and for which approximately $360,000 of State and Commonwealth funds was provided in 1995.(2) Has the Department of Health and Family Services been involved in negotiations concerning the child care centre; if so, at what stage are the negotiations.2488Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I have no recollection of this matter having been drawn to my attention.(2) Yes. Staff of the Department of Health and Family Services have had discussions and held meetings with all parties involved in an attempt to reach consensus on a proposed joint venture between Hurstville Council and the Australian Taxation Office.In January 1998 the Australian Taxation Office advised Hurstville Council that they were withdrawing from negotiations on this matter.Hurstville Council will now proceed with the development of a 40 place long day care centre to be used by the general community.2488(Question No. 2644)26442488Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purposes was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).2488McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (i) (ii) and (b) No grants have been provided by Defence to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), or related bodies, since 2 March 1996.(2) (a) and (b) Mr R W Riddings is a member of the Defence Reserves Support Committee (DRSC).(3) As a member of the above board the following payments have been made to Mr R W Riddings for travel expenses:1995/96—$638; 1996/97—$470; 1997/98—$2062; Total—$3170.2488(Question No. 2651)26512488Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purposes was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).2488Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. (2) Nil.(3) Nil.2489(Question No. 2688)26882489Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Will he provide a list of each contract for cartage or transport between private contractors and his Department and other organisations for which he has portfolio responsibility (a) in place at 30 June 1997 and (b) entered into after 30 June 1997 showing (i) the name of the contractor, (ii) the date the contract was entered into, (iii) the expiry date of the contract, (iv) the date of tender and if no tender was called why, (v) the total payments expected under the contract and (vi) the nature of the cartage or transport including a description of the cargo.2489McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Contracts in Place at 30 June 1997(i) Contractor Name(ii) Contract Date(iii) Contract Expiry(iv) Tender DateReason for Non Tender(v) Total Cost(vi) DescriptionKwikasair Express1 Nov 931 Nov 9818 Dec 92$770,000General cargo to ADF units in Sydney Metro area, Richmond, N'castle and NowraRover Aust Pty Ltd26 Apr 9531 Dec 98Sep 94Rover is Prime Contractor for Project Bushranger$407,008Transport of Bushranger (Phase 1) vehicles to various destinationsContracts after 30 June 1997(i) Contractor Name(ii) Contract Date(iii) Contract Expiry(iv) Tender DateReason for Non Tender(v) Total Cost(vi) DescriptionNational Transport Security and Services Pty Ltd9 Dec 9719 Dec 973 Dec 97Urgency$13,500Office re-location from Canberra to MelbourneFrank Market Pty Ltd18 Jul 971 Aug 9715 Jul 97Contractor is only one to provide a `site to site' service in Far North Queensland area.$3,850Removal of electrical equipment from Bamagah to CarbalahTransfield Maintenance3 Dec 97Feb 200323 Apr 97$2,594,430General cargo, rations, explosives, students on courseBrambles Sea Cargo3 Jul 977 Jul 972 Jul 97$704General sea cargo & dangerous goodsBrambles Sea Cargo10 Jul 9715 Jul 979 Jul 97$127General sea cargoBrambles Sea Cargo18 Jul 9722 Jul 9716 Jul 97$364General sea cargoPortside United25 Jul 971 Aug 9723 Jul 97$656General sea cargoBrambles Sea Cargo1 Aug 977 Aug 9730 Jul 97$220General sea cargoRoadways Freight Services7 Aug 9710 Aug 976 Aug 97$9,200Howitzer by roadBrambles Sea Cargo8 Aug 9714 Aug 977 Aug 97$517General sea cargoPortside United15 Aug 9720 Aug 9714 Aug 97$572General sea cargoPortside United22 Aug 9727 Aug 9721 Aug 97$520General sea cargoPortside United29 Aug 973 Sep 9728 Aug 97$1,040General sea cargoPortside United5 Sep 9711 Sep 974 Sep 97$390General sea cargoBrambles Sea Cargo12 Sep 9717 Sep 9711 Sep 97$387General sea cargoPortside United17 Sep 9722 Sep 9716 Sep 97$215General sea cargoPortside United19 Sep 9724 Sep 9718 Sep 97$180General sea cargoBrambles Sea Cargo26 Sep 972 Oct 9725 Sep 97$456General sea cargoBrambles Sea Cargo3 Oct 978 Oct 972 Oct 97$1,363General sea cargoStraightline Transport9 Oct 9713 Oct 978 Oct 97$1,098General road cargo Straightline Transport13 Oct 9715 Oct 978 Oct 97$948Hiace & Racking by roadIntercity Transport Services 13 Oct 9715 Oct 979 Oct 97$550General road cargoBrambles Sea Cargo17 Oct 9720 Oct 9715 Oct 97$455General sea cargoKingston Heavy Haulage20 oct 9728 Oct 9715 Oct 97$28,500Anchors & chains by roadPortside United24 Oct 9728 Oct 9723 Oct 97$450General sea cargoAtcall Crane Hire30 Oct 9730 Oct 9727 Oct 97$1,275Crane hireBrambles Sea Cargo31 Oct 975 Nov 9730 Oct 97$140General sea cargoIntercity Transport Services7 Nov 9713 Nov 975 Nov 97$620General road cargoBrambles Sea Cargo7 Nov 9712 Nov 976 Nov 97$425General sea cargoPortside United14 Nov 9719 Nov 9713 Nov 97$1,144General sea cargoBrambles Sea Cargo21 Nov 9728 Nov 9720 Nov 97$175General sea cargoIntercity Transport Services3 Dec 9722 Dec 9725 Nov 97$3,990General road cargoBrambles Sea Cargo1 Dec 975 Dec 9728 Nov 97$1,134General sea cargoPortside United8 Dec 9712 Dec 974 Dec 97$599General sea cargoBrambles Sea Cargo12 Dec 9718 Dec 9711 Dec 97$254General sea cargoPortside United9 Jan 9814 Jan 988 Jan 98$253General road cargoDAS Distribution 13 Jan 9813 Jan 989 Jan 98$4,220Explosive ordnanceBrambles Sea Cargo16 Jan 9821 Jan 9815 Jan 98$623General sea cargoRoadways Freight Services21 Jan 9828 Jan 9819 Jan 98$8,000Shark cat w/trailer by roadPortside United23 Jan 9829 Jan 9822 Jan 98$317General road cargoPortside United30 Jan 986 Feb 9829 Jan 98$435General road cargoPortside United9 Feb 9816 Feb 986 Feb 98$227General sea cargoRoadways Freight Services12 Feb 9814 Feb 98Short notice$1,100General road cargoPortside United13 Feb 9820 Feb 9812 Feb 98$96General sea cargoPortside United20 Feb 9826 Feb 9819 Feb 98$110General sea cargoRoadways Freight Services20 Feb 9824 Feb 9820 Feb 98$2,070General road cargoDAS Distribution4 Mar 9831 Dec 9819 Nov 97Conversion of MOU$220,000Explosives OrdnanceDAS Distribution4 Mar 9831 Dec 9819 Nov 97Conversion of MOU$60,000Explosives OrdnanceBrambles Sea Cargo27 Feb 986 Mar 9826 Feb 98$1,860General sea cargo2490(Question No. 2765)27652490Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) How many veterans receiving a pension from his Department live in the region covered by the North Queensland Regional Office.(2) How many staff did the office employ as at December (a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997.(3) How many staff are employed at the office on a (a) permanent and (b) temporary basis.(4) Has a freeze been imposed on filling permanent positions in the office; if so, why.(5) Have any functions previously performed by the office been transferred to other offices of his Department; if so, what are the details. 2490Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—In my answer to Part (5) of question No. 2765 (Hansard , 30 March 1998, page 1366), incorrect information was provided. The answer should read:(5) Yes—Compensation Claims Processing.A national computer-based Compensation Claims Processing System was introduced in January 1995 at which time, as a rationalisation measure, processing was moved from the North Queensland Regional Office to the State Office in Brisbane.2490(Question No. 2771)27712490Morris, Allan, MPMr Allan MorrisFI4NewcastleALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 March 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to comments made by Dr M.K. McIntosh, then Deputy Secretary, Acquisition and Logistics, Department of Defence, to a Senate Estimates Committee on 10 October 1989 (Senate Estimates Committee Hansard, 10 October 1989, page 333) about the need for the Government to approve relocating the construction of modules for the Anzac Ships Project.(2) Does the relocation of the construction of modules for the Anzac Ships Project require Government approval.(3) Did he approve the relocation of the construction of a module by Tenix Defence Systems for frigates Nos. 6 to 10 from the Hunter region to New Zealand; if so, (a) when and (b) were members of parliament from the Hunter region advised; if so, in each case, when.(4) When is New Zealand required to decide if it will accept an option to extend its order for Anzac ships.(5) Did he discuss the relocation referred to in part (3) with the New Zealand Minister for Defence; if so (a) when and (b) was it within the context of New Zealand ordering additional ships.(6) Has an agreement been reached between the Australian and New Zealand Governments for New Zealand to acquire additional Anzac ships.(7) Was the relocation of module construction discussed with the Prime Minister of New Zealand during her visit in early 1998.(8) Has the New Zealand Prime Minister or Minister for Defence given assurances regarding the extension of New Zealand's order for Anzac ships; if so, were they given in the context of increasing contract expenditure in New Zealand.2491McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) and (3) (a) and (b) There is no requirement for Government or Ministerial approval for changes to sub-contracting arrangements that are made within the terms of the ANZAC Ship Contract. However, the ANZAC Ship Contract requires the contractor to notify the Department of Defence of changes of sub-contractors and details of work being performed by sub-contractors, and this includes the relocation of the construction of modules for the ANZAC Ship Project. The Department cannot unreasonably withhold its approval of the change if there is a valid commercial reason for the change and the proposed change does not breach the contracted balance of work between Australian and New Zealand industry.(4) There was a fully priced contract option for two additional ANZAC Ships for New Zealand which had to be exercised by November 1997. New Zealand did not exercise this option. There is also an unpriced contract option for an additional two ships for New Zealand which remains open for the term of the Contract.(5) No.(6) There is no agreement between the Australian and New Zealand Governments regarding the purchase of additional ANZAC Ships, other than the ANZAC Ship Contract and the Treaty between Australia and New Zealand relating to the purchase of ANZAC Ships. These agreements were entered into in 1989.(7) No.(8) The New Zealand Government has given no assurances that it will purchase additional ANZAC Ships. If additional ANZAC Ships are ordered by New Zealand within the context of both the ANZAC Ship Contract and Treaty, then the workshare would need to be consistent with the principles of these documents. New Zealand could enter into a separate commercial arrangement with Tenix Defence Systems for further ANZAC ships. Such an arrangement would be outside the terms of the extant Contract and Treaty and would therefore not be bound by the existing workshare arrangements.