1998-12-02 39 1 1 REPS 1087 0 1998-12-02 Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers. Bills 1087 r703 1087 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1087 09:32:00 1087 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. The bills I introduce today establish a new tax system for Australia. This is the most comprehensive reform of taxation in the history of the Federation. This is a new tax system for a new century. Today's legislation sweeps away an outdated, inefficient tax system that does not serve the needs of the modern nation. The new tax system rewrites Commonwealth-state financial relations. The new tax system will lighten the burden of income tax for families and average wage earners. At the last election the government put this plan to the people. And the people of Australia endorsed it. The government asked for a mandate. And the people of Australia gave it. This is a plan not for a new tax but for a new tax system. It encapsulates those changes necessary to make our great country more productive and more competitive. It will help our exporters, deliver more jobs and increase standards of living. The bills being introduced today are the first part of a package. The government proposes to enact the whole package by the end of this financial year to meet the timetable outlined to the Australian people at the last election. When the package is enacted, Australia will have a new tax system from 1 July 2000. A modern, broad based, low rate, goods and services tax The bills before the House will enact a broad based goods and services tax that will be levied at 10 per cent and will start in July 2000. The GST will apply to most goods and services consumed in Australia. When a business purchases goods and services it will be entitled to full input tax credits. This means that the tax burden on business inputs will be significantly reduced. With the introduction of the GST, the wholesale sales tax is to be abolished. In consultation with the states, the following nine types of taxes are also to be progressively abolished: . financial institutions duty; . debits tax; . stamp duty on marketable securities; . conveyancing duties on business property; . stamp duties on credit arrangements, instalment purchase arrangements and rental hiring agreements; . stamp duties on leases; . stamp duties on mortgages, bonds, debentures and other loan securities; stamp duties on cheques, bills of exchange and promissory notes; and `bed taxes'. The abolition of the wholesale sales tax and other taxes is vital to reduce the cost of doing business. At the moment over half the money raised from the wholesale sales tax comes from taxing goods purchased by business. It imposes a hidden tax on exports and import competing industries. The introduction of the goods and services tax will change this. As businesses are entitled to full input tax credits the hidden burden will be removed. In fact business costs will fall by more than $10 billion as a result of the GST and abolition of current inefficient and unfair taxes. The GST will also lead to a $4.5 billion fall in the cost of exporting. Lifting this burden will increase the competitiveness of Australia's export industries. The bill provides for some activities to be GST free which include: . exports of goods and services; . international air and sea travel, and domestic air travel, purchased overseas by non residents; . taxes and charges at all levels of government (including local government rates and water and sewerage rates and charges). The price of GST-free services will fall because tax will be removed from the purchases of those supplying them. The GST will be broadly based, providing simplicity for business and consumers. The government has not neglected important community services. In its tax plan, the government proposed that virtually all health, education and child-care services, charitable activities and religious services would be GST free. On 27 October a Tax Consultative Committee was established and charged with the task of making recommendations on the appropriate scope of four key GST-free areas—health, education, religious services and the non-commercial activities of charities—and transitional arrangements for motor vehicles. The committee received over 300 submissions from interested parties and made recommendations to the government based on these submissions and its own expertise. We consider the recommendations provide sensible boundary lines which are clear and based on sound policy principles. The recommendations extend the GST-free areas further than those proposed in the government's tax policy. They recommend GST-free treatment for a wide range of medical and allied health services. They provide for comprehensive GST-free treatment for residential and community care for the aged and the disabled, provided the care is at a sufficiently high standard. They provide for GST-free treatment for a wide range of aids and appliances specifically designed for people with illness or disabilities. They provide for GST-free treatment for all secondary and tertiary courses, including vocational courses, provided students are eligible for income support. And they provide for generous rules for charities. Accordingly, the government has no difficulty in accepting the vast majority of the recommendations. In some areas the government has gone further, with more generous treatment of religious services and professional education. The bottom line is that the committee tried to promote clarity and simplicity and in doing this has recommended good policy, which we will adopt. We will apply international best practice to the treatment of financial services, which means that banks pay tax on their purchases, but home mortgage payments and the supply of most financial services is not taxed. No GST will be charged on residential rent and rents will be input taxed only. Houses will be taxed only when first built and sold. A First Home Owners Scheme will be introduced to offset the net impact of the GST on the price of new homes, entitling those eligible to a lump sum payment of $7,000 from 1 July 2000. The government has at every turn considered the impact on business. Very small businesses with a turnover less than $50,000 per year and non-profit organisations with a turnover of less than $100,000 a year will not have to register, but may choose to do so. A special Small Business Consultative Committee will be involved in consultations to ensure that financial incentives, worth up to $500 million for small and medium businesses and other bodies registered for GST will be delivered in the most effective way. Gains for rural and regional Australia The reform package also acknowledges the high cost of transport particularly for rural and regional Australia. Mr Melham interjecting— Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for Banks and the member for Hotham! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —A new diesel fuel credit scheme will effectively reduce diesel excise for all off-road, including marine, users from around 37c per litre to zero, and for larger transport users, including rail, from around 37c per litre to 18c per litre. This is on top of savings of 7c per litre for business users of petrol and diesel through their access to a refund of the GST paid on fuel. Alternative fuels will remain excise free on the introduction of goods and services tax. Transformation of Commonwealth-state financial relations From 1 July 2000, the Commonwealth will provide states with a secure and growing source of revenue by giving them the revenue from the goods and services tax. This is conditional on the states abolishing inefficient taxes—such as financial institutions duty, the debits tax and stamp and conveyancing duties—and not reintroducing them. Financial assistance grants will be abolished. Mr Melham interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for Banks! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —The states will be required to take responsibility for the payment of general purpose assistance to local government, which is currently made by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will make the payment of GST revenue conditional on the states making these payments in accordance with existing conditions. This will ensure that local government is not worse off in that respect. In fact, overall, local government will gain from the removal and reduction of Commonwealth and state taxes that currently increase their running costs. Local governments will also benefit from rates, water and sewerage charges being GST free. The Special Premiers Conference on 13 November this year reached a historic agreement on principles that will transform Commonwealth-state financial relations as promised in the government's tax plan. The Commonwealth and all state and territory governments agree that the current financial relationship between levels government must be reformed to facilitate a stronger and more productive federal system for the new century. Locking in the GST rate Mr Melham interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I warn the member for Banks. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Part of the Commonwealth-state agreement is a process to lock in the rate of the GST. Any request for a change to the GST rate would need to be made to the Commonwealth unanimously by all state governments, it would need to be endorsed by the Commonwealth government of the day and relevant legislation would need to be passed by both houses of parliament. Price oversight The community has a right to expect that reduced business costs are passed on to consumers in the transition to the new tax system. We will amend the Trade Practices Act to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission special transitional powers to monitor prices for 12 months before goods and services tax starts and for two years thereafter. There will be penalties of up to $10 million per offence. The Commonwealth will consult with the states and territories to ensure these measures apply across the economy. The amending legislation for this measure is expected to be introduced next week. Transitional arrangements The abolition of wholesale sales tax and the introduction of goods and services tax could result in difficulties for business if appropriate transitional rules are not put in place. Without such rules, there might be double taxation or large falls in the value of stock held for resale. Consumers and businesses may delay purchases to take advantage of price falls when the higher wholesale sales tax rates cease to apply. Business may delay high-value purchases to obtain input tax credits. Without special measures, the benefits of tax reform would be delayed. The government has designed transitional arrangements to ensure that this kind of disruption does not occur so that the benefits of tax reform can flow immediately to businesses and the wider community. When the goods and services tax commences, businesses holding stock for sale on which sales tax has been paid will be able to claim the sales tax against their GST. This will ensure that GST does not apply to stock that has already paid wholesale sales tax. The government recognises that large price changes can disrupt markets. Accordingly, the 32 per cent luxury wholesale sales tax rate will be phased down to reduce market disruption. Except for furs and jewellery, goods currently taxed at 32 per cent will be subjected to the standard 22 per cent rate from the date the GST is passed by the parliament—that is, goods such as cameras, televisions, video recorders and watches would all become cheaper prior to the introduction of the goods and services tax. The introduction of the GST could result in major disruption to the motor vehicle market if businesses were able to claim input tax credits straight away. The government will reduce the incentive to delay vehicle purchases until after GST starts by denying input tax credits for purchases made in the first year of goods and services tax and by reducing the input tax credit by 50 per cent in the second year. Importantly, this measure does not apply to organisations such as schools and farmers that can buy cars and 4WDs wholesale sales tax free. They will get a full input tax credit for motor vehicle purchases from day one of the goods and services tax. Of course, consumers will get the benefit of substantially lower car prices as soon as the goods and services tax comes into effect. Goods and services sold or performed after 1 July 2000 will be subject to goods and services tax. Where a contract has been entered into before today, goods and services sold or performed pursuant to it will not be subject to goods and services tax even if sale or performance is to be on or after 1 July 2000. However, if such a contract has provision for a review then goods and services tax applies after the first opportunity for review arises. Otherwise goods and services tax will apply to the sale or performance under the pre-existing contract only on or after 1 July 2005. Goods and services tax will apply to goods and services supplied to consumers after 1 July 2000 under any contract entered into from today. If a construction contract spans the start date of 1 July 2000, the part completed before that date will not have goods and services tax applied to it. Many businesses will need to consider the GST implications of contracts that they enter into after today. The government recognises legitimate concerns that businesses will need some time to consider the precise impact on their operations. Businesses that enter into contracts with other businesses (which will be entitled to input tax credits) for the supply of goods and services, will provide those goods and services GST free until the first opportunity for review, provided the contract is made before the date the GST legislation gets the royal assent. Personal tax cuts and increased family assistance From the outset, one of the government's guiding principles for tax reform was that there must be no increase in the overall tax burden. We will do better than that. The tax reforms will actually reduce the overall tax burden on Australians by $4 billion. The tax cuts will more than compensate taxpayers for the introduction of the goods and services tax and will also make it possible for ordinary Australians to save and invest. The personal income tax bill gives effect to the cuts in rates of income tax and provides extra assistance to families by increasing the family tax assistance tax-free thresholds. The tax-free threshold increases to $6,000 and the lowest tax rate decreases from 20 per cent to 17 per cent. This helps all taxpayers but is of relatively greater benefit to low income earners. Under the old tax system, incomes between $20,700 and $50,000 are subject to rates of 34 per cent and 43 per cent income tax. The new system applies one lower rate of 30 per cent on all income between $20,000 and $50,000. This will mean that around 81 per cent of taxpayers will have a top tax rate of 30 per cent or less compared to 30 per cent of taxpayers who have that under the current system. Low and middle income earners will keep more of their wages. This incentive encourages Australians to seek promotion, extra training and overtime. More effort will now mean more reward for individuals as well as a more productive Australian economy. The top rate remains unchanged at 47 per cent for those with annual incomes of more than $75,000. The $75,000 threshold will be equal to around 1.7 times average earnings. This will ensure that average earners do not drift into paying the top marginal tax rate, which would otherwise have occurred early in the next century. Increased fairness Some high earners are avoiding obligations and taking advantage of government assistance given to low income earners by converting income into fringe benefits. This way they get their monetary income down to qualify for income support even though their actual remuneration, including benefits, is much higher. From the 1999-2000 income year, group certificates will show the full value of fringe benefits received when the taxable value exceeds $1,000. These benefits will be taken into account when liability for surcharges and eligibility for assistance is being determined. Conclusion The government has received strong endorsement for its management of the Australian economy. The Reserve Bank of Australia has announced this morning another cut in official interest rates by 25 basis points. The reduction in interest rates have been important in shielding the Australian economy from external events. This government is committed to pushing ahead with economic reforms to build on our achievements and to continue to strengthen the economy to withstand external crises like those affecting our region and other areas of the globe at present. This package of legislation represents fundamental economic reform. The need for tax reform has been recognised by governments of both persuasions over the last 30 years. But this is the government that has acted on it. This is the government that intends to fix the problem and reform the system, notwithstanding opportunistic opposition which is contrary to the best interests of the nation. These reforms relieve the tax burden for business and exporters, allow scope for substantial personal income tax cuts and will contribute to a more stable and prosperous Australian economy. These are the reforms which will strengthen our economy, our prospects, our living standards, our financial arrangements and will secure better opportunities for the future through a new tax system. 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 present the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I also present the regulation impact statement. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —I move that debate on the bill to introduce a new 10 per cent tax on almost everything be adjourned. Debate adjourned. Bills 1091 r658 1091 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1091 09:53:00 1091 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill abolishes the wholesale sales tax. The wholesale sales tax is an outdated system which Australia shares with only a handful of other countries in the world. When introduced, the wholesale sales tax was at a single rate of 2½ per cent. The general rate of sales tax is now 22 per cent and the highest rate is 45 per cent. Rates can be 0, 12, 22, 32, 37, 41 or 45 per cent. The wholesales sales tax needs to be abolished because it has no logic or design. It was introduced in the 1930s and was appropriate for a 1930s economy. But the economy has changed. Multiple rates were introduced in 1940 as a wartime measure to encourage resources to flow to `essential' war related activities. Goods were classed according to the standards of the time. Radios, watches and tape recorders which are currently taxed at the `luxury' 32 per cent rate were perceived as wartime luxuries. Ad hoc changes to classifications by both the parliament and the courts have resulted in anomalies. And as the economy increasingly becomes a service based economy, our indirect tax system applies to a narrowing base, with even higher rates needed to preserve revenue. This penalises our manufacturers and exporters. We have a tax chasing an economy long gone—an absurd system which has no place in a modern economy entering the 21st century. The wholesale sales tax is the tax the Labor Party is pledged to preserve. Goods production now represents less than a quarter of the economy. The economy has transformed. The sales tax system has not. Neither has Labor. The contribution to tax revenue from income taxation and indirect taxation has changed significantly over time. This change has been particularly marked over the last 20 years since the deregulation of many sectors of the Australian economy. Over the 1980s, indirect taxation (comprising principally excise and sales taxes on goods) represented 7.2 per cent of GDP compared to 5.8 per cent of GDP over the 1990s. In comparison, direct taxation (individuals and companies) increased from 16.4 per cent of GDP to 17.2 per cent of GDP. Over the same period, the composition of revenue to the Commonwealth budget has also changed, with the share of indirect tax falling from 27 per cent to 24 per cent, whilst the share of income tax has increased from 63 per cent to 70 per cent. There are two approaches to addressing this automatic and continuing shift in the tax mix. The government's approach is to replace the complexity and unfairness of the wholesale sales tax with a simpler and fairer broad based, low rate indirect tax which will ensure a secure and stable revenue base to fund government services. The alternative approach would be to maintain an outdated and unfair system which cannot provide the revenue required to sustain the level of government services Australians demand and deserve. In 1993, the Labor government told the Australian people before the election that they could have income tax cuts without the reform of the indirect tax system. After it was re-elected, Labor took away the income tax cuts and increased wholesale sales tax rates across the board, without any compensation whatsoever. This bill will abolish the wholesale sales tax. It will put to an end and finally bury that sorry episode. This bill provides an opportunity to sweep away the outmoded, outdated, complex 1930s style wholesale sales tax. Those members of this House who oppose tax reform and support the wholesale sales tax will have a chance to support it by voting against this bill. They will vote for the indirect tax system of the 1930s. But they will also be voting against a secure indirect tax base growing in proportion to the economy, securing growth revenue for essential state services and removing the extraordinarily high tax burden which will otherwise be imposed on average earners. 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 present the explanatory memorandum. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —I move that this bill that will lead to a 10 per cent tax on almost everything be adjourned. Honourable members interjecting— DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —You hate it, and you will get to hate it. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for Hotham will contain himself. Mrs Bailey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for McEwen will also contain herself. Debate adjourned. Bills 1093 r667 1093 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1093 09:59:00 1093 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of a package of seven bills that ends the wholesale sales tax and introduces the goods and services tax. The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition Excise) Bill is one of the three imposition bills in the package which will have the effect of imposing a goods and services tax on importations and supplies that are liable to goods and services tax. Separate imposition bills are necessary because of the requirement of the constitution that a law imposing taxation shall deal only with one subject of taxation and that laws imposing customs duty and laws imposing excise duties deal only with those duties. The imposition bill dealing with excise will impose GST on supplies to the extent that it is a duty of excise. 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 present the explanatory memorandum. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —I move that this bill to impose a new 10 per cent tax on almost everything be adjourned. Debate adjourned. Bills 1093 r666 1093 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1093 10:02:00 1093 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of the package of seven bills that ends the wholesale sales tax and introduces the goods and services tax. The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1998 is one of three imposition bills in the package which will have the effect of imposing GST on the importations and supplies that are liable to goods and services tax. Three imposition bills are necessary because of the requirement of the constitution that a law imposing taxation shall deal only with one subject of taxation and that laws imposing customs duty and laws imposing excise duties deal only with those duties. The imposition bill dealing with customs will impose goods and services tax on importations to the extent that it is a duty of customs. 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 present the explanatory memorandum. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —I move that this bill, which will make it a custom to impose 10 per cent on almost everything, be adjourned. Honourable members interjecting— DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —Well, his smirk's gone; the dog's serious. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I warn the member for Hotham. Debate adjourned. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the Treasurer for the next order of the day, I would point out to the member for Hotham that in adjourning the debate he is not able, under standing orders, to enter into any debate. It is a courtesy extended to adjourn the debate to a more convenient hour of sitting. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —Well, that's what I was doing, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for Hotham knows perfectly well why I have raised this issue. Bills 1094 r702 1094 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1094 10:04:00 1094 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of the package of seven bills that ends the wholesale sales tax and introduces the goods and services tax. The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1998 is one of the three imposition bills which will have the effect of imposing GST on the importations and supplies that are liable to GST. Three imposition bills are necessary because of the requirement of the constitution that a law imposing taxation shall deal only with one subject of taxation and that laws imposing customs duty and laws imposing excise duties deal only with those duties. The imposition bill dealing with goods and services tax which is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise will impose goods and services tax to the extent that it is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise. 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 present the explanatory memorandum. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —I move that debate on a new tax system (10 per cent goods and services tax imposition—general) bill be adjourned. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I have warned the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It would not be in his interests for me to have to proceed any further. I invite him to observe the normal arrangements when adjourning the debate. Debate adjourned. Bills 1094 r699 1094 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1094 10:06:00 1094 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of the package of bills that will give effect to the goods and services tax component of the new tax system proposed by the government. It will need to be read together with the other bills in this package and with the act it amends, the Taxation Administration Act 1953. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the administration of the goods and services tax. The Commissioner of Taxation will have the general administration of the goods and services tax law and GST-specific machinery provisions will be contained in a new part to the Taxation Administration Act. The bill will provide for the usual collection and recovery procedures that the commissioner employs. The commissioner will have the same powers as under other taxation laws to gather information necessary to ensure compliance with the GST laws. Moreover, the commissioner and taxation officers will, as they are under other taxation laws, be bound to keep goods and services tax information confidential and to disclose it only for the purpose of carrying out taxation functions or for other purposes expressly provided for in the law. The bill will also provide a mechanism for self-assessing GST payers to correct errors in their returns or to avail themselves of objection and review rights if they disagree with the commissioner's interpretation of the goods and services tax law. Assessments of goods and services tax will be made by the commissioner if there is reason to believe that a liability to GST has not been correctly returned. As part of the framework of measures to encourage voluntary compliance with the GST law, a combination of new and existing penalties will apply to breaches of the various obligations the law will place on participants in the GST system. GST payers will be able to rely on written advice and rulings given by the commissioner. Underpayments of GST and associated penalties will not be payable if the commissioner's interpretation of the law as expressed in public rulings or private rulings or advice is relied on. This will promote certainty in the GST system. 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 I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1095 r698 1095 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1095 10:10:00 1095 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. Mr Speaker, the abolition of wholesale sales tax and the introduction of goods and services tax could result in difficulties for business if appropriate transitional rules are not put in place. Without such rules, there might be double taxation or large falls in the value of stock held for resale. Consumers and businesses may delay purchases to take advantage of price falls when the higher wholesale sales tax rates cease to apply. Businesses may delay high value purchases to obtain input tax credits. As outlined in my earlier speech, the government has designed transitional arrangements to ensure that the benefits of tax reform can flow immediately to businesses and the wider community. 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 I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1095 r657 1095 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1095 10:11:00 1095 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. Mr Speaker, after winning the 1996 election, the government inherited a $10.3 billion deficit, which has now been turned into a surplus. This sound fiscal management has provided the ability for all Australians to share the benefits from sound economic policy. I mentioned earlier today the benefits which have come from growth in the Australian economy and reduction in interest rates. This bill will deliver $13 billion of income tax cuts as part of the government's new tax system. The tax cuts will more than compensate taxpayers for the introduction of the goods and services tax and will also make it possible for ordinary Australians to save and invest. These personal income tax cuts will also deliver substantial income tax savings to average earners and to families. 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 I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1096 r697 1096 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1096 10:14:00 1096 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. Mr Speaker, some high earners are avoiding obligations and taking advantage of government assistance given to low income earners by converting income into fringe benefits. This way they can be assessed on nominal income to qualify for income support that they do not need and which was not intended for them. From the 1999-2000 income year, group certificates will show the full value of fringe benefits received when the taxable value exceeds $1,000. These benefits will be taken into account when liability for surcharges and eligibility for assistance is being determined. 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 I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1096 r665 1096 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1096 10:15:00 1096 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is the second of two bills which implement the fringe benefits reporting measure. The bill will ensure that the Medicare levy surcharge applies to high earners who do not have private health insurance and receive substantial fringe benefits. 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. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1096 r701 1096 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1096 10:16:00 1096 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill gives effect to a number of important measures which are part of the government's new tax system. First, extra assistance will be provided to families in recognition of the additional costs in bringing up children and the sacrifices that families make. The tax-free thresholds of the Family Tax Initiative introduced by this Government in 1997 are to be doubled. This increase will benefit eligible families with dependent children by at least $140 a year per child, with extra benefits of at least $350 a year flowing to eligible single income families with one child or more under the age of five. In addition, the family allowance income test will be eased by increasing the level of income that a family can earn before the maximum rate payments are affected. The income test free area will be increased to $28,200. When the income test free area is exceeded, the new taper which applies to reduce a family's rate of payment will be 30c in the dollar, a significant decrease on the current taper rate of 50c in the dollar. The changes to the family income test, combined with the personal income tax cuts, will increase greatly the rewards for low to middle income working families from working harder. It also ensures that families are substantially better off when moving to full-time employment. Secondly, this bill provides for the maximum rate of all income support payments provided to social security and veterans' pensioners, other social security recipients and students in receipt of income support to be increased by four per cent on 1 July 2000. The four per cent increase will raise the level of these payments by significantly more than the expected impact of tax reform on prices, as measured by the CPI. The increase incorporates a component that represents an advance on future consumer price increases that result from the impact of tax reform on the CPI. That is, this arrangement is considerably more beneficial to income support recipients because indexed payments are being provided `up-front' rather than later, as occurs under current indexation arrangements. The overall effect is that not only are indexation increases being provided up-front, but income support payments will be 1.5 per cent higher than they would have, had normal indexation arrangements applied. In addition, the income and assets test free areas that apply to social security, veterans' and student income support payments will be increased by 2.5 per cent. The income test for pensions will also be eased by reducing the current 50 per cent taper rate to 40 per cent. This measure will enable pensioners to keep an extra 10c of pension for every dollar of income they receive over the income free area. It will be of particular benefit to age and service pensioners and to self-funded retirees with modest incomes who will, as a result, be eligible for part rate pension and associated benefits. This bill is an important plank in the new tax system. Taken together with the other elements of the new tax system, it ensures that all Australians share in the benefits of tax reform. 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 present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1097 r663 1097 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1097 10:21:00 1097 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill recognises the special circumstances of older Australians with savings and investments, including those who receive income from superannuation pensions and annuities. In addition to other measures associated with the new tax system, such as the income tax cuts, increases in income support payments, refundable imputation credits and increased tax rebates, this bill provides further compensation to help maintain the value of the savings and retirement income of senior Australians. The bill will assist both age pensioners and self-funded retirees. Australian residents aged 60 years or more with income from a range of savings and investments and with incomes of up to $30,000 a year will be able to receive a savings bonus of up to $1,000. If they are of age pension age, or above, and do not receive any income support payments, a bonus of up to $3,000 may be payable. These amounts will be tax free and will not be counted as income for the purposes of the social security or veterans' income tests. In claiming their bonus, senior Australians will have the security of dealing with agencies they already interact with in relation to tax or income support payments, and will have the usual rights of review and appeal. The measures in this bill, particularly when combined with the other measures associated with the new tax system that I mentioned earlier, give effect to the government's clear commitment to reforming the tax system in a manner which is fair and generous to senior Australians. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum, which I present and which is circulated to honourable members. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1098 r659 1098 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1098 10:23:00 1098 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill will amend the income tax law so that the aged pension bonus payments will be exempt from income tax and will not be taken into account in calculating their net exempt income for the purposes of determining deductibility of tax losses of earlier income years. This will ensure that persons entitled to receive the bonus payments will receive the full benefit of those payments. This bill also amends the income tax regulations to provide further assistance to senior Australians by increasing the maximum pensioner tax rebate and the tax rebate for low income aged persons. These rebates will be increased by $250 (for single people) and $175 (for each of a couple) per year. These increases will come into effect from 1 July 2000. The higher rebates will ensure an extra 70,000 pensioners and self-funded retirees are not required to pay tax and will provide an extra tax cut to 330,000 senior Australians. The last income tax measure associated with this bill removes the savings tax offset. Under the new tax system, this rebate will no longer be necessary as elements of the package—including the increase in the personal income tax threshold, significantly reduced marginal rates and refundable imputation credits—will have a major impact on incentives for Australians to work and save. Taxpayers will still be able to claim the offset in their income tax returns for the 1998-99 income year. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which I present and which has been circulated to honourable members. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1098 r700 1098 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1098 10:26:00 1098 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill reflects the government's commitment to ensure that older Australians will benefit from a better and fairer taxation and income support system. It demonstrates that the needs of older Australians remain a priority for this government. The government announced, as part of the taxation reforms, a four per cent increase to the full age pension. Increased rates of assistance will be provided to ensure that recipients receive a real (after CPI) increase in their pensions of 1.5 per cent, thereby enabling them to receive a fair share of the benefits of the new tax system. The government is committed to quarantining this increase from the formula used to calculate residential aged care fees. This bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to implement these commitments. Currently, the basic fee is 85c in the dollar of the maximum single rate age pension. While the pension is being increased by four per cent as a compensation measure, the basic fee will not rise. Effectively, the fee becomes 85c in each 104c of pension. Accordingly, the proportion of the pension represented by the fee falls from 85 per cent to 81.5 per cent. Thus, setting the proportion of pension payable in residential care fees at 81.5 per cent ensures that the full four per cent increase to pensioners is passed on. It also removes the possibility that residential care providers could seek to gain a windfall by charging care recipients extra in fees. Providers will be limited by legislation to only charging 81.5 per cent or face the possibility of sanctions being imposed if they exceed this amount. This bill also ensures that non-pensioners are protected from increases in residential aged care fees as a result of the pension increase. Currently non-pensioner fees rise in line with indexation to pensions. This bill breaks this nexus with pension indexation ensuring that the four per cent increase in the pension does not cause the non-pensioner fee to rise. Lastly, this bill ensures that war widows and widowers will continue to pay the same in income tested fees as other care recipients with the same total incomes. This amendment is necessary to maintain parity in fees as a result of changes to the pension withdrawal rate under the taxation compensation package for older Australians. Not only does this bill guarantee that no older Australian will be worse off, it ensures that pensioners will be considerably better off as a result of the taxation reforms. The pension increase will see single aged pensioners receiving an extra $15.50 per fortnight and pensioner couples an extra $25.50 per fortnight—which is a large increase in income for older Australians. This increase lifts the full pension rate above the minimum level of 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings that is already guaranteed in legislation by the government. This bill demonstrates that the needs and aspirations of older Australians continue to be of primary importance to the government. Older Australians will continue to benefit from access to quality residential care based on need. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which I present and which has been circulated to honourable members. I commend this bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1099 r664 1099 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1099 10:30:00 1099 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill introduces the Australian business number. All businesses will be able to deal with government using one identifier. This will reduce compliance costs for business. It will make it possible for business to provide information only once, to one agency, and to get help from different parts of government, in one place. This measure was first recommended by the Bell committee, which was asked by the government to find ways of reducing red tape for small business. In addition, the combined effect of the business number, the goods and services tax, and the pay-as-you-go reforms that will be introduced next year will make it harder for unscrupulous businesses to get out of paying their fair share of tax. The ABN will be available to all businesses. An ABN will also be available to other entities that need to deal with government, such as charities and religious organisations. Businesses, particularly small businesses, currently have to deal with numerous regulatory bodies across all of government. By introducing the ABN and making it available to the states and territories, the government will make it possible to significantly reduce the burdensome number of registrations and reporting requirements. The ABN will make it possible for business to get information, help and assistance from one place, removing the time consuming and frustrating task of locating and contacting different agencies. If circumstances change for a business—for example, a change of address—the business will only need to notify one authority and the new details will be automatically recorded for all government agencies. I present an explanatory memorandum for this bill and the succeeding bill, A New Tax System (Australian Business Number Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998. 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. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Bills 1100 r660 1100 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 1100 10:34:00 1100 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is the second of the two bills which implement the Australian business number. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum, circulated to honourable members. Before concluding this second reading speech, I want to say to the House that this is the largest tax reform in Australian federal history. As one of the newspapers said this morning, it is a once in a century opportunity. I want to acknowledge in closing today the enormous time and effort that has been put in by the government's tax reform task force, led initially by Ken Henry and having people on it like Paul McCullough, David Tune, Rick Matthews and Bruce Quigley. I acknowledge the work of those people from the Prime Minister's office and the cabinet policy unit and the work of the Prime Minister and my ministerial colleagues in what all members of the House would acknowledge has been a huge effort to reform Australia's taxation system. I would like to acknowledge the support and hard work of those people in my own office who have been living with this now for months. People who worked on it included Nigel Bailey, Tony Smith, Vanessa Beenders and Phil Gaetjens, who have really worked exceptionally hard in bringing all of this together. This has been a once in a century opportunity to reform the tax system. It will make Australia a better country. I commend this bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. Miscellaneous 1100 1100 10:36:00 1100 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —If I may, for the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Tax Consultative Committee, the Vos report, and I table it in the parliament. Miscellaneous 1100 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I call the member for Hotham on indulgence. 10:38:00 1100 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN DT4 Hotham ALP 0 0 —The Treasurer has just dealt with some of the points that I wanted to raise, but another point goes to procedure in this House. We have just had some 16 bills introduced, but the opposition received a copy of only the very first one. It has been normal practice for ministers, when introducing legislation, to provide their shadows with copies of the totality, including the explanatory memorandums. I know that there have been circumstances in the past where the explanatory memorandum has been tabled at the end, but it is normal practice for the legislation to actually be made available to us as an opposition. If this is the tax legislation of the century, why is Labor not being entitled to see it and why are we only getting 20 hours to debate it? 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I will respond to the member for Hotham's point. The member for Hotham indicated that only the first bill had been— Mr Adams interjecting— Mr Snowdon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Are the members for Lyons and the Northern Territory prepared to hear the Speaker out, or are they determined to continue interrupting? I am responding to the member for Hotham, who indicated that there had been only one bill circulated. The Clerk assures me that it may be the explanatory memorandums rather than the bills that the member for Hotham is seeking because the bills were available. I will take up the matter with the Treasurer's office and get back to the member for Hotham if necessary. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —I would appreciate that because the procedure has been for the minister to make the bills available to the shadow. This has not been done on this occasion. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I will check with the Treasurer and come back to the member for Hotham. Address in Reply 1101 1101 Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Cameron Thompson: That the following address-in-reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to. May it please Your Excellency: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. 10:39:00 1101 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND JK6 Barton ALP 0 0 —I am speaking out of order in this debate because my colleague the member for Riverina, who was to speak before me, is due to make her maiden speech but her family, who are coming from the Riverina, I under stand, have been delayed somewhat. They should hopefully be here by the time I conclude my speech. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I thank the member for Barton. 5V5 SMITH Mr Stephen Smith —We will move an extension. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —My colleague asked whether I will get an extension; we will see how I go. During my speech, I was going to refer to issues relating to the goods and services tax on legal fees, but it is appropriate that I raise that at this time. I noticed in the course of the Treasurer's address that he constantly referred to the fact that everyone was going to be better off under the goods and services tax regime. All I would point out is that, if that is the case, why have we needed these American style names, the sorts of salesmanship names you would put on the windscreen of a used car: `A new tax system: bonuses for older Australians'? Why do we need this advertising rhetoric if the package is so good? Why indeed has it been necessary for the government to have a $14 billion compensation bill? Compensation has been allocated to some areas, but it will not apply to the administration of justice in this nation. The nature of the legal service is that it is precisely that: a service industry. It is not merely a service industry in terms of fees for solicitors and barristers, but in virtually every case that is presented before the courts now there is a requirement for experts, whether they are medical experts, engineering experts, statisticians or accountants. These are all services, so they are all going to be the subject of a GST. Effectively, when it comes to the administration of justice and access to justice by private citizens, the goods and services tax is going to have a dramatic impact. Already, a number of commentators have justifiably said that our system is under strain because of the difficulty experienced by ordinary Australians in obtaining access to legal redress. That is going to be put a 10th higher, if you like, and out of their reach, and that will break the bank for many Australians. I will give one example. When a plaintiff in a personal injury case, an industrial accident case, a motor accident case or a product liability case wins their case, about two-thirds of their costs are recoverable from the defendant. They are known as party and party costs and they are payable by the defendant at scale. But, because the court scales are literally set by the courts, those scales are unlikely to rise to have regard to a GST. The remaining third of the legal costs are known as solicitor against client costs, which cover those items above scale—and let's face it, very few competent lawyers appear at scale these days, and the same goes for those experts to whom I have referred. So the totality of the GST is going to be thrown in with that solicitor-client component. In addition to the 10 per cent on that solicitor-client component, the successful litigant will have to cop an extra 10 per cent on the remaining two-thirds. Effectively, what will come out of their pocket will be a 30 per cent loading as a consequence of the GST, not just a 10 per cent loading. Access to justice has been significantly hit by a goods and services tax, and nowhere in all of the tax bills is there any compensation whatsoever to enable ordinary Australians to overcome the consequences of a GST for the purposes of access to justice. My concerns are fundamentally about this topic of access to justice and the fact that the Howard government has cut back overall funding of legal aid initiatives by some $400 million in its first period of office. Those cuts included $232 million from legal aid directly. It cut $57 million from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, or 48 per cent of their budget. In addition to those cuts, the government has implemented a $142 million increase in court fees. So these actions have made the task of obtaining access to legal redress significantly more difficult and, as I mentioned earlier, that really puts strains on the system. Those cuts are in the context of the total overall budget of the government. In the 1997-98 budget, for instance, the contributions to legal aid were reduced by 21 per cent. The Attorney-General's portfolio, from which legal aid funding comes, receives only 2.4 per cent of Commonwealth appropriation. The legal aid funding component is just 4.4 per cent of that small amount. In the total context of budgetary outlays, just 0.1 per cent goes to legal aid. To put it in an international context, Australia is almost at the bottom of the queue of Western nations. The USA is the only one below it, but in the US they have a sort of contingency fee arrangement, which is done on a speculative basis between lawyers and clients. Nevertheless, we are the second-lowest. We follow England and Wales, where $65 per head, on average, is allocated for legal aid; Scotland, $28; Canada, $18; and New Zealand, $16. We have an allocation of just $13 per head for access to justice through the legal aid system. So that is a significant impediment to ordinary Australians having access to our legal system, which is meant to apply across the board. That has had some very significant consequences. People perceive that it only applies to family law and criminal law. Certainly that is where the biggest impacts have been felt, but it applies in many areas. In dealing with that issue of family law, as a result of legal aid cuts and a $10,000 cap which has been imposed, it is now the case that some 40 per cent of litigants before the court are unrepresented. This is in the context where, as a result of the mediation services of the court, only about five per cent of cases ever go to a full hearing. Those cases are fundamentally the hard cases, the ones that have core problems. Usually they involve questions of access to and custody of children, and they involve some very complex and traumatic issues indeed. I attended a call-over just two weeks ago in the Family Court in Melbourne. The issues that came up repeatedly were those of alleged physical or mental abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, mental illness—indeed, often, the whole box and dice thrown in together. It is really a situation of almost lunacy when a person who is alleging physical abuse, for instance, is cross-examined by his or her former partner—invariably her former partner—who is alleged to be the perpetrator of the violence. Neither the party cross-examining nor the witness in those circumstances can give a rational response. All the experts are saying that there is no doubt that the irrational, illogical, highly emotive environment is blowing out the court hearing time. The judges have an unacceptable burden placed on them of trying to sort out logic, fairness and justice in this highly-charged emotive atmosphere. That is occurring in 40 per cent of the cases. Distressingly, the concept of separate representation for children is now becoming academic. When there is a dispute between parents, if the judge feels that the interests of the child are not being properly represented, the judge will make an order for a separate person to represent the child's desires and wishes. Those orders are becoming a futility because the legal aid funding simply is not there to pay for the representation of those children. Unquestionably, that is a breach of our international obligations pursuant to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for instance, and it has to be a breach of what Australians would regard as our moral obligation to the innocent victims of matrimonial separation. That is an area of family law where it is having a very significant effect. Indeed, it is penny-wise and pound-foolish in the extreme, because the mere fact that all these resources of the court—the officers, the judge, the transcript reporters, the whole court infrastructure—are being used for an unnecessary period increases the overall cost of the system. As I say, it is penny-wise and pound-foolish in the extreme not to afford litigants with appropriate legal representation in those circumstances. In the area of criminal law, there have been a number of significant injustices which have been revealed. What has happened previously under the Labor government is that, if there was a significant criminal case, the federal legal aid would top-up the coffers of the state legal aid commissions. But that is not the policy of this government. For instance, we had about 16 arrests, as I recall, for a drug seizure off Port Macquarie several months ago. The Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales has estimated that will cost about $1 million to conduct proceedings for those 16 defendants. Because legal aid funding will not be topped up by the Commonwealth in respect of issues which fundamentally involve federal offences, it means that the Legal Aid Commission has the dilemma of either not providing legal representation in respect of serious criminal charges, or taking it out of the pot available for other Australians. So that is a situation which is a real dilemma for the judge who is hearing these criminal cases. If these people are unrepresented and his task is to administer justice, how does he cope with a situation where a person facing serious criminal consequences is unrepresented? That is a dilemma which judges, who are entrusted with administering justice in our system, should not be placed under. But it is happening and will continue to happen. More recently, and perhaps more dramatically—I do not want to play on the drama of it—the Law Council of Australia has strongly condemned the government for a situation where a young 16-year-old woman, who has been the victim of an attempted sexual assault, looks like being cross-examined by the man she is accusing of that crime. The Law Council of Australia said: . . . it is abhorrent that Commonwealth Government cuts to legal aid, and its restrictions on the State and Territory legal aid commissions' use of Commonwealth legal aid funding, have led to a situation in Victoria where a teenage girl may now be cross-examined in court by the man charged with assaulting her with intent to rape. The President of the Law Council commented: This is an absolutely devastating situation for the teenage girl to be in, where she faces being interrogated by the very man alleged to have committed the crime. He went on to say: In this day and age, it is absolutely unacceptable that a young woman should even be placed in the position where she has to answer questions put directly to her by the person accused of attacking her. This is a very sad indictment on Australia's justice system, and the effect which devastating cuts to Commonwealth legal aid, and limitations on the scope of the use of that legal aid, are having. They are words not from a politician but from the highly respected President of the Law Council of Australia. The magistrate involved in that case, Deputy Chief Magistrate Mr Brian Barrow, said, in respect of that case, it was a potential abuse of process that could further traumatise the alleged victim. Mr Andrew Scott, the President of the Law Institute of Victoria, said: It is a fundamental right of accused people to cross-examine their accusers in the interests of criminal justice but the trauma of any victim must be far greater when the accused confronts her in person rather than through a trained lawyer. It is not those who have been accused of crime or who are facing family law proceedings; it is actually the victims who are suffering because of this reduction in legal aid that is available to ordinary Australians. While we read these comments and we think of it in the abstract, it could happen to any one of our daughters, granddaughters, nieces, friends and so forth. These are situations which we would not want any of our loved ones to be in, and it is intolerable that we in this parliament in this day and age can allow that to occur to any young woman. But it is a direct consequence of a very tight, very rigid, very mean application of principles with respect to Commonwealth legal aid. In addition to family law and criminal law, there are a number of aspects which do not even enter onto the playing field any longer. There are issues relating to human rights discrimination, whether it is age discrimination or disability discrimination, for which it is virtually impossible to get legal aid. There are issues relating to income security, social security appeals and veterans appeals for which legal aid is virtually out of the question. There are important issues relating to housing—and any one of us in this House would on a number of occasions have received representations regarding tenancy problems—and senior citizens in aged care facilities. All these are common problems that face ordinary Australians. Indeed, many on both sides of the House speak of difficulties with banks. These are all now out of the legal aid equation. Ordinary Australians cannot get redress for these problems, unless they are lucky enough to engage the services of a community legal service, which already has a very heavy burden placed upon them. The focus of my speech today has primarily been with respect to access to justice. But another significant area where access to justice for ordinary Australians is important is in the area of administrative review not only in terms of cutting back the supply of resources available to applicants but in terms of changing the system—which the government is already doing, and it is proposing further changes—which will make access to administrative review more remote. That is regrettable indeed because we in Australia had developed a very sophisticated system. Administrative review is necessary because administrative decision makers are frequently perceived as being under political pressure. They traditionally make decisions behind closed doors. Very infrequently do they give reasons for their decisions. Very infrequently do they comply with the principles of natural justice. Indeed, they are perceived generally as placing the rights of the individual very much at second place to the more general demands of public policy. So the ability for ordinary Australian citizens to obtain administrative review is essential to our system of government. The government's proposals to scrap a number of tribunals and place them under the umbrella of an administrative review tribunal is of particular concern. In particular, the indications from the government, which to date still has not issued a white paper for the discussion, are that only the president of the tribunal will be a lawyer. The rest of the tribunal members will be nominated by the portfolio minister of the departments being reviewed, and they will be middle ranking public servants who will be reviewing the decisions of other middle ranking public servants for the duration of their contract, whether it be three years or five years, before going back to work with those middle ranking public servants. In terms of the concept of independence, that will at the very least be perceived as flawed. That is something that the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has referred to. Indeed, former Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Gerard Brennan has also expressed concern about that. It is worth quoting from a paper presented by Sir Gerard Brennan on 25 November this year where he said that, under this government, `The Parliament has made a conscious incursion upon the rule of law.' It is the rule of law that affects the relationship between citizens and the government of the day. That is something that concerns all Australian citizens. At some time in our lives we are all affected by administrative decisions, and this government is significantly reducing the impartiality of the system of review and hence the viability of that system, and that is going to be to the detriment of ordinary Australians and also place extreme stress on our system of government. (Time expired) 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Before I call the honourable member for Riverina, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies. 11:00:00 1105 Hull, Kay, MP Mrs HULL 83O Riverina NP 1 1 —I was so-called because of the number of rivers in the area. I was first proclaimed in 1901. I have a rich, multicultural history and I feature a glut of cultural excellence. I have a feast of education expertise, with the resident Charles Sturt University home to 10,000 students. I present a smorgasbord of fresh food production—in fact, I am known as the food bowl of the nation. I produce some of the finest wines in the world and I house the largest inland city in New South Wales. I was the home of Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Steve Elkington and many other famous Australians. I am protected by a competent defence force. I am the home of Hicks and the house of Hull. I have around 20,000 of the nicest people in Australia living within me. And I am a complete tourist destination, not to be missed. I am indeed the future of Australia. What am I? I am the Riverina. Some members may be here to represent the global issues. However, I am here to represent the issues of Riverina and I will be unrelenting in those attempts to ensure that our region prospers and continues to provide the benefits to the nation that it has in the past. It is at this time that I offer thanks on behalf of the Riverina to the former member Noel Hicks and his wife Annie for their unswerving commitment to the electorate and wish them joy and happiness in their well earned retirement. I take this opportunity to thank all those people who made it possible for the National Party to retain the seat of Riverina, from my devoted campaign team to my many friends, National Party members of parliament and branches and the very important voters in Riverina. To the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, the Hon. Tim Fischer, I extend my heartfelt appreciation for his unqualified support of me and all of his National Party members and candidates. Last but not at all least I thank my devoted and inspirational family: my wonderful husband, Graham, who lost his mother to cancer on the day before the election but who continued to be a solid rock of support and encouragement to me; my much loved three sons, Darren, Danny and Brett; my daughters-in-law, Tonie and Anne; my beautiful grandsons, Nicholas, who is in the gallery today, Joshua and Aaron; my mother, Melva McElroy; my sister Pam, who is also in the gallery, and my brother Graham. This love and support from my family I will cherish above all else. During the election campaign I travelled many of the 60,000 square kilometres of the Riverina, listening to the myriad issues that affect our communities. I promised that if I had the opportunity to raise these issues in parliament then I would certainly do so. So in considering what the make-up of my maiden speech would be I decided that presenting the concerns of my electorate to the House would be a start in repaying all of those constituents who had placed their trust in me. The most pressing concern is the current state of health in country areas. Most of the constituents consider our health system to be in crisis. There is a desperate need for all governments to re-establish confidence in the health system and to provide an equity of service for rural Australians. The waiting lists that currently exist for the provision of dental surgery, podiatry, elective surgery and many other health problems in our region are totally unacceptable. There is a real need for the federal government to be more accountable in the way in which moneys that are paid to the states for health are then tied to outcomes. This funding must result in improved services to our communities. Commonwealth funding for state health should not be allowed to be siphoned into unrelated areas. Every Australian deserves equal access to quality health care regardless of where they live or for which political party they vote. Insults should not be traded across this chamber on the status of the future health of our nation. During the election campaign the Labor candidate in my electorate consistently called for a bipartisan approach to health issues. However, after being in this chamber during the debate on private health insurance I have realised that there will never be a bipartisan approach to this problem, simply because I believe Labor have never and will never embrace equity of health services for all Australians. The lack of doctors, specialist services and trained nurses in rural areas is at crisis level. Currently beds are being taken away from rural areas simply because smaller communities cannot attract medical practitioners or nurses to take up positions there. I congratulate and thank the government for their commitment to establish a $13.2 million rural clinical training school in Wagga Wagga. This will effectively form a partnership with the University of New South Wales and Charles Sturt University and will have doctors training in the hospitals of Griffith, Wagga Wagga and Albury. However, there needs to be urgent action to redress the crisis of the shortage of nurses. This shortage is due to the extremely difficult working conditions, heavy lifting, inadequate equipment, long working hours and lack of assistance in most rural hospitals. I ask the government to take up the challenge of extracting a firm commitment from the New South Wales Labor government to reverse its trend of allowing the deterioration of rural and medical services in country New South Wales. Of equal concern to my electorate, and again common to Australia, is unemployment and the lack of job opportunities in rural and regional areas. I welcome the inquiry into the social impacts of competition policy on rural areas and look forward to contributing on behalf of the Riverina. When the Labor Party embarked upon the path of economic rationalism along with the other governments, I sincerely wonder if they realised just what the impacts of some of those reforms would mean for rural Australians. I admit that there may be some positives for country people under COAG, Hilmer and competition policy, but unfortunately we seem to have introduced all of the negatives first. When asked for their opinion on national competition policy, most people in rural Australia feel that it has accelerated rural decline. It has the enormous potential to cause even further problems for us. Much of this, it could be said, may have been brought about by globalisation. However, the government needs to recognise that there have been obvious effects on rural communities. It should be `slowly, slowly'. The object of the national competition policy was initially to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading, and the provision of consumer protection. Somehow, somewhere, something has been lost in this implementation process because the results most noticed have been unemployment, social dislocation, rural unrest and a seemingly unfair application of the act on some of our industries. Currently, the RAAF base at Forest Hill is under threat of closure due to the Defence Efficiency Review. This would see a loss of around 1,500 jobs from Wagga Wagga, a city already reeling from the loss of many hundreds of jobs in the past few years. This review is based around the Commercial Support Program. RAAF Forest Hill is already ahead in commercial support. It has even contracted out some of its core activities. There is no need to relocate the base to enable services to be contracted out. Those services are already available in Riverina. The savings of amalgamation would extend to only about 20 personnel, but it would take around 30 years to recoup losses incurred in that relocation. I thank the coalition for their recent commitment to training at RAAF Forest Hill. However, I remind the minister that the threat of closure still hangs over the Riverina and I implore the minister to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine if there is a business case, along with then applying a real term dollar value to the social cost to the government, before making his final decision. The message has been one of economic rationalism. We are told, `Sell assets, shed debt, outsource and above all downsize, and the private sector jobs will come and economic growth will follow.' Unfortunately, with that process having been put into place, we are now faced with far more challenges to overcome. Our banks have gone, or are going. Our schools are closing. Our education, rail, taxation, electricity and other government departments have disappeared from our regional towns. Aged care is in crisis with the demand for dementia care far outstripping the supply of service that is available. Case loads on clinical nurses have doubled, but our operational days have been cut back. Increased demand for aged care hostels in rural areas cannot be satisfied. We have an ageing population, yet we restrict the number of hostels that can be set up in rural areas. Again we apply an urban model that does not and cannot adapt to smaller country communities. Child care is another area that has suffered in this world of rationalism, with far too few places available and far too many families waiting to access quality child care for their precious children. All of these issues are in part responsible for the breaking down of our wonderful fabric of our family units. In the end, it seems to us in rural communities that we appear to share a disproportionate burden from the implementation of national competition policy and that sometimes there is nothing rational about economic rationalism. During the election campaign, there was general enthusiasm for tax reform. There is still some unresolved concerns from self-funded retirees up to the age of 60 who feel that they have somehow fallen through the safety net. I would hope to see this real problem addressed. There was a general acceptance that the current wholesale sales tax system needed replacing. There were major concerns and some mistrust of how a GST would be policed to ensure that savings would be passed on to the consumer, how much it would cost small business in set-up fees and if the cost of living would rise disproportionately for those low income earners and pensioners. However, a large portion of the people I spoke to felt that to accept a GST was far better than the alternative that was available—that was, to risk the return of the Labor Party to government. Tourism is the largest and most positive employer of young people in regional areas. It has also been the saving grace for many rural communities and farmers. As a former very vocal board member and Commissioner of Tourism New South Wales, I am totally committed to this industry. I have listened to, and I share the concerns of, the industry on the possible impacts of a GST on domestic tourism numbers. Already the cheap fares to Asia are competing strongly with our domestic market and are impacting heavily on regional tourism visitation. We are experiencing an outflow that simply will not be captured unless all of the states apply resources to undertake a vigorous regional marketing campaign. I implore the federal Minister for Sport and Tourism to join with all state ministers for tourism to determine what additional resources are needed for tourism marketing to ensure our Australians see Australia first and that international travellers are able to enjoy the benefits of all of those great Federation Fund grants that we have recently approved for rural tourism development throughout Australia. The coalition has long recognised that the prosperity of regional Australia is critically important to the prosperity of every Australian and that the only sustainable way to make an impact on unemployment is to generate more jobs in the Australian economy, and that means rewarding enterprise and in particular encouraging small business. As a very successful small business operator over the past 20 years and an employer of up to 35 full-time staff members, I realise the real benefits the proposed tax reform package will provide to small business. However, I would hope that the government will look toward the removal of payroll tax. This would provide immense incentive for small business and ensure the creation of many more new jobs in regional areas. Payroll tax, after all, is a tax essentially on jobs. Improved funding of the Regional Assistance Program is essential to support projects identified by area consultative committees in order to create new jobs, assist small business and, most importantly, to improve regional base skills. The current shortage of skilled labour in Riverina is at a critical level. Unless something is done to encourage business to invest in training of apprentices, this country will be without the basic skills to enable to us to perform everyday functions. Riverina has some of the largest and most efficient chicken, citrus and pork industries. We must preserve the private enterprise ownership of these industries. This can be assisted by immediately implementing and policing the recent legislation on packaging and labelling. Most consumers will buy Australian and are entitled to clear, concise, big print labelling to distinguish their Australian product from imports. This legislation will assist in reducing the amount of imported citrus concentrate from Brazil, pork from Canada and chicken from Thailand, and will provide a return to growers and also to the nation. Telstra's complete delivery on the community services obligation should give rural people equity in telecommunications, thus enabling us to establish additional industry links in areas where progress is impeded only by the lack of access to reliable telecommunications. It is my intention as the member for Riverina to pursue satellite linkages to these areas that are now limited in services under the community services obligation. Roads and transport infrastructure that will enable the cost-effective movement of produce is essential in keeping our industry competitive nationally and internationally. Cost-efficient road, rail and air transport options for regional areas equal returns to our nation. Currently, roads carry three-quarters of our freight. That fact alone demands a new vision for transport infrastructure. The continued investment by the government into better roads and into the proposed Melbourne to Darwin railway line will realise many national benefits. Our Murrumbidgee irrigation area channels were established with pioneering vision in order to produce a food bowl for the nation. We are now facing a battle to retain water rights for those channels that are vital to our nation and to the Riverina's survival. The misunderstood cap was introduced as an interim cap. This has somehow become a permanent cap. Growers recognise the cap should stay. However, there must be modifications. Currently, we have a preplanned formula that does not relate to what nature gives us. In the wettest of years, growers are unable to get access to their allocations, and environmental flows are being used to restore the balance of the ecology in the river. It is not environmental flows but better management that will restore the ecology in our river systems. Speaking of what nature gives us, I would like to bring to the attention of the parliament the night of 28 October and the impact of that date on my electorate. That night saw a frost and a temperature of minus five degrees. Affected are some of the most efficient growers in our country, with up to 90 per cent of their crops wiped out. Farm management plans and responsible farming practices could never foresee or plan for an event that had not been previously recorded in excess of 50 years. In applying for exceptional circumstances, these farmers do not want something for nothing; they wish to pay their way. All they have requested is access to a low interest loan so that they can plant next year's crop and provide for their families. They want no free ride. In drawing to a close, I would like to make mention of the positive role that local government plays in the delivery of essential ser vices to its ratepayers. As the former Deputy Mayor of Wagga Wagga City Council, I recognise the importance of a cohesive relationship between the federal government and local government. I share the concern of local government regarding the proposal to transfer financial assistance grants over to state governments. The annual value of these grants has been progressively declining. It is the fear of local government that there will be a further reduction in the quantum of these grants unless there is legislation put in place to ensure that this will not happen. Local government is under great pressure to undertake more tasks—both at the behest of partners in government and also in response to community pressures. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have not heard famous quotes from historians or ex-prime ministers from me today. What you have heard is the voices of the present looking forward to the future, sometimes with despair but more often with hope and vision. The people in my electorate do not want handouts. They are rich in ambition and have survived through hard work and effort. They are pioneering Australians willing to fight for their rights. Unfortunately, at times they are unsure of exactly who it is that they are fighting. The Riverina's concerns and aspirations are my concerns and aspirations. My commitment to my electorate of Riverina is absolutely unconditional. I conclude with dedicating this speech to my late father, George McElroy. You were my inspiration, Dad. My success is your success, my attitude is your attitude, my life has been through your life—for this I give you thanks. I miss you, Dad. 11:20:00 1109 Crosio, Janice, MP Mrs CROSIO 7T4 Prospect ALP 0 0 —At the outset I congratulate the honourable member for Riverina for her fine first speech, as I congratulate and commend every member on both sides of the House who was elected at this election and who has made their first speech. One of the most striking things about the opening week of our 39th Parliament was the stark contrast between the hope, inspiration and optimism contained in the words of some of the new members in this House compared with that tired and very uninspiring speech delivered by our Governor-General but written for him by this Howard government. Where, for example, our member for Gellibrand talked about an Australia where low income families: . . . will be confident that despite all of the difficulties that they face their children will still have access to affordable and quality education and free quality health care should they become ill. They will have a chance, equal with all others irrespective of income, to do better for themselves and their children. The Howard government, through the Governor-General, was talking about a plan for tax. Where the member for Sydney in delivering her first speech talked about `protecting the most vulnerable from the ravages' of wage cuts and undermining of the job security, building an environment where working Australians can provide for themselves and their families with dignity and where a secure welfare safety net exists to help the needy and give them that helping hand, the Howard government, through the Governor-General, was talking about a plan for tax. And where the member for Griffith talked about an active government, a government which has `as its foremost guiding principle a commitment to equality of opportunity that is real rather than rhetorical', the Howard government, through the Governor-General, was talking about a plan for a tax. Through these members and others, we were given glimpses of what could be achieved in an Australia governed with passion, with optimism and with ideas, where the education and the health of its citizens does not play second fiddle to the idolatry of economic rationalism. Compare their vision to the bleak reality that we are stuck with now—a government riddled with pessimists, inward looking and inert; a government that has as its grand vision for the future of this country a tax. A tax that will not create jobs, will not improve education, will not make people feel more secure and will not make this country a better or a fairer place to live. Compare their vision to the reality of the past 2½ years under this government: mass sackings; government sponsored industrial espionage and treachery; funding cuts in the realm of billions of dollars to education, labour market programs and public health services; the careful and cynical cultivation of division in Australian society for cheap political gain; and our slow disengagement from playing a leading role—boxing above our weight, so to speak—on the international stage. What a disgrace for Australia! One would have thought from the promises the Prime Minister and the coalition made before the 1996 election that we would finish at least the first term of their administration as a country full of confidence, populated by a people at peace with themselves and their place in the world. Instead we are casting hopelessly about for an ounce of leadership and firm direction. True reconciliation, not only between black and white but also between rich and poor and city and country, seems further away than it ever has. Armed with the knowledge of what has occurred over the past 2½ years, I do not look forward to the next term of the Howard government with any level of confidence. I can safely say that neither do my constituents. Despite the Prime Minister's promise to spend the next three years leading a government with a greater social conscience—a warmer, cuddlier version than the one we have seen for the last couple of years—the people of my electorate of Prospect just do not believe him one iota. That is why they voted against him in droves on 3 October in my electorate and in many like mine. They voted against the coalition because they had seen close up what it means to have the Liberal and National parties with their hands on the levers in this country. The people of my electorate of Prospect know that the Howard government has form all right: form on jobs, form on funding cuts, form on health care and form on education. One of the government's first acts upon coming into power in 1996 was the wholesale destruction of the employment programs put into place by the former Keating Labor government. Across Australia, over $2 billion worth of cuts were made to valuable programs such as SkillShare, the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme and New Work Opportunities. In my electorate, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in metropolitan Australia, these cuts have had a devastating effect. When John Howard became Prime Minister, the youth unemployment rate in the Fairfield-Liverpool district was 28.6 per cent. That is far too high, I grant you. But it has recently risen to an all-time high of 36.4 per cent. At this very moment, it stands at 34.9 per cent, which is a shame for my people. If putting the knife into our community's labour market programs were not enough, the Howard government's encore performance was orchestrating the demise of some of our most successful job placement agencies through its tendering process for the Job Network system. We not only lost the resources offered by the agencies and organisations that had really hunted down jobs and helped people from disadvantaged and non-English-speaking backgrounds find work for years; we also lost the expertise of the people who staffed these agencies. We lost their collective knowledge and abilities. The unemployed in both the greater Fairfield area and the wider community are the losers for it. In addition to this cruel blow, both employers and the unemployed alike lost any access to a public employment service with the abolition of the Commonwealth Employment Service, or CES, as it was known. Members of my community have been shut out—effectively banned—from receiving active and expert assistance in finding work when they need it, and this is in an area where unemployment regularly hovers around the 13 per cent mark. I have already provided the youth unemployment figures. They have been sold out by a government that in its heart does not want all Australians, irrespective of whether they receive benefits or not, having access to high quality employment services. And what did the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed, get in return for all these cutbacks? They got work for the dole and the common youth allowance. That is the Howard government's form on jobs and labour market issues. Then there is this government's form on health. One of the first actions of John Howard's government was axing $100 million from the Commonwealth Dental Health Care Program. Almost overnight, the waiting lists for public dental care at Fairfield District Hospital within my electorate went from manageable to out of control. Elderly pensioners and members of low income families are now currently waiting over two years for dental treatment at that hospital. The abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Care Program came at the same time that the government robbed our public hospitals across Australia of in excess of $800 million, and that was just in its first budget. Such a major funding cut could not help but have a detrimental effect on my local community. The three main public hospitals serving my area—Fairfield, Liverpool and Westmead—had their waiting lists balloon to unmanageable proportions despite the best efforts of our Carr Labor government in New South Wales, which has injected over $1 billion into the NSW public hospitals system since 1995. Then we had an increase in prescription fees for essential medicines for pensioners. The minimum charge increased from $2.70 to $3.20. That move saved the government $300 million. If that were not enough, to make life difficult for the elderly, older Australians were then hit by the government's demand that they pay exorbitant amounts of money for nursing home care. The Prime Minister now requires nursing home residents to pay $4,380 per year, or $12 per day, if they have assets of over $44,000. Those with assets of between $22,500 and $44,399 pay fees on a scale from $1.37 to $9.50 per day. The rub is that, despite government protestations to the contrary, the family home of these elderly people is still considered as part of the assets test for these new accommodation charges. Over 70 per cent of age pensioners have only one asset: the family home. Most homes, even one-bedroom flats and units, sell for more than $44,000. As a result, most pensioners will now face the highest level of fee upon entering a nursing home. For many, the only way they will be able to afford to do so is to sell their home. Elderly Australians entering a nursing home also end up paying in more ways than one. Under the government's initial fee scheme, a nursing home was only allowed to retain $2,600 per year for five years, which was then a maximum of $13,000. Under the scheme they finally settled on, residents will find that after five years they have contributed $21,900. If a nursing home resident chooses to rent their house to pay for their care, they will, of course, pay much more. If the house earns $200 per week in rental, that resident will end up paying almost $15,000, after taking into account the daily fee, the new annual fee and taxes on the rent. That is this government's form on health care and aged care. What is its form on education? The coalition has reduced university grants by nearly $1 billion and has now abolished 21,000 places for students. It has increased HECS to such an extent that it has become a barrier for young people—many of them from disadvantaged families in electorates like mine who were destined to become the first child in their family to attend university, but that dream is no more. The cuts continued. Some $240 million was cut from TAFE and $130 million from government schools, with a further $400 million axed indirectly through cuts to state grants. As 27,000 young people were shoved back into school, thanks to the Common Youth Allowance, the government refused to come to the party and hand across the extra $100 million needed to help our public school education system cope with such an unexpected influx. The government's $800 million cut to child care has forced hundreds of mothers in Western Sydney to take their kids out of official care and use alternative care arrangements. Three centres have closed down in my electorate—two long day care centres and one outside of school hours care centre. In the 20 or so years that Fairfield City Council has operated long day care centres—an involvement, I might add, very proudly begun when I was mayor of that city—not once has it had to close down a centre, for any reason. It has now had two close down as well as the out of school hours centre. The closure of the Greenfield Park Long Day Care Centre in August came about as a direct result of parents being unable to afford the exorbitant fees they were being asked to pay. The Howard government has cornered the council into increasing fees by around $25 per child per week to make up the shortfall in its budget, thanks to the abolition of operational subsidies. The sad news is that Greenfield Park will not be the last child-care centre to go in my area; there will be more. The government's sorry track record continues with regard to legal aid. The national Legal Aid Commission has told the Attorney-General that there is just no money left. Cuts of $33 million a year which began in July last year have now left the cupboard bare. The New South Wales Legal Aid Commission has only enough money to fund 4,000 Family Court cases this financial year as opposed to the 6,000 cases it was able to fund last year. The number of people eligible for legal aid to allow them to take their cases to trial will also halve from 1,000 to 500. The number of children given assistance with separate representation in the Family Court will be reduced from last year's figure of 750 to a measly 630. Yet, because of the Howard government's legal aid funding changes, the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission is faced with the prospect of having to divert $1 million away from the Family Court system to defend alleged drug smugglers from Hong Kong and Indonesia. These people are facing federal charges. Therefore, the money to defend them must come from the share of funds the commission gets from the Commonwealth. The men and women of Fairfield's legal aid service are like their colleagues in similar offices around this country—they are professional people doing their best to provide adequate legal representation to people who need it but cannot afford it. The problem is that, with the funds running out, they cannot defend everyone who needs it. The stress and pressure that they are under is immense. People who need their help are slipping away through the cracks. As a recent Sydney Morning Herald article reported, `amateur hour is fast becoming the norm in the Family Court'. Men and women with no legal experience are being forced to represent themselves in our Family Court because they cannot afford legal help and there is no legal aid assistance to be had. For this to happen in Australia—a country where parliament and its institutions are founded on the rule of law; a country where people's accessibility to adequate legal representation is proudly held up as a hallmark of our civil society—should be a matter of great shame to this government. For the reasons I have just outlined, my constituents have been given little cause to embrace this government or its reforms over the last 2½ years. On the contrary, they have cause by the bucket load to be full of resentment, suspicion and antagonism towards a government that has, in many cases, ripped at the very fabric of their community. Now that my constituents have seen what is in store for them with a GST—those bills that were presented in this House today—they know that it is not going to get any better. The GST is an unfair and deeply discriminatory tax. For the good citizens living in the wealthier parts of Australia, the GST will be a boom of enormous proportions. For the financially disadvantaged and underprivileged, for the low income families and pensioners, the GST will be a financial slug to the guts that many will never recover from. Working Australian families will have to stretch their dollar even further to afford food, pay utility bills, catch public transport, repair their cars, repair their houses, buy the kids' school uniforms and indulge in simple pleasures such as going to the movies with their family, taking their kids to the Easter Show or just going to the local football match. All of this is going to affect them. Pensioners will also have to stretch their meagre savings to pay more for over-the-counter medicines and groceries, for a game of bingo down at the local senior citizens hall, or even for a beer at the local RSL club with their old army mates. They are going to be slugged more. After listening this morning to the outline of the compensation package that the government has now put together, I believe it is woefully inadequate. The people of Prospect knew this and accordingly voted against the coalition's tax package in droves on 3 October. The government has estimated that the cost of living for a pensioner will rise $6 a week under a GST. It has offered an extra $11 to make up for that fact. Yet Arthur Andersen says the GST impact on pensioners will be close to $18 a week. Neil Warren puts that figure closer to $14 in his report to ACOSS. While the estimations differ, they do add up to one thing: this government is offering inadequate compensation for the GST, and it is the underprivileged and the pensioners who will be paying the price. Prime Minister Howard's GST gives more than half of the promised $13 billion worth of tax cuts to the wealthiest 20 per cent of Australians. The other 80 per cent get to carve up what is left. The GST will place a dead hand on the fastest growing job sector in Australia, the service industry. It will drive up inflation. It will do nothing to improve exports or Australia's trade performance at a time when we have just seen the worst trade results in almost a decade. The residents of Prospect know that the Prime Minister's GST means that they have just as little to look forward to in the future from this government as they have received over the last 2½ years of its reign. The almost 10 per cent swing to Labor in my seat on 3 October should be heard as a resounding call to the Prime Minister that the people in the electorate of Prospect and in other electorates like mine have been hurt by this government, and they do not want to hurt any more. They have bled enough. The people of my electorate want jobs, not GST. They want fairness delivered to their community, not the law of the jungle. They want respect, not division and neglect. A common theme of the first speeches of this side of the House was the observation that the Prime Minister governs by the bankrupt, Thatcherite ethos of: `There is no such thing as a society.' This is the most obscene and preposterous notion. My only fear is that, if the Prime Minister continues governing in the fashion he has been accustomed to, by the time he finishes his second term in office this awful ideology may have become a reality and then all Australians can bow their heads in shame. I condemn the government for having put up the speech they did, which our Governor-General had to deliver. I also condemn the government for not showing compassion for and sensitivity to the problems that are abounding out there in the communities. The leadership of the present Prime Minister and his executive government has enabled them to get away with it because the rest of the back bench have followed them. You cannot lead if nobody wants to follow. In this particular case, those people seem prepared to follow. I believe all Australians will see that it will be to the detriment of this country. I condemn the Prime Minister's action, and I put on record that I condemn the speeches I heard delivered in this House this morning with the introduction of the GST tax package. We should all be ashamed of that. 11:39:00 1113 Barresi, Phil, MP Mr BARRESI ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 0 —I rise in support of the Governor-General's address. In doing so, I would like to make a number of points in regard to my own efforts in winning the seat of Deakin for a second time. On the night of 3 October, I sat in a small room in my campaign office, watching a computer screen track the swings from each local polling booth. After a short time, which seemed an eternity to me, it became apparent that the people of Deakin had again entrusted their faith in me. It was only then that I tuned in to the election telecast and watched a triumphant Kim Beazley gloating over the Labor Party's success. To someone who had not followed earlier proceedings, I am sure it sounded as if Labor had won office. Indeed, the performance of the Leader of the Opposition was simply an extension of the campaign of twisted facts and shameful fear to which he had subjected the Australian people over the previous five weeks. The truth is that on 3 October the people returned the coalition government, and now they demand that we be able to govern. The ALP may take heart from their increased vote and ignore that it came mainly in their own safe seats, but governments are not formed, as they reminded us in 1987 and 1990, by winning 70 per cent of the vote in safe seats like Gellibrand, Maribyrnong, Hotham or, dare I say, Prospect. It is in the marginal seats that elections are won and lost, and my electorate of Deakin is one such marginal seat that the pundits had safely pinned on Labor's board. For some reason, the media and the ALP forgot to ask the people when making this prediction. On election day in Deakin, as in most other marginal coalition seats around Australia, the people made some clear determinations—namely, to continue down the road of sound economic management, which has seen us withstand better than most other nations the financial meltdown taking place in Asia; to give the boot to an antiquated taxation system that leaves Australia out of step with the modern world; to maintain a health system and services that will deliver affordable choice between a healthy public and private hospital system; and to maintain the partnerships with those federal members of parliament that have delivered greater prosperity for their region. Finally, people made one more choice: to reject Labor's tax plan—a cynical and incomplete patchwork conceived by the left wing ideologues of its front bench and subsequently thrown in the dumpster two weeks after the election. This same Labor Party sits in here today without anything resembling a policy, seeking to frustrate, delay and squash the reforms that Australia so desperately needs and voted for. In fact, anyone who is rumoured to have a semblance of intellect is banished to the ALP back bench. This same party is still led by the member for Brand, who along with his comrades John Cain, Joan Kirner, John Bannon, Brian Burke and Carmen Lawrence will be remembered as big spenders who bled their states and country dry and refused to fess up. With a new century and a new millennium approaching, Australia is looking ahead. I am proud to be back here as a member of another Howard government which, in contrast to those opposite, is very much looking to the future. Australians recognise that John Howard could probably have been re-elected without a plan for reform. In fact, they realise that to have presented such a bold plan was to put some significant lead in our campaign saddlebags. In contrast, the Labor Party took no chances but chose merely to wheel out its stale 1993 GST election negatives. In my electorate there was no discussion of local issues by the ALP—just adherence to the national campaign plan. As a constituent once commented, Freddy Krueger came to Deakin but the people were too busy looking for policies to get scared. These past couple of weeks we have heard from the new members on the other side about the downtrodden, the overworked, the vulnerable, the poor and how the Labor Party has historically fought on their behalf. I say to those new members: this is not your grandfather's Labor Party and it is not Blair's New Labour. The ALP today believes it more appropriate to lie to those very same people with whom they once claimed great affinity—the pensioners, the young families, the unemployed and the working class. Since the election, many of my constituents have told me that it gave them great hope and great satisfaction to vote for a government that was willing to risk it all on a matter of national imperative. Quite a number have said that they were not convinced of the personal benefits of a new tax system to their hip pocket, but they accepted that it was the right thing for our nation. I am pleased to live and work in an electorate where such a selfless attitude is exhibited. I am proud of the people of Deakin for their principled stand, their rejection of Labor's scare tactics and their embrace of our plan for this country. In time, they will see the benefits accruing to them as individuals as well as to the community. We all acknowledge that there is a role for the opposition in the political process, and we have no problem with scrutiny of our plans—they are good ones and will withstand that examination. But the Senate's tax inquiries are an attempt at distracting the people from the pressing need for reform. The Australian people know that failure to implement our plans will leave us all in desperate straits and threaten our future in an increasingly volatile world economy. While this obviously has not dawned on the other side, the rest of Australia is ready to acknowledge the increasing stability and prosperity created by the coalition's sound economic management. Australians clamour for a system that will create opportunities for jobs, for exports and for greater prosperity. They know, as I know, that the Howard plan will deliver all of these. We in Deakin are looking forward to another three years of good government, some meaningful reform and improved services to our community. The people are hard working and honest, and I have always attempted to listen to them and act in their interests. That they have rewarded me with a second term reinforces my conviction to give them an even better level of representation to help deliver for them the greatest possible opportunities. As the local member, I am keen to further the existing partnerships with local organisations and also to create some new ones. In my first speech in this place I said that Deakin is not a picture postcard electorate. Indeed, it is not—but it is truly the heart and soul of Melbourne nonetheless. I look back on that speech and can take heart that, in an economically and socially turbulent world, we were able to deliver a greater sense of security and confidence with which to face the new millennium. Certainly, families were beneficiaries in the coalition's first term, with lower interest rates and sustained low inflation. Families in Deakin with a mortgage are, on average, $330 a month better off than they were in 1996—and that is, of course, before today's announcement of a further cut in interest rates by the Reserve Bank. During the last term, an increased focus was given to the importance of the family unit. This was done through policies to strengthen the family, such as family payments to lower and middle income earners, increased tax breaks and health insurance rebates. The help for homeless youth, provided through funding from the Prime Minister's youth homelessness task force to the Ringwood Extended Family Services, was much appreciated. It is a program that attempts to resolve the problem at its genesis. It is important that this takes place in the suburbs before these young people are drawn to the inner city environment—and I congratulate Bruce Argyle and his team at REFS on their great work. The people of Deakin have also benefited from the coalition's reform of employment programs. In Melbourne's east, unemployment has come down and there are jobs that have been hard to fill because of the lack of skilled labour. The latest ABS unemployment figures released for the month of October indicate an unemployment rate of just over 5½ per cent. The successes of our employment initiatives in the east are no accident, and they cannot be explained away by the fortune of geography. That would be to sell short the initiatives, the drive and the success of organisations such as Jobs East, the local area consultative committee, and the work of its Executive Director, Louise Rowland, and its Chairman, Louise DiGiusto. Their initiatives in creating opportunities, through the First Stop Shop and also through a strategy to deal with mature age unemployment, are welcome. I propose to continue working with Jobs East to make sure that there are further gains to be made from their initiatives. The work of group training companies, such as Melbourne East Group Training and the Inner East Group Training, is applauded by me. The new apprenticeship centre which, since May 1998, has been open at Melbourne East Group Training has had some remarkable achievements with in excess of 4,100 new apprentices being put through that centre. We estimate that since May 1998 in the eastern suburbs as a whole, including other new apprenticeship centres, between 6,000 and 7,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships have commenced. The work of Peter O'Connor and Marie Holmes of KYM, one of the Job Network providers, has been truly remarkable with the establishment of a Jobs Pathway Program under the auspices of the Box Hill, Knox and Maroondah Careers Group. In the last term it was the largest program of its kind in Australia, and now it has received another new contract to work with 63 schools in the area to place 1,000 school leavers into jobs. We have already seen the enormous success of the Jobs Pathway Program where students who are in danger of leaving school early are counselled and then channelled into jobs and traineeships in their area of interest. The Eastern Industry Education Partnership has placed over 2,000 people into vocational training while at school—and, once again, it is the largest program of its kind in this country. The successes of our employment initiatives in the east are no accident, and are not explained away by the fortune of geography. They are achieved through hard work and vision by those who truly are interested in helping the unemployed. These and other providers have worked in a constructive manner with Centrelink and the government to address the needs of our unemployed. Our region is at the forefront of employment initiatives, and I have already invited the two new ministers to visit my electorate to listen, to look and to learn. With reforms to Centrelink, with a Job Network that is hitting its straps with job referrals and placements, the employment outlook in Melbourne's east remains strong. However, we have not won the battle. There are still more job seekers than jobs. We will never be content to sweep job seekers under the carpet as Labor did, nor will we set an arbitrary target for self-satisfaction. Economic realities dictate that we must continue to reform our work places and our industrial relations. To this end, our unfair dismissal proposals must be passed and junior wage rates retained. Without these two vital pieces of legislation, we are further jeopardising the chances of hundreds of thousands of young Australians to work. Labor MPs do not understand this. In the main, they have never run their own businesses. To so many of them, the employers are the enemy, and incentive and profit are capitalist plots. While we have come some way along the track in the past 30 or so months, during the campaign I outlined a vision for the next term, and in Deakin there are still some pressing needs. The first is a better health and aged care system. After 13 years of Labor, both were in tatters. We have taken significant steps to improve our nursing homes. We have given the homes the means to raise capital for development projects so that they may be able to comply with the tougher building and health care standards. I am pleased to be part of a capital development program at the Coronella Retirement Village in Blackburn. In order to preserve the dual health system that has served us reliably for some time now, we have promised greater incentives for membership of private health funds. That Labor opposes these incentives is a disgrace but certainly no surprise. They have for a long time been fixated on killing the private system. Another major issue for the people of Deakin is better freeway and transport systems. The opening of the second stage of the Eastern Freeway to Springvale Road by the Kennett government last December has highlighted our growing transport needs. The extension of the Eastern Freeway to Ringwood and the link to the Scoresby transport corridor are vital. They will provide regional and suburban dwellers with a vastly improved service. I am pleased that the EIS on the Scoresby transport corridor has been completed and has given the project the thumbs up. Transport ministers in the last parliament know how serious I am about these proposals. Along with my eastern suburbs colleagues, I will very shortly be presenting the case to the Deputy Leader of the National Party, our new Minister for Transport and Regional Services. It is vital that the Scoresby transport corridor linking Frankston in the south with Ringwood in the north be declared a road of national importance and that the Commonwealth and Victorian governments put their heads together to get the job done. I realise that Victoria has better road systems than many other states, but we still deserve our fair share of road funding. Roads are expensive, and there are always other pressing matters that require funding. I appreciate too that regional and rural Australians require and deserve the same level of facilities and infrastructure as those in urban areas, but let us not forsake one for the other. Urban infrastructure in growth cities, such as Melbourne and Melbourne's east, must be attended to—as much for the benefit of our rural enterprises as our urban businesses. I would like to reiterate my commitment to a multicultural society. Deakin has very strong immigrant communities made up of over 150 different nationalities, principally Greeks, Italians and Chinese, people who are good citizens and contributors to our country. In the Whitehorse end of my electorate, approximately 30 per cent of the population is of non-English speaking background; whereas in the Maroondah end it is only seven per cent—an electorate of two halves. I am pleased that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, has agreed to establish a migrant resource centre in Melbourne's east. Former Labor immigration ministers failed to do this because they looked only to the west and north of Melbourne—good Labor territories. The minister's decision will please the many that have been working hard on behalf of our immigrant community to smooth their initiation to their new country. I congratulate our local chairman, Mr Peter Spring, and members of the board, which is made up of community leaders from the area. I am pleased that the people of Deakin rejected One Nation, giving them less than 2.8 per cent of the vote—fractionally above the vote achieved by AAFI in 1996. However, one of my disappointments during the campaign was the short-sighted and simplistic view taken by some who claimed an interest in furthering multiculturalism. In particular, I refer to the Unity Party, which chose to ignore the record of those coalition members who shared similar principles and who had worked for the same objectives. In the end, Unity put aside their own principles for transparent political objectives by handing their preferences to Labor in every electorate. Ironically, it was the preferences from One Nation, and not the Unity Party, that saw the election of our first Chinese born senator, Tsebin Chen, a Liberal. In 1996 I spoke about politics being the art of balancing ideology with pragmatism. The Labor Party has come full circle—pure ideology, pure pragmatism in government and now back to pure ideology. After 2½ years in this place, I now realise that politics must involve a third element—leadership; the ability to bring people with us, leading but not being too far ahead that the people lose sight of us and our vision for the nation. The rise of One Nation was fuelled not by any great groundswell of support for its racist sentiments but more from a sense of disillusionment with the modern world. Their support in the main came from people who yearned for the glory days characterised by lifetime employment, fortress Australia, high employment—the days when you could leave the backdoor unlocked and know that your home and family would be safe. It is a world to which we can never return. Nonetheless, it is a mood to be ignored by governments at their own peril. In today's world, large multinationals as well as governments are looking for that competitive edge. That edge often comes not from growth but from productivity improvements. The best analogy today is the image that banks are leaving their customers. As they close a suburban bank because of a rational, logical argument of geographical coverage, they lose customers. As they pursue an organisational structure which emphasises the importance of the commercial banking arm versus the retail sector, they lose customers. As they pursue the wonders that can be achieved through technology, they lose customers. They move at a pace which outstrips the ability of even the most educated and mobile to adapt, let alone the 35 per cent of Deakin residents who can remember when the Maroondah Highway was a pipedream. It is that lesson from big business which we in government must learn. Globalisation, bilateral and multilateral trade arrangements, deregulation and increased competition offer all Australians far greater security than the alternatives. But marketing, selling, explaining, listening, informing, leading, persuading and bringing the people along are tools that must be in the politician's kit bag. In conclusion, similar to many first-time members of this House who have expressed their thanks to family and supporters, as a second-term member, I believe it is appropriate to do the same. Without my loving wife, Vivienne, my three young children, Paul, Carla and our most recent addition David, it would have been most difficult to survive a hard first term let alone an election. I thank all those in my campaign team, George Cox and Jim Madden, also Joy Howley and Peter Poggioli from the state secretariat. To my staff, Tim Neve, Mary Ellen Coll and Michael Fitzgerald, their sangfroid, their devotion to the task and their commitment were much appreciated. Chiefly responsible for my return on 3 October, however, are those people in Deakin who voted for me—the people who make up Melbourne's heart and soul. (Time expired) 11:59:00 1118 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 —On 1 May 1996 I made my first speech in this place and on that day I promised to be Moreton-centric. Today I renew my vow to the people of Moreton, just as they renewed my contract at the recent election. It remains a great honour for me to be the member for Moreton and while the second election victory, in a lot of ways, is somewhat sweeter than the first, it does commit my mind completely to keeping up the hard work and effective conduct that I believe ensured that we were able to extend that contract just a few weeks ago. When I first came here I outlined a number of important matters for the record so that I could, in years to come, easily refer back to them. Today is one of those occasions. On that day I promised the people of my electorate solid representation, which I believed and still believe they rightly expect, and which they will continue to receive from me, both in the parliament and through departmental and ministerial channels. I would like—though not many others would—to quote something from my first speech, observations I made fresh in my time here: The people of Moreton want this government to get the basic things right first: the family, small business, the creation of real jobs—all items which Labor left off its agenda. Those sentiments are as true today, some 31 months later, as they were then. When one looks at the policy-free zone of the opposition—an opposition prepared to go down dying in the ditch to defend a 1930s tax system against the fine series of bills and changes that will take this nation and its prospects into the next millennia—one sees that the Australian Labor Party are continuing to display the sort of arrogance that lost them the election so decisively in 1996. Australian Labor continue to believe that they are right and all others are wrong about matters like private health insurance and reform of the workplace. The ongoing opposition to workplace reforms from those opposite continues to rob Australians, particularly those in my electorate, of jobs. Week after week, month after month, small business operators in my electorate have said that they are afraid to hire a mistake, because industrial relations matters still have not been fixed to their satisfaction, despite the best efforts of the government. I would call on those opposite to reconsider their job-destroying opposition to the government's workplace relations reform. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and all members in this place would know, the opposition from those on the other side of the House is based purely on the demands of the union bosses. The nexus between Labor—individual members and the Labor opposition collectively—and the trade union movement is a nexus that most Australians find repugnant. The opposition seems to want suppression of workers' advancement because it suits the cause of making union bosses far more important. I contend alternatively that, if you free the workers, you will encourage enterprise, reward effort, reward those who are prepared to put something extra towards health costs, and you will encourage individualism. Individualism is the basis on which this country was built. Encouraging the role of the individual, as we go into our second century as a federated nation and into the next millennia, is really what this nation needs. But Australian Labor seems to want the collective to be king—or perhaps that should be president—of this nation's future. These are all the reasons why the people of Moreton voted, in their wisdom, not to go back to Labor. They certainly did not trust Labor, and they had many good reasons for that. People remembered very well just how Labor said that there was nothing wrong prior to the 1996 election. Those opposite continue to forget that they were in government for 13 years up until March 1996. Labor truly believed that families were well looked after when they were in government, that small business was booming. In Labor's mind-set there were plenty of jobs, and increasing crime was just one of those things that they really did not have to worry about. Labor in government ignored local road and infrastructure problems in my own electorate, overcrowding in classrooms, increasing red tape affecting everyday people. Each of these real issues was ignored by Labor year in, year out, because they all relate to individuals—people. Labor continues to forget about real people. But the real people, happily, have not forgotten about Labor, and that is why they lost the October election. In my first speech I said: I believe we must ensure that individuals recognise their responsibilities, achieve and contribute to their personal life and, by it, to their community while ensuring the protection of those less able. In Australia today, we do not need opposition for opposition's sake. Sir Robert Menzies in October 1944 inspired the Liberal Party to set forth and create a nation where citizens are free to choose their own way of living out of life. As is the case with most, if perhaps not all, the observations of Menzies, they are as true for Australia today as they were then. Menzies inspired the Liberal Party. Liberal Party members in this place believe in the importance of thrift, of encouraging enterprise. We believe in reward for effort. Menzies, in setting the style for the party to follow, also laid down the need for tax reform to help families, which of course is a key plank of the Howard government's second term. We believe in encouraging investment from individual Australians through the right types of monetary and other economic policy, and we believe that major public policy is not simply on-the-run, off-the-cuff pronouncements based on opportunistic politics but rather is based on an underlying and sound logic. I see big government as authoritarian and dangerous, yet too many people these days still expect government to provide. It is a hang-up from the Whitlam era, perpetuated by the Hawke and Keating era, where there is a cradle to grave approach to government policy. That is the same sort of socialist rhetoric that crippled the once proud Russian nation. Those opposite are doing all they can to stop the Howard government's attempts to restart individualism in this country. I think Menzies said it for all of us on this side when, without any qualification—there was no caveat; no exclusion along creed, colour or class lines—he said about Australia: I see the individual and his encouragement and recognition as the prime motive force for the building of a better world. I continue to believe that all of those sorts of matters are certainly worth standing up and being counted for today in 1998. I believe that those who want to invest in themselves, in their own abilities, in productive assets, the provision of infrastructure, should not be penalised by government; they should be rewarded. I think in particular about self-funded retirees in my electorate who, at long last, have in place a government that recognises the concept of reward for effort. The Howard government, through various policy initiatives introduced in the last parliament and through new proposals introduced today, has set forth to do something for self-funded retirees. I think also about the small business sector in my electorate, which is also looking for further liberation with regard to workplace relations but, nevertheless, knows there is a government that is prepared to take on the big issues like taxation reform and to put forward positive proposals which will help this nation. But, if you listen to those opposite, the sky is falling in, the great hurt is going to happen! I look forward in the next couple of years to proving those opposite so very wrong. People do expect government to reward individual effort. And, as Sir Robert Menzies put it in his famous `forgotten people' broadcast of 1942, people want Australia to become: . . . a community of people whose motto shall be to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield. I think that is a worthy motto for those on the government side of this place because I think not yielding in our determination to drive forward the right reforms that are going to bring about the right results for individual Australians, their families, and as a result their communities, their states, the entire nation, and—dare I say it—the world, really is motivation enough for us to keep going. I have not changed my view since coming to Canberra. It is, I am told, easy to become isolated from the real world in this place. As Sir James Killen, a predecessor of mine, said to me on many occasions, it is important to maintain contact with your local electorate and to be working hard in your local electorate. To paraphrase Jim, `It is the parish, my boy. It is the parish.' Representing the people of the electorate of Moreton continues to be my first priority. I will be putting the people first, ahead of all other considerations. I would have thought, I guess from a practical point of view, a margin of about 900 votes is a challenge to defend, but over the next two years and 10 months—that is, by the time the October 2001 general election comes around—as a member of the Howard government, I will work very hard to prove Labor wrong and our plans right. This will of course directly help my own local cause. I look back at some of the matters that were circulated during the general election that we have just had, and I guess it would be easy in one sense to feel quite angry—angry because of the personal slight that Labor authorised and circulated, misrepresenting and misquoting my own comments and representations, but I guess that would be a bit precious because that can be part of the political process. But I refuse to be lowered to the level of misleading that those opposite seem to have happily participated in to get votes during the last election. I refuse to allow Labor to get away with it, and so do the people of Moreton. Whilst they were running an agenda of scare and lie based on the Howard government's fully publicised and detailed aspirations for taxation reform, if you could get any information out of Labor about their own capital gains tax proposal it was an absolute miracle. I find that quite disgraceful. It was up to us to ask some of the very big questions that Labor themselves would not provide answers to. Of course, their capital gains tax proposal was going to bring all the pre-September 1985 assets into the loop for the very first time—something even Paul Keating would not do. Gareth Evans, the member for Holt, and the Leader of the Opposition—and indeed all the Labor candidates—were quite prepared to put their names to a capital gains tax which would have particularly hurt older Australians and made things that had been long held in their families subject to capital gains tax for the very first time. Labor's tax policy, as we said during the election campaign, is a patch-up solution and will not work. We put very clearly the fact that our proposals were part of a coherent plan. But what were Labor doing? Happily misleading the people of my electorate with brochures that they put out detailing their claims, put as fact, that things were going to go up by 10 per cent but not adding the fact that so many things were going to come down as result of wholesale sales tax being completely repealed and abolished. In fact, today we have seen the measures that will bring about a change to the wholesale sales tax system to the point where it will completely go away. We will no longer have to worry about wholesale sales tax and the unfair imbalance of taxation treatments in this country as a result of the proactive plan that this government has. Labor campaigned on the question of keeping Telstra Australian. Last week we saw the government's own legislation which guaranteed majority Australian ownership of Telstra. Labor campaigned on the issues of nursing homes, child care and higher education. Their promise to restore funding in fact would have brought about a decline in funding because this government had increased funding in each of those sectors over successive budgets. Labor said only they could stop the GST. The people of Moreton stopped Labor dead in their tracks and, as far as I am concerned, the people have seen through them. There is an absolute mandate for me to stand here and push very strongly the need for the government's agenda to be adopted in this place. Opposition senators had better understand very clearly that refusal to pass measures such as the private health insurance rebate that the government has planned will be negatively received by people in my electorate. We have 39 per cent of people in my electorate, about 34,000 people, with private health insurance. That is 34,000 reasons for me to push forward with the government's agenda. So Labor's politics of envy were seen right through by the people in my electorate. So, as far as I am concerned, the mandate is exact. I am looking forward to proving the lies and the scare of Labor to those who were persuaded, or perhaps frightened, by Labor's disgraceful scare campaign in the last election and to winning back their support. I will be maintaining the level of activity I sustained over the last few years—the neighbourhood watch meetings that I attend; the community groups; the door knocking; the Moreton Youth Advisory Group, where I have brought representatives from various high schools in the electorate together to discuss some of those real issues affecting youth, the things that concern them and their aspirations and, more to the point, seeking some feedback from the executive to make sure some of their aspirations are realised. I will continue to work with local small business and the chambers of commerce in my electorate through the Moreton Electorate Small Business Advisory Group. MESBAG has become an important meeting opportunity for a lot of people in small business in my electorate and has given a green light to the government's tax reform agenda. As I said in my maiden speech: . . . the engine room of our economy, the small business sector—the mums and dads, the families, the individuals who give up a lot to try to make a go of it. They are the sorts of people that we on this side of the chamber support. They are the sorts of people who are going to continue to rebuild this nation from the mess the Australian Labor Party offered over 13 years in government. Moreton was vital to retaining government for the Liberal and National parties, and many people at the local level need to be thanked for their dedication to the campaign effort which was so important to our nation. There were about 650 people involved and we had a fantastic campaign team. Rather than name individuals, I will name—quite surprisingly for me—the collective; that is, the members of the Moreton branches: the MacGregor-Wishart branch, the Moreton-Ekibin branch, the Fairfield-Yeronga branch, the Sunnybank, Garden City and Mt Gravatt-Holland Park branches, the Moorooka branch, the Algester-Sunnybank Hills branch and the Sherwood branch. As well, I thank the Young Liberals from the Sunnybank-Wishart and Robertson branches. All of these people—these fine Australians—deserve great thanks and praise for their dedication to the cause. All of these people were always positive and always determined to go the extra distance to make a difference. All of these people were determined and, as it turned out, the majority of the people of Moreton were also determined to keep Labor out of government. The people did not want to go back to Labor. They did not trust Labor—and with good reason. I also acknowledge my staff, who voluntarily worked way beyond the call of duty to try to keep up with the pace that was set by the many volunteers who gave so freely of their time. I acknowledge the role of my family, who were always there to assist me with everything from envelope-stuffing and letterbox-dropping to helping out on the day. Suffice to say that such teamwork is inspiring and what we all should be about. I have one clear agenda for the next three years. It is to build on the work to date in the electorate of Moreton and to retain that seat. I will only do that by continuing to prove to the people in my electorate that I put them first. My catchcry of Moreton-centric is something that I will continue to remind myself of. My conduct in parliamentary committees in this place is based on the importance of my contribution in specific areas and matters that are relevant to the people of Moreton. Those key issues of crime, law and order, transport, education, jobs and support for small business are all matters that I will continue to associate myself with in this place. The people of Moreton spoke again at the recent election, and I think this government has listened. I know I have listened and I will continue to listen and act as their local representative in this place, through departmental and ministerial channels. I do not suppose for a moment that the lot of a member of parliament is well understood by most people. In fact, we so easily cop criticism from so many quarters about the way we conduct ourselves in this place, and the general perception about elected members is, unfortunately, bad. I often joke that, as an ex-journalist with my electorate office situated on the `Moorooka magic mile of motors', I am always ready for my next career move, which might be used car sales. Either way, it is very important that each of us has the opportunity to prove that we put our local electorates first, their interests first and our nation first, ahead of all other considerations. I would invite those opposite to revisit their opposition to some of the fine measures that this government has put forward. (Time expired) Debate (on motion by Mr Sciacca) adjourned. Bills 1122 s183 Consideration resumed from 1 December. 1122 12:20:00 1122 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra LP Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill implements a number of the government's important policy initiatives within the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio, particularly in relation to merits review. The measures contained within the bill are consistent with the government's commitments to improve the immigration decision making system and to continue the process of restoring community credibility in the management of immigration matters. On 20 March 1997, I announced a range of significant changes the government would make to refugee and immigration decision making and review systems. These changes will improve the efficiency, the credibility and the accountability of immigration decision making. The bill is largely the same as one that was before the last parliament. The government has, however, made three changes to that bill. The first change will allow the Migration Review Tribunal to commence operation at a time to be set by proclamation. This will allow time for administrative arrangements to be put in place. Nevertheless the new tribunal will be operational, I hope, within six months of this bill receiving the royal assent. In other words, I would hope that it would be ready for 1 July. The second change provides that the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal are to formally hand down decisions in cases where there has not been an oral decision and the applicant is not in immigration detention. The third change provides for certainty in relation to dispatch of documents from the tribunals. The main thrust of the bill is the streamlining of the current two-tier review process of non-refugee visa decisions into a single review by an independent review agency. The bill gives effect to this by merging the existing internal review undertaken by the Migration Internal Review Office of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs with the external merits review carried out by the Immigration Review Tribunal. Under the changes introduced by this bill, the single-tier review will be conducted by a new external review body, the Migration Review Tribunal. The Migration Review Tribunal will be required to conduct fair, impartial and expeditious review of migration decisions, at lower cost to the Australian taxpayer. This will be achieved through the introduction of a more streamlined and flexible review decision making process. The tribunal's Principal Member will have clear authority to apply efficient processing practices. This may include the introduction of a case management system where much of the preliminary research and investigative work would be undertaken by administrative staff of the tribunal. Tribunal members would be responsible for directing that any further investigation be undertaken, and for the final decision. Migration Review Tribunal members will be independent decision makers, able to reach their own conclusions on a decision under review—and let me emphasise this—in accordance with the law. It is a merit's review process that has to be undertaken in accordance with law. It is not a process of discretion, an independent judgment, about what the law should be. However, this independence does not amount to non-accountability. Members will be accountable, on matters of procedure, to the parliament through the Principal Member for ensuring that they conduct reviews, fairly and expeditiously, and I emphasise that. On matters of procedure, they will be accountable not in relation to their independent merits review decision making but in relation to matters of procedure. The bill will give the Migration Review Tribunal's Principal Member power to make directions on the efficient conduct of reviews. These directions only relate to review procedures. The Principal Member cannot make directions on policy issues related to the merits of a case. For the purposes of ensuring efficient conduct of reviews, the Principal Member will be able to reconstitute the tribunal provided specific preconditions are satisfied. Reconstitution may only occur where, following consultation with the member constituting the tribunal and a senior member of the tribunal, either: . the Principal Member is satisfied that there is insufficient material before the tribunal for it to decide the review; or . the prescribed time has elapsed since the case was constituted to that member. These preconditions emphasise that reconstitution is solely for ensuring efficient and timely reviews and safeguard against misuse of the power. In other words, it is the sort of provi sion that the senior member ought to have that would avoid the sorts of problems we saw in New South Wales with the judiciary where a judge could not be directed in relation to dealing with matters where he could not reach a decision. These changes will set the framework for significant reductions in both the time and costs of review of general migration visa decisions. However, I should stress that the bill will not alter the entitlements of persons to seek review of decisions by the department refusing or cancelling visas. Those persons who are currently able to seek review of particular decisions by the Migration Internal Review Office or the Immigration Review Tribunal will be able to seek independent review of those decisions by the Migration Review Tribunal. The Principal Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal will be provided with the same authority to apply efficient processing practices as those of the Principal Member of the Migration Review Tribunal. This includes clear authority to give directions on the operation of the Refugee Review Tribunal and the efficient conduct of reviews. The provisions allowing the minister to appoint persons to act in a senior office of the Refugee Review Tribunal for periods of up to 12 months will be brought into line with the equivalent provision which currently exists for the Immigration Review Tribunal and that proposed for the Migration Review Tribunal. This will allow the minister to appoint members to act as senior members. The bill also includes certain safeguards for applicants by introducing a code of procedure for both the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal which is similar to that already applying to decisions made by the department. This code includes such matters as the giving of a prescribed notice of the timing for a hearing, and a requirement that applicants be given access to, and time to comment on, adverse material relevant to them. In addition, the bill contains a number of measures to allow for more flexible processes in both tribunals. These include: . enabling the tribunals to use telephone or other media to conduct personal hearings or to require other witnesses to appear before them; and . allowing tribunals to proceed to a decision without delay, if an applicant does not respond to a notice to attend a hearing or provide comment. Taken together, these changes mean that people with bona fide review applications will be given a decision more quickly and a better decision if the initial decision is wrong. Those persons intent on fraud, deception or delay will not have the benefits of a delayed decision. These changes are consistent with foreshadowed government moves to introduce further reform of merits review tribunals across all portfolios by consolidating all tribunals into one new tribunal. The bill includes a number of other changes. These relate to measures to enhance the visa cancellation powers, including: . the power to ensure that there is more effective cancellation of visas which were granted on the basis of incorrect information, for example, where a previous visa was granted on the basis of incorrect information; and . the tightening of certain notice provisions which are integral to the visa cancellation process. One further measure which is consistent with other proposals in this bill to improve flexibility in migration processes is the introduction of a waiver of the condition which is placed on certain visas to prevent the visa holder from being granted a further visa. Finally, the bill rectifies an anomaly in the penalty provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. The proposed changes will ensure that those provisions are in line with the Commonwealth's criminal law policy. The similar bill which was before the Senate prior to the election was the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The majority report recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. However the minority report recommended a number of changes, the most significant of which would have been the loss of the powers of the Principal Members of the MRT and RRT. This bill clarifies the authority of the Principal Member for the RRT and aligns the Principal Member's powers with those of the Principal Member of the MRT. This bill will provide each Principal Member with the power to run their respective tribunals efficiently while ensuring reviews are conducted fairly and expeditiously. In conclusion, this bill is part of a continuing process adopted by this government to ensure that the integrity of the migration program is not undermined. It complements other moves to strengthen the government's ability to control who may be granted and who may remain in Australia and continue to hold Australian visas. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. 12:29:00 1124 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA 6J4 Bowman ALP 0 0 —First of all, I indicate to the House that the opposition will be supporting the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . We have come to that conclusion, firstly, because the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has been kind enough, and perhaps one should also say astute enough, to bring it before the House in the form that he has. These bills were part of a single bill. Originally, I understand, in the last parliament the minister did bring forward a bill which included an attempt, by the provision of a privative clause, to limit judicial review. But after a number of discussions with my predecessors in my position he did agree—we thank him for that—to bring this bill together, which in effect simply tries to streamline the merit review process. It is pretty obvious from some of the words used by the minister over recent months, and even by the Prime Minister in a recent address to the FECCA conference in Brisbane, that the government wants to restrict the rights of appeal and review in this immigration area. 0J4 RUDDOCK Mr Ruddock —Unashamedly. 6J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —I say to him that we are, on the opposition side— 0J4 RUDDOCK Mr Ruddock —We would like cooperation. 6J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —Yes, and you have got cooperation. You will continue to get cooperation provided that it is fair and provided that we still give everybody a fair go—which Australians are all about—where we do not deny people's human rights, and we give them the opportunity of having their day in court if they deserve it. Mr Ruddock interjecting— 6J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —Perhaps the minister would let me finish. I didn't interject on the minister while he was speaking. I ask him to give me the courtesy of doing the same thing—although we have been sparring partners here for many years and I know he can't resist. The minister and the government will get constructive cooperation from the opposition on matters that relate to keeping intact the integrity of our migration program. However, I make it very clear to the minister that we will not allow him, as I have said before in the chamber today, to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We still need to keep people's human rights in our minds when we are looking at these sorts of things. I am a lawyer by occupation. I know the minister is as well. Sometimes it surprises me when I see the minister getting into them as much as he does. In some cases he has just cause. I had the opportunity over the last term of this parliament to go out and practise law again. Perhaps he should do that as well; he might get a different view on life. We cannot, if you like, undermine the integrity of our judiciary system or of our practice where we allow everybody in this country their day in court. It does concern me from time to time when I hear the minister—unashamedly, as he says himself—being very critical of some judgments that come down. He seems to think that, whatever the intention of the government of the day is in the area of the migration program, that should supersede, as he puts it, the `personal opinion' of some judges. A lot of people in this country do not like decisions that come down from courts. The fundamental basis of our system of fair play and justice in this country is that we have a judicial system and a quasi-judicial system. You get decisions made. Some decisions you are happy with, some you aren't. But in the end it is the best possible system that we have. With all due respect to the minister, I find it very difficult, particularly as he is a trained lawyer, that he can be critical of judges and tribunals, and indeed courts, when he knows full well that that is a system that we are supposed, as members of the noble profession of the law, to uphold. For the time being he happens to be the minister in charge of the department, but these things are passing and he will still be a lawyer when we finish here. We need to uphold the integrity of the courts, of the judicial system. I bring one item to the attention of the minister which I am sure he knows all about, an article which I saw in the Australian newspaper by Fiona Carruthers and Bernard Lane, and which I think spells out succinctly exactly what the minister is about. He hasn't denied it. He is quite prepared to go on record on it. I want to read it into the Hansard. The Australian on Monday, 30 November said: Judges have been attacked by Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock for allowing their personal views to interfere with legal decisions on migration matters. As the Howard Government prepares to reintroduce a Bill limiting the ability of asylum seekers to appeal to the courts against deportation, Mr Ruddock criticised some judges for extending the natural meaning of some aspects of the migration Act. "Some judges make decisions where their own view of the world is the premier factor, rather than the law," he said. "We should not have a system which produces such adverse outcomes." Mr Ruddock's attack came as former High Court Chief Justice Gerard Brennan urged the government not to limit the Federal Court's right to review administrative decisions. It went on to say: More than 750 appeals on migration matters are before the court. Mr Ruddock said the High Court had given "some helpful guidance" on migration matters. 0J4 RUDDOCK Mr Ruddock —It has. 0J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —Yes. That is why I am reading it out. It went on: However, in the bigger courts "it's not hard to find one or two (judges) with a particular view of the world that is different to everybody else's". Of course there are going to be judges who will have different views from those of the minister. What is the point of having a judicial system? What is the point of having judges who decide cases on the merits, on the basis of the people who go before— Mr Ruddock interjecting— 6J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —Yes. They have to take into consideration the law. Mr Ruddock interjecting— 6J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —I might let the minister finish. The courts are there for a reason. The judges hear the circumstances of a person's particular case. They have the opportunity of listening to the arguments that come before them and in the end they will come to a decision. You cannot bag the courts or the tribunal simply because a decision comes out which is not what the minister would like. The minister does have a fair gripe for some of the goings-on out there in the community, particularly amongst some advocates. Let me place on record that I am in full agreement with the minister about those people. I put this on record now so that they will read the Hansard and they will understand the position the opposition is coming from. I do not under any circumstances condone what in the legal profession in personal injury matters we know as `ambulance chasing'. I do not under any circumstances, and neither does the opposition, condone a situation where some advocates out there, for the purposes of lining their own pockets, are prepared to advertise, as I heard the minister say this morning, in the Bangladesh newspaper or in the Fijian Times, and all the rest of it saying, `Put in $500 and we will get a class action going which will delay everyone's appeal and you are going to be able to stay longer.' I make it very clear to this parliament that the opposition does not condone that. I am more than happy to work constructively with the minister at any time to see if we can come up with ways and means of stopping that practice. Mr Ruddock interjecting— 6J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —No, you are the government. If I can come up with some ideas, I will. If that is what is in the overriding mind of the minister—and I understand it is—I simply say to him: you are not going to stop that sort of thing simply by cutting into people's rights and cutting into the justice system as we know it simply because they are people who have migrated from another country, whether they are illegals or not. The reality is that you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. I say that yet again. I believe the motives of the minister are quite noble. I have no qualms about that. Maybe some of the advice that he is receiving is a little bit harder than what he—I would think—would usually countenance. In the end you cannot use a sledgehammer to kill an ant. If you want to do something about this and if you want to come up with some constructive stuff, we will cooperate. We have already agreed this morning to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 . We agreed to that bill and we are agreeing to this bill as well. I am making it very clear to the minister today—and this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the main chamber here—that the opposition will be constructive and that the opposition are not about knocking the integrity of the migration system, but we will not allow the government to simply fix up all their problems by just getting rid of tiers of judicial review. We are not going to allow that. I put on notice today that the opposition will be definitely opposing the other bill which the minister and the Prime Minister have made clear they will be introducing where they will be bringing in a privative clause that in effect attempts to exclude judicial review. I believe that in this country, like in every other Western country in the world, the system of justice may not be perfect, but we have to give people a fair go. I would hate to think—and I am sure it is not the case—that some of the reasoning behind all of this is to save some money. I know some of my colleagues in the Senate made this point, but I do not want to go through those arguments. I know that at the moment this government is all about saving the almighty dollar. I say money is not everything; I say human compassion, a sense of justice and a sense of fairness are everything. It does not matter whether somebody comes here from Bangladesh, Turkey or wherever, whether they are boat people or not, they are human beings who deserve their day in court. By restricting that opportunity, we are denying them a fundamental human right. I was particularly interested to see in an article from Fiona Carruthers and Bernard Lane the comments of former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan of the High Court, an eminent judge who I think everybody respected. He urged the government not to limit the Federal Court's right to review administrative decisions. The reality is that that is what the government proposes to do with its other bill. Mr Ruddock interjecting— 6J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —But that is the point. The minister said his eminence does not understand what he is doing there in this issue. That might be the case, but what sort of a justice system have we got in this country? I have been a lawyer now for 28 years and a clerk for five years—that is 33 years. I have lost cases that I should have clearly won and I have won cases that I should have clearly lost. That is the system that we work under. Everybody is going to have an opinion on a decision of a particular judge at some point in time. It is just crazy to say, `Because he doesn't agree with what I say, because he doesn't agree with the policy of this government or because he doesn't really understand the legislation, he is wrong.' He may be wrong and he may not be wrong, but in the end we have to accept those decisions. To just simply take away their power to make those decisions is, in my view, not correct. On balance, we will let this bill through because they are good measures. There is no doubt about that. They were negotiated by my predecessor with the minister, and the minister is usually very cooperative on these things. I wanted to take this opportunity to make sure that the minister understands where we are coming from. This is the second bill that has come before the parliament where we have had total agreement. I thank him for agreeing to the amendments that he has now incorporated into the bill, which were discussed and negotiated with him. I thank him for that. I will finalise my comments now because I know there will be other colleagues of mine who will want to look at the more technical aspects of this bill, and I am happy to leave that to them. I want to again confirm that, Minister, you will have my cooperation and that of the opposition in matters that I and the opposition deem to be fair and are not cutting across people's basic human rights—their day in court, et cetera. We will not countenance measures which are unfair. We will not countenance attempts by the government to curtail the powers of the tribunals. Frankly, I think it is wrong of the minister to be making public statements attacking the judiciary. I think it is wrong of him to be sending out the signals to people that, `If you don't do what it is the government really wants you to do, you may not even be appointed.' I am not saying that is what he is doing, but the messages can go out that way. He has got an opportunity now to appoint a stack of people when the new Migration Review Tribunal comes up. I am sure he will put good people on that. But he has to remember that they are supposedly independent. The minister would not have a chance of doing anything if he were to go and listen to every case that goes before a tribunal in his portfolio. The fact is that those people who are there are listening to the cases as they are presented, they are listening to the facts and circumstances, and they are listening to real life stories. All the minister can get is some sort of an idea by way of a report on what happened. In the end a decision which he may think is wrong may in fact have been the right decision. What happened to that old adage, that old saying, in the system of criminal justice in this country that better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent person be sent to gaol? That has been a cornerstone of our judicial systems—in the criminal area anyway—since the year dot. In the end, if it is only a small number of cases that are upheld in the Federal Court, then at least some people who obviously had genuine grounds for appeal have been given some justice. Mr Ruddock interjecting— 6J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —Minister, I will say to you again: as far as we are concerned, the opposition will always listen to you if you really are fair dinkum about trying to streamline the appeals process. We will listen to that all the time, we will go ahead, and we will agree with you on matters that will save money. But again I make it very clear in conclusion that we will not support any further restrictions, as you intend to do with that privative clause in the judicial review bill. I give you notice now that we will be opposing that very strongly. But the opposition supports this bill. 12:46:00 1128 Gallus, Christine, MP Mrs GALLUS CU4 Hindmarsh LP 1 0 —It is obvious that the shadow minister at the table, the member for Bowman, has missed the last three years because there is an element in what he says of a feeling that the opposition is still in government and giving its approval to certain things here and certain things there. I was especially taken by the way that the shadow minister congratulated himself and the opposition on approving this Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . One of the marks of this opposition is the way that it has tried to frustrate the government's program at every turn. However, we are today pleased that the opposition is supporting this bill, albeit with notice that future bills will not be so supported. I remind the shadow minister in relation to his comments made about the review or judicial system that it is not the role of the review or judicial system to promote their own personal views and to interpret legislation in ways the government did not intend. Their job is to decide on the law, not on their assessment of what the law should be. We should thank the shadow minister for his views on the actions of the lawyers and judges that he does not agree with and exactly what he does agree with. I am sure it is edifying for all of us to know the personal views of the shadow minister on this aspect. He referred to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and acknowledged that he had used that phrase a couple of times today—I believe about three times since I have been listening to him over two bills today. He also said we must not use a sledgehammer to kill an ant. It is hard to relate this to the subjects that he is talking about when we remember that the government is getting rid of the inefficiencies that came into this system under 13 years of Labor and is establishing a more efficient system while, in the shadow minister's words, we give people a fair go. To give people a fair go is to allow them access to a legal system, to a fair hearing, but not to give them the right to continue that ad infinitum to the cost of the Australian public and against the interest and wishes of the Australian public. The government's immigration policy released prior to the 1996 federal election contained a promise to review the efficiency and effectiveness of our immigration decision making—which I think the shadow minister at the table must admit had got somewhat out of hand—including the role and performance of the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. In May 1996 the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs called for submissions regarding the review of immigration decision making and the role of the two bodies. The minister released the results of this review in March 1997 and made announcements of the changes he intended to make. This government, as I have said, believes that people deserve and are entitled to a fair hearing, but we also believe that it is important to have a system that is fair to the people of Australia, the people who fund that very system. We want one that operates in the public interest, that is fair to those people who are seeking entry to this country or who are seeking to extend their stay in this country but that is also efficient. In the words of the minister in a speech he made to the Victorian Immigration Advice and Rights Centre, as I could not word this better: The notion of "public interest" includes the concern to ensure that high quality primary administrative decisions are made and continue to be made, as a matter of routine in a cost-effective and timely manner, and ensuring aggrieved persons have access to prompt and economical external review mechanisms. 6J4 SCIACCA Mr Sciacca —Money isn't everything. CU4 Gallus, Christine, MP Mrs GALLUS —The shadow minister at the table says money isn't everything, but we do need to use it with circumspection. Perhaps if the opposition had thought of that more in government they may have remained in government longer. The changes to the Migration Act are based on our pre-election commitment and affect two major areas. The major change set out in this bill is to merge the current three portfolio review bodies into two review tribunals. Currently in refugee cases, protection visa applications are processed in a two-tiered decision making structure. Primary decisions are made by the department, and if unsuccessful an applicant can seek review before the RRT, the Refugee Review Tribunal. In non-refugee cases, currently migration applications have a three-tiered merit assessment process. That is three tiers—an extraordinarily complicated review assessment. A primary decision is made by the department; a departmental review by the Migration Internal Review Office, or MIRO, follows; and, if that again is unsuccessful, there is an independent review by the IRT, the Immigration Review Tribunal. The proposed changes will bring all migration processing into line—very sensibly, I might add—so that there is a two-tier merits assessment of applications in all review cases. This will be done by merging MIRO with the independent IRT, while the RRT will remain a separate body dealing exclusively with the review of protection visa applications. The changes in the legislation will give the principal member of the IRT and the new MRT the power to make directions with regard to efficient processing procedures. Such directions will be given for the purpose of speeding up the review process and ensuring that applicants are given a quick decision on their application. The members of the tribunals will be bound to comply with such directions. The principal member will not have the power to direct a particular outcome in any case, and the principal member will not have any power to give policy directions. The principal member of the tribunal will have the power to reconstitute the tribunal in order to increase the efficiency of processing. The bill requires the principal member to consult with the member or members constituting the tribunal and a senior member of the tribunal before a reconstitution direction can be made to ensure that such powers cannot be used to influence the outcome of cases. The advantages of this are fairly obvious. It is intended to reduce, and will result in reducing, the review process by 12 months, which has to be in the interests of all concerned, including the applicant, the department and the Australian public. It will result in resource efficiency, as the MRT would have the benefits of all the resources previously split between MIRO and the IRT. It will enhance the credibility of merits review by eliminating the perception of departmental bias in MIRO's review process. It did not actually make much sense for the department to review the department's own decisions. Merging MIRO with the IRT is one of the more sensible and obvious reforms that were needed in this area. With regard to the RRT, the greatest increase in review applications came not from the migration stream but from the humanitarian stream. For example, in 1996-97, approximately 8,213 people applied for protection visas in Sydney and Melbourne alone compared with the total number of 5,145 in 1995-96. Similarly, applications for review to the RRT doubled in 1996-97 from the previous year. However, no structural change is proposed to the review of humanitarian decisions. Efficiency will be gained from procedural changes to the operation of the RRT. In conclusion, I want to say that this is part of a whole lot of changes that have been, and will continue to be, brought forward by this minister to give Australians faith in their migration system and ensure at the same time that people from overseas accessing our country and structures are given, as the shadow minister earlier referred to, a fair hearing. I commend the bill to the House. 12:55:00 1129 Theophanous, Andrew, MP Dr THEOPHANOUS QJ4 Calwell ALP 0 0 —I will begin by commending the new shadow minister, the Hon. Con Sciacca. He will obviously bring a very fresh and positive approach to these issues of immigration. What was the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs doing in the last 2½ years when the Hanson phenomenon was around? It was not until two or three months before the election that he finally decided to spend some money trying to promote the immigration program. I commend the Living in Harmony project, but it came far too late. It should have been done earlier, given the attacks on immigration in the previous two years. The shadow minister, Mr Sciacca, has made it clear that he wants to have a program that puts before the Australian people the positive benefits of immigration. He will get my support for that and the support of the overwhelming proportion of the members on our side. Will the minister get support from his colleagues in relation to this? It is a very important question. It is all very well for him personally to be in favour of these things, but he has to get the whole government behind it. At the moment, key sections of the Australian community are saying that the attacks on, and reductions in, immigration have gone too far and that we are starting to unbalance the Australian community because of the cutbacks in the level of immigration. The minister has to think about this and put before the Australian community a sensible immigration program when he comes before this House again, particularly in relation to determinations about the level of immigration. Let us get into a positive mood. Let us forget about the negative aspects of the last two years. Let us all cooperate to put before the Australian people the benefits of immigration. In doing so, we will get a positive outcome with respect to the whole immigration program. Just as there may be some vocal people carrying on about immigration, misrepresenting it and talking about how it is a negative rather than a positive, there are also many people in the Australian community saying the opposite. The honourable member for Bowman would be aware that recently a group of major industrialists, managing directors of the major companies in Australia and chambers of commerce and industry—and it is not a group of people that supports the Labor Party very much—said that the minister has cut the program far too much. They said that it is now at a point where he is actually endangering the economic development of this country in relation to the immigration program. How about listening to those people? They are not our constituents. They are the traditional constituents of the Liberal and National parties. What have they said? They have said that immigration ought to be increased and that, in particular, we should focus on filling those positions in the business migration and skilled programs of immigration to assist our industrial and economic development. The minister knows very well, because I have raised with him personally, that there have been so many casualties of the Business Migration Program where people who have wanted to invest money in this country have been totally frustrated by our bureaucrats and their ridiculous requirements. So we have missed out—and I will put some facts to back this up before the House in the future—on millions of dollars in investment while the United States and Canada have been taking these people who want to invest money, build something and employ Australians. This is all because of the mishandling of the Business Migration Program. I want to talk about the minister's general review of the program today. As the shadow minister said, there are some very positive things in it. The Labor Party acknowledges the positive developments, in particular putting MIRO and the Immigration Review Tribunal together. Having one level of review rather than two levels of review is a positive thing and we support that. We have supported those moves to merge MIRO and the Immigration Review Tribunal. But the shadow minister has made a point: we support reducing the review process to just one stage, but we will not support the government's move to effectively cut off the possibility of appeals to the Federal Court. We are absolutely right not to support that, because people need to be able to go to the courts on these matters if there is a basis for such a right. Not everybody has access to the court, but if the court decides in its wisdom that the matter should be heard why should you take away this power? This is a very serious matter and we will be discussing this further in the future. I think it is instructive to note what the former Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Gerard Brennan, had to say about this. He urged the government and the minister not to curb the judicial review of migration decisions any further and he warned of the dangers in the government's plan. He said that the Federal Court's scope to review migration decisions had already been cut back—and you know very well that we supported some reasonable amendments to cut back some of the powers of the Federal Court. Nevertheless, what did you do in relation to that? As soon as a case comes across which you do not like, you decide to even further restrict the powers of the Federal Court so that they virtually end up with hardly any powers at all in relation to this matter. That is absolutely unacceptable. Why is the minister so obsessed with individual cases? I will tell you why. You seem to think that every time a case occurs a precedent is set. That is only in your mind, Minister, because you have a certain approach to immigration administration. Mr Ruddock interjecting— QJ4 Theophanous, Andrew, MP Dr THEOPHANOUS —Of course precedents can be relied on by others, but the fact of the matter is that you are excessive in your view about the role of precedents. As you know, each immigration case has unique details; therefore you especially, as minister, are able to argue in relation to particular cases because each case has unique elements. You are carrying this precedent argument far too far and, on the basis of that, you are trying to restrict the Federal Court. We do not accept that. This legislation is going to put in place one level of review, not two levels as existed before. That will reduce people's scope to some degree. We agree with that move, but we also say that you have to leave the power of the Federal Court there. That is a very important matter which the shadow minister and the opposition have raised and we will pursue it with you. We hope that you will see the wisdom in reaching at least a compromise on this issue. I want to also say something about the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Refugee Review Tribunal is a very important body which has a key role in making determinations on refugee cases, but there is also another provision and that is that people can appeal to the minister in these cases. What is happening with that, Minister? We hear that you have been very, very conservative in the exercise of your power in relation to this. Why has this power been given to you if you are going to be so conservative in the exercise of it? There have been long delays of months and months and months. 0J4 RUDDOCK Mr Ruddock —Gerry Hand used it 13 times. What is conservative about that? I have used it hundreds of times, and you are saying I am conservative. QJ4 Theophanous, Andrew, MP Dr THEOPHANOUS —You are conservative. And the member for Hindmarsh mentioned the reason. We now have many more refugee cases than we had before—that is why. There is a big backlog—that is why. It is up to you to help in the determination of these cases in the backlog. Every member of this House who has made representations to you about— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash) —Order! The member for Calwell will address his remarks through the chair. QJ4 Theophanous, Andrew, MP Dr THEOPHANOUS —Every member of this House who has made representations to the minister in relation to refugee cases knows they have to wait for such a long time to get some response from him. Why don't you fix up the administration of your office and get somebody responsible to have a look at these cases and give you advice so you are able to make quicker decisions? We are talking about people whose whole lives are on the line as to whether or not they are going to be able to stay in this country as refugees. I am saying to you, Minister, that you have got this power under the Crown. It is an important power. I believe in discretionary powers in immigration for the minister, but those powers are there to be exercised, not merely to be left so we have a situation where we are waiting for months and months and months. I know that the House wishes to move on to other matters, but I want to indicate that this is only the beginning of what I hope will be a positive and constructive scrutiny of the minister's operations. The minister has, as many people have recognised, a very firm, positive commitment to immigration, but he needs to understand that there are problems in administration. There are problems in many of the overseas missions. You can talk to any member about the cases which they have tried to get through in terms of overseas missions. We have had situations—in a country that I will not name—where I had to send a person to the embassy four times in order to get the form to apply for a visitors visa. Why? This particular country has an instruction from the minister that visitors visas are to be so scrutinised that it is virtually impossible for people to get here. 0J4 RUDDOCK Mr Ruddock —There is no such instruction. QJ4 Theophanous, Andrew, MP Dr THEOPHANOUS —There may not be such an instruction, but you talk to the particular embassy. You know what country I am referring to. The fact of the matter is that we have a situation where people from some countries are put through the wringer in a very tough way just to visit a relative for three months, two months, or even one month in some cases. In other cases we have a situation where people can go and get a visa from a travel agent. They do not even have to bother going to the embassy. We have those distinctions. In those cases where we have countries where we have had problems, the regime is becoming far too tough. People ought to be given legitimate visas because they have to visit a relative, come for a christening or a wedding, or go and do some business. Short-term business visas, for example, are being rejected from certain Asian countries. I had a case where the managing director of a company in Australia cannot come to the meeting of the board. Why? The particular embassy has rejected him coming to Australia on a temporary business visa. What an absurdity! No wonder we are losing out to the United States and Canada in the competition for these sorts of business investments. This is far too tough. It is all very well for the Minister for Trade or the Minister for Foreign Affairs to say, `Let's have more investment,' when we are frustrated within the immigration system. Minister, as I say, your heart is in the right place, but we need to pick up the act in terms of the administration of the department. Whether it is your responsibility or whether it is the responsibility of the secretary, something has to be done about these kinds of cases which are frustrating many members of this House, including members on your side. Sometimes members from your side of the House have spoken to me about these sorts of cases and the frustrations they are having from some of these embassies in relation to genuine applications that ought to be processed—especially in the temporary business visa category and in the visitors visa category, where people have legitimate reasons to come to Australia. I conclude by agreeing with my colleague the shadow minister in relation to the fact that when we have positive developments, as we have in many places in this bill, we support them. I also agree with what he said: where there are issues which we consider to be matters of principle or concern the administration of the program, we reserve the right to raise those issues, and we will continue to do so in the future. 13:11:00 1132 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra LP Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation 1 0 —in reply—I hope the member for Calwell will remain while I just address some of the issues that he has raised, but I do want to thank the member for Bowman, the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Calwell for their contributions and say how much I welcome some of the personal observations. I will do my best to run a program with integrity, where my door is open, where we can talk to people about particular problems as they arise. If we can work through issues constructively, I want to do so. I make that point. I think it is well understood around this House that contest about immigration issues is not always healthy. It sometimes means that you feed preju dices that can exist in some parts of our community, and I am not about to feed prejudices. But there are problems that, if left unaddressed, can give those with prejudicial views ammunition which can be quite unhelpful. I have explained from time to time how I think immigration policies have been conducted when there have been Labor ministers in place with coalition shadow ministers and vice versa. There are some people who think from time to time when things are largely quiet that there is a sinister plot between the government and the opposition to put in place `a bipartisan policy'. I have never known a bipartisan policy. I know that the only time I have ever sat down and worked out a position in advance with a shadow minister and a minister was when I was shadow minister and Chris Hurford was minister. We determined that never again would there be an amnesty for unlawfuls in Australia, and a joint press release was put out. That is the only occasion on which I can recall the opposition and the government sitting down and working out a joint position. Most of the time it has been what I call `a coincidence of view'. There are times when the government brings forward legislation and, in the context of the reforms that are proposed, the opposition agrees to seek some amendments. You get an outcome which is seen to be reasonably satisfactory. It happened in 1989, when Robert Ray was the minister and I was the shadow minister. The major reforms which instituted the present Migration Act were put in place. The one element I can recall that I had a significant impact on was the retention of some limited ministerial discretion. Let me say it is limited ministerial discretion. It has to be exercised in the public interest. It has to be the subject of an explanation to the parliament. It has to be a tabled statement. It is all there for you to see. The fact is that ministerial discretion became a commodity that was in your minister's intention one that would be rarely used. As I said, Robert Ray refused to exercise ministerial discretion at all when he was minister. No case was found sufficiently compelling for him to make a decision. Gerry Hand did it—and I do not want to be cor rected if I am wrong, but the figures would be indicative—I think 13 times. My officials are nodding, so I may have got it reasonably right—about 13 times. He took the same view. Nick Bolkus as minister used it around 140 times, and in the term that I have been minister—about 2½ years—the number of occasions on which I would have used it in protection claims is of the same order. I have made it clear that I have been inclined to grant two-year temporary entry permits where otherwise there would be an exclusion—parties marry in Australia and might be excluded from lodging an application—particularly in cases where children are involved and where there are significant costs and hardship that people might endure—the loss of a home or a job. If you go through the decisions I have taken, you will find a large number of cases where that has been done in addition. I regard that as appropriate. I would reject any criticism that I have been lacking in compassion in the way in which I have dealt with discretionary matters. Dr Theophanous interjecting— 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —And I would have to say that it is probably members on your side of the House who have approached me and received more positive outcomes than members on my own side. There are probably reasons for that. Very often it is because it is more likely that the sorts of people who would be making those claims could be living in your constituencies. I understand that. It is a matter that I address conscientiously, but not in such a way as to undermine the integrity of the system itself. You cannot have a view where people come to look at the program as one in which you get one outcome if you go to the department and another one if you get to the minister and happen to be able to find a way. To give you some idea of the numbers that are involved now, I am looking at certainly many thousands of applications. I think it is between 5,000 and 8,000—I am told about 6,000 applications. QJ4 THEOPHANOUS Dr Theophanous —That is 140 out of 6,000! 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, I am looking at those sorts of numbers. But let us understand what is happening. There are advisers in the field who now, after people have had a decision by my department, access to full independent merits review, access to the courts for judicial review—sometimes through three stages of appeal—see the opportunity to go to the minister as an extra point of decision making where the numbers themselves will provide significant delay in getting an outcome. The fact is that delay itself becomes an incentive. Because for many people—until recently, with the changes that were made and endorsed yesterday by the Senate—the opportunity simply to remain in Australia has been the route, they were advised by their advisers, to Medicare and employment access in Australia. So if you wanted short-term entry—to be able to be a guest worker in Australia, competing for jobs with other young Australians—the way in which you did it was to use these various steps in the process. I think it is very important to understand that. I also want to deal with the issue of judicial review, and I want to deal with it in a quiet way because it has the potential to become an emotive issue. I have already said that the courts can be used—and, in my view, are being used—to obtain a temporary resident's outcome. That is reinforced when you know that the largest percentage of applications—in the figures that are kept for me—are those applicants who withdraw an application at the door of the court. In other words, they put their application in, they get the delay, and at the door of the court they have no case to argue and they withdraw. That is the largest percentage. There is a percentage that my department withdraw because we find there is a mistake. Opposition members interjecting— 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —There is provision for the courts to deal with vexatious litigants, but they do not. What we do know—and it is very important—is that of something like 14,000 applications for asylum that my department dealt with over a period of, I think, four years, 900—almost 1,000—took their cases to the Federal Court. Of that 900, around 100 actually got the court to give an order which essentially sent the matter back to the Refugee Review Tribunal to decide it again because there was a technical error. Of those that actually found that there was a technical error and got a reconsideration, 29 got a different outcome. So for the millions and millions of dollars—and the member tells me that money does not matter—there were 29 people who got a different outcome. And I say to you, shadow minister, that in terms of the number of cases that I have dealt with where there has been a strong and cogent argument put by competent advisers, I have dealt with four times as many cases where there has been a positive outcome, and that step is there. In my view, the arrangements are more than adequate. This really brings me to the point that I wanted to discuss in the context of what is happening in this area. When you reformed the Migration Act back in 1989, I sat with Ian McPhee and worked out that there would be a section in the act that said that people who were here temporarily had to go unless they married an Australian, unless they were onshore asylum claimants, unless they had worked in Australia for 12 months and had an entitlement to apply on occupational grounds, or where there were strong and compelling compassionate reasons. The words that were used made it very clear. We were talking about the most exceptional circumstances. At the time, I thought maybe there would be 20 or 30 cases that would be dealt with. But, of course, with judicial review, we went back to the courts to find out what was meant by the words `strong and compelling and compassionate circumstances'. And each time somebody went to the courts and got a decision and somebody on the courts said, `This is a particular case; it is of some cogency. I want to address this evil; this individual person is not getting justice,' they took into account the circumstances of an individual and, in order to provide justice, reinterpreted what the law meant. That is what happened. By the time it had finished, what Robert Ray was addressing when he took out altogether the provisions for `strong and compelling and compassionate circumstances' was a caseload of 20,000 cases against the law that had been developed judicially and they were going to have to be approved. That was the reason he did it. It is the same circumstance that I outlined to you a week ago in this chamber and the reason we had to look again at what was meant by `special need relative'. We got a decision that widened the ambit, and by the time the tribunals had sat down and looked at what was meant, we were getting applications approved where the simple claim was homesickness. I think it is very important that honourable members understand what is intended here. We have been discussing the bill that will be before the Senate later today dealing with judicial review. The Labor Party in office sought to constrain judicial review, and they did it by narrowing the range of issues that courts, in looking at administrative reviews, had over time developed whereby natural justice issues could be considered. The view was that the courts were not going to be able to get into merits review. There were tribunals that were independent, and they were going to deal with merits. If the courts were going to deal with anything, it was really a question of whether the tribunal had properly applied the law. What has been happening is that, even though those decisions have been taken, and even though the High Court of Australia has given the Federal Court some guidance in these matters, and it has, individual judges—I am not saying every judge; you are talking about only half a dozen people—have made it their business to use error of law to reintroduce merits review. We are going to have to go back to the High Court to get some guidance for the Federal Court, but I am not sure that it is going to change the minds of those who want to be creative in relation to these things. My good friend Sir Gerard Brennan has misunderstood in part the nature of the provisions that we are proposing. He thinks that what we are doing is likely to take the Federal Court out of the loop and leave everything to be dealt with by the High Court, and he is not terribly keen on that. I understand that point. Let us understand that a privative clause—and this is what Sir Gerard does not seem to understand—is going to apply the same rule—that is, the rule in Hickman's case—to the High Court as it will to the Federal Court. There will not be any question of matters being able to go from the Federal Court to the High Court because the High Court has some additional heads of jurisdiction. If the High Court, as it did in Hickman's case, says that the clause operates in a particular way, it operates for the High Court in terms of judicial review as it would for the Federal Court. Sir Anthony Mason understands what was involved here, and I would like to quote from a speech he made on 6 November or thereabouts to the Public Law Conference in Canberra. He was speaking about the contribution of Sir Gerard Brennan in relation to judicial review. Sir Anthony had this to say: Judicial review does not extend to merits review. He is making it clear: it should not extend. He also said: On the other hand, the doctrine of implied limitations, although it can be invoked to deny merits review— Sir Anthony says— is not alone in leading to that result. As Sir Gerard noted, the judicature is but one of the three coordinate branches of government and has no superior capacity or claim to balance the interests of the community against the interests of the individual. No superior claim. Sir Gerard said that himself. Sir Anthony goes on: Indeed, as the Canadian functionalist approach holds, the courts are ill equipped to evaluate the policy considerations which bear on administrative questions of that kind. He is recognising, on a case by case basis, that you do not develop the framework of law. He goes on to say: This approach necessarily entails the rejection of the argument that the courts have jurisdiction to review administrative decisions for substantive unfairness as distinct from procedural unfairness. YU5 TANNER Mr Tanner —Brennan did not say that, though. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —Sir Anthony Mason said that, but he quoted earlier from Sir Gerard. The point I am making in relation to this is that it is appropriate for the parliament to have a view that these administrative decisions should have administrative review dealing with merits and that the court can have a supervisory role in relation to whether or not they follow procedural fairness. This bill envisages that; that is why we set out what procedural fairness will involve. But they will not use that as a basis for going in and putting their view on the merits. The merits issues are to be dealt with by the independent merits review tribunal. Otherwise, you might as well not have merits review tribunals. I said some time ago—and I remind the shadow minister of this—that we spent $14 million on the Refugee Review Tribunal. If the courts are to be involved in addressing each of these cases, we might as well get rid of the merits review tribunal and simply hand the whole issue over to the courts. Then they can deal with the merits review—but they do not want that either. They do not want to be clogged up dealing with refugee applications every day of the week. They just like to come in every so often and make a decision on one where they have a feeling, `Oh, I'd like to do something about this.' Sir Anthony recognises this. He says: If judicial review were to trespass on the merits of the exercise of administrative power, it would put its own legitimacy at risk. He goes on to say: No doubt there are some who would say that some decisions verging on merits review have contributed to the continuing climate of political criticism of the Federal Court's review of immigration and other matters. And I would say Sir Anthony is being most perspicacious in that. He goes on to say: Be that as it may, the High Court has had occasion to caution against an excessive willingness on the part of the Federal Court to find fault with the reasons given by an administrative decision maker. Wu Shan Liang and the Minister for Immigration, and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Guo Wei Rong are the most recent examples. Notwithstanding the fact that the parliament has made it clear and the High Court has made it clear, there are Federal Court judges still out there on a frolic of their own. I would hope that the shadow minister meant what he said. If he is not prepared to support our bill, which will introduce a privative clause, he might find other ways to help us in dealing with what is a very, very difficult issue, and one which has the potential to undermine the integrity of our independent merits review system, to undermine the integrity of the immigration program and to invite the sort of criticism which we all abhor and against which I have to defend the program. I invite the shadow minister to talk to me about these issues, because there are substantial arguments for the case that we have put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 1136 Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock) read a third time. Bills 1136 r653 1136 Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Slipper: That the bill be now read a second time. 13:33:00 1136 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 0 —This legislation put forward by the government amending the Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act is designed to achieve two objectives, neither of which of the Labor Party supports. It is designed to make it easier for people to make substantial donations to political parties without having to disclose the origin of those donations, and it is designed to make it harder for people to get on to the electoral roll or to stay on the electoral roll. As I said, neither of these objectives is supported by Labor. We will be moving a substantial number of amendments to the legislation in the committee stage, and I will now just go through the issues as we see them in the legislation. The legislation was first introduced in the Senate in May on the eve of the election and, in spite of the best efforts of the secretary of the Liberal Party, Mr Lynton Crosby, the government could not quite manage to get it on to the program in time to get it through before the election. Now, of course, we have to deal with it in this chamber, and our position is the same essentially as the position that we put forward in the minority report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, which dealt with the issues, some of which are reflected in legislation. The reason the bill never got through the previous parliament is that a range of the measures proposed have been devised with the intent of providing specific political advantage to the conservatives. In particular, it reflects the long held obsession with the Liberal Party about unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud, measures to disenfranchise large numbers of electors and massive increases in electoral funding and disclosure thresholds to allow large sums of money to go undisclosed. I will now turn to the detail in the legislation. Items 1 to 9 deal with the provision of elector data to members, senators and political parties. Items 1 and 2 relate to giving federal MPs details of electors' dates of birth and salutations. These measures are supported by the Labor Party. The electoral rolls and habitation indexes are currently provided in print or on tape or disk, in accordance with section 91 of the act, and we think it is useful for this to continue, and for birth dates and salutation details to be provided to enable us to more accurately deal with constituents. However, there is substantial sensitivity associated with this information, particularly with respect to its attractiveness for commercial marketing companies. Items 3 and 4 increase the penalty for misuse of this material from 10 penalty units to 100 penalty units. We think it is clearly inadequate at $1,000 and we believe it is appropriate to have a more severe penalty with respect to misuse of electoral roll material for commercial purposes. I turn to items 5 and 7: there currently exists a range of permitted purposes for which this information can be used, and the government is proposing to add a new permitted purpose—that of research regarding electoral matters. These measures will be supported by Labor. Items 8 and 9 relate to increasing the penalty for disclosure, to which I referred, for the purpose of commercial misuse. We will be moving amendments to increase the increase that the government is proposing up to the level of $110,000 maximum penalty which, we believe, would more accurately reflect the value which would be potentially obtained from the unlawful misuse of such information being provided to politicians, and then subsequently unlawfully passed on. The disclosure of this information to marketing companies could offer enormous commercial advantage, and it is essential that a sufficient penalty exists as a deterrent to such activity. We do not believe that 100 penalty units or $11,000 is sufficient for that, and so we are proposing an amendment to make the maximum penalty much more substantial. I turn now to items 10, 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69 which relate to prisoners. The Electoral Act currently prohibits anyone serving a sentence of five years or longer for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory, or has been convicted of treason or treachery, and has not been pardoned, from being entitled to have their name placed on the roll or to vote at any election. Item 10 prohibits a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for any offence against any law of a state or territory, or the Commonwealth, from voting or remaining on the electoral roll. The federal opposition will be opposing this item and proposing in its place amendments to tighten the current provisions. It should be noted that denying the right of all prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence, would present a breach of our obligations under the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 25(b), as well as the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948 article 21(i), recently re-signed by this government. The provisions in the bill would deny all prisoners a vote. Hence a person, for example, serving an eight-week sentence which happened to coincide with an election period would be denied a vote. Yet, on the other hand, a person who had recently completed a two-year sentence that was not coinciding with an election would still be able to vote. In effect, they would not lose their right to vote. Parliament has previously accepted that certain classes of prisoners should not be able to vote and we do not oppose that position. It is possible to distinguish between major and minor offences as the parliament has previously done. We believe that the five-year rule should remain but that it should be amended to provide also that anybody who has been continuously imprisoned from the return of the writs of the previous elections to the return of the writs of the instant elections that are being dealt with should also be deprived of a vote. Item 18 removes the right of prisoners to remain enrolled for the subdivision for which the person was enrolled when he or she began serving the sentence. We believe that all prisoners should be entitled to be enrolled, and so we will be opposing this provision. Item 29 requires the controller-general of prisons in each state and territory to forward to the Electoral Commission lists of all persons who have been convicted and are serving a sentence of imprisonment. This is consequential to the previous items I have referred to, and we will be opposing that item. Similarly, with respect to item 36, which proposes to abolish mobile polling booths for prisons, the same view will be adopted by the opposition. Equally, with item 49, which proposes to abolish the rights of prisoners to apply for a postal or a prepoll vote, we will be taking the same view there. Similarly, with items 59 and 69, which refer to consequential amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act regarding mobile booths and prepoll and postal voting for prisoners and the like, we will also be opposing those items. I turn now to items 11, 12, 14, 28, 30, 31, 53 and 54 which relate to the early closure of the rolls. As the Labor senators outlined in their minority report to the Senate committee, these clauses represent a very undemocratic, crassly partisan and cynical approach by this government. Evidence given shows that 80,000 new enrolments occur in the one-week period before the closure of the rolls in an election period. Depriving these people of a vote certainly adds nothing to the democratic process. And it is no coincidence that this group of people happens to be the worst demographic for the present government electorally. Items 30 and 31 provide for the close of rolls to be three working days after the issue of the writ. We will be opposing these items. At each election there is a rush of people who either apply to go on the roll or who need to update or change their address. It is often not until an election is called that many people turn their attention to such issues. Evidence given by the AEC to the Senate committee shows that a majority of the 320,000 people who notify change of address do so at the last available opportunity. Further, about 80,000 new enrolments occur once the election is called. Closing the rolls so quickly would disenfranchise a large number of first time voters, most of whom would be young people. The restriction of three days for change of address prior to an election will be massively distorting. It would lead to more than 200,000 people potentially voting at their previous address, not their current address, which could be in another electorate, thereby completely distorting the democratic process and contrary to the intention of the act. Items 11, 12, 14 and 28 are consequential to items 30 and 31. They provide a postponement period during which names cannot be added or deleted from the rolls as a result of enrolment applications. This postponement period commences at 8 p.m. on the day of the closure of the rolls until the close of polling if the AEC is satisfied the applicant has previously been an elector. However, for new electors the postponement period commences at 6 p.m. on the date of the issue of the writ and continues until the close of polling. This means that no new electors can get onto the roll once the election has been called. The rationale is that the new proof of identity and other cross-checks for new electors will take too long to carry out and will not make the three-day limit. So those 80,000 new voters who apply to get on the electoral roll when an election is called will all be disenfranchised by this legislation. Labor will be opposing this measure. Items 53 and 54 mirror these items in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act and we will also be opposing those. Items 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19 through to 27 relate to enrolment reform. The coalition has had a long and extremely paranoid obsession with claims or rumours of electoral fraud and clearly believes that this is the only reason it failed to win elections in 1983, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1993, et cetera. We all want accurate rolls. The Labor Party believes strongly in the integrity of the electoral system. However, when questioned in the Senate inquiry, the AEC could not provide any evidence that the electoral rolls are rorted under the existing rules; nor can the Liberal Party come up with anything other than vague innuendo about this issue. However, these provisions seem to be based on the paranoia of the Liberal Party searching for some excuse as to why they lost five elections in a row rather than any substantive evidence or actuality. They will lead to an enormous increase in bureaucratic procedures, additional costs of almost $4 million annually for the Commonwealth, money which could be much better spent on things like habitation reviews to continually update the addresses of people on the rolls. The AEC gave evidence to the Senate committee regarding new enrolment procedures being currently adopted. These procedures put forward by the AEC can reasonably be expected to substantially reduce the possibility of enrolment fraud. Items 13, 15 through to 17, 21 through to 23, and 25 through to 27 provide that an elector must enrol within one month of moving to a new address. Again, Labor will be opposing these provisions. We believe that this will disenfranchise a number of voters, particularly itinerant electors. Previously, people were required to reside in their new electorate for a period of one month before being eligible for enrolment in that electorate. They then had 21 days to notify the AEC of their change of enrolment. This proposed change converts that into a four-week period. However, a much greater concern exists with respect to itinerant electors because item 17 seems to actually eliminate, perhaps unintentionally, the entire category of itinerant electors. It provides: Subject to subsection (9), a person ceases to be eligible to be treated as an itinerant elector under this section as soon as a person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a subdivision. However, the other items in this particular group of amendments provide that a person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a subdivision immediately. There is no longer a one-month waiting period. Therefore, an elector would cease to be treated as an itinerant elector as soon as they moved. In other words, it becomes impossible to qualify under the specific provisions as an itinerant elector. This issue has been raised with the AEC, which has conceded that this is an unintended anomaly. We hope that the government will actually tackle this issue. In any event, we are opposing the changes which reduce the period from seven weeks to four weeks for re-enrolment consequent upon changing address. The fact that this anomaly exists is an illustration of the extent to which the government has rushed the legislation and really has not done its homework. Item 19 provides that a witness to enrolment applications must be an elector, as prescribed by the regulations. We will be opposing this item. We find it hard to sign up to provisions that rely on regulations that we have not yet seen. The success of these proposed changes would be dependent on the regulations that the Senate, the House and, indeed, the Senate committee have not actually had the ability to scrutinise. We would not be able to form a view on this without seeing such regulations. It is worth pointing out on this particular issue that the process of witnessing an application is really entirely separate from the process of actually enrolling. There is no particular reason to require somebody to be an elector in order to be a witness. That person, if not an elector, could still be a witness, for example, on a commercial contract. All the person is doing is actually witnessing the act, bearing witness to the fact that the individual who has signed that form is the individual he or she knows. Why you would add this qualification in is something of a mystery to me. Item 20 is about verification of identity and citizenship for enrolment with at least one original form of proof of identity documentation. Labor has some concerns about this provision because it also relies on regulations that we have not seen. Nor have we been asked for any input into the make-up of those regulations. It also relies heavily on the records of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and on the accuracy of those records. We fear that not everyone will have records of citizenship. An example may be someone whose parents were made Australian citizens. The individual may have been included on their certificate, but he or she may not have a copy of the certificate. Item 24 relates to lodgment by hand of enrolment applications with a prescribed agent, such as a post office or a semi-government organisation. Again, in the absence of any detail about what regulations propose to be promulgated under this provision, we are unable to support it. Items 32 to 35 and 37 through to 42 deal with assisted voting. Basically, these provide that a presiding officer of a polling place is the only person who can assist a voter to mark the ballot. Another person must observe, and that person may be a polling official, a scrutineer or other nominated person. Items 55 to 58 and 60 to 65 mirror these provisions for the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. We think that these are sensible provisions and we will be supporting those particular proposals. Items 43, 51, 52, 66, 71 and 72 deal with the preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes. Labor will be supporting these items. They are straightforward and will hopefully speed up the count by allowing a preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes to commence on the Monday before the polling day. However, the declaration envelopes must not be opened until after the close of the poll. The second check of envelopes excluded from the preliminary scrutiny is to be undertaken after the close of the poll. Items 66, 71 and 72 mirror these proposals in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. Now for the really interesting bit. Items 44 to 46 increase the funding and disclosure thresholds—what a surprise! The Liberal Party have a lot of form in this area where it comes to pushing the limits with respect to electoral funding and disclosure. They have a history of sidestepping, evading and avoiding the disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act for very obvious reasons. Now they are taking advantage of their numbers—at least in this House—to massively increase the electoral funding and disclosure thresholds in the knowledge that it will allow huge sums of money to be donated without disclosure. Item 44 increases from $1,500 to $10,000 the amount above which a donor to a political party must furnish a return for the financial year. Item 45 increases the amount from $1,500 to $5,000 that political parties are required to disclose that they received from a person or organisation during a financial year. We will be opposing these items. We believe that these increases would allow for significant sums of money to go without disclosure, particularly when combined with item 46 which provides that the $5,000 figure does not have to be made up of individual amounts of less than $1,500. Even the AEC conceded the problems with these measures. During the Senate inquiry, the head of funding and disclosure at the AEC conceded that the way a donor can make such a large donation without being disclosed is by donating up to the threshold to each state and territory branch of a political party. So, for a party that is organised nationally in every state and territory and has a national secretariat, you are looking at nine separate identified parties in effect for disclosure purposes. A donor can make separate donations to all of these parties because they are not aggregated across Australia, only within each state and territory. The donors will not be disclosed. They could donate $4,999 a year to each state and territory branch of a political party and go undisclosed. That would add up to just short of $45,000. The AEC also conceded that there were a number of ways in which donors could split their donations so that they would not be disclosed: for example, by each member of a family or company donating up to the disclosure limit. So you can therefore multiply that $45,000 to get even higher sums. Items 44 and 45 are basically yet another attempt by the coalition parties to weaken disclosure, a policy that they have consistently opposed for 15 years. Their tacit approval of the Greenfields Foundation rort does nothing to inspire confidence in the arguments they have brought to bear in the case for these clauses. We will be pursuing further amendments in the Senate to close once and for all the Greenfields Foundation rort. The Labor Party has always advocated tight and transparent funding and disclosure provisions and we will not allow these items, driven by the Liberal Party national secretariat, to undermine the integrity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Item 46 relates to amounts of less than $1,500, increased from $500 previously, which need not be counted when calculating disclosure amounts. We believe that these amendments are acceptable. Item 47 repeals section 332 of the act. This is a non-controversial amendment which Labor will be supporting. This currently requires the identification of authors of reports, et cetera when printing and publishing electoral advertisements, notices and so on. These requirements are identical to those set out in section 328, which operates at all times, whereas section 332 applies only during the election period. It is therefore clearly redundant. Item 68 mirrors those provisions that I have just referred to in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act and we will therefore be supporting that as well. Items 48 and 67 deal with the failure of delivery of postal ballots. This measure is a sensible one, providing that, where postal ballot papers are delivered by alternate mechanisms other than post, the Court of Disputed Returns must not declare that a person returned as elected was not duly elected or declare an election void. Labor will be supporting this item. Items 50 and 70 cover rules for the conduct of a preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes. This amends schedule 3 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and schedule 4 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to provide that, where a declaration envelope does not have a legible postmark and the signature of the witness bears a date after polling day, the vote is taken to have been marked after polling day and is therefore not to be included in the further scrutiny. We will be supporting these items. In conclusion, while there are a number of non-controversial proposals in this legislation which we think will provide minor improvements to the Electoral Act, in overall terms the thrust of this legislation should not be accepted by this parliament. It is highly partisan legislation. It is designed explicitly to favour the conservative parties. It is designed to make it harder for particular sections of people in the community to be on the electoral roll, to get on the electoral roll, to stay on the electoral roll. And, of course, it is no coincidence that the types of people that that refers to—young people, itinerant voters and the like—just happen to be people who are more Labor voters than conservative voters. It is no coincidence: there is a long pattern of this sort of behaviour on the part of the conservative parties, both at state and federal level, seeking to restrict access to the electoral roll in order to keep off people who tend to vote Labor. That is the precise reason these amendments are being put forward. Similarly, on the disclosure legislation, their proposals are all designed to allow their big business mates—the people whom Ron Walker goes around to with the big brown bag—to donate large sums of money without having to disclose it. We have heard some references to the unions donating to the Labor Party. Every cent of that is disclosed. Yet you set up rorts to ensure that you can have all of your obscure mates donating very substantial sums, with substantial commercial advantages relating to the possibilities of government decisions, and you want to avoid disclosure. The Australian Electoral Commission, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, made the following points. With respect to the enrolment of prisoners and their entitlement to vote, it said: The AEC makes no comment on the policy relating to this issue . . . there will be some practical difficulties in implementing this policy. With respect to the use of elector data: The AEC has no view on the policy to provide salutation and date of birth details to members, senators and political parties, or to allow for the use of elector data for research purposes. With regard to assisted voting: The AEC has not been on the public record about this issue. However, there could be some difficulties experienced in some polling places. With regard to thresholds for reporting of donations: The AEC advised against such changes in a submission to the JSCEM inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal election. What that means is that they know what you are up to. You are trying to ensure that your mates can donate— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Order! I am reminded by the member for Cunningham that I do not know what they are up to at all. You might address your remarks through the chair. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —They know what the government is up to in this whole process. It is simply a rort to ensure that much larger sums of corporate money can be donated to the Liberal and National parties without those amounts having to be disclosed. I will be moving the amendments I have outlined when we get to the committee stage and I foreshadow further amendments which may be moved to this legislation when we get to the Senate. I urge members to support the amendments being put forward by the opposition. 13:57:00 1142 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN OK6 Eden-Monaro LP 1 0 —In the couple of minutes before question time, I am pleased to actually speak in support of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 , which is all about making our excellent voting system even better. The various wide-ranging provisions contained in this bill came from the many recommendations made in the report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal elections and matters related thereto—the report by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which I was the chairman of in the last parliament. The process that we have in this parliament whereby the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters routinely conducts an inquiry following each general election is a very good one. A good democracy is something that does not just happen; it is something that has to be worked at to ensure it remains as strong as possible. Reviewing our general elections, and thereby also our Electoral Act and electoral processes, is fundamental to the maintenance of the highest standards of democracy. Now that we have had another general election, the Australian public will be given an opportunity to comment on the conduct of the 1998 election. It will also give us an opportunity to test the effect of some of the changes made to the electoral process during the last parliament. With respect to this bill, there are a number of provisions on which I would like to comment. Firstly, and in my opinion, one of the most important and fundamental aspects of an electoral system is the integrity of the roll—the list of names of people who are entitled to cast a vote in an election. `Entitled to cast a vote in an election' are the operative words. I am sure all members of this House and by far the majority of Australians would want to feel comfortable that the people who are listed on the roll are entitled to vote. Therefore, they want to feel comfortable that a person filling out an enrolment form is the person they say they are and is entitled to be put on the roll—that is, that they are over 18 years of age and are Australian citizens. Currently, a person wishing to enrol simply fills out a particular form, signs it, has someone else who is only `eligible to be on the roll' witness it, sends it off and then the person is on the roll. No evidence is provided of who the person actually is. I would say that there is nothing else that we do in everyday life that could be less intrusive. Mr Deputy Speaker, at a later time I will speak on the amendment in the bill that is before us, as I see it is now 2 o'clock. Ministerial Arrangements 1143 1143 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 —I inform the House that the Minister for Defence will be absent from question time for the rest of this week. He is attending official defence functions in Thailand. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will act on his behalf and take questions. Questions Without Notice 1143 1143 1143 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY PE4 Brand ALP 0 0 —My question is to the Prime Minister. I seek clarification of an aspect of the government's new tax system goods and services bill. Prime Minister, your Treasurer said in his second reading speech today on the aged care compensation measures bill that the legislation guarantees that no older person will be worse off. Isn't it a fact that all pensioners in public housing will automatically lose up to one-quarter of your already inadequate pension increases in higher rents? Why have you deliberately chosen not to help public housing tenants, thereby leaving them worse off, whereas you have provided similar rent relief for nursing home residents? 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the Prime Minister—the Leader of the Opposition's question is entirely in order; I am not questioning that for a moment—given that the package of bills was announced this morning, it was only reasonable for the Speaker to anticipate a number of questions. I would remind those asking questions of the anticipation rule and of the requirement not to seek detail under the anticipation rule of anything that might come up in discussion. I call the Prime Minister to respond to the Leader of the Opposition's question. 1143 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 —The statements made by the government about compensation—including in relation to pensioners, including in relation to all costs incurred by pensioners—are absolutely correct. There is a four per cent up-front increase. The basis for the honourable gentleman's question is fallacious. 1143 1143 Bartlett, Kerry, MP Mr BARTLETT 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the September quarter national accounts released today by the ABS? What do today's growth figures indicate about the underlying strength of the Australian economy and the appropriateness of the government's policy settings? 1143 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question. I can inform the House that today's national account showed that, in the September quarter, the Australian economy grew by one per cent. In the year to September 1998, the Australian economy grew by five per cent. These are exceptionally strong growth figures, particularly in the face of the Asian financial crisis. Going through the year terms over the last year, Japan has had a fall in GDP growth of 1.8 per cent. New Zealand is in recession and growth has declined by 1.2 per cent. Growth in Korea has declined by 6.8 per cent. Singapore is in recession and growth has declined by 0.7 per cent. Hong Kong is in recession and growth has declined by seven per cent. In Australia, the Australian economy withstood the Asian financial crisis and grew by five per cent in the year to September 1998. This compares favourably with not only the region but also other advanced economies. US growth through the year has been about 3.5 per cent. In Germany and France it has been about 2½ per cent. In Canada it has been 2.3 per cent and 1.1 per cent in Italy. The strong Australian growth in the face of the Asian financial crisis did not come about by accident. It was a consequence of good and sound policy. When this government was elected in 1996 and the full nature of Labor's concealment of the fiscal position became known, we said that we would have to put the Australian budget back into balance to strengthen it against unanticipated events. We did not know then that the Asian financial crisis would occur, but this government fought every inch of the way as it put the Australian budget back into surplus. As the House knows, the budget was back in surplus in the last financial year. This government also introduced a new monetary policy to ensure that inflation was kept low and interest rates could respond appropriately. We do not say that the Asian financial crisis or indeed the world financial crisis is past. Clearly, 1999 is going to be a hard year, but I think we can say that the Australian economy has weathered the first year of the crisis exceptionally well. I want to pay tribute also to Australian exporters. Australian exporters have been phenomenally successful in diverting their exports away from the troubled Asian economies and exporting instead to North America and Europe. They have been aided by a floating exchange rate. They have kept Australia's exports up in the face of this onslaught. They have been a very big part of the good economic performance of Australia over the last 12 months. 1144 1144 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN DT4 Hotham ALP 0 0 —I direct my question to the Treasurer. I seek clarification of section 38 of the government's new 10 per cent tax on almost everything bill. Treasurer, will you confirm that under this clause the transport of imported goods within Australia will be GST free whereas the same transport of identical goods produced in Australia will face a GST? Treasurer, why are you providing this benefit to imported goods which is not available to Australian made goods? Won't this simply encourage more imports, a worse balance of payments result and even higher increases in the foreign debt? 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for Hotham has actually sought details of clause 38 which is, I would have thought, going beyond the anticipation arrangements, because that is what we would expect to occur in the consideration in detail stage in the chamber. That is what the anticipation rule is about. 5I4 McMULLAN Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on that very matter. I appreciate that this is a very vexed question, but the basis upon which we proceed with regard to exactly the terminology of the member for Hotham's question is the advice which we received and on which we proceeded without any standing order being taken against us right throughout the debate on the workplace relations bill when we asked questions, particularly about the preamble, precisely in the terms used by the member for Hotham, and they said, `We seek specific clarification of matters with regard to your bill.' That was the basis of our advice. It was upheld on every occasion during debate on the workplace relations bill. Mr Downer interjecting— 5I4 McMULLAN Mr McMullan —No, it was not, you fool. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right! The member for Fraser has the call and is making a deliberative point of order. 5I4 McMULLAN Mr McMullan —We can only operate as an opposition on the basis that we are going to get consistency of ruling, and that is the basis of the advice we received upon which we acted and was upheld on every occasion during the course of that very important bill. WI4 REITH Mr Reith —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which also goes to the anticipation rule. It has been put to you that this is a vexed matter; it is not vexed at all—in fact, there is quite clear precedent on it. The fact that the opposition disguise their questions with some preliminary remarks does not detract from the simple point that the anticipation rule does not allow questions which go to the details which will be canvassed in the second reading debate. When I say it is not vexed, I refer you to House of Representatives debates in November 1988. I put to you that the same rule that applied then should apply now. On that particular occasion a question going to particular details was put to the then Treasurer of the day and Madam Speaker then said, `The Treasurer will keep clear of the bill.' I could go on with a quote from the now Leader of the Opposition, who himself made exactly that point, referred to House of Representatives Practice and made it clear that a minister is not entitled to be directed to canvass details of a bill. On that point, I put to you that your tentative ruling is the right ruling and should be the order of the day. PE4 BEAZLEY Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to pages 511 and 512 of House of Representatives Practice . Under the heading `Anticipation of business', it states: The principle established by rulings from the Chair is that questions seeking to elicit information about proceedings pending in the House are permissible provided they do not anticipate the discussion itself or invite a Minister to do so. For example, in 1976, Speaker Snedden disallowed a question because it invited anticipation of the second reading speech and the arguments and principles upon which the legislation was based. However, he later permitted a question asking whether certain people would be disadvantaged under legislation then before the House. The Speaker ruled, in response to a point of order alleging inconsistency in the two rulings, that the second question was in order as it was simply seeking information about the legislation. My first question to you, which is no different in essence at all from the question that has just been asked, sought information in relation to the impact of the GST legislation contemplated in this House on whether or not a pensioner in public housing would receive compensation in the same way as a nursing home resident. This second question that has just been asked by the deputy leader seeks information— 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I am well aware of the second question. PE4 BEAZLEY Mr Beazley —on whether or not a GST will apply to imported goods in a way that is dissimilar from that applied to goods produced domestically. It is in entirely the same genre and in complete keeping with the Speaker's ruling at that time. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and I will rule. I interrupted the member for Hotham because he specifically asked a question about section 38 of the legislation, seeking the sort of detail that one would expect to emerge in the detailed stages of the debate. As such, it is reasonable, I believe, to apply the anticipation rule because this is seeking information on what will be debated in the detailed stages of the debate. I am happy to reconsider the member for Hotham's question when rephrased. DT4 Mr CREAN —If I can address that point, I will rephrase the question this way: will the Treasurer confirm that under his 10 per cent tax on almost everything bill, the transport of imported goods within Australia will be GST free, whereas the same transport of identical goods produced in Australia will face a GST? Treasurer, why are you providing this benefit to imported goods, which is not available to Australian made goods? Won't this simply encourage more imports, a worse balance of payments result and even higher increases in the foreign debt? 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the question. It is clearly not necessary for the Treasurer to respond in detail, but the general principles of the tax reform may be addressed. 1145 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —We do not take seriously the Labor Party's proposition that a new tax system which takes taxes off exports is somehow going to worsen the current account. The Labor Party taxes business inputs under its wholesale sales tax. What is more, the Labor Party taxes all transport in Australia, both of imported goods and domestic goods. The Labor Party taxes 22 per cent on all trucks and 43 per cent on all diesel, which under our system will be dramatically reduced. Under our system of tax, all taxes on business inputs come off exports—$4.5 billion off exports. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. My question went to the cost of imported goods and transport and why it will be treated differently from domestically produced goods, not the export issue. This is an issue that he has to address. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for Hotham will resume his seat. I had not interrupted the Treasurer on the point of relevance because he was, in fact, referring to transport, which I thought was perfectly legitimate. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —He hasn't once mentioned imports in relation to his tax package. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer has the call. CT4 Mr COSTELLO —I was asked a question about the effect of tax reform on the current account, exports and balance of payments. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —Imports, you goose! CT4 Mr COSTELLO —Let me just tell you that balance of payments covers exports and imports; it covers both. I was asked a question about the balance of payments. A new tax system which takes tax off exports helps the balance of payments—$4.5 billion off exports, $4.5 billion that the Labor Party opposes taking off exports. This is the side of the House which has a new tax system and it will help Australian exporters. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. Why won't he address the new tax he has now put on Australian-made but not imported goods when they are transported in Australia? 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for Hotham will resume his seat. DT4 CREAN Mr Crean —Because you're wrong! 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Has the Treasurer completed his answer? CT4 COSTELLO Mr Costello —Yes. 1146 1146 Hawker, David, MP Mr HAWKER 8H4 Wannon LP 1 0 —My question also is addressed to the Treasurer, and I refer his attention to this morning's announcement by the Reserve Bank of Australia to cut official interest rates. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the number of cuts there have been in official interest rates since the coalition came to government? 4T4 MELHAM Mr Melham —Go to the Library; you don't need him. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for Banks. 8H4 Mr HAWKER —Also, to what extent have the policies of this government helped to create an environment conducive to low interest rates? 1146 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I think members of the House will welcome the fact that this morning the Reserve Bank of Australia cut interest rates to 4.75 per cent. This is the sixth interest rate cut since this government was elected. When this government was elected, the standard variable mortgage interest rate was 10.5 per cent; after the last five official interest rate cuts, the standard variable had come down to 6.7 per cent; and, as a result of a cut in official rates this morning, I notice that Aussie Home Loans has already jumped in first and cut its standard variable home rate to 6.24 per cent. `Aussie Home Loans jumps first', they said, `with rate cut to 6.24 per cent.' The National Australia Bank has issued a press release saying: National cuts home loan rates and has announced that its standard variable home loan rate has been cut today from 6.7 per cent to 6.45 per cent. We congratulate the National Australia Bank on cutting home mortgage rates. We also look forward to other banks following suit and passing on the benefits to home buyers in relation to lower interest rates. Since this government was elected, as a result of interest rate cuts the average Australian family is now saving more than $3,000 a year on its home mortgage interest rate. That is $3,000 a year going back to young families to help them with the cost of children; to help them with the cost of buying homes; and to help them keep consumer sentiment up, as we have seen in today's strong figures. I have gone back through Reserve Bank bulletins to see when interest rates were last at this level. The official interest rate was last at this level in July of 1993, although home loans were higher. But, according to Reserve Bank rates, if one goes back to January 1990—remembering that today's official cash rate was 4.75 per cent—the cash rate was 17 to 17½ per cent. That is when the Labor Party decided to bring on the recession we had to have. They were very successful in bringing on the recession we had to have in 1990 with cash rates at 17½ per cent. But I think that people on this side of the House will welcome the fact that good policy has brought great returns for home buyers and families. 1146 1146 Lee, Michael, MP Mr LEE MG4 Dobell ALP 0 0 —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer agree with the Vos report's comments on the additional costs of the GST for the education sector where it states: . . . In terms of equitable treatment with the private sector, for which the Government has earmarked $500 million, the Committee feels the education sector should share in this pool of funds. To do otherwise may result in valuable resources being diverted from the delivery of education services. Treasurer, will the government comply with the committee's recommendation, or will it allow education to suffer as the GST turns teachers into accountants? 1147 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —The first point I make is that, under the government's tax reform, education becomes cheaper—because, under the government's tax reform, people who supply education get all of their tax back and there is no tax on outputs. So education falls in cost under the new tax system; it is cheaper and more affordable than it is under Labor's tax system. Labor taxes business inputs, particularly embedded inputs in relation to education. MG4 LEE Mr Lee —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. This was a question about the costs of administering and applying the new GST. The Treasurer is not being relevant to the question. 4T4 MELHAM Mr Melham —Table the ballot paper. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member for Banks. I rule the reply in order. CT4 Mr COSTELLO —As I was going on to say, as I said in the second reading speech in relation to implementation costs, registered organisations will be able to take advantage of that particular provision. 1147 1147 Draper, Trish, MP Mrs DRAPER 0L6 Makin LP 1 0 —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, are you aware of concern within the community about opposition to the government's proposed private health rebate? What is the government's response to constituents in my electorate of Makin who have told me that the rebate would mean the difference between taking out private health insurance or not taking out private health insurance? How can you allay these concerns that the people in my electorate of Makin have? 1147 Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MP Dr WOOLDRIDGE 8E4 Chisholm LP Health and Aged Care 1 0 —I thank the honourable member for her question. Her constituents are typical of the many hundreds of thousands of Australians who want the best for their families, want to have some control over their life, want to have choice and want to take out private health insurance. The opposition has shown no interest in them. In fact, all the opposition has done is talk a lot about the so-called rich. These are people, in the opposition's view, of a family earning more than $70,000 a year as a combined family income. I had someone call my office yesterday and it was typical of that. They were a family from Queensland. They had a 10-year-old daughter. This daughter had had 30 operations throughout her life. The family were marginally over the cut-off limit. They were finding that they were having serious difficulty in coping with the health insurance expenses in conjunction with all the other medical expenses for the long-term treatment of their daughter. They wanted to have private health insurance because they wanted some choice and some control, and they felt they got much better rehabilitation—which is probably correct because rehabilitation is an area that has not been traditionally handled well in the state system. That sort of family, the opposition would say, should get no assistance whatsoever. It is also typified by a letter that was sent to me which I would like to read to my colleagues. The letter is from a lady in Victoria and states: Dear Sir, I have never written a letter to a politician before, but I am doing so today because I feel so strongly about this issue. Having been a public patient in a city public hospital last year and seeing the overworked, overstressed staff, a lot of patients being left unsure of their situation, I feel the government's 30 per cent tax rebate for private health insurance must be passed through both houses of parliament so that people like us can choose to pay private health insurance at a somewhat affordable price, thus taking the load off the public hospital system. I could not have put it better myself. 1147 1147 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills ALP 0 0 —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it not true that the government's tax reform package does not deal with abuses of the prescribed payments system, as disclosed in the Buchanan report issued today? Rather than imposing a new unfair 10 per cent tax on ordinary families, why do you not concentrate on collecting the billions of dollars of tax avoided under this rort? 1148 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —The answer is no. As part of the tax reform package, the government introduces an Australian business number. The Australian business number gives the opportunity to enforce both indirect tax and income tax. In fact, the Australian business number was such a dramatic reform in this area and anti-avoidance technique that the Labor Party adopted it as its policy before the last election. 1148 1148 Hull, Kay, MP Mrs HULL 83O Riverina NP 1 0 —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, what plans does the government have for the funding of research infrastructure? Is the minister aware of any alternative funding proposals? 1148 Kemp, Dr David, MP Dr KEMP BT4 Goldstein LP Education, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 —I thank the member for Riverina for her question. The Commonwealth government is committed to improving and advancing Australia's basic research and its research infrastructure. In the last election campaign, the coalition committed itself to an extra $148.6 million over three years to maintain investment in research and research infrastructure, including $90.5 million for research infrastructure. That funding fully dealt with the projected fall in the forward estimates for research and research infrastructure. The Labor Party's education policy did not do so. The Labor Party's education policy committed only $57 million extra, with the result being that Australian research was left some $91.6 million short. There was a massive, gaping hole in the Labor Party education policy. It was quite clear from the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition in the House yesterday that he had not even read the policy. He did not know about the gap in the policy. The little red Indian on the back bench at least read the policy from the launch to the airport. He actually read the policy. The Leader of the Opposition, the big chief in the opposition, never got around to reading the policy at all. It appears that he was not briefed on the issue of the forward estimates. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition has a continuing problem with the forward estimates. During the 1996 election he informed the electorate that the budget was in surplus. But, as we know, it was in deficit to $10.6 billion. What this demonstrates is that the member for Werriwa has correctly identified the massive intellectual vacuum which exists on the part of the Labor Party. I see that the member for Werriwa is currently out of the chamber, presumably working on that most valuable book which he is preparing to fill the gaping intellectual hole that exists on the other side of the chamber. PE4 BEAZLEY Mr Beazley —Nobody believes you, David. ZD4 HOWARD Mr Howard —Oh, yes, they do. BT4 Dr KEMP —Well, challenge it. Go on; get up and challenge it. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister will stop interjecting, particularly when the Speaker is on his feet. Distinguished Visitors 1148 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our guests. UNKNOWN Honourable members Honourable members —Hear, hear! Questions Without Notice 1148 1148 1148 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 0 —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Can the minister confirm that a tourist on a domestic flight from Sydney to Cairns who purchased their ticket overseas will escape the GST but an Australian resident sitting next to them will have paid the full 10 per cent? 1148 Kelly, Jackie, MP Miss JACKIE KELLY GK6 Lindsay LP Sport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games 1 0 —The answer to the question of the honourable member for Hunter is yes. 1149 1149 Brough, Mal, MP Mr BROUGH 2K6 Longman LP 1 0 —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of comments which have been made in relation to the issue of junior wage rates? What is the government's response to these comments? Is there united opposition to the position the government is taking to this issue? ET4 BEVIS Mr Bevis —You are not going to repeat your misleading comments of this morning, are you? 1149 Reith, Peter, MP Mr REITH WI4 Flinders LP Workplace Relations and Small Business 1 0 —I am going to repeat what I said this morning and I am going to go on repeating it, because it is a major embarrassment for the Labor opposition that there is now a major split in the ranks on the union side. We all know where they take their instructions from—from the labour movement, from the trade union bosses. On this particular issue, the instructions are to block the government's reforms, which will in fact preserve jobs and create jobs. We have got the usual that we get from the Labor Party. We have inherited the problem. Now they are doing all that they can to prevent the fixing of the problem and the implementation of the solutions. It is a very interesting development that the shopies union has now made a submission to the Industrial Relations Commission on the question of junior wage rates. Obviously, we would not agree with everything the shopies union say. But when it comes to the central, absolutely critical issue in this whole debate, this is what the shopies union say: The SDA is prepared to acknowledge there may be a role for youth wages for employees under 18 years who are still enrolled in secondary education. ET4 BEVIS Mr Bevis —Read the lot of it. WI4 Mr REITH —I will read the rest; it is my pleasure to do so. It is a pity you do not read it and understand what they are saying. They further say: Experience of life can give maturity and knowledge. Age has been used in the Australian society as a basis to reflect experience and knowledge (i.e. school). It is not a perfect match as, depending upon other factors, experience does not necessarily match up with age. ET4 BEVIS Mr Bevis —And the rest. WI4 Mr REITH —Elsewhere in their submission they say: The SDA proposes that youth rates should apply to employees under 18— ET4 BEVIS Mr Bevis —No. WI4 Mr REITH —Further: but full adult rates apply to all other employees. ET4 BEVIS Mr Bevis —That is not the lot. 10000 Mr SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Brisbane persists in interjecting. He is aware that I had already called his attention to the fact that the minister had the call. The member for Brisbane will exercise some restraint. WI4 Mr REITH —When you read the report, you find that they propose their own alternative, which is this: those aged 15 years should get 50 per cent of the adult rate; 16 years, 60 per cent; 17 years, 80 per cent; 18 years, the adult rate. What they are proposing is in fact reflecting the basic principle. Australia has a system to date that works well. We have a system by which a lot of young people are employed. Labor's policy, which we inherited, would see the end of that system in the year 2000. If that system comes to an end, tens of thousands of young people are going to lose their jobs. LS4 FERGUSON Mr Martin Ferguson —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to a question of relevance. The report clearly says that the abolition of junior rates will have no impact on employment. It also says that junior rates are a discriminatory practice. It is about time the minister told this House the truth. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. LS4 FERGUSON Mr Martin Ferguson —You are misleading the House. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I warn the member for Batman. That was not a relevant point of order. The minister's answer has been entirely relevant to the question. I call the minister. WI4 Mr REITH —That is just proof positive; you have got the ex-ACTU president in here misleading people about an absolutely central issue which goes to the employment of young people. When it comes to the central issue, the shopies are absolutely right. What an embarrassment for the Labor Party. 1150 1150 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY PE4 Brand ALP 0 0 —My question is directed to the minister, who has just sat down, on precisely the point about the shopies being absolutely right. Is the minister aware that Joe de Bruyn, the secretary of the shop assistants union, has heard his comments and has said: Mr Reith has been confused by a reference in the submission to training wages and has tried to beat this up to look like a difference. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Your question? PE4 Mr BEAZLEY —Is he also aware of the statement by Mr de Bruyn that: He is just mischievously trying to manufacture allegations of a difference in order to try to divert attention away from the real issues. Is he further aware of the statement by Mr de Bruyn: The real issue being that, with junior rates, you have got discrimination and that is simply not acceptable in society today. Minister, why did you try to misrepresent a sensible position on training wages as an endorsement for your position, now completely rejected by the SDA? 1150 Reith, Peter, MP Mr REITH WI4 Flinders LP Workplace Relations and Small Business 1 0 —I have certainly read Joe de Bruyn's remarks; in fact, I have got them here. Nothing he has said and nothing that you have said by way of argument in your question will deny the simple fact that the shopies are putting up our proposition. They are saying that you ought to have a system whereby people's wages are discounted to reflect their age. Why do they say that? They say that because `experience of life can give maturity and knowledge'. This is a huge problem for the Labor Party, a huge problem for all the ex-ACTU presidents who sit on the other side. The fact is that Labor's policy, if it not prevented from being implemented, will see a lot of young people lose their jobs. The shopies know that. Sure, they are on a barbwire fence. They are in the ACTU, they are in the Labor Party and they want to make life as comfortable as possible for you, as usual. But it is very clear from their statement. PE4 BEAZLEY Mr Beazley —Read it in full. WI4 Mr REITH —You can read any quote you like from it. The fact of the matter is that their proposition is absolutely in conformity with our basic proposition; that is, we ought to have discounted wages for young people, to reflect their circumstances and protect their jobs. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have tolerated an unacceptable level of perpetual interjections from those on my left; I issue a general warning. PE4 BEAZLEY Mr Beazley —I seek leave to table the submission of the SDA so that people can make judgments themselves. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —This seems to be an unwise exercise in tit for tat. Is leave granted for the Leader of the Opposition to table the documents he has? WI4 REITH Mr Reith —Yes. And I will table it. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —If the minister is seeking the call, he needs to be on his feet. Is the minister seeking to table the document? WI4 REITH Mr Reith —I consider it tabled. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I will not consider it tabled until the minister rises. WI4 REITH Mr Reith —I am tabling it, with the relevant bits underlined. 1150 1150 Southcott, Andrew, MP Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby LP 1 0 —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether the Australian government is prepared to offer assistance to the Indonesian government with the organisation of its elections next year? 1150 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER 4G4 Mayo LP Foreign Affairs 1 0 —I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise the great interest the honourable member has in foreign affairs issues and, in particular, developments in East Asia. The Australian government clearly wants the elections that will take place in May or June of next year in Indonesia to be truly successful elections. We are prepared to offer practical assistance to see that those elections are successful. Australia, after all, is one of the world's oldest continuously operating democracies, and we have a lot to offer. The Australian Electoral Commissioner, Mr Bill Gray, recently led a team to Jakarta to undertake a preliminary needs assessment. Our experience in holding elections means we are well placed to assist in areas such as computerisation of the compilation of results and practical planning procedures for voting. After all, there will be something like 130 million people voting in the Indonesian elections, and that will require somewhere in the vicinity of 350,000 polling booths. But it will not just be a question of providing Indonesia with technical assistance. For the elections to be successful there has to be a calm and confident domestic political environment. We will be consulting Indonesia on the possibility of developing a code of conduct for the elections to provide a framework for resolution of differences and prevention of escalation of disputes among the parties. It is crucial that all parties in the upcoming elections in Indonesia work closely together for both a fair and a peaceful election. Australia is ready to do what it can not just to help Indonesia through its economic crisis but to help Indonesia through this difficult transition to genuinely democratic administration. Through the work of the Australian Electoral Commission and through our development assistance agencies as well as our diplomatic network, we will be providing whatever assistance we usefully can. 1151 1151 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMULLAN 5I4 Canberra ALP 0 0 —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Has the minister's attention been drawn to concerns expressed by representatives of the Australian car industry about the potential serious dislocation of that industry as a result of the government's failure to negotiate an agreed and adequate transitional measure for the introduction of the GST? Has the minister received an assessment from his department about the sales, production and employment consequences of this failure? If not, will he now instruct the department to make such an assessment and provide it to the parliament and, in particular, to the Senate committee? 1151 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 —I did not hear the first part of the question, but it was the car industry, I believe, and transitional issues? ZD4 HOWARD Mr Howard —That's the thrust of it. CT4 Mr COSTELLO —Of course, as is well known, under the government's tax policy the cost of cars will fall. One of the things that the industry says is, `This will be an enormous benefit for the car industry and its exports in due course, but in the interim how will you stagger the price reductions?' The government has had discussions with the car industry and has transitional provisions which give three-year stepping in relation to business purchases of cars. When a business purchases a car of course, it will get even the 10 per cent GST back. It is not just a question of taking Labor's 22 per cent wholesale sales tax off and putting a 10 per cent GST on; when business buys the car it gets the 10 per cent GST back. About 60 per cent, I am led to believe, of car sales in Australia are fleet sales, and so we have a three-year stepping down of that dramatic price reduction. In addition to that, as a result of the representations made to us by car traders that they would prefer a notional input tax credit system for second-hand vehicles which gives a notional input tax credit against liability, the government accepted their submissions and agreed to such a system. I make the point that these are good transitional measures. They will help the transition to the new tax system. But the overall point is this: those people who really want to help manufactures in this country will support the new tax system. At the moment, with an indirect tax base, Labor's wholesale sales tax puts all the burden of indirect tax on manufactures, on goods. And, as a consequence of that, Labor's tax system discriminates against manufactures. The whole idea of broadening the base to goods and services is so that the service sector bears some of the brunt and Australia's manufacturers and exporters get a go. This is a government that believes in reform. This is a government that believes that we need a new tax system. The opposition is now marked by one thing and one thing only: it has become a party of reaction. Nobody knows what Labor stands for. The only thing we know is Labor stands against all reform. This is the difficulty of the member for Werriwa, who has found himself trapped inside a party of reaction, who is unable to have ideas because this is a party which can hold itself together only by not having a policy. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer will return to the car industry. CT4 Mr COSTELLO —This side of politics does have a policy. We are going to do what is in the national interest, and that is tax reform. 1152 1152 Kelly, De-Anne, MP Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY FK6 Dawson NP 1 0 —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of a statement by the Queensland Premier, Mr Beattie, that the Commonwealth should lift its game and match the Queensland government's level of support to the state's sugar industry? Could the minister inform the House of the true facts of this matter? 1152 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE SU5 Lyne NP Trade 1 0 —I thank the member for Dawson for her question. I am aware of comments that the Premier of Queensland has made. As I indicated in an answer to a question yesterday, we as a government extended an extra $13-odd million for research and development for the sugar industry, particularly in North Queensland where the honourable member represents the seat of Dawson. Mr Beattie also said that we should come to the party, and we have already identified programs that we are going to fund in that process of increasing the sugar content in the crop up there. The Beattie government, on coming to power, actually withdrew funding from this research and development program that had been announced by the former Borbidge government. They withdrew funding and then they came back, in the lead-up to the Mulgrave by-election, and reannounced it, saying it was new funding. So the question is a very pertinent one. It is about the efficacy of the way the Queensland government is running its business. I will just close by saying that our government stands behind the Queensland sugar industry, particularly in North Queensland, and we aim to provide the resources so that it can address the problems that it is facing, particularly the sugar content problem in North Queensland. We have done that, and we have expressed that commitment very clearly with the extra $13 million we are providing. 1152 1152 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 0 —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. I seek clarification on an aspect of the government's A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill . Will the minister inform the House whether or not retirees living in independent units in a retirement community will have to pay a GST on weekly fees, including maintenance fees and meals in the dining room? 1152 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Mackellar LP Aged Care 1 0 —I presume that the honourable member's question was prompted by the fact that among the bills introduced this morning was one that was aimed at protecting those people who are in residential care from having the automatic 85 per cent fee deducted from their payments. The point is that that legislation was introduced this morning, so that those people could be distinguished from— 5I4 McMULLAN Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order as to relevance. If the presumption on which the answer is based is wrong, it cannot be relevant to the answer. The question was not based on the presumption which the minister is making. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —I had not interrupted the Minister for Aged Care because the question went to some detail on the legislation. I allowed the question to be asked because I felt it reasonable for the minister to respond to the question, but in general principles only. That is what she is doing, and I call her. SE4 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it is precisely in general terms that I am addressing the question, in accordance with your ruling. The fact is that the bill was introduced this morning to distinguish residents in residential care from the general bulk of the population, for the reasons that were expressed in the second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum. The rest of the community is treated like any other resident across the general community. 1153 1153 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies LP 1 0 —My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of unjustified attacks on Job Network, and is there any evidence available to refute these attacks? 1153 Abbott, Tony MP Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah LP Employment Services 1 0 —I thank the member for Menzies for his question, and I congratulate him for co-founding the Donwork JobWatch organisation in his electorate. CE4 O'KEEFE Mr O'Keefe —What a goose! 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. Under the provisions of standing order 304A, I require the member for Burke to discharge himself from the House. The honourable member for Burke thereupon withdrew from the chamber. EZ5 Mr ABBOTT —In the course of extensive consultations, a large number of Job Network members have said that the biggest single problem that they face is unjustified carping against a system which is already working well. They say that the whole network has been tagged by the problems of a relatively small number of its members. It is a bit like judging the whole of test cricket by the performance of the current England team. An example of the kind of carping is the statement of the member for Swan earlier this week when he said that there was only one Commonwealth service provider left in his electorate. In fact, there are four Job Network members with sites in the electorate of Swan, including one, Communicare, which I visited just two weeks ago. I am able to report to the House that the Job Network is getting better and better all the time. In November 1997 the old CES got just 15,000 unemployed jobseekers into work. In November 1998 the new Job Network got 22,400 jobseekers into work. The Job Network is performing at the rate of some 7,000 placements a week, and this is 20 per cent better than the old CES at its best. It seems that the message is finally getting through. I would like to quote from an article in this week's Business Review Weekly entitled, `Clouds clear on jobs scheme'. LS4 FERGUSON Mr Martin Ferguson —What did Ross Gittins say? EZ5 Mr ABBOTT —He praised us with faint damns, and that is probably about as good as you can get from that source. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The minister will address his remarks through the chair. EZ5 Mr ABBOTT —Narelle Hooper says: The Job Network scheme is not the disaster that many feared. Indeed, new research suggests that on the critical determining factor of success or failure—the scheme's standing with employers—it is showing signs of being a good system. She said: Employers contacted by BRW that have taken on staff under the new system say they are much happier with the results. Many are using a range of providers and have been negotiating on price or have been able to get a wide range of services for no charge. She quotes Michael Hurley, a yarn manufacturer in Victoria. R36 ALBANESE Mr Albanese —Spin away! Spin away! VU5 GRIFFIN Mr Griffin —You are in your element. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Order! Members for Grayndler and Bruce! EZ5 Mr ABBOTT —Woollen yarn. He says that his company: . . . used the CES but the less said about the result the better. "The scheme was a new learning curve for us, but ultimately we have probably got a better deal out of it." She also quotes a gentlemen called Derek Cafferty. R36 ALBANESE Mr Albanese —`Cavity'. Ah, filling a hole! 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. I have persistently warned the member for Grayndler, and on the last occasion in fact ignored his interjection simply because it had been a good natured one. That could not be said for the last interjection. He too will excuse himself under standing order 304A. The honourable member for Grayndler thereupon withdrew from the chamber. EZ5 Mr ABBOTT —This gentleman has surveyed 2,500 local employers in conjunction with the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and he says that employers who have used both the old CES and a new Job Network agency favour dramatically the Job Network by a factor of eight to one. That is what is happening out in the real world. Even in this place the message seems to be getting through to the member for Batman, who had previously in a series of press releases excoriated the Job Network. He came into the House this week and, in a rather constructive speech, said that he supported the principle of a competitive market and he even offered: . . . bipartisan support for a Job Network which has an emphasis on quality, value, diversity, real competition and accountability—one that is driven not by ideology but the needs of the unemployed, the community and the employers. I welcome that statement of the member for Batman because that is precisely what the Job Network is. The Job Network is not perfect, but it is already doing very well. It will do even better with the kinds of changes the government has in mind. 1154 1154 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 0 —My question is directed to the Minister for Aged Care. I am seeking clarification of an aspect of the government's tax system bill. Minister, will you inform the House and tens of thousands of pensioners, independent retirees and self-funded retirees living in retirement complexes around this country whether they will have to pay a GST on weekly fees including maintenance fees, laundry fees and meals in the dining room? Yes or no? Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —It is not the same question, but it does seek more detail than may be reasonable to expect at this stage in the debate. I call the minister to respond. 1154 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Mackellar LP Aged Care 1 0 —The GST applies across the board, as you know, and compensation arrangements have been put in place for the anticipated 1.9 per cent increase in the CPI. That applies to people of any age, and it applies to people in whatever circumstances they reside. The reason I answered the previous question in the way I did was to point out with regard to people who live in residential care that a specific provision was made to protect them from an automatic mechanism in legislation taking 85 per cent of the compensation. Accordingly, the way in which the GST is applied to people who live in rented accommodation, in their own homes, in blocks of apartments and in retirement villages is totally consistent, and the relative compensation packages are put there to offset the 1.9 per cent. 1154 1154 Gambaro, Teresa, MP Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Petrie LP 1 0 —My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Will the minister inform the House of the benefits to the people of Brisbane's northern suburbs and the Redcliffe Peninsula following the announcement by the Prime Minister of $25 million in funding for the upgrade of the Bruce Highway? 1154 Anderson, John, MP Mr ANDERSON 4K4 Gwydir NP Deputy Prime Minister 1 0 —I thank the honourable member for her question. I know it is an issue of concern to her and to her electorate, and I am pleased that there is improvement in sight for this particular part of the national highway. There is no doubt that the coalition, this government, recognises the importance of a viable transport structure for Australia. Having in my first week in this role as transport minister travelled quite a bit of Queensland, I recognise the very real need for improved roads in that state, and we are going to deliver. The area that the honourable member referred to is the Caboolture motorway, which is a particularly congested, southern most section of the Bruce Highway. It carries a lot of traffic, much of it commercial by way of trucks and vans. Every indication is that, without increased works and expenditure, that congestion will only get worse and the accident rate will go up. It is for that reason the government has announced that it will provide funding of $25 million for the Caboolture motorway. There we go. Apart from the $25 million dedicated to this program, this financial year the Commonwealth has provided $75 million to the Queensland state government to improve state funded roads and an additional $70 million to improve council funded roads. We are serious about improving roads in this country, and I believe that measures such as this are clear evidence of that commitment. 1155 1155 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND JK6 Barton ALP 0 0 —My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General confirm that, in a typical common law personal injuries or product liability damages case, a successful plaintiff usually pays a proportion of their own legal costs, which are over and above those recoverable from the defendant payable under the relevant court scale? Can the attorney confirm that a GST will be levied on the total sum of the plaintiff's legal costs, regardless of who pays them? Attorney, given that the court scales are fixed, does this not mean that it will be the successful plaintiff rather than the defendant who will bear the totality of the legal costs, effectively reducing their award of damages? 1155 Williams, Daryl, MP Mr WILLIAMS 7V5 Tangney LP Attorney-General 1 0 —The answer to the first question asked by the member for Barton is yes. In respect of the second question it seems, regrettably, that he has been misled by a media release by the member for Melbourne a couple of days ago. The member for Melbourne put out a press release in his capacity as shadow minister for consumer affairs, but regrettably he didn't have regard to the interests of consumers in what he had to say. He asserted, as is implicit in the question of the member for Barton, that there would be no GST payable as a component of the costs awarded on a party and party basis. I can't see any basis for that suggestion at all. 1155 1155 Barresi, Phil, MP Mr BARRESI ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 0 —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, as you are aware, business confidence among the 6,000 small businesses in the electorate of Deakin has been boosted by the workplace relations policy of this government. Will you, therefore, advise the House of any other policy prescriptions that have been publicised that would undermine this business confidence amongst my business community? 1155 Reith, Peter, MP Mr REITH WI4 Flinders LP Workplace Relations and Small Business 1 0 —I thank the member for his question. In the policies this government has been implementing we have been trying to set up a certain sure framework for the conduct of workplace relations. That is good for small business and it is good for people who work in small business because it gives them a sense of accomplishment, they can earn more and we can boost productivity. As we are already seeing, the sorts of reforms we have been introducing have contributed to today's magnificent results with the GDP. I pay tribute to all those small business people and the people who work in those small businesses for the fantastic job they have been doing. Victoria is covered by the federal legislation. That was one of the historic changes that we brought into effect. That is under threat in the trade union movement and in the Labor Party in Victoria. They have proposed a policy which would see a Labor government in Victoria resurrect the old Victorian state tribunal and take the jurisdiction away from the federal tribunal. It is unbelievable. We have finally got a uniform system for the advantage of small business and the Labor Party is now advocating going back to where they were in the 1980s. Who is going to pay for that, with all the duplication and red tape? None other than the very small businesses which have contributed to the jobs—90,000 in three months. This is the Labor Party's policy in action. And who is running it? The trade union movement in Victoria. And who does the trade union movement in Victoria run? They run the state ALP and, of course, the federal ALP, where they have so much influence. The two ex-ACTU presidents here both now represent Victorian seats and both are part and parcel of the trade union movement in Victoria. As to proposals for reform in that state, we have the ETU saying: `The unions should have all the power we have got today.' The member for Batman says there is a major problem in Victoria. He says that there is corruption within the union movement in Victoria. It is the very union movement in Victoria which is dictating policy for the front bench here in Canberra. One of those policies, would you believe, is not only to oppose what we are trying to do for small business in respect of unfair dismissal but to go back to where we were when Laurie Brereton was in. We are trying to create jobs. They have a policy dictated by the trade union movement that will cost jobs and rob those small businesses in the member's electorate of the very confidence that could create jobs. There is some hope for us, because whilst we have the trade union saying that they should have all the power they have got now, if not more, we have Martin Ferguson, the member for Batman, saying that they are basically corrupt. Lo and behold, we now have the member for Werriwa, who reckons there is a third way. Isn't that interesting? What is his third way? Somewhere I have it here; it is definitely a collector's item. He says : Labour market flexibility. . . Australia has a unique opportunity to improve the flexibility of its labour market while also maintaining equity for its lowest paid workers. Its lowest paid workers have never been so well-off as they have been under us. We are the party introducing genuine flexibility. What a shambles. When there is a policy vacuum on the other side who is there dictating policy? It is none other than the union movement in Victoria, described as `corrupt' by the front bench of the Labor Party, telling the Labor Party what to do. ZD4 HOWARD Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, on this most golden of days for the Australian economy I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Personal Explanations 1156 1156 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 0 —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I do indeed, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Please proceed. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —During question time the Attorney-General alleged that a press release I put out a couple of days ago stated that there would be no GST on party and party costs, which are costs paid by the defendant to a success of plaintiff. In fact, my press release said exactly the opposite—and that those costs will be paid by the successful plaintiff, even though they are incurred by the defendant. 10000 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne has indicated where he has been misrepresented. Miscellaneous 1156 1156 15:07:00 1156 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT YT4 Maranoa NP Veterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 —I seek leave to add to an answer provided by the Minister for Defence on 24 November. Leave granted. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT —In relation to the question from the member for the Northern Territory, the Military Superannuation Benefits Fund is a market linked fund with a spread of investments ranging from cash to shares to property to other investments in Australia and overseas. Every other market linked fund is operating in the same investment climate. The Military Superannuation Benefits Fund is performing well against similar funds. The average performance over the last three years has been 11.6 per cent growth. New calculations of exit rates on a monthly basis reflect actual fund performance to that date. If a negative rate is set for any one month, members who leave the ADF can preserve their benefits until the rate improves. Members who left in September, for example, could have waited until the end of October when I understand that fund performance in the year to date would have generated positive growth for members. Defence advises me that this option is still open to members who discharged while the fund had a negative exit rate, by members returning the amounts paid and waiting for the fund performance to improve. I have further been advised by the department that members who discharged before 16 November, when the exit rate was negative, have been informed by letter of this option. Members who left since that date are being informed by ComSuper. Information on preservation and other issues is also available from ComSuper and on the Defence Internet site. I am concerned that members who are considering leaving should have options made known to them more actively and I have asked Defence to look at ways of enhancing the direct communication with members. I also note the member for the Northern Territory's criticism that the absence of a reserve is `a situation that is intolerable and cannot be allowed to continue'. I remind the honourable member for the Northern Territory that this was the scheme that was set up by Labor in 1991. The absence of a reserve means greater volatility in returns, but it also means greater average returns for members. Personal Explanations 1157 15:09:00 1157 Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr WILKIE 84G Swan ALP 0 0 —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr WILKIE —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —Please proceed. 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr WILKIE —The Minister for Employment Services stated that I had made the comment in my first speech that there was only one Commonwealth provider of services in Swan when in actual fact there are four. There is one Commonwealth provider and that is Employment National in Cannington. The other services are two Centrelink offices, which make only referrals to agencies like Employment National, and Communicare, which is a private provider and not a Commonwealth provider. There is only one. 15:10:00 1157 Abbott, Tony MP Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah LP Employment Services 1 0 —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —The minister is clearly seeking leave to make a personal explanation. I will call him, but I remind him that he must indicate where he has personally been misrepresented. The member for Swan, as a new member, has corrected what he felt was an inaccurate portrayal of his first speech by the minister. It is one of those difficult areas as to the degree to which he is personally misrepresented, but I was happy to hear him out. The House heard him in silence, and I would expect the House to hear the minister in silence, assuming that he too has a personal explanation. EZ5 Abbott, Tony MP Mr ABBOTT —There are four Job Network members in Swan and they provide Commonwealth government services. 10000 SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER —This matter is concluded. Documents 1157 1157 Reith, Peter, MP Mr REITH WI4 Flinders LP Workplace Relations and Small Business 1 0 —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard . The schedule read as follows— Australia-China Council—Report for 1997-98. Bankruptcy Act—Report for 1997-98. Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act— Anindilyakwa Land Council—Report for 1997-98. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Report for 1997-98. Dried Fruits Research and Development Council—Report for 1997-98. Development Allowance Authority Act—Development Allowance Authority—Report for 1997-98. Family Law Act—Family Court of Australia—Report for 1997-98—Erratum. Public Service and Merit Protection Commission—State of the service— Report for 1997-98. Workplace diversity—Report for 1997-98. Telecommunications Act 1997—Funding of consumer representation and research—Report for 1997-98. Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed: That the House take note of the following papers: Bankruptcy Act—Report for 1997-98. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Report for 1997-98. Development Allowance Authority Act—Development Allowance Authority—Report for 1997-98. Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned. Ministerial Statements 1158 1158 15:12:00 1158 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER 4G4 Mayo LP Foreign Affairs 1 0 —by leave—When I delivered last year's annual statement, I tabled Better aid for a better future . It represented a fundamental realignment of Australia's aid program to the clear objective of `advancing Australia's national interest by assisting developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development.' It outlined new priorities for the aid program and set the framework for their implementation. Since that time, the regional economic crisis has placed urgent demands on Australia's assistance. Our capacity to respond to these events has been due in no small measure to the changes put in place in Better aid for a better future. Today I will outline how we have responded to the crisis in our region, including increased support for governance and resumed growth; the role of human rights in the aid program; our progress in implementing the policy directions I announced a year ago; and the emphasis placed on involving the Australian community in our aid efforts. Regional economic crisis The regional economic crisis has been compounded by a series of natural disasters, including droughts across South-East Asia and the Pacific. These events have thrown millions of people back into poverty and threatened 30 years of development progress. In Indonesia, for example, widespread and increasing unemployment and poverty, food shortages and children leaving school mean not only that people are suffering now but also that impacts will be felt across generations. And, as the social and economic impacts intensify, the capacity of regional governments to respond is diminishing. Australia is playing an active and leading role in helping these countries deal with the impacts of the crisis. Our response through the aid program has been targeted at a number of levels. First, we have been using our influence in international forums to ensure active participation by other donors, including the international agencies, in responding to the crisis. In March of this year I travelled to Washington to meet with the President of the World Bank and to urge the bank to take a lead role in coordinating assistance. I also met the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and stressed the importance of ensuring that the social costs of the crisis were not overlooked in pursuing economic reforms. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Trade and I have engaged in extensive consultations with affected governments—encouraging them to adopt appropriate policies and offering practical assistance. It is critical that we maintain the momentum of an effective international response. For this reason, early next year I plan to convene a meeting of ministers from major donor and recipient countries in the region. The meeting will focus on the long-term development challenges facing the region and what needs to be done to restore growth. I expect it will result in greater international coordination and a high level political commitment to address the economic and social impacts of the crisis. Through the aid program, Australia has provided additional resources to the worst affected countries including Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam. In Indonesia alone, we have increased total aid flows by 25 per cent compared with last year. Much of this has focused on helping people cope with the crisis by providing food aid and essential medicines. The social and economic impacts of the crisis are not going to be short-lived. Our aid response must therefore also focus on helping regional countries return to sustained growth and limit the potential for recurrence of the crisis. Crucial to this is an increased emphasis on governance, which was identified as a key sectoral priority in Better aid for a better future. To this end, Australia is supporting partner countries to deal with systemic problems in the banking and finance sectors; to strengthen corporate, legal, judicial and institutional frameworks; and to improve public administration. At the recent APEC leaders meeting in Kuala Lumpur, the Prime Minister announced a major package of economic and financial management assistance for APEC developing economies affected by the crisis. The package, which exceeds $50 million over three years, targets priority areas identified in the Australian commissioned APEC economic governance capacity building survey. Human rights The increased emphasis on governance is not limited to economic and financial management issues. It also includes a strong focus on human rights. Regional governments increasingly accept that getting their economic fundamentals correct is only part of the task. Australia's aid program is seeking to build on this recognition that sustainable development is strengthened where human rights are genuinely protected and exercised. Sustainable development and human rights are interrelated in a myriad ways. The whole aid program in one form or another contributes to human rights by addressing the needs of the world's disadvantaged. I am aware that many of my fellow parliamentarians share my interest in promoting and protecting human rights through Australia's aid program. Last June the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade delivered its report Australia's regional dialogue on human rights. Having considered the committee's views, today I would like to outline a clear framework for supporting human rights through the aid program. It will form part of the government's full response to the committee's report, which will be provided in due course. The framework consists of six key principles. First, human rights are a high priority for the government. Civil and political rights are ranked equally with economic, social and cultural rights. Secondly, the aid program will continue to undertake activities that directly address specific economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. A particular emphasis will be on the creation of durable institutional capacity to promote and protect human rights. Thirdly, the emphasis is on the practical and the attainable. AusAID, as the government's aid agency, will pursue practical aid activities in support of human rights. These activities complement and build on high-level dialogue on human rights. Dialogue on human rights and representations about individual human rights cases will normally be carried out through diplomatic channels. Fourthly, the aid program will develop activities primarily as a result of consultations and cooperation with partner countries on human rights initiatives. Regional and multilateral activities will also be undertaken. Fifthly, considerable care will continue to be applied to the use of aid sanctions associated with human rights concerns. The government will consider such sanctions on a case by case basis. Aid conditionality based on human rights concerns would only be used in extreme circumstances since it can jeopardise the welfare of the poorest and it may be counterproductive. Sixthly, AusAID will continue to link closely with other arms of the Australian government on governance and human rights issues. AusAID will also liaise with NGOs and human rights organisations in Australia. Practical action based on these principles means that the aid program will continue to focus on its objective of assisting developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development. These principles will underpin our strong support for civil and political rights throughout our aid work. The aid program will seek to maximise the benefits for human rights in all development assistance activities. To support implementation of these principles, AusAID will develop practical guidance for program managers, contractors and recipient government counterparts. The new framework I have outlined today is an elaboration of the basic principles set out last year in Better aid for a better future. It will take the aid program another step forward as a practical, vigorous and evolving expression of Australians' concerns that people everywhere get a fair go. Implementing better aid for a better future I would also like to take this opportunity to report to the parliament on other key achievements in implementing Better aid for a better future. Better aid for a better future outlined the importance of focusing our assistance in regions and countries to better achieve lasting improvements in people's lives. It called for the development of comprehensive strategies, developed in partnership with developing countries. It also required the aid program to be able to provide rapid relief in cases of emergencies and respond to changing pressures. This approach is no more apparent than in our program of assistance in Papua New Guinea. During the past 12 months, we have responded very effectively to changing pressures. We assisted in the rehabilitation of agriculture after the 1997 drought. We have responded to the tsunami tragedy, and contributed to peace and reconstruction in Bougainville. In April this year, I was privileged to be a witness to the peace signing ceremony in Bougainville, which was yet another step on the path to ending the nine-year civil war which has ravaged that province. Reviewing the Treaty on Development Cooperation with Papua New Guinea has been a key issue over the past year. The review will set in place arrangements to ensure that Australian aid to PNG reaches those most in need and makes a real difference to living standards. It is expected that the review will be completed in the first half of 1999. Another key achievement during 1998 has been the development, for the first time, of a Pacific-wide comprehensive strategy with clear objectives and outcomes and incorporating country-specific strategy statements. I will be launching this strategy later this month during my visit to the Pacific. Australia's assistance to the Pacific during 1998 has placed a strong emphasis on improving policy and management reform and on assisting countries to deal with the impacts of the regional economic crisis. Of course, adopting a more targeted approach to aid delivery is not limited to the funding provided in partnership with countries. Considerable work has been put into developing a new framework to ensure that our aid dollars are only directed to those multilateral organisations which are effective and efficient in pursuing their objectives. In Better aid for a better future, I announced that AusAID would develop a formal statement of principles outlining the role of non-government organisations, or NGOs, in the aid program. This policy statement is currently being developed in consultation with the NGO community, and I look forward to announcing it early next year. The year 1998 also marked a time when NGOs made a special contribution in areas such as civil society, humanitarian relief and small-scale development at the local level. Our partnership with them is based on solid foundations, the depth of community support for their work and the quality of the assistance they provide. Better aid for a better future outlined five key sectors of health, agriculture and rural development, education, governance and infrastructure. These sectors are taken into account in the development of country strategies. Specific policies for each sector have also either been or are being prepared. Australia's gender and development policy has been operational since March 1997. The Education and Training Policy has been in place since August 1996. A new health policy has been approved and will be released shortly. A policy for agricultural and rural development will follow a major review due to be completed by the end of November 1998. Work is well under way on a comprehensive private sector development strategy, which will include the plans for increasing support for small enterprises. Community involvement Another major initiative during 1998 has been the significant focus on involving the Australian community in Australia's aid program. In Better aid for a better future we outlined our intention to research public attitudes towards overseas aid. In July, I published the results of that research. A comprehensive survey demonstrated that the vast majority—84 per cent—of Australians support overseas aid and that they are motivated by humanitarian concerns. This support was vividly demonstrated in the Australian community's overwhelming response to the tragic tsunami disaster in Papua New Guinea and, more recently, the devastation caused in Central America by Hurricane Mitch. In the past year, we have placed a high priority on informing Australians about the aid program and involving them both in its delivery and development. This demonstrates that Australian taxpayers' dollars are spent effectively and improves the quality of our aid efforts. We have commenced a program of community outreach activities to inform people better about how their overseas aid program works. This has included a range of seminars hosted by my Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Moncrieff, Kathy Sullivan; displays at agricultural and other types of shows; enhancing AusAID's internet site; and AusAID's publications. In August, I introduced the Certificates of Appreciation Program to recognise the efforts of Australian overseas volunteers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my parliamentary colleagues who have participated in these programs. Australians from all walks of life have been working as volunteers to help people in other countries for many years. In addition to acknowledging the valuable contribution that volunteers have made, the Certificates of Appreciation Program increases community knowledge of the role of volunteers in Australia's aid program. For me, meeting some of these Australians has been one of the highlights of the year. During the past year, I have also launched the Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development Program. The program will place 500 young Australians on development projects in the region over the next two years. I am pleased to say that the response to the program's first round of placements has been overwhelming, with around 700 young, highly skilled Australians applying. I look forward to farewelling many of these talented young Australians in February. The work done by these young people will be very valuable. I believe that a great benefit will also come through the forging of lasting relationships with the region, thus helping to strengthen mutual understanding between Australia and our neighbours. In May, I appointed 11 distinguished Australians to the Aid Advisory Council. I have greatly appreciated the council's contributions to the planning and delivery of Australia's aid program. The council helps ensure that the aid program reflects the values of the wider Australian community and plays an important role in opening the aid program up to new ideas and approaches to development. There can be no doubt that 1998 was a challenging year full of many achievements. Ensuring our aid efforts remain as responsive and relevant as possible, making a difference to the lives of the poor, is a continuing demand. We must also build on Australian community support for our aid efforts. I firmly believe that, even as a relatively small nation, we can continue to make an important contribution to our region and to development cooperation worldwide. I present a copy of my ministerial statement. 15:29:00 1161 Martin, Stephen, MP Mr MARTIN 8I4 Cunningham ALP 0 0 —by leave—I am pleased to speak briefly today in response to the statement just made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Australia's overseas aid program. In his statement, the foreign minister focused on several aspects of our overseas aid program, including Australia's response to the regional economic crisis and the role of human rights in the aid program. I wish to make some remarks about these issues but, before I do, I think it timely to reaffirm the broad bipartisan continuity which characterises Australia's overseas aid. In this regard I note the foreign minister's claim that the Howard government's acceptance of the broad thrust of last year's Simons committee review represented a fundamental realignment of Australia's aid program. It is often true that ministers like to try to highlight supposed policy innovation or novelty. I think it is fair enough for them to do so, but it would be misleading if we did not also note the foreign minister's comments when, in May 1996, he announced the establishment of the Simons review. On that particular occasion, the foreign minister said: Australia has an aid program it can be proud of. Millions of people around the world are now better off thanks to the help they've received from Australia. Our aid program, administered by AusAID and delivered by Australian companies, individuals, non-government organisations and academic institutions is highly effective. That was the foreign minister's assessment of the aid program he inherited. A large degree of continuity was evident when he delivered last year's annual statement which included the government's acceptance of the broad thrust of the Simons committee report. As the report itself stated: We do not advocate revolutionary change. The basic arrangement of the aid program is sound. The design and management of the program should continue to be the responsibility of a single, independent agency. The countries of East Asia and the Pacific should continue to be the primary focus. Similarly, the foreign minister's statement today is not a statement of radical change; it is essentially a modest, steady as she goes step in the ongoing evolution of our overseas aid program, a program which enjoys strong bipartisan support. For our part, Labor has no hesitation in supporting many of Simons's recommendations, particularly the primary recommendation that there should be one clear objective for our overseas aid program—namely, assisting developing countries reduce poverty and achieving sustainable development. Such bipartisan support for the broad thrust of our aid program should come as no surprise. Support for our overseas aid program is very firmly based on both sides of this parliament and in the wider Australian community. Indeed, studies looking at 20 years of public attitudes to overseas have found that, consistently, 60 per cent to 70 per cent of Australians support overseas aid. As the minister rightly mentioned, a newspoll survey earlier this year found that 84 per cent of Australians support overseas aid, with 78 per cent supporting maintaining or increasing the current level of aid. The survey further showed that Australians overwhelmingly reject the isolationist and mean-spirited view of One Nation that foreign aid should be axed. Indeed, over a third of Australians—some 36 per cent—believe we should be more generous. Most recently, we should note the public criticism of the scale of Australia's contribution to disaster relief in Central America. Australians clearly do think we should be doing more to alleviate suffering and hardship overseas, not only in our immediate region but much further afield as well. For most Australians aid is essentially a question of helping the world's poor help themselves. Fundamentally, our aid is an expression of a basic human obligation to do what we can to help others less fortunate than ourselves. At the same time, Australia's overseas aid directly contributes to our own prosperity and security, a basic fact well expressed by the Simons committee report which notes: The rapid integration of the world economy, the communications and computing revolutions and increased travel between countries, are causing international problems as well as providing new opportunities for prosperity. Many of the biggest threats to national and global security come from international economic fluctuations, social and economic inequalities, and the greater mobility of people and products, as well as from international environmental impacts. Australia, with its vast coastline, sparse population and heavy dependence on primary produce, is certainly vulnerable to some of these threats. It is very much in our interest for us to work to diminish them. . . . . . . . . . Ethnic, religious and political conflicts easily spill over national borders . . . War destroys the stability essential for growth, diverts investment to munitions, disrupts harvests and destroys infrastructure and trade. Other countries can become involved, affecting the well-being of their peoples. Increased flows of refugees can result. Everyone here would agree that it is best to try to prevent these sorts of conflicts by dealing with their potential cause, and, in that, an effective, high quality aid program is vital. Here the basic truth is that security is not just about warships, aircraft and troops. Security is to do with resolving the causes of tension which could lead to armed conflict. Security involves taking an all-round approach, including dealing with social, environmental and health issues. Good quality aid programs are essential to tackle these problems with real benefits to Australia. In his statement the minister highlighted aspects of Australia's response to the regional economic crisis. The events in Asia over the past year have certainly shown how swiftly an economic shock can give rise to major social and political crises, and indeed potential security crises. This is most starkly evident in Indonesia, our nearest Asian neighbour and the fourth most populous nation in the world with a population exceeding 200 million people. Over the 30-year period from 1967 to 1997, Australia contributed annually to an estimated total of $US60 billion of assistance provided by international donors. Such assistance played a significant part in Indonesia's economic growth, poverty alleviation and Indonesia's status as an East Asian tiger economy. This success to which the Australian community contributed through overseas aid and the work of NGOs included major advances in basic welfare, particularly in areas of life expectancy, infant mortality, nutrition and literacy. From 1970 to 1995 the level of poverty fell from 60 per cent to 11 per cent, the best poverty reduction record in South-East Asia. Some 17 months on from the onset of the regional financial crisis, the development achievements of nearly three decades have been swept away. The magnitude and severity of the crisis in Indonesia cannot be underestimated. The fact that the international bailout package administered by the International Monetary Fund is not far short of the total donor assistance to Indonesia of the last 30 years is a measure of its scale. Even more compelling are the stark statistics acknowledged by the Indonesian government itself, with 15,000 workers losing their jobs daily and more than 40 per cent of Indonesia's 200 million people now living below the absolute poverty line. This figure could rise to 140 million by the middle of next year. This is a profound human tragedy which demands a concerted and comprehensive response. For our part, Labor has given wholehearted support to the Howard govern ment's contributions to the IMF assistance packages and the provision of increased humanitarian aid to Indonesia. In relation to Indonesia, it would also be appropriate at this time to express Labor's support for the provision of assistance from the Electoral Commission and AusAID to help the Indonesians organise their elections in May this coming year, as announced by the minister in question time. I make a suggestion to the minister that it might be quite useful if there was a possibility of the presence of Australian parliamentary and NGO observers at the elections. Perhaps that could be a matter pursued actively with our Indonesian colleagues. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has indicated today an intention to convene a meeting of ministers from major donor and recipient countries in the region to assess the long-term development challenges facing the region and what needs to be done to restore economic growth. We all share the minister's hope that such a meeting will result in greater international coordination and a high level political commitment to address the economic and social impacts of the crisis. The great pity, I think, is that we did not see such an initiative some months ago. As the minister will be aware, as long ago as May this year, nearly seven months ago, the Leader of the Opposition called for Australia to take the lead in coordinating a high level international effort to address the economic and social crisis in Indonesia—an effort which would amount to the development of a mini Marshall Plan for Indonesia. I sincerely hope that the government will now redouble its efforts and take up this challenge before the crisis in our nearest Asian neighbour reaches a point of complete political and social disaster. The foreign minister also took the opportunity to say something about the relationship between our overseas aid program and the promotion of human rights. Here, while I note he is yet to give a full response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on Australia's regional dialogue on human rights, I must say that his statement was a little disappointing. The Simons committee report was unquestion ably weak in the human rights area. It spoke loosely of support for good governance. It did not have a single specific recommendation on human rights. The minister had a further opportunity today to remedy this deficiency with a clear and comprehensive affirmation of the promotion of human rights as the key integrating element in Australia's overseas aid program. Unfortunately, we have heard the enunciation of some broad platitudes but little else. For Labor's part, we have already indicated our support for key recommendations of the bipartisan joint standing committee report; in particular, its proposal for the appointment of an ambassador for human rights with responsibility for advancing Australia's human rights objectives in the United Nations, other multilateral fora and in regional and bilateral dialogues. Recognising the links between human rights abuse and unresolved political and social conflict, Labor is also committed to support the establishment of a regional centre for human rights dialogue and conflict resolution. Established as an independent and self-governing institute, an Australian regional centre should actively promote regional dialogue and cooperation on human rights issues and serve as a centre of excellence in applied policy and research. Fundamentally, Labor considers advancement of the full range of human rights—economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights—must be at the heart of Australia's overseas development assistance program. To this end, it is to be hoped that government will accept the joint standing committee's recommendation to develop a new human rights focused approach to overseas development assistance explicitly directed toward the realisation of human rights, including through the establishment of a human rights framework for AusAid; the inclusion of human rights issues in development assistance policy dialogue between Australia and recipient countries; the incorporation of relevant international human rights conventions and principles into aid project design; and, in consultation with relevant NGOs, the review of existing policy on conditionality of overseas development assistance. We look forward to the foreign minister's full response to the joint standing committee's report. Motion (by Mr Downer) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned. Matters of Public Importance 1164 1164 1164 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) 10000 PO N/A 1 0 —The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The unfair imposition of a 10 per cent tax on almost all goods and services I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:42:00 1164 Emerson, Craig, MP Mr EMERSON 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 —Today is a terrible day for Australian pensioners and for low and middle income earners in Australia. On 3 October, the Australian people were asked to speak on the issue of a GST, and they did speak. They spoke out against it—more than half of Australian voters voted against the GST and for the Australian Labor Party and its opposition to the GST. In the Senate, well over half of Australian voters voted for parties that opposed the coalition's GST package. Yet this arrogant government has dumped into this place almost 1,000 pages of legislation for debate spanning no more than 20 hours. Is it little wonder that we have been demanding a Senate inquiry into the tax? Let us be clear what the government's tax package does. It shifts the burden of taxation off the shoulders of big business and high income earners and on to the shoulders of small business, low income earners, middle income earners and Australian pensioners. I would like to advise the House that more than half of the government's tax cuts proposal goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners in Australia. It is a disgrace. This tax package does exactly what big business asked for that tax package to do. I draw to your attention a statement by Mr Stan Wallis, President of the Business Council of Australia, on 27 May 1998. He said: . . . the GST holds out the prospect of significant reductions in the indirect tax burden currently borne by business. Well, does it ever! That is why big business put $4 million into an advertising campaign before the election was called, to try to con the Australian people into believing that this tax will be good for the country and good for them; it is not. It is also why the government scandalously spent $17 million of taxpayers' money similarly trying to con the Australian people into believing that this tax was good for Australia and good for them. But the people of Australia are not buying—and neither are they buying the government's snake oil rhetoric on this. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to a statement by none other than the Treasurer on the whole issue of snake oil. In the Australian of 16 November 1996 he said: I honestly think that now the GST's receded from consciousness it's been invested with some snake-oil qualities. It has certain advantages, but you wouldn't want to overstate them. They're at the margin. That is the honest statement of the Treasurer. Now, suddenly the GST is an indispensable part of the Australian taxation system that is going to be the cure for all of Australia's economic ills. I also point out that six months earlier, on 29 May 1996, on the ABC's 7.30 Report, the same Treasurer said: Look Kerry, we argued the merits of that in 1993— `that' being the GST— The Australian people made their verdict: we accepted it. In our election in 1996 we indicated we wouldn't introduce a GST. That finishes the matter. We won't. It is in exactly the same category as the `never never ever ever' promise. That was stated by the Treasurer, the one we saw a couple of minutes ago just over the aisle. The Treasurer, in denouncing the economic benefits—or purported economic benefits—of this package has been joined by a number of leading economists, and I will quote again from one or two of those. Dr Neil Warren, who actually helped put the Fightback package together, said: Oh, I mean people are saying the GST will solve all our ills. I mean, the GST will not, and I think it's a mistake to say that it's going to cure our foreign debt and create thousands of jobs. It's just not going to do that. He said that on ABC television on 18 May 1998. No less than the Secretary to the Treasury was reported in the Australian on 18 May 1998. The article read: Every economic text that I know of will tell you in principle that shifting the tax burden towards further reliance on indirect taxes will significantly aid national savings," Mr Evans said. But he added "you won't find that convincingly demonstrated in studies of international tax reform experience." Where does all that take us? Even the recently appointed Minister for Employment Services came clean and let the cat out of the bag just a little while ago when he said, `The GST isn't the answer for unemployment.' If the GST is not good for the country, who is it good for? We can find out. The GST is good for the Prime Minister. The GST is good for the Treasurer. The GST is good for the Minister for Finance; it is good for the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business; it is good for the Minister for Aged Care; and it is good for all the other ministers. UNKNOWN Opposition member Opposition member —The Minister for Foreign Affairs. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Mr EMERSON —And the Minister for Foreign Affairs sitting here—it is very good for you, actually. I have the table that the government produced with that $17 million before the election. Let us take the amount of $150,000; the tax cut per week for people on that salary is $102.29. The table stops at $150,000 because it just gets scandalous going beyond that. But let us have a look at a single aged pensioner: $2.89 a week; that is the purported gain against $102.29. But the true story is a lot worse than that—it is a lot worse than that for pensioners and lower and middle income earners, and it is a lot better for high income earners. The Treasury's analysis is fatally and fundamen tally flawed. The Treasury claims that the general price effect of the GST package will be 1.9 per cent. But, as the Melbourne institute points out—and it is correct—there are fundamental problems with that analysis. Firstly, the stated CPI effect of 1.9 per cent does not accurately reflect the effect of the tax changes on the general price level. The reason it does not is that the Treasury has omitted the impact on tobacco, it has understated the impact on housing and it has picked the second year of the tax package when the price goes down a little instead of the first year. Secondly—and this must be acknowledged—different types of households spend their money on different things. That has to be taken into account because tax changes have different impacts on the different things that they buy and sell. So we have low income earners and pensioners spending a lot more as a proportion of their income on food, power, and so on. Finally, some householders—such as pensioners and people who are unemployed and low income people—spend all of what they earn or, in the case of pensioners and many other people, more than all of what they earn, in terms of consumption, and this is a tax on that consumption. So you have a very, very severe effect on people on low incomes. The Melbourne institute has done a little bit of analysis on the first effect, and that was where I spoke of the impact on tobacco and a number of other things. The institute has calculated that the general price effect is 2.44 per cent, not 1.9 per cent. That is a general effect on prices of nearly 30 per cent more than the government's official estimates. Secondly, if you take account of the fact that people on low incomes do spend more on fuel, clothes, food, and so on, you will have another adverse effect. Thirdly, taking account of the dissaving that I spoke of, that is a further adverse effect. The Melbourne institute's analysis has estimated that, for low income families with children, the underestimation of compensation required is well in excess of $10 per week, and concludes: It appears that the government assumptions clearly underestimate the compensation required for low income groups and, in particular, for families with children. I have taken that analysis a little further by having a look at the fact that, at the Special Premiers Conference recently, the government has allowed the states to continue levying stamp duty on commercial conveyancing, so that will have a higher price effect. But there is also this: the assumption of the Treasury and the Treasurer is that almost immediately all of the reductions in indirect taxation will be passed on to consumers. This is a ridiculous assumption, and any economist will tell you so. I have been quite conservative and have assumed that 75 per cent of those indirect tax reductions are passed on. Do you know what the effect on the general price level is if you do that? The calculation works out at a general price level effect—that is, the cost of living will go up by 4.46 per cent. Compare that with the 1.9 per cent that the government is asserting. In other words, the general cost of living will rise by more than twice what the government is asserting. The effect of all that is that for people on low incomes, for pensioners and for the unemployed, they will get slammed by this GST package. We all know that, and that is the reality. That is why it is a very bad day for ordinary Australians on low and middle income levels and for pensioners. A question was asked in question time about the situation facing people in public rental housing. A quarter of any compensation that they get for the GST will disappear automatically in higher housing rents. In my own electorate of Rankin, there are 4,200 public housing dwellings. These are people who are in desperate need of support—not a new tax on everything they buy and use, not 25 per cent of any compensation they get being lost in the form of higher rents. We heard today that the government intends to do absolutely nothing about that. It is a scandal. When I made my first speech, I talked about the sevenfold path to a great society. I described the sevenfold path as the following: having dignity, respect, harmony, honesty, economy, a good ecology and decency. The government's tax plan fails on each and every one of those things. Dignity and respect: not for older Australians who are going to get slugged with the GST. Harmony: we are simply going to see a widening of the gulf between the haves and the have nots in this country. Honesty: we heard the Treasurer say that the GST would never come in. We heard the Prime Minister say that it would never ever come in. Further, the Treasurer said that the GST is going to replace these hidden wholesale sales taxes, but he himself said that the GST will be embedded in the price. Why do they not say what the GST will be on each and every item, instead of embedding it in the price? Is that honest? The economy: we have heard from the Treasurer about snake oil. How is it going to help the economy? As to the ecology, there is a whole other set of questions that apply. Decency: this tax is an indecent tax. It is a shameful day for ordinary Australians. This tax will not lead to a great society; it will lead to a nation divided. We have our own plan—a family tax plan which eases the transition from welfare to work. We are talking about positive alternatives. We are talking about the No. 1 problem in this country of unemployment. We have heard from the Treasurer that the GST is snake oil. What is it going to do for unemployment? Labor has the policies that will ease the transition from welfare to work, that will help struggling Australian families. We are going to fund that by a crackdown on tax avoidance by high income earners, which this government seems quite content to shirk. When we talk about our plan, we talk about true reform to deal with the No. 1 problem in our society. It is Labor who will take Australia forward towards a great society. It is Labor who will, in the true tradition, provide decency and offer respect, honesty and dignity to the Australian people. It is Labor who will make this nation a much more harmonious society. 15:57:00 1167 Moylan, Judi, MP Mrs MOYLAN 4V5 Pearce LP 1 0 —The tax reform legislation introduced into this House today is not just about a goods and services tax, and that fact seems to have escaped the other side. It is a complete package, and it is a very fair package. What could be fairer than a tax package that spreads the burden of tax more evenly and fairly throughout the whole community? It is a fair package. Labor's attack on this package is misleading, deceptive and politically motivated. The ALP can hardly be proud of their tax record during their time in government, and they certainly do not have any answers to fix the current system. The Australian people know that they do not have the answers, and that is why we are sitting here on the treasury bench. That is why we are now taking action, as promised, to lead Australia into a new century with a tax system designed to meet the needs of contemporary Australians. It is quite obvious that the ALP's attack on this reform is politically motivated. It is about time they accepted that tax reform is overdue; that this reform represents good policy and fair policy. The hypocrisy of the ALP attack is breathtaking in its scope. It was really interesting to watch the Leader of the Opposition duck and weave on tax reform during the election campaign. The member for Brand, for example, wrote to women in his electorate and said that he would continue `to oppose the GST as I always have.' If you turn to Paul Kelly's book The End of Certainty, it reveals that only Bob Hawke, Gareth Evans, Kim Beazley and Susan Ryan supported Keating's position for tax reform that included a GST. XT4 RONALDSON Mr Ronaldson —Beazley? 4V5 Moylan, Judi, MP Mrs MOYLAN —Yes, Beazley. He was the one who supported it at the time that it was put up by his own party in government. How can Labor be believed? I have to ask this House and the Australian people: how can Labor be believed in its assertion that this tax reform is unfair? Let us have a look for a moment at the current system. Let us examine what is fair and what is not fair. What is fair about a system of taxing which has imposed a raft of inefficient and indirect taxes on business and the community? What is fair about a tax that saw a 286 per cent increase in the pages of tax law in just one decade? What is fair about a system which imposes a high compliance cost on business, which leads directly to an increased cost for consumers in the community? What is fair about a tax system under which some low income families can currently lose up to 85c in every dollar they earn due to tax and the loss of family payments—that intersection between the tax system and the social security system? There is no incentive for people who want to get off the social security system to do so, because they are penalised for that. So what is fair—I ask this place; I ask the people—about that kind of a system? What is fair about a system of tax which, under Labor, increased constantly? Under Labor, income tax increased by 24 per cent, company tax by 34.9 per cent, sales tax by 36 per cent, customs tax by 8.8 per cent, petrol excise by 21 per cent and fringe benefits tax by a huge 100 per cent. And all these increases were made without consulting the Australian people. I also put it to the House that, if we had to explain in detail this complex web of taxes, most people would be confounded and confused. It is a very complex web of taxes that we have managed to generate in order to keep patching up a system that is no longer relevant in these modern times. And I have to ask: how fair is that? I listened with interest as the member for Rankin spoke. I thought he would be very hard-pressed to argue that our present tax system works in the interests of job creation. He was trying to argue that we are saying that this is going to be the answer to all the problems in job creation. It may not be the answer to all of the problems, but it certainly is going to go a long way to resolving some of those problems. The coalition's tax package gives the business community a fair go and it gives all Australian families benefits that will make them better off than they are under the current system. It will see, for example, the removal of nine taxes, including wholesales sales tax. Alleluia! What a great celebration that will be. It will also mean that there will be more money in the weekly pay packet of most Australians. It will take away the disincentive that some people face, as I said before, when they are relying on part-social security payments and are trying to work but lose a very large chunk of their earnings because of that intersection between social security and the tax system. It will mean more support for Australian families. Labor's attack on the 10 per cent GST on food is ill-founded indeed, particularly when some food and many commonly used household items are currently taxed at a much higher rate than the proposed GST. The attack is also ill-founded when this government has very carefully crafted a package to provide compensation for those on fixed incomes and particularly for families, and where 81 per cent of taxpayers will pay no more than 30c in the dollar income tax. That is a very big decrease for those people who are in the PAYE system and it will decrease their personal rate of tax substantially. So most families in the community will benefit from that. The exemption of food would complicate the tax package without providing maximum benefits to the very people that some claim the exclusion would benefit. One of the best things about our reform is that it is transparent and easy to administer. All the advantages in terms of lower compliance cost burdens and the ease of administration would be seriously eroded if food were to be exempted. It is difficult to exaggerate the nightmare which partial exclusion of food would cause for small businesses. Exempting food would add compliance costs and, therefore, costs to the consumer down the end of the line. Food accounts for a relatively high proportion of the outlay of low income households but, in dollar terms, the level of spending by high income households is much greater. Most of the benefits of exempting food would flow not to those on low incomes but to those in high income households. That is where the benefits would flow. I was interested to read in the latest newsletter of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry that the top 20 per cent of households, ranked by income, account for 30 per cent of all Australian outlays on food while the bottom 20 per cent of households account for just 10 per cent of food expenditure. I will quote directly from the article in the newsletter headed `Fiscal efficiency'. It said: Trying to reduce the regressive nature of the GST by exempting items that low-income households consume is inefficient as the benefit is passed on to all consumers regardless of their income. A more efficient method is to use direct income tax breaks and welfare payments to the targeted low income households. Government member interjecting— 4V5 Moylan, Judi, MP Mrs MOYLAN —My colleague behind me is right: this is exactly what we are doing. The article goes on to say: This means that most or all of the gain goes to the intended recipient, which indirect tax exemptions cannot do. It was a most interesting article. Of course, one of the great features of our tax reform package is that there is fair compensation for those on fixed incomes and families through the tax treatment and the social security payment system. Compensation, of course, is linked to the cost of living—and I make that point because it is a very important one and it is one that I think those on the other side deliberately overlook when they are arguing this case. Ours is not a new tax; it is a new tax system. It spreads the tax burden more fairly and evenly. Everyone pays a fair share. It will deliver personal income tax cuts worth $4 billion. It reduces the tax burden on business inputs, saving $10 billion. It will mean a more productive, competitive country, enhancing our export market capacity by reducing costs to our exporters by $4.5 billion. And it will improve job opportunities for our young people. It will also provide a very generous package for all Australian families. When he was introducing this bill to the House today, the Treasurer did outline how, for 30 years, there had been a general recognition in this parliament by all political parties of the need for tax reform. When those opposite were in government they held inquiry after inquiry. Their reports lined the walls of the libraries in this place. Yet they did not have the political courage or the commitment to do anything about it. They knew that this was the right thing to do, that it was in the national interest. But they did not have the political courage, nor did they have the commitment. 0K6 BARTLETT Mr Bartlett —No brains, no ticker. 4V5 Moylan, Judi, MP Mrs MOYLAN —They certainly do not have the ticker to support this reform. What Labor did when they were in government was increase taxes by stealth. They increased the burden of tax on Australian taxpayers by stealth. Very often it hit those who were most vulnerable—families and small businesses. 0K6 BARTLETT Mr Bartlett —The battlers. 4V5 Moylan, Judi, MP Mrs MOYLAN —Exactly, the battlers. The people that they purport to represent out there in the community are the very people who have been targeted, the people who are least able to defend their position. This is where they targeted the tax increases. This is a government which has the courage and the commitment to put into place a new tax system in the national interest. We are committed to improving the economic environment in a way that spreads the burden of tax fairly and evenly throughout the community so that we can continue to improve the quality of life for all Australians. As a community, we are certainly entitled to debate the issue of compensation to those on fixed incomes and, in particular, those with young families to raise. I think that is a legitimate debate, but I do not think that those on the other side, who did nothing to fix the tax system while they were in government for 13 years, are entitled to try to stop the passage of this bill through this House. I think it is a sad day for Australia when political expediency gets in the way of sound policy. This tax reform is a reform in the national interest. It is a reform that will improve the quality of life for all Australian families. 16:11:00 1169 Cox, David, MP Mr COX 83U Kingston ALP 0 0 —The reason the Labor Party objects to the Howard government's 10 per cent GST tax package is that it is inherently unfair—unfair to the overwhelming majority of Australians on low and middle incomes. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer call it tax reform, but it is not tax reform that is designed to benefit the majority of Australians. It is a set of tax changes designed to greatly increase the proportion of the tax burden borne by low and middle income Australians. It greatly increases the size of the government's indirect tax take by taxing for the first time, at a rate of 10 per cent, essentials like bread, milk, meat, fruit and vegetables, clothing and electricity. These are the items that constitute the largest part of the household budgets of most Australian families. They have never been taxed before and they will be taxed at a rate of 10 per cent. Certainly, Mr Howard is promising tax cuts and increased social security benefits to compensate people for the increased costs of the 10 per cent GST, but for people on low incomes it simply will not be enough. The estimate contained in the government's tax package of the additional cost of the 10 per cent GST was only 1.9 per cent. That is an estimate based on two absolutely spurious assumptions. The first is that all businesses would reduce their prices by the exact amount of the wholesale sales taxes which are being removed and only increase them by the exact amount of the GST that they would be required to levy. But that will not happen. Businesses will take the opportunity of a general increase in prices to increase their margin so the prices will go up by much more than the net effect of the indirect tax changes. Everyone knows that, but it is something that the government has chosen to ignore in talking about the adequacy of the very minimal compensation it is offering to people on low and middle incomes. Secondly, the 1.9 per cent is an average estimate for all consumers—the affluent and the poor. Everyone knows that the spending patterns of the affluent and the poor are quite different. As I have already said, people on low incomes spend most of their incomes on essentials like food, clothing and energy bills, which are not presently taxed. With a 10 per cent GST, the price increase on those items will be much higher than the government's estimate of 1.9 per cent. So the compensation the Prime Minister has offered will not be enough. The affluent, on the other hand, have quite different spending patterns. They can save a larger part of their incomes, which will not be subject to any GST. Saving is not a bad thing. The wholesale sales tax does not tax savings either. The point goes to the fairness of the government's package. Many affluent people also buy luxury items that are presently subject to wholesale sales tax at higher rates. With a GST the price of those things will fall. The affluent spend a lower proportion of their incomes on essentials like food, clothes and electricity than people on lower incomes. These three factors mean that whatever the price effect of the GST will be on low income families, it will be less on the affluent. Yet it is to the affluent that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are directing the biggest tax cuts. Let us look at an average Australian family with two children and both parents earning $20,000 each. According to the government's own figures, they will be $21.30 a week better off with the government's tax package. In reality, when you have two children and have to buy at least two litres of milk and more than one loaf of bread a day, plus plenty of meat, fruit and fresh vegetables to feed the family—and they are all being taxed for the first time at 10 per cent—you are going to find that $21.30 just will not be enough. Now let us look at what the Prime Minister wants to do for a family with two children where each parent is not earning $20,000 but, say, $75,000—that is, two children and a combined family income of $150,000 a year. According to the government's own numbers, they will get a tax cut not of $21.30 a week like the family on $40,000, but $137.09 a week. Yes, $137.09. That is why the GST has been set at 10 per cent and put on practically everything—to pay for big tax cuts for people on incomes that are way above average. In contrast, Labor believes in a fairer tax system. That is why we went to the last election with a tax policy which was designed to get people off benefits and back to work. Our tax policy would have given the family on $40,000 a year an extra $63.45 a week and the family on $150,000 a year only an extra $8.08. Let us look at some other examples of unfairness in the Liberal Party's compensation arrangements. The government has promised a four per cent increase in all social security income support payments. Pensioners are a group who can only buy the essentials like food, clothes and electricity, which will all be taxed for the first time at 10 per cent. The price effect to them of a 10 per cent GST will be much more than 1.9 per cent. Four per cent will not be overcompensation, as the government have continually claimed; it will be undercompensation. It will not get picked up in subsequent indexation increases because they are based on general price movements for the whole community. Pensioners buy a different basket of goods, the prices of which will shift up sharply relative to the rest of the items in the CPI basket. Pensioners will be permanently worse off as a result of the GST. Then there is the twist for subsidised public housing tenants. Public housing rents go up by 25 per cent of any increase in their gross income. That means a four per cent pension rise will automatically become a three per cent pension rise. There is no compensation anywhere in the Howard government's package for that. Pensioners will be left with less than $1 a day to compensate them for all of the increased costs of the GST. If you can still afford to go to the local bowling club, there will be a 10 per cent GST on your membership fee, as well as your sandwiches and your cup of tea. This is the sort of information the government tried to dismiss as a scare campaign during the election but, with the GST bills now in the House and with the release of the Vos report, these implications can no longer simply be avoided by the government. The 10 per cent GST also has implications for the competitiveness of small business. For example, two retailers are selling cans of coke in the same shopping centre. One is a large supermarket chain with a lot of buying power and is able to sell a can of coke for 55c. The GST payable on that can of coke is less than 6c. The deli next door struggles to pay the rent and make wages selling a can of coke for $1.30. The GST on the can of coke in the same shopping centre is 13c. The Liberal Party, which has long pretended to be the party of small business, today introduced legislation to make that deli owner less competitive relative to their big business competition. That will inevitably mean further loss of market share. Then there are the compliance costs of the GST. They are relatively cheap and efficient for the big chains, which obviously already have sophisticated accounting systems in place, but the Australian Tax Accountants Association estimates that the average set-up cost to handle the GST will be $7,000 to $10,000 for small business. It will take three hours a week to do the paperwork for the typical small business—that is the equivalent of more than three working weeks a year. That is an unproductive burden that is going to be multiplied by the difference between the present 75,000 wholesale sales tax taxing points and the more than one million taxing points that will be created by the GST. It will be a major burden for family businesses who will either have to do the work themselves or more likely have to pay an accountant to do it. The government has not yet given any estimate of the compliance costs to Australian business. There was one item that I was very disappointed to see absent from the government's GST bills that were introduced this morning—that is, something which would deal with the longstanding problem of tax evasion and avoidance through the use of complex, multiple family trusts. It is a matter that we were well aware of in government and, during the last couple of years that we were in office, we pressed the Treasury to bring forward some measures to deal with it. They were having some difficulty coming to terms with it, but at the end of 1995 the Australian Taxation Office had managed to produce some estimates that showed that 80 high wealth individuals were collectively avoiding $800 million in tax. We went to the 1996 election promising to do something about that. That was 2½ years ago. The government has promised to do something about that. The solutions are well known and they are understood by everybody yet, after 2½ years, it is completely absent from the government's package of tax measures. I do not believe that in the life of this government we are ever going to see the solution to that problem. 16:21:00 1171 Charles, Bob, MP Mr CHARLES OT4 LaTrobe LP 1 0 —The members for Rankin and Kingston have made a bit of a fist of it but, unfortunately, they have failed in their efforts to prove their contention that a 10 per cent goods and services tax is unfair. It has been interesting to listen to some of the things that the Labor Party has had to say during this campaign. I noticed that the member for Rankin said during his contribution that Labor has the policies. I think he is still trying to fight the election campaign that the ALP has forgotten it lost. Perhaps we need to keep that in mind. During the campaign, on 17 September on 7NT, the Leader of the Opposition said: The point about a GST is it's a cascading tax. It starts at 10 per cent at each point of time along the chain, and then 10 per cent of course as it goes down the chain on a higher and higher price, as value is added, and as mark up supply between those who are selling to each other on the way up. I am not sure I understand all that gobbledegook, but the GST is not a cascading tax. Everybody knows it is not a cascading tax, and yet the Leader of the Opposition tried to make the goods and services tax out to be something it is not. The wholesale sales tax, which is the policy Labor loves to love, is a cascading tax. It gets built into wholesale prices and it gets built into the price of goods in the shops, in the supermarkets and in the stores everywhere. The Leader of the Opposition lacks some consistency, though. On 12 June 1985, at the National Press Club, when he was talking about option C of the tax plan—remember Labor in government in 1985—which was for a broad based goods and services tax, the minister, as he was then, said: I, like all Cabinet Ministers, support the thrust of the option that is being presented. I think that it is capable of being implemented equitably . . . I think that it is capable of being fine tuned to overcome most of the objections that are being expressed to date. There are very few societies which operate with a taxation system so heavily dependent on income tax, as we do and very few which don't have a substantial component of their tax system reliant on broadly based consumption taxes. That was in 1985, but then on 28 August 1998, in letters to women constituents, the Leader of the Opposition said: If we get a GST—a 10 per cent tax on everything—it is mostly women like you who will be on the paying end, week after week. That's why I will continue to oppose a GST, as I always have. What a nonsense! How hypocritical is that, I ask you? `As I always have', when clearly the now Leader of the Opposition supported a GST, option C, in 1985. Labor is still fighting the campaign. On 10 October in the Australian, an unnamed federal Labor MP said: The campaign was about attacking the GST but there was nothing we could offer them (the voters) in return. It was a real lemon. It was, wasn't it. On 10 October 1998, again in the Sydney Morning Herald , a New South Wales Right senior member said: I think Jenny Macklin is responsible for our defeat. I think we could have won if we had not had such an idiotic tax package. That says it all, doesn't it? The member for Werriwa, on policy development, on 30 October 1998 in the Daily Telegraph said: Labor needs once again to take policy seriously. Not just as a campaign convenience,, not just as something to be picked up and thrown away with all the gravity of a KFC wrapper. Which has a wholesale sales tax embedded, I might add. Michael Easson on the 7.30 Report on 26 October 1998 said: Unless it thinks critically about its recent experiences and what needs to be done to win government, Labor may be in opposition for much longer than it expects. Kim Beazley knows enough about political history to know that next time won't be so easy. He will have to earn government. Labor needs to think through new policies to extend its support beyond the base . . . Labor appeared in the lead up to the 1998 election to proffer a soft form of economic Hansonism. Labor appeared retrograde on many of the policy reforms it took in the 1980s. The member for Werriwa, again on lack of reform, said on 20 October 1998 on the 7.30 Report : We have fallen for this trap which is out there in the populist debate and . . . this sort of argument now that you can have all economic gain, no pain, no reform, no micro reform, no interest in the efficiency and productivity of the market based economy. That's not realistic. He was right, you know. He was absolutely right. He went on and said: In April '96 Kim Beazley said to me that Australian Labor was falling ten years behind comparable parties in our policy development and our ideas. Now that was the case then. We've probably got as much ground to make up now. After this election, I reckon it is even more. Here we have two new Labor members sitting in the opposition benches still trying to fight the election campaign that they lost. Peter Botsman on 16 October 1998 in the Sydney Morning Herald said: Like it or not, the Liberals can make a claim for national leadership and the next time there may be some admiration for Howard's discipline and Menzies like experience. (Labor's hardheads) don't understand serious work needs to be done on Labor's policy side. . . . . . . . . . Labor's policy platform in 1998 was not only, in some cases, politically inept it was out of date and not credible. Australians will not vote for an unemployment target in search of a policy. Senator Chris Schacht said on 19 October 1998 on AM : I hate Liberals ridiculing the Labor Party. It's the death of us if we can't make them fear the Labor Party's ability to win elections because once that rot sets in there is no future for any of us. I have to conclude on that point to say that it is no use having a slick machine fixing preselections if they do not win the bloody seats in the Parliament. A right wing shadow minister on 10 October 1998 in the Sydney Morning Herald said: In general, the Liberals were better than us in most of the marginal seats. They had better material and it was delivered better. We were out spent, out targeted and outclassed. You still are, but you have not woken up to it yet. What a ridiculous motion to put before this parliament. You have failed demonstrably in any attempt to show that a broad based consumption tax is unfair. The member for Makin, sitting here in front of me, and I went out and fought an election campaign based on a 10 per cent broad based, across-the-board goods and services tax together with other very major tax changes, including dramatic reductions in income tax, in order to modernise a ramshackle, defeated and old-fashioned tax system. UNKNOWN Honourable member Honourable member —And you won. OT4 Charles, Bob, MP Mr CHARLES —Of course we won. We won well, too. The electorate did not desert us. The electorate said, `We will have that.' They voted for that and they put us in parliament to make sure that we implemented it. Labor's policy—a wholesale sales tax—was designed in the 1930s around a regressive series of manufactured goods and they think somehow that we can continue with that system into the future and provide the tax base that we need for services for the Australian population. If a GST, if a consumption tax, if a value added tax, is so unfair, as the members for Rankin and Kingston contend, then why has the rest of the world embraced such consumption taxes? Why are so few countries still reliant on a wholesale sales tax? No modern industrialised power anywhere in the world is thus reliant, except Australia. We are the last one left. Archaic! The member for Kingston carried on a bit about luxury items and how wonderful it was to have a wholesale sales tax on luxury items. I would like honourable members to tell me just how `luxury' they think toothpaste, ice-cream, chocolate milk and orange juice are. Are they luxury items? I suspect that the debate has been lost by the ALP once again. But it was great having a go at the ALP on lack of policy development. I really feel sorry for you, but one of these days, I suppose, you will manage to get your act together again. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) —Order! The discussion is now concluded. Bills 1173 The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill 1998 Miscellaneous 1173 1173 Motion (by Mr Entsch)—by leave—agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Archives Act 1983, this House appoints Mr Somlyay as a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives for a period of three years. Bills 1174 s178 1174 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented. Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith. Bill agreed to. 1174 Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch)—by leave—read a third time. Bills 1174 s180 1174 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented. Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith. Bill agreed to. 1174 Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch)—by leave—read a third time. Bills 1174 r651 1174 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented. Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith. Bill agreed to. 1174 Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch)—by leave—read a third time. Bills 1174 r604 1174 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented. Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith. Bill agreed to. 1174 Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch)—by leave—read a third time. Bills 1174 r653 1174 Debate resumed. 16:37:00 1174 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN OK6 Eden-Monaro LP 1 0 —Just prior to question time today I began my contribution to this debate. I was commenting on the fact that in this parliament we have a very good system whereby after each general election the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducts a review of the election, giving people from all over Australia the opportunity to make submissions about its conduct. It also is an opportunity to review the Electoral Act and electoral processes. It is an excellent system that we have that allows this to occur. It certainly helps the democratic process. We have seen our Commonwealth Electoral Act develop over the years under this sort of system. I think we have one of the best electoral systems in the world, but it can always be made better. The report that came out of the last review after the 1996 election made numerous recommendations. A number of those recommendations have already been included in legislation and further recommendations are taken up in this bill. I had also begun to comment prior to question time on some of the provisions of the bill, in particular on the provision that will require new electors to produce one original form of identification at the time of enrolment. The Labor Party opposed this provision. I was commenting that currently all you need to do is simply fill out a form, sign it, have somebody who only has to be eligible to be on the roll to witness it, send it off and you are on the roll. There is not much else that we do that is quite so simple. I wonder why we have such a light-hearted attitude to the roll when it is such an important thing—being given the right to vote in federal elections. When we go along to Centrelink or somewhere like that these days to register for unemployment benefits or any other social security, you certainly just cannot fill out a form and then be given a right. There are certain other things that have to be done and in particular you have to be identified. When you apply for a passport, you certainly have to provide certain information. No matter what you choose, it would seem to me that there is a requirement usually to provide some sort of basic identification. Even if you take going down to the local video shop, I am reliably informed—I have not done it myself—that you cannot rock into a video shop and say, `I want to join the club that allows me to hire videos from here,' without providing some sort of identification. Mr Slipper interjecting— OK6 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN —That is right. It has to be only basic identification, but it is some sort of identification that you are a real person and the name that you are wanting to take out that transaction in is yours. Given that you have such a basic requirement for something like hiring a video, I am sure most people find it quite staggering—and I have spoken to many people who have applied to get on the roll and they are quite astounded—that all you have to do is fill out a form, sign it and get someone who does not even have to be on the roll—they only have to be eligible to be on the roll—send it in and you are on. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —It is bizarre. OK6 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN —It really is quite bizarre, as the member for Fisher comments. I do not think it is a large imposition to ask people to provide some sort of basic identification. It could be as basic as a letter from Social Security, something to do with taxation or a drivers licence. There is a whole variety of things that this legislation will allow to be the basic identification. I recall the public hearings of the committee that took place after the 1996 election when we were raising this matter. We had a variety of submissions. Many submissions supported that stronger evidence should be given of somebody's eligibility to be on the roll before they are actually enrolled, but also many people opposed it. I could never understand why. It seemed to be a simple argument. `We don't want to make it difficult for people to go on the roll' was about the best argument that anybody put up. We then had submissions from a Western Australian Labor MP who said, `It is very difficult for a lot of my constituents in isolated areas to provide some sort of identification.' When I then asked him, `Were these constituents able to in some cases draw social security benefits, for instance, or have a bank account?' he said, `Yes, no problem.' To be able to draw social security benefits or conduct a bank account requires identification. So if they were able to receive benefits from the public or if they were able to have a bank account for those benefits to be paid into, surely they therefore have identification as to whom they are for when they enrol to vote in a federal election. I think it is a very small measure and I think it will help the integrity of the roll and the confidence in the roll, which is what we are talking about. I know we have a good system, but there is always somebody out there trying to work their way around it and to find a way to rort it. (Quorum formed) It would seem that providing some sort of identification to be on the roll certainly rubs a few Labor people up the wrong way. They really do not like a bit of accountability. Let us go to some of the other provisions in this particular bill. It also provides for the enrolment form to be signed and witnessed by a person coming from a prescribed area. This is in line with a passport. Once again, it is adding to the integrity of the roll in that you have to get a legitimate person to witness it—not somebody making up a name or any old person but somebody who can be identified as well—which is in line with many government documents such as a passport where there is a category of people. Once again, it is a very broad category. It will not be onerous for people in all sorts of different circumstances. It adds a bit of substance to that enrolment. A further measure in the bill provides for all electors to notify the AEC of a change of address within one month of moving. Once again, this is a matter where currently there are complicated provisions, and people are not sure what they are required to do or not to do. I recall the inquiry of the joint standing committee receiving a variety of submissions which demonstrated there was a lot of confusion as to what people should and should not do. It was felt that standardising the process in some way was far better. Having one month to notify the AEC after a person moves, I do not think is unreasonable. It falls in line with probably what everybody already does with everything else in their life. Part of these changes is to change the culture that people have in this regard. If you are going to have the right to vote, some responsibility has to be put back on the person to maintain their enrolment. When a person moves from one house to the next, they are very quick to notify the post office because they want to get their mail readdressed. They are very quick to notify the local electricity company, the water company or the local government—they do a variety of things that are all part of their normal lives. We have to help the AEC become part of that normal life as well. Having the right to vote is a great responsibility, and it should be put into the same league as changing your address for postal references and things like that. Bringing the electoral enrolment into line with similar sorts of situations by saying that you are to notify the AEC within one month of moving, I do not think is unreasonable. Once again, it is all helping to strengthen the integrity of the electoral roll, because clearly things need to change. If you go back through many of the elections, you will find that an enormous number of transactions seem to take place as soon as an election is called. The Labor Party would have us believe that all of those people are just out there, having not thought about changing their enrolment from when they moved three years before, or miraculously having just become eligible to be on the roll—all those people then lodge applications to change their enrolment or to enrol for the first time in the week following the calling of an election. In 1996 those numbers were some 438,000. That is an enormous number of transactions for the AEC to cope with over a few days. Many changes that we recommended out of the inquiry and that have been picked up by the bills are designed to prevent that great rush when an election is called. The AEC will be working a lot closer with local government authorities, electricity and water authorities—all those sorts of people—to ensure that, when somebody lodges a change of address for electricity or gas, they will also be automatically given a notice to change their enrolment. Once that starts to filter through the system, we will no longer have the situation of these hundreds of thousands of people all of a sudden wanting to get on the roll when an election is called. That is why I feel it is very fair that, for new electors, the roll will close at 6 p.m. when the writs are issued. (Quorum formed) The Labor Party might think it is very smart in preventing me from completing my speech by trying to muzzle me. However, the same thing would not have happened with the previous member for Lalor, because he had a lot more intellect than that. (Time expired) 16:54:00 1176 Andren, Peter, MP Mr ANDREN KL6 Calare IND 0 0 —We as Australians pride ourselves on the fact that we live in one of the world's great democracies. Our system of government is respected around the globe. In recent times, we have even acted to help other countries develop democratic electoral systems and procedures based on our model. In the mail today I received a letter from the South African government detailing the work that the AEC is doing there to help them establish their system. The Minister for Foreign Affairs alluded today in question time to our possible role in helping with the Indonesian elections. But that is not to say that our system is perfect. We should always be closely examining the rules to see whether they can be improved. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 does contain some very worthwhile reforms, which I support. However, I cannot support much of the bill because it unfortunately contains some proposals which I believe are antidemocratic and very possibly unconstitutional. Indeed, this bill contains measures which threaten to undermine the integrity of our political system. Firstly, I would like to comment on the positive aspects of it. I commend measures to ensure that people enrolling to vote really are who they claim to be by requiring them to provide legitimate identification. The changes will also ensure that people witnessing these enrolments have some legitimacy. The system as it is, which merely requires a form to be filled out and anyone to sign it, is clearly open to fraud. This reform is long overdue. Other aspects of this bill, such as the proposal to give political parties access to the salutation details and birth dates of enrolled electors, on the surface appear to be quite sound. However, I have reservations about them. They will no doubt result in more expensive direct mail campaigns in marginal seats at future elections, annoying many people. It could be an invasion of privacy and has no part in a bill of this nature. Families are quite capable of contacting members about birthdays or anniversaries if they wish politicians to intrude into their lives. I note that the Labor Party, in its amendments, is proposing much tougher fines for commercial firms which misuse the electoral roll. I certainly support amendments of that nature. There needs to be a very strong penalty for any person or company that uses the electoral roll for commercial gain. I do not think the penalties indicated are sufficient as they stand. No-one would want to enrol to vote if they knew that their details were going to be abused by commercial firms. It is bad enough to be targeted by a direct mail campaign by political parties. There are two other aspects of the bill which I also take objection to. Firstly, I would like to place on record my opposition to the provisions that would deny the right of prisoners to vote. The right to vote—to have a say in who governs the country and, even at a state level, who runs the prisons—is a basic human right. As a right, it is not something that should be taken away by politicians. Nor is it something that should be taken away because someone has been sentenced for a criminal offence. To take away that right is to say that you do not believe in the concept of rehabilitation. I do not believe that. I believe that prisoners should be encouraged to take an interest in our government and democratic system so that when they are released back into society they are better citizens. Government members interjecting— KL6 Andren, Peter, MP Mr ANDREN —Hang on. Under the present Commonwealth law, which disqualifies prisoners from voting if they are serving sentences of five years or more, some 6,000 persons are disqualified. That figure will increase to around 16,000 if this bill is passed. I know that some members of the coalition think it is a great idea to take away the right of prisoners to vote because they probably believe that the more deprivations there are behind bars the greater the disincentive there is to commit crime. But do you really think someone about to commit a crime is going to have second thoughts because they might be denied the right to vote at the next federal election? Government members interjecting— KL6 Andren, Peter, MP Mr ANDREN —You might laugh at that. It is interesting to note that the former member for Parkes was one member espousing that view in a dissenting report put forward by coalition MPs who were members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in 1993. Even members of parliament commit crimes and face the prospect of gaol sentences. Some people commit crime and are not gaoled but will still have the right to vote. Do prisoners deserve to have their basic democratic rights stripped away? There are some strong arguments why this proposal to deny prisoners voting rights is not a good idea. It can be argued that section 41 of the constitution prevents parliament from taking away that right. If passed, this law will be the first backward step taken by the Commonwealth with respect to voting laws, setting a dangerous precedent. There is also the distinct legal possibility that the federal parliament does not have the power to remove voting rights already enfranchised at a state level. In New South Wales, prisoners are only disqualified from voting—I do not agree with it—if they are convicted and sentenced for a period of more than 12 months or if they are detained under the Mental Health Act. There will be a clear contradiction between state and Commonwealth laws if this is passed. I understand that if these laws are passed Australia could also be in breach of international human rights obligations. Then there is the problem of determining what the term `imprisonment' even means these days. Increasingly, we are seeing people sentenced to weekend detention, some even being made prisoners in their own homes wearing electronic monitoring devices. Would these people too be excluded from voting? I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that much of European settlement in this country was based around the concept, eventually, of prisoner rehabilitation. Freedoms aside, even prisoners still have a few basic rights. They watch TV and read newspapers. A lot of them are probably better informed than the majority of people on the outside. Indeed, with two major gaols and two smaller correctional centres in my electorate, I have corresponded with several prisoners on issues political during my term as a member and met inmates on several occasions. I can tell you that their level of understanding of the political process and interest in government is well honed, particularly amongst the Koori population of the prisons. I believe this should be encouraged. Last weekend I attended the award ceremony for eight Koori inmates at Bathurst Correctional Centre who have successfully completed a small business course. Ironically, that course was run by the Western Region Business Innovation Centre, a federally funded pilot program offering great opportunities for small business in rural and remote areas largely through exploiting information technology. If you had listened to those young men who had come from the Aboriginal community in western New South Wales talking about the opportunity they had been given and the hopes they had for the future and describing the training they had undertaken as true self-determination, I do not think anybody could have even considered denying them the right to participate in the democratic processes of this country. They were people who have been enabled to break the endless cycle of crime and gaol that so unfortunately impacts on the indigenous communities in this country. Why take away the right to vote as well? Given that most votes cast in gaols are by way of postal ballots, it is hard to get a clear picture of prisoners' voting habits, but I would suggest that a majority of them tend to support the non-conservative side of politics in this country. I wonder whether this is about political reform or denying 16,000 votes. The second aspect of the bill I strongly oppose relates to changes to disclosure laws for donations to political parties. Currently, political parties are required to disclose donations made by individuals or companies totalling more than $1,500 in any financial year. This bill would see that already generous limit raised to $5,000. Further with regard to donations to political parties, the threshold for counting individual amounts received is raised from $500 to $1,500. On top of that, the amount above which a donor to a political party must furnish a return will rise from $1,500 to $10,000. I regard those proposals as particularly obnoxious. I noted that in his second reading speech the parliamentary secretary offered no explanation or justification of why these changes were necessary. I will tell you why they are necessary. They are necessary because the major political parties and the members who belong to them want to be less accountable. They want to be less accountable and they want to make our system of government less accountable. The people of Australia have a right to know in as much detail as possible which companies, organisations, trade unions and individuals are bankrolling our political system. In a speech here last year I revealed how political parties were in hock to the major banks. At that time I pointed out how the banks had made donations to political parties in the previous financial year totalling $1.2 million. The point I was trying to make was that, in the community's mind, the major parties seemed to be more interested in helping the banks become bigger and more profitable than they were in ensuring they provided an affordable and accessible banking service to the Australian people. How are we ever to know if political favours are being given to party donors if we do not know who is making the donations? This proposal to make our system less accountable and to make the donations and the political favours that are undoubtedly done even more secretive can only be deplored. Some of the reforms in the bill are concerned with protecting the integrity of the electoral roll. What use is there in protecting the integrity of the roll if these other changes are made which attack the very integrity of our system of government? Rather than watering down the rules to hide donations—or, dare I say, bribes—we should be tightening the laws. We already know that many corporations and individuals bankrolling political parties are keeping their identities and the level of their donations secret using devices set up by the parties to bypass the existing disclosure laws. The member for Melbourne mentioned in his contribution to this debate that the $5,000 limit could be tailored to $4,999 and, on a state by state basis, total $20,000. Multiply that by any number of people in an organisation or family and there is absolutely no control over the end result and no disclosure. The best known organisation of this type is the Greenfields Foundation which has channelled more than $4½ million into the Liberal Party's coffers and disguised it as a loan to bypass the disclosure laws. When this matter was debated in the other place in June, the opposition tried to introduce an amendment to close this loophole and effectively shut down the foundation. That move was unfortunately unsuccessful thanks to the vote of Senator Harradine who voted, for reasons only he knows, with the government. Let us not pretend the companies making these donations are not expecting the favour to be returned. One only has to look at what is happening in the US to get a clear idea of where we are heading—the best democracy money can buy. According to a report in the Australian on 10 November, donations to political parties in that country have skyrocketed. It is computer software and Internet related companies which have increased their donations the most. Last financial year computer companies donated more than $5 million to US political organisations. The Australian reported that the increase in donations paid off, with computer companies getting much of what they wanted from the 105th Congress. This included a change in visa rules to get more foreign technology workers into the country, legal protections in class action law suits, and tax credits which will save the companies billions of dollars. The moral of the story is that millions in donations to political parties are a good investment considering the billions that can be ultimately saved through government favour. I call it a bribe, but let us not be so naive as to pretend that the same cannot happen here. The amount of money taxpayers fork out through public funding of elections should be enough on its own without our political parties having to resort to taking secret donations on top of that. I estimate a cap of $50,000 per candidate would be absolutely adequate for any campaign at a federal level in this country. The level of big business and big union influence over government in this country is of major concern to ordinary Australians. Small business and individuals quite rightly feel they do not have political clout and of course they do not because they are not bankrolling the major parties. The proposal in this bill to make the system less transparent, to make those donations even easier to hide than they already are, further corrupts the system. No member of this House who values the integrity of our democracy should support this bill as it stands. I will study the opposition amendments in more detail, but on several key points I do not believe they address all my concerns about this bill, which I cannot support in its current form. 17:10:00 1180 Georgiou, Petro, MP Mr GEORGIOU HM5 Kooyong LP 1 0 —The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is the second bill in a package of legislation being introduced into this House in response to issues raised by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and its report on the conduct of the 1996 election. The earlier bill addressed items of an essentially technical and non-controversial nature. This bill deals with more substantive and by extension more controversial reforms. There is a line of precedent in modern Australian politics for this process of `splitting' proposed electoral reforms into separate and distinct bills. When the Whitlam government sought to make changes to Australia's electoral laws in 1973, it separated the essentially uncontroversial reduction in the age requirement for voting and candidature from 21 to 18 from its more substantive and divisive reforms to the electoral system. These controversial issues were pursued through a second bill, which was vigorously contested. It was only passed after a joint sitting of the two houses of parliament following the 1974 double dissolution election. Incidentally, it was the first bill ever passed at a joint sitting of the Australian parliament. Mr Whitlam's lead was followed by the Hawke government when it came to office in 1983. The Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill contained a range of sensible and progressive reforms to the electoral system. These included `above the line voting' for the Senate and reform of redistribution provisions, and these received broad support. The Hawke government's more controversial proposal to increase the size of both the House of Representatives and the Senate was contained in a separate Representation Bill. This bill was contested but, unfortunately, never went into double dissolution territory. Both the Whitlam and Hawke governments pursued electoral reform, or their concept of it, through constitutional referendums, and both were spectacularly unsuccessful in their endeavours. But, in general, the process has facilitated gradual and constructive reform of Australia's electoral system. I think this is an important point to make. LS4 FERGUSON Mr Martin Ferguson —Like four-year terms. HM5 Georgiou, Petro, MP Mr GEORGIOU —Spectacularly unsuccessful. Political parties will always disagree—and there were lots of provisos added in—about proposed change to the electoral system, sometimes on the basis of philosophical differences and sometimes on the basis of perceived party advantage or disadvantage; sometimes those perceptions are wrong. LS4 FERGUSON Mr Martin Ferguson —Opportunities by Peter Reith. HM5 Georgiou, Petro, MP Mr GEORGIOU —If you cannot persuade the Australian people, you have a very hard ask. Separating the contentious from the non-contentious in the area of electoral reform, however, has enabled us to progressively and continuously improve Australia's electoral machinery. An electoral system has emerged which, in terms of its inclusiveness, integrity and fairness, is amongst the very best in the world, not the best money can buy, as the member for Calare would have it, but the best that responsible parliamentarians can devise. This bill continues that tradition. I wish to cover in detail a few of the elements in the bill because it is quite extensive. The first matter I would like to cover is proof of identity. There is a proposed new proof of identity and citizenship requirement for people enrolling to vote. At present, Australia operates a relatively user-friendly system of voter enrolment. (Quorum formed) The requirements of the voting system are not onerous in terms of enrolment, which essentially is conducted by post. It is a system which is largely `honour based' and which has remained largely free of significant fraud and abuse. Indeed, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, after inquiring into the conduct of the 1996 election, concluded: . . . did not reveal improper enrolment or voting sufficient to affect any result at the election. Nonetheless, there is a view expressed by the JSCEM report that it is `unacceptable' that: . . . the act of choosing the Government at a democratic election is subject to a far lower level of scrutiny than such lesser transactions as opening a bank account, applying for a passport . . . and so on. I do think there is some sense in requiring that people enrolling to vote provide some documentary evidence supporting their claim to be eligible for enrolment. What the bill proposes is that first time enrollees produce at least one original form of proof of identity documentation at the time of their application to enrol. Applicants for enrolment who have obtained Australian citizenship through naturalisation will also be required to provide their citizenship number or the date of conferral of citizenship on their application. In both cases, provision will be made for those who, for one reason or another, cannot produce the relevant documentation. Regulations will provide for, say, a written reference to be produced in place of original documentation—which is rather different from the perspective of the Labor Party on this matter. The new arrangements will enable enrolment transactions to be conducted by post. But, given the sensitivities involved in sending original documentation through the mail, there will also be facilities for presentation of documentation by hand. I believe that these are not unreasonable changes which address concerns about the integrity of the enrolment system, while keeping the scope of the problem in perspective and also maintaining a relatively user-friendly set of arrangements. It should also be noted that the measures do not affect anyone who is already enrolled to vote. One of the most frequently remarked upon aspects of the last federal election was the length of time taken by the Electoral Commission in counting the votes after the election, and the uncertainties that this caused in close seats. My colleague the member for Bradfield was not concerned unduly by this. But there were a number of us on rather tighter margins and quite a number of colleagues kept waiting, including the odd high profile recruit to the Labor Party's frontbench who could have done with the vote being counted rather more quickly. Having some idea of what is involved in the scrutiny of votes after an election, I do have some sympathy for the commission. The process is a reasonably tortuous one, particularly as it relates to the admission of declaration votes cast as postal, pre-poll or absentee votes. But it is a necessary process and it allows the commission to maximise the convenience of voting while maintaining the ballot's integrity. What this bill proposes is not to change the process but to allow the commission to undertake its initial scrutiny of declaration votes received prior to the election from the Monday before election day, rather than having to wait until the election to begin the scrutiny. I think this is an eminently suitable reform which will reduce pressure on the Electoral Commission, take the pressure off its computers and serve the Australian public and those candidates who are waiting for the outcome. It is now 14 years since the Hawke government's overhaul of Australia's electoral laws, and the introduction of disclosure of funding for election campaigns, which seems to have agitated the opposition and some others a little. When this measure was introduced, the then Special Minister of State, the Hon. Kim Beazley, argued that: It is essential for public confidence in the political process that no suggestion of favours returned for large donations can be sustained. The disclosure provisions which Labor put in place, however, did not actually target such donations; it targeted donations at a much lower level. The provisions originally required that donations to political parties of anything more than $1,000 a year be disclosed to the AEC. That amount has been increased to only $1,500 over the ensuing 14 years—and this has been despite significant changes in general prices and in the scope and cost of election campaigning which have occurred over the period. Contrary to what some have said, the essential point is that the requirement has placed an unreasonable and unnecessary administrative burden on all political parties—and our sympathies go out to the Labor Party as well—and particularly on party volunteers in local branches. The changes proposed by the bill are threefold. The first will increase from $1,500 to $10,000 the amount above which a donor to a registered political party must furnish a return for a financial year. The second is that political parties will be required to disclose a total amount of $5,000 or more, rather than the current $1,500, received from a person or organisation in a financial year. The third will be a change in the way of calculating the total amount received by a political party. The amounts are certainly in line with current financial price levels. I think any suggestion that government decisions could be influenced by donations of the magnitude that would remain undisclosed under the new thresholds is quite simply ludicrous. I honestly do not think that even the Labor Party, having been involved in politics for a fair while, is capable of taking it seriously. The Labor Party and others may choose to oppose this change for their own political reasons, but they cannot realistically argue that threshold changes of this magnitude will lead to corruption or will compromise Australian democracy. A further worthwhile change made by the bill is the provision for salutation and other details. As a former state director of the Victorian Liberal Party, and being reasonably sensitive to the technological advances that are available, I have been a keen user of personalised letters in keeping in touch with my constituents in Kooyong. This has allowed me to contact them on issues of concern and offer them assistance if they should need it. I believe this kind of communication, which is really the only way to reach the entire electorate, is very important to effective representation and, in turn, to effective government. One issue that consistently raises its head is that of salutation. I think this also applies to other honourable members. Unfortunately, the current legislation allows members of parliament to receive names, addresses and enrolment details from the Electoral Commission but not salutation details. Such letters sent out on this basis cause some annoyance amongst my constituents—and I should think some other people's constituents—particularly amongst older members of the community for whom proper address is very important. This bill will enable members of parliament in communicating with their constituents to provide the proper salutation. I think it will enhance the process of representation and consultation between members and their constituents. The last item I want to raise briefly in this debate, particularly given the shortness of time due to quorums, is that of compulsory voting. As many honourable members are aware, one of the more revolutionary recommendations of the standing committee's report on the 1996 election was that section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and section 45 of the Referendum Act and related provisions providing for compulsory voting at federal elections and referenda be repealed. The government in its formal response to the report did not take up this recommendation, stating that it did not believe that voluntary voting should be considered at this time. While my position on voluntary voting is not a secret, I think it is worth while putting on record in this place my fundamental misgivings about any moves away from compulsory voting in Australia. Compulsory voting has the support of the vast majority of Australians. Indeed, every opinion poll taken on the issue since 1953 has shown support of at least 60 per cent for the retention of the current system. (Quorum formed) One only needs to look at the recent US congressional elections to see how far participation dropped under voluntary voting. Voter turnout was about 38 per cent, and political analysts in the US were calling the election a `turnout election', one determined not by policies but by the parties' relative success in getting their core voters to vote. Irresistible arguments would be needed to justify taking such risks with Australian democracy. I am afraid those arguments simply are not there. 17:29:00 1182 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND JK6 Barton ALP 0 0 —I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . It is perhaps regrettable that a quorum was called when the member for Kooyong was making such enlightened and, indeed, informed comments, based on his previous experience as an official in the Liberal Party, regarding compulsory voting. Indeed, the figure of only 38 per cent participation in the United States shows the risk to the system when the people do not feel as though they have ownership of the political process. The matters I wish to raise in my speech are essentially threefold, and they are: the right of prisoners to vote, the proposals for verification of enrolment and the disclosure requirement for political donations. Firstly, in respect of the voting rights of prisoners, currently under the electoral act someone convicted of an offence carrying a penalty of more than a five-year prison sentence is prohibited from voting. This amendment seeks to move that forward to day one. Anyone convicted and sentenced to a term of penal servitude of any length will be disenfranchised. We say that is of concern. It raises fundamental human rights issues, and I will address those. Indeed, it may very well be that the amendment itself is unconstitutional. The High Court has on a number of occasions adumbrated the principle of responsible government and said, indeed, that that principle is implicit, as one would hope, in our constitution. For instance last month, in Egan v. Willis, the High Court reaffirmed those principles. The High Court referred to previous authorities including a 1926 quote from Justice Isaacs, who said, `The constitution is for the advancement of representative government'—which we would all accept—and a passage from a judgment of Sir Samuel Griffith who stated that the effect of responsible government: . . . is that the actual government of the State is conducted by officers who enjoy the confidence of the people. Obviously, we would understand that. The High Court went on to say: That confidence is ultimately expressed or denied by the operation of the electoral process, and the attitudes of electors to the conduct of the Executive may be a significant determinant of the contemporary practice of responsible government. So what we are talking about is this concept of `responsible government'. Section 7 and section 24 of the constitution refer to senators and members, respectively, being `directly chosen by the people'. So who is included in `the people' and who is excluded from that concept is the issue that has to be considered and may well be considered in a High Court challenge. At the time of Federation, the High Court specifically contemplated that some people would be excluded from the electoral process. Section 25 related to race. Many women in this day and age would be horrified to appreciate that section 128 recognised that female adult suffrage was not universal, although it acknowledged the possibility for women to be given the vote—as, indeed, they fortunately were. But, against those exclusions from the franchise, there is no constitutional provision enabling the exclusion from voting entitlements as a result of penal servitude. That is to be compared, for instance, to section 44 which specifically excludes people from holding elected office as a member of parliament or a senator if they have been convicted of an offence carrying a sentence in excess of 12 months jail. So, on the one hand, we have these express provisions where people are excluded from either voting or representing the people of Australia and, on the other hand, we have silence in respect of prisoners. So there is an issue on the very terms of the constitution. But, in recent years, the High Court in McGinty v. the State of Western Australia considered this concept of responsible government in analysing the alleged Western Australian gerrymander of the electoral process. Mr Stephen Smith interjecting— JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —My friend the member for Perth says it is not alleged at all, it exists, and I think that is probably the case. But the High Court considered this concept of responsible government. A couple of passages are relevant. Justice Brennan said: In view of the fact that the franchise has historically expanded in scope, it is at least arguable that qualifications of age, sex, race and property which limited the franchise in earlier times could not now— that is, in this day and age— be reimposed so as to deprive a citizen of the right to vote. The question becomes: would penal servitude now be included in that list? And it is quite possible and certainly arguable that it would be included within those comments if thought was given to it. Justice Dawson, citing previous authority, said: The principle of representative democracy does indeed predicate the enfranchisement of electors, the existence of an electoral system capable of giving effect to their selection of representatives and the bestowal of legislative functions upon the representatives thus selected. So removing in totality everyone who has been convicted of an offence carrying a period of penal servitude is far too broad and removes a not insignificant number of Australians, both men and women, from the electoral process. Now that may be such an impediment or reduction in representative democracy that it could well be challenged in the High Court. Mr Slipper interjecting— JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —Anyone convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of more than five years would have been removed under the current legislation, but bringing it all the way forward may be more likely to result in a challenge. Indeed, I will refer to a Canadian authority where the blanket across-the-board exclusion of two years was held to be far too broad for the purpose for which the exclusion was intended, that is, to exclude people who had committed serious crimes. But, in addition to those provisions of the constitution to which I have referred in the context of those High Court authorities, there is also authority that the constitution has to be construed in light of common law principles including international norms as reflected in international treaties and conventions. In that context, article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights relevantly states: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions . . . and without unreasonable restrictions . . . And it goes on— To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage . . . Two informed commentators on the effect of that convention, Fitzgerald and Zoenkowski, in respect of that provision have said: . . . the denial of the right of convicted persons is a distinction based on their legal status as convicted persons and, consequently, runs counter to the spirit and indeed the letter of the Covenant . . . Criminal conviction does not impair one's ability to make rational voting choices. So you have all those things weighing up and suggesting the possibility of a challenge and, indeed, a viable argument as to why this provision is unconstitutional, and may well occur. A similar exclusion was considered quite recently by the Federal Court of Canada and was upheld on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court held that the exclusion from voting of anyone convicted of an offence carrying a penalty of two or more years imprisonment was contrary to the Canadian charter of rights. The court said that such exclusion breached the charter because it applied generally to all offenders and there was no discretion vested in the courts to determine whether the exclusion should be applied in specific cases; and that the retributive effect of the provision hindered the rehabilitation of offenders and their successful reintegration into the community. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —The Canadian law is different. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —The Canadian law is based on a charter of rights, but I have gone through our High Court principles, talking about the concept of representative democracy in the context of international conventions. There is at the very least an argument that that is unconstitutional; certainly, there is a powerful argument that it is contrary to the desire to rehabilitate and reintegrate persons convicted of offences and sentenced to imprisonment. It is not trivial. For instance, particularly around the time of election campaigns, there can be civil protests on any number of issues, such as Jabiluka or forestry. Such civil protests can result in arrests and people being locked up. In a democratic system it is quite inappropriate to have those people disenfranchised for such trivial offences. In addition, this measure is going to penalise the more transient of our population, particularly Aboriginals. There is absolutely no doubt that it will significantly affect the electorate of the Northern Territory and, for various reasons, a lot of people from non-English speaking backgrounds. The very concept of excluding people on the basis of penal servitude of even trivial duration is one which is of great concern. The issue of verification of identity is also of great concern to the Labor Party. I was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Labor minority report found that the views of the Electoral Commission really covered the situation. The commission, in their submission to us, stated: . . . any scheme which required the production by electors of documents such as birth certificates or passports could well constitute a very substantial imposition on the voters themselves. A requirement to produce birth certificates could see voters paying out over $100 million. It is likely that such a scheme would be strongly—and validly—criticised as making people pay for the right to vote. While the effect this would have on voters could be ameliorated if the Commonwealth were to bear the cost of issuing such necessary documents as birth certificates, this would represent a considerable charge on the federal budget. People in those situations would include people in nursing homes. How do they retrieve such documentation from their households? Granted, some may have relatives who will retrieve those for them; many will not. In the community of the Northern Territory there would be many in the population who do not walk around with a wallet, let alone their birth certificate or some other evidence of identity. People from non-English speaking backgrounds who have recently migrated to Australia may have difficulty in obtaining the relevant documentation. All kinds of people who are very much affected by social or economic disadvantage in the political process will be prejudiced by the requirement to have this documentary evidence. Saying that this measure is going to prevent fraud is laughable. If someone is intent on committing electoral fraud, it is easy enough in this day and age to go to any of the computers in our electoral offices, certainly any home computer. As Michael Holmes, the Director of the New South Wales Police Commercial Crime Group said: . . . high quality desktop publishing technology has enabled offenders to easily turn out everything from forged citizenship and birth certificates and driver's licences to income tax assessment notices. The Electoral Commission themselves said that the cost imposed on voters could be about $100 million. Measured against the downside of the equation, which the legislation is attempting to prevent, the cost is not justified. It is a matter of great concern to the Labor Party that this measure will, in particular, disadvantage the more underprivileged, under-resourced members of the community, for whom which government is in power is of vital importance. The final point that I would like to raise relates to my concern that the government did not support recommendation 47 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which was: That the Electoral Act and the Broadcasting Act be amended to prohibit during election periods, "misleading statements of fact" in electoral advertisements published by any means. It is a concern because the government advocated truth in political advertising when they were in opposition, and in government they have been guilty of false advertising. For instance, in the aborted Wik native title campaign there was a photo of Aboriginals sitting under a humpy and a map of Australia with brown shading on it which had to be withdrawn because they were misleading. Mr Nairn interjecting— JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —My friend refers to other political ads of the Labor Party. They were withdrawn because there is an informal mechanism in place, whether it is FACTS or whether it is the publisher of an individual newspaper. But when it comes to pamphlets, for instance, there is no such overseeing body. Mr Nairn interjecting— JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —Again, my friend complains about material put out against him. Without commenting on that at all, I will say that, unfortunately, a feature of modern campaigning is that it is becoming last-minute. In the last week of the campaign in my electorate, letterboxes were massively inundated with pamphlets by the Liberal Party and my opponent. In the two days before the election, my opponent falsely asserted that I had made a deal with the One Nation candi date to exchange preferences in my electorate—which was indeed false—and I engaged lawyers as a result of that imputation. In fact, the only deal I made for the exchange of preferences was with a representative of the Unity Party, and, as the election day proved, it was a two-sided One Nation ticket. Because that statement was made two days before the election, it deprived me of the opportunity of correcting the record. This sort of tactic is happening around Australia and, if it remains unchecked, it has the ability to really impede the democratic process. An assertion, depending on how dramatic or untrue it is, could really determine the outcome in crucial electorates. If we, as responsible members of parliament, allow that to continue to occur unchecked, we are going to see some pretty horrific circumstances. So recommendation 47 is something that the government should give immediate attention to. Finally, with respect to the plan to increase the threshold for disclosure of political donations from $1,500 to $5,000, the member for Kooyong said in his analysis that $5,000 is hardly likely to influence a political party. But the political party can give $4,999 in each state of Australia, so effectively you are getting to just under $45,000 before any disclosure is required. That amount is not insignificant and certainly could influence a party's position on a particular issue. We have to bear in mind that we are in an era where greater outsourcing is occurring, and there has to be a perception in the community that contracts are being awarded on the basis of merit and not on the basis of the power of a chequebook. If you are allowing singular donations of $5,000, which are really collective when spread around Australia, a total of just under $45,000 comes into play, voters cannot be assured that undisclosed contributions have not had a part in the awarding of government contracts or tenders. That is unnecessary and we oppose it. Those are my concerns. There are measures in the bill that we support, but those concerns are pretty fundamental because they affect prisoners, the underprivileged—who are unlikely to have identification on them—and the conduct of the electoral process itself. (Time expired) 17:49:00 1186 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY HK6 Herbert LP 1 0 —I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 this afternoon because I believe more fraud has been committed in my electorate on the electoral roll of Australia than in any other electorate in this country. I am pleased to see the major provisions that the government is presenting to the parliament today. Some of them certainly will go a long way to stopping the fraud that has occurred in the city of Townsville and Thuringowa over the last two or three years. There are some major provisions which are very good indeed. One of them requires new electors to produce one original form of identification at the time of enrolment. The member for Eden-Monaro earlier made the observation that it is easy to produce a form of identification. Currently, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can go down to the Electoral Commission and say that I am you, and I can have you moved off your electoral roll and into my electorate—just at the drop of a false signature. That is simply what has been done in the fraud that has occurred in Herbert. I have seen examples of many electors who have been moved off electoral rolls in one electorate, without their knowledge, and onto electoral rolls in other areas. Certainly many other areas of the community require identification, and there is no reason why, to preserve the integrity of the electoral roll of this country, we also should not require proper identification. Another provision of this bill is that a person witnessing an enrolment application must be an elector in a prescribed class of persons. That simply further tightens the integrity of the roll, and I think it deserves full support. The provision that all electors must notify the Australian Electoral Commission of a change of address within one month of moving is also sensible. At the last election I found that I had thousands of provisional votes cast. Why does that happen? It happens because people are not meeting their responsibilities in relation to notifying the Electoral Commission of their current address. I think it is eminently sensible that we require people, if they wish to have their names recorded on the electoral roll, to do what is necessary and notify the Electoral Commission if they move. The other thing I note in my electorate is that, whenever I do a mailout, almost 10 per cent of it comes back unclaimed. How could that be? A reason could be that people simply move and do not change their records. We have to fix that because, while that situation exists, it opens opportunities for fraud, and the people of Australia deserve an electoral system where the possibility of fraud is minimised. This bill also allows for the provision of date of birth and salutation details of electors to be recorded. In Queensland, we are very fortunate that we already have date of birth recorded, and I find that very useful in my parliamentary duties. We do not have salutation recorded. In relation to salutation, many of us would know that, when we write to an 85-year-old Mrs and we call her Ms, the wrath of that household comes down upon us. You then have the problem where Mrs, who we called Ms, might in fact be a Miss. To tidy this up is a very sensible thing to do, and it will be widely welcomed by all members of parliament, I believe. On the matter of providing that only the presiding officer at a polling place may assist electors in marking their ballot papers, I draw your attention to what has happened on Palm Island in my electorate. At the last election, I was out polled by the informal party. How could that be? I also have certain evidence in relation to ballot papers being marked by other people, by people with cartons of XXXX beer in their hand. These sorts of things have to stop. It happened in the electorate of Leichhardt in Cape York. Some very suspicious things happened at the last election. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —Tell us about the Northern Territory. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Yes, the member for Fisher correctly indicates the Northern Territory. That has to stop. We have to have people whom we can trust in our community where assistance is needed and, undoubtedly, assistance is needed to get a ballot paper marked correctly. It is such a sad shame that you can get so many informal votes being recorded. Finally, I wholeheartedly support the provision that states preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes may commence on the Monday prior to polling day. It certainly helps to move the count along and get the result of a count quicker. In my case, where I spent too much money campaigning and won by 150 votes—I should have spent less money because you need to win by only one vote—I think it is sensible, after waiting for some two weeks for these declaration votes to be collected, checked and so on, to start the Monday prior to polling day so we can move the result along much quicker. The member for Melbourne said earlier that there was no fraud on the Labor side of things. I refer the parliament to one Andy Keogh, who pleaded guilty in Townsville earlier this year to just that—electoral fraud. He was a member of the Labor Party who was manipulating the electoral roll and voting procedures in response to getting a certain person preselected. Later last year, the Townsville Bulletin was full of this sort of information where two very high profile Labor members were charged with electoral fraud. Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting— HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Thanks, and we get people like former Councillor Shane Foster, who pleaded guilty. It was on the front page of the Bulletin , `I'm guilty, Foster admits electoral forgery, agrees to testify against former Councillor Karen Ehrmann' and so on. Ultimately, Foster won, which was not before time. So we have the situation where Shane Foster pleaded guilty to 22 counts of electoral forgery and Karen Ehrmann has been ordered to stand trial now on 64 counts of electoral forgery after pleading not guilty. (Quorum formed) Calling a quorum is not going to stop me putting on the public record the disgraceful electoral fraud that the Labor Party have been committing in the seat of Herbert. Electoral enrolments have been manipulated using false addresses, signatures and other details. Labor's voting lists were based on the official electoral roll, so to rig the electoral roll helped those voting lists. Records produced by the prosecution showed that one person was overseas when they apparently applied for electoral enrolment in Townsville. How could that happen in the current system? The court has heard of another man who has allegedly enrolled three times in Townsville in 1993 and 1994, even though social security records showed he was clearly living in Perth. How could that be? In other examples, one house in Eura Court, Mount Louisa was apparently used as an address for six false enrolments, as were houses in Ross Street, North Ward and William and Perry streets in West End. I will not comment on former Councillor Karen Ehrmann's situation because her case is still outstanding and I would not want to prejudice it in any way. However, the now former Townsville City Councillor Shane Foster has pleaded guilty to 22 counts of electoral fraud. I was stunned at the length of time Mr Foster took to step down from his position on the council following his admission of guilt. He wanted to stay there, on the public purse, taking the money from the city council, when he clearly admitted his guilt in relation to electoral fraud. The constituents of division 6, who now go to the polls this weekend because this councillor was forced to resign to elect another representative, deserve much better than they received from Mr Foster and the Labor Party in the electoral fraud that was perpetrated on the citizens of Townsville. I am pleased to say that at the election on Saturday we are pleased to offer a candidate who has integrity, who is honest and who will work hard for the constituents of division 6. I would like the people of Townsville to recognise with their vote that they do not want to see this electoral fraud occurring in this country. It will cost the Townsville City Council $40,000 to have a by-election in the division. It is the second one this year. Earlier this year we had to have a by-election in division 5 because former Councillor Steve Wilson had to stand down and flee to London because of the allegations that were being made. This is the Labor Party being fraudulent with the electoral roll. I was stunned at the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in this matter, particularly at the antics of Labor Premier Peter Beattie. Shortly following the Queensland state election it was revealed that a member of Mr Beattie's government was facing potential criminal charges. I was stunned, as many people were, at how fast the Premier called on that member to resign, even though no charges had been laid. Compare this with the situation of Councillor Shane Foster, another member of the Labor Party who had actually pleaded guilty to the criminal charges of electoral fraud. What did we get from the Premier and the other Labor Party members? Nothing. They let him stay there. It was amazing. It took public pressure to make sure that this person stood down and did the right thing. The by-election this Saturday at $40,000 would not ever have occurred if the changes that are being proposed in this bill had been law in the last 12 months, two years. It would not have been possible to have fraudulently rigged the Australian electoral roll in the manner in which it was done in Townsville if these measures had been the law at that time. So I am very pleased to support the position that is being put to the parliament today by the government. The changes to the Electoral Act that we have introduced today will help put a stop to the incidence of electoral fraud in Australia. I hope that the Australian Labor Party will support these changes. As the electoral matters committee said, it is unacceptable that the most fundamental transaction between an Australian citizen and a government—that being the act of choosing a government or an elected representative in an election—is subject to a much lower level of security than such things as opening a bank account or applying for a passport or a driving licence— OK6 NAIRN Mr Nairn —Joining a video shop. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Or even, as the member for Eden-Monaro says, joining a video shop. Protecting the integrity of our electoral system is absolutely critical. How else can we expect voters to have any faith in our democratic process? As the member for Fisher pointed out in his second reading speech, under the Electoral Act in its present form it is remarkably easy to place on the roll a dead person's name, a false name, a non-citizen or a person who is not yet 18— 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —They all vote. 0V5 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —And they all vote. In addition, the enrolment could have a fake or false address. That has very clearly been the case in Townsville in many of the Labor Party preselection situations that have gone on there which have been outright fraud. I am certainly serious about supporting a measure that will help stamp out that electoral fraud. I do not want to see it in my city any longer. I do not want to see it in Australia. All of us should be strongly supportive of this measure. We should send a strong message to the people of Australia that we are fair dinkum about making sure that the electoral roll maintains its integrity. For that reason, I certainly support the bill. 18:07:00 1189 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 —The member for Herbert, the previous speaker, concentrated on allegations, and some of them were obviously proven, in regard to the internal affairs of the Labor Party, preselection issues, et cetera. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is essentially about the bona fides, the validity, of our Australian electoral enrolment process. I do not think it is all that relevant that in the Cook conflict in the Liberal Party in New South Wales there were a number of allegations about the way in which the previous member was purged. It is irrelevant that the previous member for Stirling on a large number of occasions made allegations against Senator Crichton-Browne in regard to the stacking of branches in the Stirling electorate. It is irrelevant to this point today that the conservative wing of the Liberal Party last weekend apparently walked out of the state council after selection ballots for its MLC tickets. It is irrelevant to the process that we are talking about here today for the member for Longman to make allegations about the internal affairs of the Queensland Liberal Party. These are not issues in regard to transparency and the performance of the electoral rolls. The rolls of the internal affairs of each party have got nothing whatsoever to do with the enrolment processes. The chairman of the inquiry is sitting opposite. The previous member for Griffith stated during the inquiry that he had done some personal analysis of the roll of the seat of Lindsay in Sydney and he came up with thousands of people with different surnames living in the same home. In 1998 that is quite understandable in some cases. No evidence whatsoever was produced throughout this entire inquiry to say that there is massive fraud in this country. You have heard them. Not one of them opposite has been able to produce from this inquiry, which they conducted and on which they had a majority, one item of evidence whatsoever, one statistic, one electorate—no evidence whatsoever—as to the need for this legislation. HK6 LINDSAY Mr Lindsay —It's all here. 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I have just made the point that what occurs in the internal ballots of each party and what occurs in their membership rolls has nothing to do with the operation of the Australian Electoral Commission and those rules. What is really being attempted here today, as the chairman well knows as the architect of this process, is a larger process to discourage people from participating in our political system. That goes against the spirit of what has happened in this country since the 1920s, at the latest. Both sides of politics in that era essentially said that they wanted people to participate. They wanted people to get on the rolls. They wanted to make it mandatory, they wanted to make it compulsory, that people enrolled and voted. They wanted to encourage people. This country has had very liberal laws in regard to citizenship. We do not, as in Germany, deny people citizenship because they are not of German blood. We do not have laws, as one of the Baltic countries does, that require people to speak a particular language to become citizens. This country has always said that we want people to feel they are part of the process and they can participate and be in it. The current government essentially has made a determination that there are particular characteristics of people that indicate whether they are more likely to vote or not. It has looked at a variety of US material in particular, which has convinced it that people with lower educational accomplishment, people on lower incomes and people who move more often—and this is crucial—are less likely to vote for it historically. So we see in the process of this inquiry's determinations and the legislation that has come through a series of measures to make sure fewer people vote, to make sure that fewer people go through the process and do not get frustrated. That is what it is about. It is not just this measure here today; there is a variety of measures. The coalition toyed around with abolishing compulsory voting, but they found that it was too controversial on their side of politics. The Leader of the National Party, the former director of the Victorian party who sits in this House and many others said that that was a very strong gesture against Australian democracy. They have come up with concepts such as we should go back to subdivisional voting, as operates in the Northern Territory and Kalgoorlie, to basically disenfranchise a large number of other people on technicalities such as the fact that they are on the wrong side of the street—therefore, if they go to a polling booth, they will have difficulty voting. They have talked about enrolment and they have talked about identification. All these measures have one essential direction—to discourage people. Mr Slipper interjecting— 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I have given a variety of measures. They are not all to do with the integrity of the roll, but they all have one common purpose, one common defining initiative—to essentially make sure people do not participate. As I said, throughout this inquiry there was no evidence whatsoever. The government had the opportunity to run this inquiry. It conducted it. It could call all the witnesses it wanted. But if you go through this report, you see no statistics whatsoever to bear out its point. Another way in which the government is attempting to essentially make sure fewer people participate is the roll changes—the fact that people will have a shorter period of time to become enrolled. As the minority report of this inquiry noted, there is an understandable upswing of enrolments in an election period. Who in Australia doubts that there is going to be more focus, more interest and more coverage of elections and politics in the election period? Of course there is. Of course people are going to get off their backsides and enrol. We all know that. There is going to be a heightened interest and people are going to say, `I had better get around to changing my enrolment. I'd better get around to making sure that I am on the rolls to vote.' For instance, in the four months before the 1996 election 440,000 people enrolled. That was the monthly average after the election as well. It is far higher than the average for the rest of that year and far higher than the average for the three-year cycle bar the election period. So not only were there more people enrolling in the pre-election period once the election was called but there were people coming on the rolls in the weeks afterwards. So we are saying that it is understandable that a large number—higher than the rest of the year or the year before—go on the rolls. Once again there was no evidence whatsoever from those opposite. There were 440,000 Australians who acted in the period. The figures for a wider period are not that far out of kilter. There were 2,380,000 enrolment alterations in the period 1995-96—so nearly 2½ million people changed their enrolment in 1995-96. Of those, 800,000 were first-time voters and 1,400,000 were transfers. So once again this attempt to limit the period when people can get on the rolls has the same thrust, it is going in the same direction. It is essentially wanting to make sure that people can be inconvenienced as far as possible—younger voters in particular, people who are itinerant and people who move home more often—trying to make sure they find it difficult to get on the rolls. Mr Slipper interjecting— 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I believe it totally and I think the case has been strongly borne out by the inquiry's outcome and by the failure of the majority to get evidence for the allegations they were making. There has been no evidence whatsoever of fraud. I will be pleased to hear the member opposite citing the material that this committee uncovered during its investigations. The other matter I want to raise is the less popular issue of prisoner voting. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —Do you think prisoners should have the right to vote? 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Yes, I do think that prisoners should have the right to vote in this country. The thrust of this one is quite crude populism. 9K6 GAMBARO Ms Gambaro —You don't believe that, do you? 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I do. If you look at the history of New South Wales, you might find that the conservative side of politics introduced that state's original fairly liberal provisions in regard to prisoner rights. I fundamentally believe that people in prisons should not be ostracised in society and should not be denied a participatory role. There is now a situation in the United States where over one million people are in gaols and one-tenth of blacks end up in gaols in their lifetime. There are states bringing in laws on the right to execute juniors as well as the issue emerging of using chain gangs. That is another danger of this system: you have people facing a far harsher climate of penal servitude, harsher laws, and you are eroding their rights to have any say in the process—one million Americans are now in gaols. The proportion of people in gaols in Australia is far lower. In the report of the inquiry we cite the 1994 prison census. That elucidates one major point, and that is the over-representation of Aboriginals in gaols in this country. The report refers to the 1994 figures where 15,000 people were in gaols in this country and 12 per cent of them were Aboriginal. The latest figures from the 1997 census indicate that 18¾ per cent of those people in the gaols of this country were Aboriginals. We should not be surprised that those opposite would not be too keen to widen Aboriginal participation in the voting system when we recall that one of their first initiatives after coming to power in this particular sphere of politics and public administration was to abolish the Aboriginal electoral education scheme. That was the one of their first gestures, one of their first cost cutting exercises. So it comes as no surprise that, for a proportion of the population that are particularly over-represented in our gaols, this government would seek to deprive them of voting rights. Let us go through the kinds of reasons that these people are in gaol—those people whom the government seeks to deprive of voting rights. Looking at the 1994 figures, of the 15,000 people in gaol in this country, 574 were in there for traffic offences, 237 were in there for licence registration offences, 187 were in there for property and environment offences—I would guess environmental issues such as those being fought out in Western Australia at the moment—and 956 were in there for government security/justice procedure offences, which were committed by Aboriginals in particular and to a large degree related to street offences. The Australia: facts and figures 1998 document gives the figures for last year's prison population: 20 per cent of people are in there for less than a year and 18.4 per cent for five to 10 years. It is not as though these people are going to affect the Australian political outcome. The total number who voted in 1996, from recollection, is in the area of 700. Those who voted within the electorates where they are enrolled in prisons itself were in the area of 310, and at this last election it went to 348. So there is a very insignificant number of people who do bother to vote. Very few of them decide to participate. But to send a signal to them that they are fundamentally rejected from society and from participating in the same processes is not the way to go. Mr Slipper interjecting— 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —It is quite interesting that those over here profess crocodile tears about the people who go to gaol because they do not vote in our political system—in 1996, I think 40 people went to gaol because they did not vote in elections— these are amongst the group of people that, even if they chose to be interested in the system, would not be allowed to vote. They went to gaol because of their convictions. Mr Slipper interjecting— 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —You will not be able to bring in voluntary voting because, quite frankly, you cannot get it across the majority in your side of politics and you well know that. In conclusion, the current government is going to go further down this road. The measures it will initiate in this next parliament include a move to toughen up on provisional voting and an attempt to try to reduce the degree to which people can assist voters—once again, a very partisan initiative that they are foreshadowing. Regarding provisional voting, they have apparently made some analysis that the people in this category vote very strongly for Labor. They are very disturbed about the outcome in the Northern Territory so they are now going to bring in measures to reduce the participation of Aboriginals once again by not allowing them to be helped by other people. Mr Slipper interjecting— 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —They just throw these allegations of fraud around with no evidence whatsoever. The whole thrust of this legislation is to try to discourage people from voting by making it difficult for them. We even had the suggestion in the inquiry about bringing in more evidence as to who you are on election day and that kind of thing. The whole purpose is to make sure that hundreds of thousands of Australians do not vote. Whether you can kick them out by making it harder for them to enrol and by limiting the time they can do it in during election periods, whether you can increase the specifications as to how they can sign the documents, whether you can demand that people have evidence of who they are on election day or whether you can force them to go to the other end of the electorate because they are in the wrong subdivision—all of these have one single direction, one single objective, and that is to decrease— Mr Slipper interjecting— 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —`The integrity of the electoral roll'—they keep saying this. I am going to wait in my room to hear the honourable member making it very clear to this parliament and to the people of Australia exactly what evidence this inquiry produced on the issue—none whatsoever. 18:21:00 1192 Gambaro, Teresa, MP Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Petrie LP 1 0 —I rise tonight to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . This bill seeks to implement a number of the recommendations that arose from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, as some of the previous members have stated, on the conduct of the 1996 election. It was originally introduced into the last parliament. It went into the Senate in the winter sittings this year. It was then referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee, which tabled its report on 23 June. The bill was to be debated but, unfortunately, parliament was dissolved for the 1998 election. That being the case, the bill lapsed and was reintroduced by the minister, Senator Ellison, on 26 November 1998. Mr Slipper interjecting— 9K6 Gambaro, Teresa, MP Ms GAMBARO —I thank the member for Fisher. It was quite interesting to hear the member for Reid say, `Show us the proof of electoral fraud.' I am really happy that he made that comment, because I would like to share with the House an incident that happened to me on election day. Perhaps this will give him the proof that he is looking for. As a candidate, I was doing the rounds of the polling booths on election day. I visited a number of polling booths. I came across two people within the space of 15 minutes who had voted at one polling booth and were clearly going into another polling booth and were going to vote again. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —Voting early and often. 9K6 Gambaro, Teresa, MP Ms GAMBARO —They were voting early and often, as the member for Fisher says. Exactly. When I saw these people a second time at the second polling booth, I questioned them about their actions and what they were doing. It was absolutely amazing because, on questioning, they feigned mental incompetence and scrambled away. If the member for Reid is looking for further proof of electoral fraud, here is a blatant example. I can show him just one example. The bill has a number of provisions that go a very long way to improving the Australian electoral system. It is all about improving the system. Why is he always against improving the system? I do not understand it. What is wrong with electors having some form of identification? This is overdue. It strikes me as somewhat lax on the part of the Commonwealth that, until the introduction of this bill, an individual was not required to show identification upon enrolment. It should not be difficult to understand this. I point out to the member for Reid that when you open a bank account you need identification. I believe that that speaks volumes about the need for reform in this area. It is very strange that the members opposite oppose such a move. The argument, it appears, is that if there is such a requirement, it will discourage people from enrolling to vote and that that should be opposed. I agree with the point that the more people who are enrolled to vote, the better it is for Australian democracy. I cannot, however, concur with the idea that the Commonwealth should somehow allow people to enrol without some form of original identification. How hard is it for a person to have some sort of original identification on them when they enrol? It is not very hard at all. It is obviously far too hard for the members opposite to understand this. In fact, judging by their public position on this provision, it would be very safe to conclude that Labor members do not rent videos and they certainly do not have bank accounts. No doubt the country would be in very good hands should they ever get on the Treasury benches once again, because these members cannot even prove their identity. It sounds like they will not change from their current ideological policy void for a very long time. I personally believe that we need to go one step further. We need to assign the use of identification in the electoral process. It was very interesting to hear the member for Melbourne talk about the Liberal Party's conspiracy theories. The member for Reid feels that we are against giving people a fair go. He clearly gave a number of examples of prisoners, which I will get on to in a short while. It is absolutely imperative that we have some presentation of original ID upon enrolment and at the polling booth on election day. The member for Melbourne also raised the issue of problems that migrants have in obtaining original identification so that they can enrol to vote. When migrants become Australian citizens, they are presented with their citizenship certificate or what is called an evidentiary certificate. It proves that they have citizenship. There is nothing wrong with showing the certificate. We show drivers licences and birth certificates. This is a very good measure that I am strongly in favour of. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —The AEC is often there when citizenship is taken out. 9K6 Gambaro, Teresa, MP Ms GAMBARO —Absolutely. As the member for Fisher has pointed out, the AEC is quite often at citizenship ceremonies, and for very good reason. It might place a small burden on the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to provide such information, but it is the price of preventing electoral fraud in Australia. I say that we should do it. It is a cost that we should bear for integrity. To hear the Labor Party criticise the government for a measure that may incur an extra cost on the Commonwealth is a bit rich, considering its record. I heard earlier the member for Reid talking about the internal squabblings of the Liberal Party. It is really rich to hear that from him. As the member for Melbourne also knows, some of his Victorian Labor mates are only concerned with stacking their branches and voting at Labor preselections et cetera. Some of those people may not be able to vote at federal or state elections if they do not have some sort of identification. Clearly, that is something we need to look at. The only conclusion that can be drawn from Labor's position is that it is not really interested in preventing electoral fraud in this country. Along similar lines, the provision requiring electors to notify the Australian Electoral Commission of their change of address within one month of moving will hopefully speed up the process of maintaining up-to-date, clean electoral rolls. During my campaign, I must have received thousands of these returned letters to my office from residents where the occupants had failed to notify a change of address. God forbid, I have moved home about seven times in my life. When people move home, you notify the councils of your change of address. You also notify the electricity authority. You notify the bank of your change of address. How difficult is it to notify the Electoral Commission of your change of address? It is not difficult. The way that the AEC has been notified of these changes is, quite often, through the efforts of many members in this House in sending the return mail to the divisional returning officer. If the AEC divisional offices are as busy as those in my electorate, they are absolutely overworked, particularly in the lead-up to elections. It is grossly unfair to put on the officers of the Australian Electoral Commission the type of stresses that they are placed under. Clearly, in elections a number of people are also away from the electorate. They may be travelling interstate et cetera. So it is very important that we inform the divisional officer of that information. I am informed that he writes to the person twice to ensure that that person is struck off the roll. The provision in this bill which provides that electors must notify the AEC of a change of address within one month will hopefully reduce the number of such cases. There is a third provision within the bill I would like to address. It is the provision that any person serving a gaol sentence is not entitled to vote. The member for Reid went on earlier about the fact that we were discriminating against Aboriginal people. All I have to say to the member for Reid is that this particular measure has absolutely wide community support. What about an individual who has committed a particularly heinous crime against society? You talked about traffic infringements. Let us talk about rape. Let us talk about life sentences for murder. Let us talk about homicide. You did not mention those particular cases at all. Those people are allowed to vote. Today I spoke to a director of one such prison who felt that, if someone committed a crime such as this, they should not be entitled to vote. Let us talk about democracy. It places rights and responsibilities on individuals. The most fundamental obligation is to follow the law of the land. If a person cannot follow the law of the land, then they should not have a say for their period of detention on how those laws of the land are made. In other words, straying from the laws of the land should not mean that a person has the right to determine those laws, because they have just flouted those laws. So why should we give people the right to maintain those laws when they have gone totally against those laws? Many in the community would agree with this provision. I call on members opposite to see some sense and to support it. There is one last provision that I think all members, especially those in marginal seats, of which I am definitely one these days, would agree on. I refer to the provision that relates to the preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes on the Monday before polling day. Any move that will increase the pace of the counting of these votes is particularly welcome on my part. I know from the drawn out count I had recently that it is a very tense experience for all those involved, particularly the leading candidates. In the House earlier was the member for Eden-Monaro who would share this with me, as would the member for Herbert. This provision will ensure that more counting can be done more quickly after polling day instead of time being spent checking off signatures. There is one final issue I wish to raise, and that is the issue of the discrepancies at the moment between the Commonwealth and the Queensland legislation on the electoral system. Throughout the recent federal election it came to my attention that many elderly voters were disappointed that they were unable to get what is known in Queensland as an EVV, or an electoral visitor vote. These people were under the impression that they were entitled to these under the federal system, which, of course, they were not. Instead, they were entitled to a postal vote. Similarly, many people in Queensland were very confused on the issue of preferential voting. (Quorum formed) Queensland has an optional preferential voting system. The federal system operates with compulsory preferential voting. Despite the very good public campaign by the Australian Electoral Commission reminding people to number every square, a number of people failed to do so and thus there were votes that were invalid. I believe that Australia's democratic system would be best served by having uniformity between the states and the Commonwealth on electoral matters. While I recognise the difficulty of this, I still believe that this is very much a goal we should aim for. UU5 HORNE Mr Horne —Hear, hear! 9K6 Gambaro, Teresa, MP Ms GAMBARO —I hear the member for Paterson saying, `Hear, hear!' I am glad we agree on that particular issue. While I recognise the difficulties of this, I really feel that we should push for it. It is one issue that goes a very long way to reforming the Commonwealth Electoral and Referendum Act. Reforms in the area I have spoken about here this evening—proof of identity, notification of change of address on the part of the elector, the disqualification of prisoners from voting and the earlier commencement of preliminary scrutiny—make this a bill that will certainly enhance the operation of Australian democracy. I commend the bill to the House. 18:38:00 1195 Lloyd, Jim, MP Mr LLOYD IK6 Robertson LP 1 0 —Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the Speakers' panel. I am sure you will do a great job in that position. I am very pleased to be able to speak tonight on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . It is a very important bill. The democratic electoral process we have in Australia is the envy of most countries in the world. It revolves around the integrity of our electoral process, the integrity of the rolls. The amendment bill is designed to help keep the integrity of our rolls to ensure that the people who are applying to enrol to vote are bona fide, are eligible to vote, and that there is no electoral fraud taking place. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —And they exist. 0V5 Lloyd, Jim, MP Mr LLOYD —And that they exist, that they are real people, as the member for Fisher says. Items 1 and 2 provide that information containing electors' dates of birth and salutations may be provided to members, senators and registered political parties. That may seem a small point, but using the wrong salutation when we write to people can cause much distress to many electors. Older widowed women, in particular, sometimes get distressed when they are called Ms when they are in fact a Mrs. It is difficult for us as members to identify the correct salutation. I commend those items to the House. Items 2 and 4 provide for the use of information from the rolls. This relates to the first two items, ensuring increased penalties for the misuse of electoral information. Items 8 and 9 relate to that as well. These items amend the act to increase the penalty for disclosing or using for commercial purpose, electoral roll information. That is very important. Items 11, 12, 14 and 28, relating to the close of rolls, are consequential to the amendments at items 30 and 31. These amendments provide a postponement period for the purposes of enrolment. The postponement period is the period during which names cannot be added to, or deleted from, the roll as a result of enrolment applications. For electors who have previously been enrolled, the postponement period commences at 8.00 p.m. on the day of the close of rolls and ends at the close of polling. For all other electors—that is, new electors—it is the period commencing at 6.00 p.m. on the day of the issue of the writ and ending at the close of polling. These amendments are very important because, as most members would know, a great influx of people try to get on the rolls once an election has been called, once the writs have been issued. People have an obligation to ensure that they are correctly enrolled, particularly if they move to a new address or turn 18. It is up to people in the Australian community to ensure that that is being done. Previously, people realised that they had that window of opportunity, the seven days before an election, when they could rush to the Australian Electoral Commission to have their name put on the roll. I do not believe that is good enough. To be enrolled to vote in the democratic process is a privilege. Many of our forefathers have died in war to defend our democratic process, our freedoms and our rights, particularly our right to vote. One of the first things Australians should do when they become eligible to vote is make sure that they are correctly enrolled. I do not believe there is any difficulty or impost on people to ensure that they are enrolled before an election. Item 19 provides for the addition of names to rolls. This amendment will provide that a person witnessing an enrolment application must be an elector and be in a class of electors prescribed by the regulations. At the moment, basically anyone, not even someone who is on the roll, can witness an application form for someone to become an elector. There is no checking on who that person is. No form of identification is needed for the witness. You could walk out on the street and grab someone walking past and ask, `Can you sign this form?' There is no checking to see if that person is a bona fide elector or eligible to be on the roll. I believe that is an important addition. Item 20 provides for the verification of identity and citizenship on enrolment. Again, you have heard many speakers in this chamber tonight saying that it is hard to believe that the identification processes for becoming an elector are so open. As many people have said, if you want to hire a video at the local video store you cannot walk in and say whoever you are and hire a video. You need some form of identification, whether it be a credit card or a driver's licence, that shows who you are before you can hire a video. I think you have to accumulate 200 points of identification before you can open a bank account. Virtually every form of transaction you wish to conduct these days in Australia requires some form of identification to prove who you are. Yet the single most important thing that any Australian can do—enrol to be an elector in this great democracy of ours—is so open and so likely to be used in a fraudulent way that it is almost frightening. The process certainly needs to be improved, and item 20 is designed to ensure that people who are applying for enrolment do have some form of identification to prove who they are. Items 30 and 31 refer to the date of the close of rolls. They provide that the date fixed for the close of rolls shall be three working days after the issue of the writ, and the three working days obviously will not include Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays. If people have moved from one electorate to another, that will give them plenty of time to ensure that they are correctly enrolled; currently, as I said before, it is seven days. Some people in this House have tried to stop the process of this bill. The Labor Party has tried the tactic of calling for a quorum to gag this debate because it does not seem to want to support this bill; it does not seem to want to maintain the integrity of the roll. There are people in this House, and there may be people in the community, who say, `Well, surely there is no electoral fraud going on; nobody would do that.' I heard the member for Reid ask earlier, `Where's the evidence?' I am very happy to provide, without any difficulty, some evidence from the 1998 election. When I was first elected, we decided to ensure that the integrity of the roll in Robertson was up to date, and we obviously communicated with the electorate on a regular basis. Through that process we found that, on a roll of 77,000 people, there were over 4,000 who were not eligible to be there—4,000 people whom we had removed from the rolls in Robertson over the first 18 months because they were not eligible to be on the roll. That is very, very worrying. Despite the fact that there are roll reviews, despite the fact that we have ensured, as best we can, that the integrity of the roll is correct, at the last federal election the AEC advised me that 149 people in my electorate voted twice—and, in fact, two people were very keen and voted three times. You wanted evidence? There is evidence from the AEC. Mr Melham interjecting— IK6 Lloyd, Jim, MP Mr LLOYD —Investigations are currently being undertaken into that occurrence. They want evidence? They will get more evidence. Here is a letter from the Australian Electoral Commission. To ensure that there was integrity of the rolls and that they were up to date, we asked the commission to investigate a list of 46 people who unfortunately died within the period of time from the writs being issued until election day. The AEC did check that list of 46 people—and five electors who had died appear to have voted at the 1998 federal election. That is the reason for our needing these reforms, and we need to go further. The 1998 election saw many seats decided by a handful of votes. That is why this legislation is so important. The Australian community wants to have faith, wants to know that the rolls are correct, wants to know that our electoral process is up to date and correct. 4T4 MELHAM Mr Melham —We got 51 per cent of the vote. IK6 Lloyd, Jim, MP Mr LLOYD —The other issue I would raise is that of provisional votes. The member for Petrie mentioned earlier that we need to go further in these electoral reforms, and I believe that we do. In my electorate there were 1,500 provisional votes claimed—1,500 people turned up to vote who were not on the rolls. Of those people's votes, nearly 1,000 were accepted by the Electoral Commission. I do not have a problem with that. I believe it is important that people who find they are not on the roll at the time have an opportunity to cast a vote. But the very least they should have to do is to provide some form of identification. They are not on the roll; they walk in and say who they are and where they live and they say, `I should be on the roll.' If they want to lodge a provisional vote, the very least they should have to do is provide some form of identification. Those opposite asked for evidence, and I believe that I have provided them with more than enough evidence of there being difficulties with the electoral system. I am very pleased that the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) is being debated in this House and I look forward to it proceeding to the Senate. I certainly hope that the Senate will, again, pass this bill and that it comes into law; and that we look forward to making further inquiries and taking some of these amendments a little bit further. I commend the bill to the House. 18:50:00 1197 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 —in reply—Initially, I thank all of those honourable members who have participated in the debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2). It ought to be recognised that there is nothing in Australia that is more important than the integrity of the electoral roll. The amendments currently before the chamber seek to ensure that the integrity of the electoral roll is enhanced and improved. I must say that I was absolutely appalled at the attitude taken by various members of the opposition in opposing these very sensible amendments. These amendments, of course, flow from the recommendations contained in the report by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 election. It is a simple fact of life that, in Australia today, we have effectively what is an `honour system'. People can seek to enrol by simply filling in an enrolment card, and they almost automatically get placed on the electoral roll as voters. The purpose of the legislation currently before the chamber is to ensure that when the result is declared following an election, that result as declared represents the intention of the Australian people as cast on polling day. The reforms proposed in this bill address increasing community concerns about the integrity of the electoral roll and the potential for electoral fraud by requiring new electors to provide proof of identity and proof of citizenship documentation at the time of enrolment by upgrading the witnessing requirements and bringing forward the timing of the close of rolls. There are a number of major provisions contained in the bill which are particularly important. I would like to outline some of them in the chamber. But I must say that we are appalled that the Labor Party has sought to gut the provisions of this bill by declining to support changes which are absolutely essential and which are necessary to restore the confidence of the Australian people in the electoral system. The major provisions of this bill require new electors to produce one original form of identification at the time of enrolment. Who is objecting to that? The Labor Party. No reasonable person in the community does. The bill also provides that a person witnessing an enrolment application must be in a prescribed class of persons. Again, the Labor Party is opposing that. The Labor Party is also against the provision that all electors must notify the Australian Electoral Commission of a change of address within one month of moving. The Labor Party again is opposing the very sensible reform providing for the reduction in the time limit between the issue of the writ and the close of rolls. Following the passage of this legislation, the roll will close at 6 p.m. on the day of the issue of the writ for new enrolments, but existing electors will have three working days to update their enrolment details. The Labor Party support the right of people who are convicted and who are in prison to vote. That is absolutely amazing and incredible. If you go out there and ask the Australian people whether that is an appropriate course of action, they will tell you that people who have committed an offence sufficient to warrant imprisonment have forfeited their right to vote during the time of their incarceration. I listened very carefully to the contributions made by a number of members opposite. The thread running through their speeches was that they were not prepared to stand up and join the government in the very sensible aim of ensuring that only those people who are entitled to vote are able to get their name on the electoral roll. They have also opposed the increase of various dollar amounts in the bill. It ought to be recognised that those dollar amounts are appropriate in 1998 and as we approach the next millennium. There has also been a question raised as to the constitutional possibility of denying prisoners the right to vote. The simple fact of the matter is that if there are some difficulties there—and we do not accept that there are—it is always open to people to challenge the legislation in the courts. The advice that we have is that there is no problem with the bill currently before the chamber. The Labor Party in its legislation restricted the right of some prisoners to vote. I found the contribution made by the member for Barton to be somewhat inconsistent. On the one hand, he seemed to support the current law, which restricted some prisoners, but on the other hand, he argued that prisoners had the right to vote. The Labor Party wanted to increase certain penalties in the legislation. That is simply a stunt. If we find that there are breaches of the law, then we will review the situation at that time. What is contained in the bill is, in the view of the government, fair and reasonable. I believe the honourable member for Calare raised the possibility of weekend detention precluding people from voting. Certainly it is not the intention of the government to exclude from the voting roll and participation in the electoral process those people who are in prison on a weekend detention basis. On this side of the House some very sensible speeches were made by the members for Eden-Monaro, Kooyong, Herbert, Petrie and Robertson. The contributions from the Labor members simply confirmed in my mind that they had no intention of stopping the rorts and the fraud that have occurred in the past—as outlined by government members who spoke just prior to the conclusion of the debate. What we want to do is make sure that the only people on the electoral roll are those people who are entitled to be on the electoral roll. Mr Melham interjecting— 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —I do not know whether the honourable member for Banks believes that people who ought not be on the roll should be able to get on and stay on the roll, but if he wanted to make sure that there was honesty and accountability he would be crossing the floor to vote with the government. I want to place on the record as an aside my disagreement with my good friend and colleague the member for Kooyong on the question of voluntary voting. I support the principle of voluntary voting. That is a personal point of view, and the member for Kooyong is certainly entitled to his view. But it ought to be recognised that a number of people believe that it is quite wrong to compel people to vote in a democracy. There are a number of other matters that I would like to canvass. However, I understand that certain arrangements have been made between the whips for us to move to another piece of legislation shortly after 7 o'clock. To sum up, this is a very important reform. It seeks to implement the results of an inquiry into the 1996 election. Members opposite have imputed sinister motives. They have tried to suggest that we want to keep migrants off the roll, which is an absolute nonsense. They have tried to suggest that we are trying to keep Aboriginals off the roll. That is absolutely nonsensical. They have tried to suggest that, because most people in prisons apparently vote for the Labor Party, we are trying to reduce the Labor Party vote. It is about time they stopped playing politics with the integrity of the Australian electoral roll. This government is absolutely determined to make sure that the result as declared following a poll represents the intentions of the Australian people on polling day. We reject the amendments of the opposition. I commend this bill to the chamber. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time. 19:04:00 The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 74 Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D. Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H. Draper, P. Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.* Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E. Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A. McArthur, F. S.* McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R. Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M. 63 Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A. Andren, P. J. Burke, A. E. Cox, D. Crosio, J. A. Danby, M. Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C. Horne, R. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F. Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W.* Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G.* Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J. Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C. * denotes teller Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 1200 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. Debate (on motion by Mr Slipper) adjourned. Miscellaneous 1200 Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—put: That the following order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate: Address in Reply to the Governor-General's speech—Resumption of debate. 19:14:00 The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 76 Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D. Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P. Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.* Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E. Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A. McArthur, F. S.* McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R. Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M. 63 Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A. Andren, P. J. Burke, A. E. Cox, D. Crosio, J. A. Danby, M. Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C. Horne, R. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F. Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W.* Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G.* Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J. Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C. * denotes teller Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills 1200 s177 1200 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bills 1201 r599 1201 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 19:21:00 1201 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND JK6 Barton ALP 0 0 —I move: `That paragraph 170CE(5)(a) be deleted from item 1 of Schedule 1. 8K6 FITZGIBBON Mr Fitzgibbon —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —The amendment relates to the government's intention to impose effectively a six-month hurdle or gate before someone is entitled to commence an unfair dismissal claim. It imposes a precondition on the commencement of an action of six months employment, irrespective of what a worker's industrial award provides, for instance, or whatever a worker's contract of employment provides. We say that is unfair in the extreme and should be deleted from the bill, and hence our amendment. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! For those members on my left holding conferences in the aisles, please resume your seats or leave the chamber. The member for Barton has the call. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —There are many circumstances where workers will make great sacrifices to take up employment. In this day and age, they will often move homes chasing work. They will often take their children out of school and literally up the whole family into an area to obtain employment. If they can be dismissed arbitrarily within that six-month period, it obviously creates a cause for great injustice. They can be dismissed arbitrarily because currently in the bill there is a provision which requires a fair go all round. In this particular paragraph, employees who have been there for less than six months are exempted of that fair go. So they can move their homes, they can give up their accrued entitlements—their accrued long service leave and their accrued annual leave—and lose those arbitrarily, or harshly and unfairly, within that six-month period as a result of what the government is proposing. We say that is over the top. We also say that the provisions of the bill are totally misguided. The unfair dismissal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act have effectively become a code, not because they are prescribed as such but because they operate as a relatively cheap and simple procedure. If the government exempts workers from this six-month period and the small business provisions, lawyers will look for other means, and there are other means that history demonstrates. You have the ability to create an industrial dispute and to empower the commission to make reinstatement orders. That power still exists. We have the history of the Ranger Uranium case, the Boyne Smelters case, the Vista Paper Products case—there is nothing at all to prevent industrial disputes in workplaces or having a more complicated but albeit effective reinstatement order. So that is the first thing the government has overlooked. The government has also overlooked the provision for award enforcement where many certified agreements—although it is no longer an allowable award matter—have provisions against unfair dismissal. There are the cases of Wheeler v. Phillip Morris, Georgiadis v. OTC and even Byrne and Frew where the Federal Court was prepared to enforce award or industrial agreement provisions. They can still exist. The third area is the common law area where there is authority and, indeed, examples in Australia where the court has actually made a reinstatement order or an order for specific performance of a contract of employment. Such an example is Turner v. the Australian Coal and Shale Employees Federation. Finally, there is an implied obligation in any contract of good faith, which is enforceable, and there are numerous British authorities to that effect. This government is conning the small business community saying they are going to be relieved, they are going to be exempted from unfair dismissal actions. That is not the case. There are all these other possibilities that can be pursued. They are more complex, more expensive and going to be more of a handicap to small business and other businesses than a regulated, simplified regime, as is the case under the Workplace Relations Act, which is based on a fair go all round. This government is trying to exempt large sections of the work force from a fair go all round. That is totally untenable. It is totally immoral in this day and age in 1998. (Time expired) Motion (by Mr Reith) put: That the question be now put. 19:30:00 The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 75 Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M. 63 Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A. Andren, P. J. Burke, A. E. Cox, D. Crosio, J. A. Danby, M. Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C. Horne, R. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F. Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W.* Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G.* Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J. Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C. * denotes teller Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendment (Mr McClelland's ) be agreed to. 19:38:00 The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 62 Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A. Burke, A. E. Cox, D. Crosio, J. A. Danby, M. Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C. Horne, R. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F. Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W.* Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G.* Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J. 75 Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D. Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E. Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P. Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.* Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E. Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A. McArthur, F. S.* McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R. Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M. Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W. * denotes teller Question so resolved in the negative. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Order! It being past 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. WI4 REITH Mr Reith —I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question put. 19:48:00 The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 62 Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A. Burke, A. E. Cox, D. Crosio, J. A. Danby, M. Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C. Horne, R. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F. Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W.* Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G.* Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J. 75 Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D. Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E. Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P. Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.* Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E. Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A. McArthur, F. S.* McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R. Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M. Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W. * denotes teller Question so resolved in the negative. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —The question is that the bill be agreed to. 8K6 FITZGIBBON Mr Fitzgibbon —Mr Deputy Speaker— Motion (by Mr Reith) put: That the question be put. 19:54:00 The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 75 Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D. Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E. Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P. Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.* Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E. Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A. McArthur, F. S.* McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R. Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M. 62 Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A. Burke, A. E. Cox, D. Crosio, J. A. Danby, M. Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C. Horne, R. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F. Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W.* Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G.* Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J. Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C. * denotes teller Question so resolved in the affirmative. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —The question now is that the bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. 1205 Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—put: That the bill be now read a third time. 20:00:00 The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 75 Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D. Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E. Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P. Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.* Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E. Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A. McArthur, F. S.* McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R. Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M. 62 Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A. Burke, A. E. Cox, D. Crosio, J. A. Danby, M. Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C. Horne, R. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F. Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W.* Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G.* Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J. Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C. * denotes teller Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Bill read a third time. 20:02:00 1206 House adjourned at 8.02 p.m. Notices 1206 The following notices were given: Mrs Bailey to move— That this House: (1) recognises that food is a growth industry; (2) acknowledges that the `food industry' comprises primary industry production, processing and manufacturing, retail and catering; and (3) calls on the Government to ensure a national uniform food regulatory system. Ms Kernot to move— That the amendments to the Civil Aviation Regulations, as contained in the Statutory Rules 1998, No. 234, made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, be disallowed. Ms Hoare to move— That the House: (1) reverts to the previous sitting arrangements introduced in 1994, which were abandoned by this Government in 1996, to allow for a more family-friendly workplace; (2) notes the increased number of Members since the election, on both sides of the House, who have young families and/or recently formed partnerships; (3) also notes the hundreds of Members' staff who are required to be here to work while the House sits until 11 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday evenings and the effect that these absurd working hours has on their families and private lives; and (4) also notes that if it were to revert to the previous sitting pattern which includes sitting from the day's commencement through until adjournment at 8 p.m. there will be a loss of only three sitting hours per week in the House of Representatives chamber. Mr Anderson to present a bill for an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989. Mr Reith to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, and for other purposes. Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes. Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend various Acts relating to law and justice, and for related purposes. Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Judiciary Act 1903, and for related purposes. Mr Williams: to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to human rights, and for related purposes. Mr Vaile to present a bill for an act to amend the Quarantine Act 1908, and for related purposes. Mr Vaile to present a bill for an act to make consequential amendments relating to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1998 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1998, and for other purposes. Mr Vaile to present a bill for an act to amend various Acts administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and for related purposes. Mr Hockey to present a bill for an act to amend the Corporations Law and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989, and for related purposes. Mr Hockey to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to superannuation, and for related purposes. Miss Jackie Kelly to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990, and for other purposes. Mr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend the National Measurement Act 1960, and for related purposes. Mr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, and for related purposes. Dr Wooldridge to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to health, and for related purposes. Mr Reith to move— That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be made: (1) Omit standing orders 26 to 29. (2) Standing order 302: Omit `select'. (3) Omit standing orders 323 to 368 and substitute the following standing orders: CHAPTER XXIV STANDING COMMITTEES Appointment 323 Standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament in accordance with the provisions of standing orders 324 to 331. General purpose standing committees 324 (a) The following general purpose standing committees shall be appointed: (i) Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs; (ii) Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts; (iii) Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration; (iv) Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations; (v) Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage; (vi) Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs; (vii) Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources; (viii) Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs; and (ix) Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services. (b) A standing committee appointed pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be empowered to inquire into and report on any matter referred to it by either the House or a Minister, including any pre-legislation proposal, bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or paper. Annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the House shall stand referred to the relevant committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. Reports shall stand referred to committees in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee: Provided that: (i) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; (ii) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House; and (iii) if a committee intends to inquire into all or part of a report of the Auditor-General, it shall notify the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, in writing, of its intention. (c) Each committee appointed under subparagraphs (a)(i) to (viii) shall consist of 10 members, six government and four non-government Members. A committee appointed under subparagraph (a)(ix) shall consist of 12 members, seven government and five non-government Members. Each committee may be supplemented with up to two members for a particular inquiry: provided that a maximum of one government and one non-government member may be appointed as supplementary members. Committee of Privileges 325 (a) A Committee of Privileges shall be appointed to inquire into and report on complaints of breach of privilege or contempt which may be referred to it by the House under standing order 95 or by the Speaker under standing order 97A or any other matter referred to it pursuant to a resolution of the House. (b) The committee shall consist of the Leader of the House or his or her nominee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or his or her nominee and nine other Members. Library Committee 326 (a) A Library Committee shall be appointed to consider any matter relating to the provision of library services to Members referred to it by the House or by the Speaker. (b) The committee shall consist of the Speaker and six other Members. House Committee 327 (a) A House Committee shall be appointed to consider any matter relating to the provision of facilities in Parliament House referred to it by the House or by the Speaker. (b) The committee shall consist of the Speaker and six other Members. Publications Committee 328 (a) A Publications Committee shall be appointed to consider all documents presented to the House which have not been ordered to be printed by either House of the Parliament. The committee shall report from time to time in connection with documents presented to the House and may make recom mendations as to what documents ought to be printed and whether wholly or in part. (b) The committee shall consist of seven Members. (c) When conferring with a similar committee of the Senate the committee shall have power to inquire into and report on the printing, publication and distribution of parliamentary and government publications and on such matters as are referred to it by the relevant Minister. Committee of Members' Interests 329 (a) A Committee of Members' Interests shall be appointed— (i) to inquire into and report upon the arrangements made for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of a Register of Members' Interests; (ii) to consider any proposals made by Members and others as to the form and content of the register; (iii) to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests; (iv) to consider what changes to any code of conduct adopted by the House are necessary or desirable; (v) to consider what classes of persons (if any) other than Members ought to be required to register and declare their interests; and (vi) to make recommendations upon these and any other matters which are relevant. (b) The committee shall consist of seven Members, four government Members and three non-government Members: provided that, where the Opposition is composed of two parties, the committee shall consist of four government Members, two Members of the larger opposition party, and one Member of the smaller opposition party. (c) The committee shall have power to call for witnesses and documents but shall not exercise that power, nor undertake an investigation of the private interests of any person, unless approved by not less than four members of the committee other than the chair. (d) The committee shall, as soon as practicable after 31 December in each year, prepare and present to the House a report on its operations during that year and shall also have power to report from time to time. Standing Committee on Procedure 330 (a) A Standing Committee on Procedure shall be appointed to inquire into and report on the practices and procedures of the House generally with a view to making recommendations for their improvement or change and for the development of new procedures. (b) The committee shall consist of seven members, four government members and three non-government members. Selection Committee 331 (a) A Selection Committee shall be appointed to arrange the timetable and order of business for private Members' business and committee and delegation reports on each sitting Monday pursuant to standing order 101. (b) The committee shall consist of the Deputy Speaker, the Chief Government Whip, the Chief Opposition Whip, the Third Party Whip, four government members and three opposition or other non-government members. (c) Private Members' business which is to be accorded priority, the order of consideration and the times allotted for debate on each item and the time limits allotted for each Member speaking shall be approved by a majority of the members present at a meeting of the committee and in accordance with general principles adopted by the House after report by the committee. (d) The Selection Committee may determine the order of precedence and times allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business and shall report its determinations to the House in sufficient time for its decisions to be published on the Notice Paper of the sitting Thursday prior to the Monday to which the determinations apply. (e) Reports of the committee made pursuant to paragraph (d) shall be deemed adopted when presented and shall be printed in Hansard. (f) Five members of the committee shall constitute a quorum of the committee. (g) For the purpose of private Members' business in this and any other standing or sessional order, a private Member is any Member of the House other than the Speaker or a Minister. CHAPTER XXV OPERATION OF COMMITTEES Application 332 Except as provided in another standing or sessional order, or as otherwise ordered by the House, the provisions in standing orders 333 to 354 apply to all committees of the House. Appointment of members 333 Members shall be appointed to, or discharged from, a committee on motion moved on notice. Provided that, during a period when the House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for a further period of at least two weeks, the Chief Government Whip or Whips, in the case of a government member, or the Chief Opposition Whip or Whips, in the case of a non-government member, may nominate, by writing to the Speaker, the appointment or discharge of a member of a committee. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Speaker receives the nomination from the relevant whip and the Speaker shall, at the next sitting, report the change to the House which shall resolve the membership of the committee. For the purpose of consideration of a bill referred to a committee pursuant to standing order 217A, one or more members of a committee may be replaced by other Members by motion on notice. This does not affect the provision for a general purpose standing committee to be supplemented by up to two members. Speaker and Deputy Speakers 334 The Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or the Second Deputy Speaker shall not be appointed to serve on a committee except with his or her consent or as specified in a standing or sessional order. No Member to be on a committee if pecuniarily interested 335 No Member may sit on a committee if he or she has any direct pecuniary interest in a matter which is the subject of an inquiry before the committee. If the right of a Member to sit on a committee is challenged, the committee may report the matter to the House for resolution. Election of chair and deputy chair 336 (a) A committee, before the commencement of business, shall elect a government member as its chair. The chair shall have only a casting vote. (b) A committee shall elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. Quorum 337 (a) Three members of a committee shall constitute a quorum of that committee. If at any time a quorum is not present, the chair shall suspend proceedings of the committee until a quorum is present or adjourn the committee. (b) If, after the lapse of 15 minutes from the time appointed for the meeting of a committee, a quorum is not present, the members present may retire, and their names shall be entered in the minutes. The secretary of the committee shall notify members of the next meeting. Subcommittees 338 (a) A committee shall have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (b) A committee shall appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (c) The quorum of a subcommittee shall be two members of that subcommittee. (d) Members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. Proceedings and sittings of committee 339 (a) A committee or any subcommittee may conduct proceedings using any means approved by the House and in the following manner: (i) in private meeting; (ii) by hearing witnesses, either in public or in private; and (iii) in the form of another meeting, discussion or inspection conducted in accordance with the practice of committees of the House. (b) A committee or any subcommittee may adjourn from time to time, move from place to place and sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. Power to call for witnesses and documents 340 (a) A committee or any subcommittee shall have the power to call witnesses and require that documents be produced. (b) The chair of a committee or subcommittee shall direct the secretary of the committee or subcommittee to invite or summon witnesses and request or require the production of documents, as determined by the committee or subcommittee. Power to make use of records of previous committees 341 A committee or any subcommittee shall have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of similar committees appointed during previous Parliaments. Conferring with Senate committees 342 A committee shall have power to confer orally or in writing with a similar committee of the Senate. Records of proceedings and divisions 343 (a) All proceedings of a committee or a subcommittee shall be recorded by the secretary of the committee. These records shall constitute the minutes of proceedings and shall be signed by the chair after confirmation by the committee or subcommittee. (b) Any documents presented to the committee or subcommittee shall be signed by the secretary. Admission of visitors 344 When a committee or subcommittee is examining a witness, or engaged in other proceedings for the purpose of gathering information, visitors may be admitted. They shall withdraw if requested by the chair or if any member of the committee or subcommittee asks the chair to request their withdrawal. All visitors must withdraw when the committee or subcommittee is deliberating or taking evidence in camera. Admission of other Members 345 Members of the House may be present when a committee or subcommittee is examining a witness, or engaged in other proceedings for the purpose of gathering information, but shall withdraw if the committee or subcommittee so resolves. They shall always withdraw when the committee or subcommittee is deliberating or taking evidence in camera. Publication of evidence 346 (a) A committee or subcommittee shall have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any document presented to it. (b) The evidence taken by a committee or subcommittee and documents presented to it, and proceedings and reports of it, which have not been reported to the House, shall not, unless authorised by the House or the committee or subcommittee, be disclosed or published to any person other than a member or officer of the committee. Provided that a committee may resolve to: (i) publish press releases, discussion or other papers or preliminary findings for the purpose of seeking further input to an inquiry; or (ii) divulge any evidence, documents, proceedings or report on a confidential basis to any person or persons for comment for the purpose of assisting the committee in its inquiry or for any administrative purpose associated with the inquiry. Power to report from time to time 347 A committee shall have leave to report from time to time. Chair to prepare report 348 The chair of a committee shall prepare a draft report and submit it to the committee. Consideration of draft report 349 At a meeting convened for the purpose, the chair shall present his or her draft report to the committee. The report may be considered at once, provided copies have been circulated in advance to each member of the committee. The report shall be considered paragraph by paragraph, and appendixes shall be considered in order at the conclusion of consideration of the report itself. A member objecting to any portion of the report shall vote against it or move an amendment at the time the particular paragraph or appendix is under consideration. If any member dissents from all or part of the report or wishes to attach a protest to a report, the member may add a protest or dissenting report to the main report. Alternative draft report 350 If any member, other than the chair, submits a draft report to the committee, the committee shall first decide upon which report it will proceed. Reconsideration 351 After the draft report has been considered, the whole or any paragraph may be reconsidered and amended. Chair to sign report 352 Every report of a committee shall be signed by the chair. Any protest or dissenting report shall be signed by the member or members protesting or dissenting. Report and minutes presented 353 The report of a committee, together with the minutes of the proceedings, shall be presented to the House by a member of the committee. Provided that, if the House is not sitting when a committee has completed a report of an inquiry, the committee may send the report to the Speaker, or in the absence or unavailability of the Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker. Upon receipt of the report by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker: (i) the publication of the report is authorised by this standing order; and (ii) the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be, is authorised to give directions for the printing and circulation of the report. The report shall be presented to the House in accordance with this standing order as soon as possible. Consideration set down 354 Upon the presentation of a report, the report may be ordered to be printed with or without the documents accompanying it. Subject to any determinations of the Selection Committee pursuant to standing order 102B, its consideration may be set down for a subsequent sitting when a specific motion without notice in connection with it may be moved. CHAPTER XXVA SELECT AND JOINT COMMITTEES Select committees Appointment 355 The House may appoint select committees by motion. Report from select committee 356 On the appointment of a select committee, a day shall be fixed for the reporting of its proceedings to the House, by which day the report of the committee shall be presented by a member of the committee, unless the House grants an extension of time. The report of the committee may be presented prior to the date fixed. Joint committees Proposal to appoint 357 A proposal for a joint committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed to by the House shall state the number of Members the House will appoint to serve on the committee and be forwarded to the Senate by message. Quorum of joint committee 358 The House may fix the quorum of its Members required to constitute a sitting of a joint committee. Subject to this a joint committee shall fix its own quorum. Appointment of Members 359 On receipt of a message from the Senate agreeing to appoint a joint committee in the same terms as agreed to by the House, the House will proceed to appoint the number of Members agreed upon to serve on the committee. Report of proceedings 360 The proceedings of a joint committee shall be reported to the House by one of the Members it has appointed to serve on the committee. Provided that, if the House is not sitting when a joint committee has completed a report of an inquiry, the committee may send the report to the Speaker, or in the absence or unavailability of the Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker. Upon receipt of the report by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker: (i) the publication of the report is authorised by this standing order; and (ii) the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be, is authorised to give directions for the printing and circulation of the report. The report shall be presented to the House in accordance with this standing order as soon as possible. Consideration of bills by House members of joint committees 361 The House of Representatives members of a joint committee shall be considered to be a committee for the purpose of considering bills referred by the House under standing order 217A and shall operate under the provisions applying to general purpose standing committees. CHAPTER XXVB WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE OR A COMMITTEE Summoning of witnesses 362 (a) Witnesses who are not Members may be ordered to attend before the House by summons under the hand of the Clerk of the House, or before a committee, by summons under the hand of the secretary of the committee. (b) If a witness fails or refuses to attend or to give evidence, the House, on being acquainted with the matter, shall deal with it. Attendance of Member before the House or a committee 363 (a) When the attendance of a Member is ordered by the House for examination by the House, the Member shall be summoned by the Speaker to attend in his or her place. (b) If a committee desires the attendance of a Member as a witness, the chair shall, in writing, invite the Member to attend; but should the Member refuse to come, or to give evidence or information as a witness to the committee, the committee shall advise the House, and not again summon the Member to attend the committee. Charges against Members 364 (a) No committee, except the Committee of Privileges and the Committee of Members' Interests, shall inquire into, or make findings in respect of, the conduct of any Member of the House, unless it is directed to do so by the House. (b) If any information comes before any committee or any allegation is made to a committee, except the Committee of Privileges and the Committee of Members' Interests, charging any Member, the committee shall inform the Member concerned of the details of the charge and give the Member an opportunity to make any statement to it bearing on the matter. Unless the committee considers the matter is without substance, it shall report the matter to the House and shall not proceed further on that information or allegation without being directed by the House to do so. Attendance of Senators or officers of the Senate 365 When the attendance of a Senator, or any officer of the Senate, is desired by the House or any committee of the House, a message shall be sent to the Senate to request that the Senate give leave to the Senator or officer to attend for examination. Request by Senate for Member or officer to appear before the Senate or a Senate committee 366 Should the Senate request by message the attendance of a Member of the House before the Senate or any of its committees, the House may forthwith authorise that Member to attend, if the Member thinks fit. The House, if similarly requested by the Senate, may, if the House thinks fit, also instruct its own officers to attend the Senate or any of its committees. Witness entitled to protection 367 All witnesses giving evidence to the House, or any of its committees, are entitled to the protection of the House in respect of anything that may be stated by them in their evidence. Witness to be examined at the Bar of the House 368 A witness before the House shall be examined at the Bar unless the House otherwise orders. Examination of witnesses 368A (a) When a witness appears before the House the witness shall be examined by the Speaker, and any questions addressed by the Members are taken to be put through the Speaker. (b) During consideration in detail of a bill in the House, any Member may put questions directly to a witness. (c) A Member of the House giving evidence to the House shall be examined in his or her place. (d) The examination of witnesses before a committee or a subcommittee shall be conducted according to the mode of procedure agreed on by the committee. Officers not to give evidence without leave 368B An officer of the House, or other staff employed to record evidence before the House or any of its committees, may not give evidence elsewhere in respect of any proceedings or examination of any witness without the leave of the House. (4) Standing order 369: Omit `select'. (5) Omit standing orders 385 to 389. Mr Reith: to move— That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted to operate during 1999: (1) Standing order 101 be amended to read: Routine of business 101 The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday 1. Presentation of, and statements on, reports from parliamentary committees and delegations. 2. Orders of the day for the resumption of debate on motions moved in connection with committee and delegation reports. 3. Private Members' business (debate to be interrupted at 1.45 p.m.). 4. Members' statements (at approximately 1.45 p.m.). 5. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 6. Presentation of petitions. 7. Private Members' business (in continuation for 1 hour). 8. Grievance debate (debate to continue for 1 hour and 20 minutes). 9. Notices and orders of the day. Tuesday 1. Questions without notice. 2. Presentation of papers. 3. Ministerial statements, by leave. 4. Matter of public importance. 5. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday and Thursday 1. Notices and orders of the day. 2. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Matter of public importance. 6. Notices and orders of the day. (2) Standing order 102C be amended to read: Precedence to motions regarding committee and delegation reports 102C Following the presentation of reports pursuant to standing order 102A, the resumption of proceedings on motions relating to committee and delegation reports shall have precedence according to the order of priority and times allotted for debate determined by the Selection Committee, each Member speaking for a period not exceeding 10 minutes or any lesser period determined by the Selection Committee. (3) Standing order 104A be amended to read: Private Members' business—procedure 104A In the period during which private Members' business is accorded precedence pursuant to standing order 104, notices and orders of the day relating to private Members' business shall be called on by the Clerk in the order in which they appear on the Notice Paper. When the time allotted by standing order 101, or by the Selection Committee, for an item of business has expired, consideration shall be interrupted by the Chair and the question before the Chair shall be put: Provided that, where the Selection Committee has determined that consideration of a matter should continue on a future day, at the time fixed for interruption, or when debate has concluded, the Chair shall interrupt proceedings and further consideration of the matter shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting. Notices by private Members of their intention to present bills shall stand referred to the Selection Committee which shall give priority to them over other notices and orders of the day and determine the order in which they are to be presented. Upon the respective notice being called on by the Clerk, the Member in whose name the notice stands shall present the bill and may speak for a period not exceeding five minutes in support of it. The bill shall then be read a first time and the motion for the second reading shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting. If the motion for the second reading of any private Member's bill is agreed to by the House, further consideration shall be accorded precedence of other private Members' business and the Selection Committee may allot times for consideration of the remaining stages of the bill. Mr Reith to move—That: (1) The following conditions apply to the disclosure of evidence taken in camera by a committee of the House: (a) Committees may take evidence in the following manner: (i) By written submissions, whether in hard copy or electronic form; (ii) By oral evidence taken in public; and (iii) In private session. (b) A committee may, on its own initiative or at the request of, or on behalf of, a witness or organisation, hear evidence in private session. A witness shall be informed that it is within the power of the committee and the House to disclose all or part of the evidence subsequently. Publication of evidence would be the prerogative of the committee and it would only be disclosed if the majority of the committee so decided by resolution. (c) Where a committee has agreed to take evidence in camera, and has given an undertaking to a witness that his or her evidence will not be disclosed, such evidence will not be disclosed by the committee or any other person, including the witness. With the written agreement of the witness, the committee may release such evidence in whole or in part. (d) Where a Member of the House of Representatives discloses in camera evidence other than as prescribed, the House may impose a penalty on the Member following investigation and report of the matter by the Committee of Privileges. (e) Evidence taken in camera which discloses a serious crime may, in respect to that part, be conveyed to the Speaker for appropriate action by the Chair, with the committee's approval. (f) No person not being an officer of the committee when the evidence was given will have access to evidence taken in camera, unless authorised by the full committee. (g) If a motion is to be moved in the House to release evidence taken in camera by one of its committees, notice must be given. Such notice will not be placed on the Notice Paper without the approval of the Speaker, who must consult the Attorney-General, the Chair of the relevant committee, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and report the outcome of that consultation to the House. (2) Unless otherwise ordered, this resolution have effect until the end of 1999. Mr Reith: to move— (1) That, in accordance with section 242 of the Australian Securities Commission Act 1989, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority groups or independent Senators. (b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (c) That the committee elect a member nominated by the Government Whips or the Leader of the Government in the Senate as its chair. (d) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (e) That, in the event of the votes on a question before the committee being equally divided, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (f) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (g) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (h) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of a subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (i) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (j) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (k) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (l) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to move from place to place. (m) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (n) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (o) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities appointed during previous Parliaments. (p) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Reith: to move— (1) That, in accordance with section 54 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (c) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair. (d) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (e) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (f) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (g) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (h) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (i) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (j) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (k) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (l) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place. (m) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (n) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (o) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the committee appointed during previous Parliaments. (p) That, in carrying out its duties, the committee or any subcommittee, ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest. (q) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Reith to move— (1) That, in accordance with section 204 of the Native Title Act 1993, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority groups or independent Senators. (b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (c) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair. (d) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (e) That, in the event of the votes on a question before the committee being equally divided, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (f) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (g) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (h) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of a subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (i) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (j) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (k) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (l) That the committee have power to examine and report on such annual and related reports as may be referred to it by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (m) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to move from place to place. (n) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (o) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (p) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Reith to move— (1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to electoral laws and practices and their administration as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister. Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. Reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that: (a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and (b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that Department or authority is presented to the House. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote. (8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (10) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (11) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (12) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (13) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place. (15) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (17) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of: (a) submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System, and (b) the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Electoral Reform and Electoral Matters appointed during previous Parliaments. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Reith to move— (1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be appointed to consider and report on such matters relating to foreign affairs, defence and trade as may be referred to it by: (a) either House of the Parliament; (b) the Minister for Foreign Affairs; (c) the Minister for Defence; or (d) the Minister for Trade. Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. Reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that: (a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and (b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that Department or authority is presented to the House. (2) That the committee consist of 32 members, 12 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (7) That in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote. (8) That 6 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (10) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (9), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed. (11) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (12) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (13) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (15) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place. (16) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (20) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Reith: to move— (1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Migration be appointed to inquire into and report upon: (a) regulations made or proposed to be made under the Migration Act 1958; (b) all proposed changes to the Migration Act 1958 and any related acts; and (c) such other matters relating to migration as may be referred to it by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. Reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that: (a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and (b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that Department or authority is presented to the House. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote. (8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (10) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (11) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (12) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (13) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place. (15) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (16) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Migration Regulations and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration appointed in previous Parliaments. (17) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (18) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Reith to move— (1) That a Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by: (i) either House of the Parliament; or (ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament Act 1974; or (iii) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (b) such other matters relating to the parliamentary zone as may be referred to it by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (c) such amendments to the National Capital Plan as are referred to it by a Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988; (d) such other matters relating to the National Capital as may be referred to it by: (i) either House of the Parliament; or (ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988; and (e) such matters relating to Australia's territories as may be referred to it by: (i) either House of Parliament; or (ii) the Minister responsible for the administration of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands; the Territory of Christmas Island; the Coral Sea Islands Territory; the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands; the Australian Antarctic Territory, and the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands, and of Commonwealth responsibilities on Norfolk Island. Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. Reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that: (a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and (b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that Department or authority is presented to the House. (2) That the committee consist of 12 members, the Deputy Speaker, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote. (8) That 3 members of the committee (of whom one is the Deputy President or the Deputy Speaker when matters affecting the parliamentary zone are under consideration) constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (10) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (11) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (12) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (13) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place. (15) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (17) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House, the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Zone and the Joint Committee on the National Capital appointed during previous Parliaments and of the House of Representatives and Senate Standing Committees on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure when sitting as a joint committee on matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Reith to move— (1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be appointed to inquire into and report upon: (a) matters arising from treaties and related National Interest Analyses and proposed treaty actions presented or deemed to be presented to the Parliament; (b) any question relating to a treaty or other international instrument, whether or not negotiated to completion, referred to the committee by: (i) either House of the Parliament, or (ii) a Minister; and (c) such other matters as may be referred to the committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and on such conditions as the Minister may prescribe. (2) That the committee consist of 16 members, 6 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair. (6) That the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair to act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (7) That in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote. (8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (9) That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 subcommittees each consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (10) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (9), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed. (11) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (12) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (13) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (15) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place. (16) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on Treaties appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (20) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Documents 1222 The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 2 December 1998: Fisheries Management Act—Temporary order No. 2. 1998-12-02 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Bills 1223 s178 Consideration resumed from 23 November. 1223 10:00:00 1223 Worth, Trish, MP Ms WORTH 8V5 Adelaide LP 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. The Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998 proposes to amend section 20 of the principal act, the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991, the ESOS Act. Section 20 of the ESOS Act is a sunset clause which will deactivate the act on 1 January 1999. The government requests an amendment to the sunset clause by extending the date it takes effect from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2002. This amendment recognises that the ESOS Act: . has the strong support of stakeholders in the industry; provides the criterion of `registered courses' for the issue of student visas to over 100,000 overseas students each year; . ensures the quality and reliability of education and training provided to students from overseas; and . provides the regulatory framework which protects and enhances the reputation of Australia's fifth largest export industry. It is particularly important at this time of the Asian financial crisis to ensure the stability and legislative protection for this industry. There is greater competition from our competitor nations and a need to maintain confidence in Australia's international education industry. The ESOS Act provides financial and tuition protection and quality assurance for students from overseas who choose to study in Australia. It requires that only registered providers who have met the standards for state or territory accreditation and approval can provide education and training for overseas students. It ensures the quality and integrity of our educational products and protects the students' prepaid fees. The act was introduced in 1991. With its several amendments, it has three main objectives, namely: . to ensure that international students in Australia are treated with equity and fairness; . to ensure the quality and reliability of Australian education and training for overseas students, which provide a positive basis for promoting Australia's international reputation as a provider of reliable high quality education and training; and . to ensure that taxpayers' funds are not required to recompense international students who may have been let down by individual education and training providers. These objectives remain relevant today. The legislation and the amendment bill are supported by industry representatives. They expressed this support in national consultations in 1996, in further consultations with stakeholders in April and May 1998, and to the Senate Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee in July this year. That committee considered the amendment bill, and recommended that it be passed without amendment. In 1996 the ESOS Act was amended to extend the sunset clause from 1 January 1997 to 1 January 1999. This followed a review of the act by an independent consultant which indicated universal support for the continuation of the current cooperative approach to industry regulation. The reviewers found strong support for the Commonwealth maintaining a regulatory role in relation to the education export industry. This was because of the international trade, immigration and foreign affairs issues which could not readily be coordinated by the states or territories or by industry bodies. Australia's international education and training industry is our fifth largest export industry, worth an estimated $3.4 billion for Australia in export revenue in 1998. Stakeholders argue that the existing regulation of the industry adds value in the marketplace and they have indicated strong support for retaining the ESOS Act as part of a cooperative Commonwealth, state-territory and industry approach to regulation. In particular, they want to maintain the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students—the register. There are costs to the Commonwealth in maintaining the regulatory framework, including the register. The costs are shared by the Commonwealth and industry through the collection of annual and initial registration charges, introduced in 1997. The regulatory framework, with the Commonwealth's ESOS Act as the key national element, has contributed to the successful maintenance of a stable domestic environment for the education and training services export industry over the past five years. This is evidenced by Australia's highly successful engagement in education exports and the continued strong support which stakeholders assert for the ESOS Act. Stakeholders' support for the ESOS Act recognises that the maintenance and growth of Australia's international education industry depends on the confidence that students overseas have in the quality of the courses they undertake and the protection of the moneys they invest in receiving an Australian education. The international education and training industry is an important and valuable one for Australia. It is a major contributor to Australia's growth in the export of services, bringing many intangible benefits, including the development of contacts for future trade, and ideas and international perspectives. The confidence of students is fundamental to the credibility and viability of the industry which accounts for over $3 billion in export earnings annually. The industry deserves the support of the existing Commonwealth, state-territory and industry cooperative framework, and this bill enables the framework to continue until 1 January 2002. This is particularly important in light of the East Asian currency crisis which is creating a highly volatile and uncertain period for export services industries. A three-year extension to the ESOS Act's sunset clause will allow a stable domestic environment to be maintained during a time of economic volatility in major source markets. The extension will also allow time for the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and industry to focus on possible future cooperative regulatory models. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House. 10:07:00 1224 Lee, Michael, MP Mr LEE MG4 Dobell ALP 0 0 —I begin by wishing you a happy 14th anniversary yesterday of your election to parliament; my apologies for being 24 hours late. I am not quite sure what the appropriate material is for a 14th anniversary, but, whatever it is, I hope that you received many of them yesterday. The Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998 , is a very important piece of legislation. It extends the sunset clause which limits the operation of the act by three years to the end of 2001. This act, the ESOS Act, is designed to protect overseas students in Australia and the reputation of Australia's education export industry. It is designed to ensure that courses provided to overseas students are of a high standard, that overseas students get what they pay for and that taxpayers' funds are not required to compensate overseas students when Australian education providers fail to meet their commitments. The act achieves this by requiring educational institutions to meet the conditions for listing on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, or CRICOS. The major conditions imposed on providers are that they must operate a notified trust account to ensure refunds are available to students in circumstances where a provider defaults and that they must make tuition guarantee arrangements before enrolling students, including membership of a Tuition Assurance Scheme, to offer alternative placement of students if that provider is no longer able to offer that student a place. The importance of this regime in ensuring confidence in the Australian industry is highlighted in the DETYA findings—that is, some 70 per cent of the surveyed students have said that the levels of protection afforded by the Australian government are a factor of which they are aware. The education export industry is vitally important to our country. In 1997, 151,464 overseas students were studying in Australia, generating revenue for our country of more than $3.2 billion. Forty per cent of those students were in higher education, 27 per cent in vocational education, 22 per cent in intensive English language courses and 11 per cent in secondary schools. The value of these education exports goes beyond the substantial direct economic contribution they make. Australia's education exports foster an understanding of Australian society, our culture and institutions. If the experience of overseas students is a good one, then we have gone a long way to building strong links with the next generation of leaders, particularly in the Asian region, which is the source of around 77 per cent of Australia's overseas students. In August this year a Labor-initiated inquiry into the operation of the ESOS Act made a number of recommendations. The inquiry was called to address concerns that certain elements of the ESOS Act were not being fully complied with, particularly in relation to the maintenance of notified trust accounts. The committee identified a number of problems. Since 1995, five providers had defaulted under the existing arrangements. In 1996-97, DEETYA found that there were six suspensions and two cancellations for breaches of the act. Four of the six providers had their registration suspended because they did not fully comply with the notified trust account requirements of the ESOS Act. A further 13 providers had their registration suspended because they failed to report by the due date. These findings highlight the need for continued effort in this area to ensure that Australia's standards and reputation are maintained. Therefore, it is very unfortunate that the government has halved the effort by halving the number of DEETYA staff administering the ESOS Act. The Senate committee also heard evidence of certain operators that do not respect the trust fund arrangements and that are gaining access to those funds outside the audited period. The committee made three unanimous recommendations: firstly, that this bill be passed without amendment; secondly, that the issues raised before the committee, which were of great concern, particularly in relation to the registration requirements, be the subject of consultation between the Commonwealth, the state and territory governments and the education export industry—I hope that is happening—and, thirdly, that the Senate re-examine the operation of this legislation and report by August 2000. In line with the first of these recommendations, the opposition supports the passage of this bill to extend the sunset clause and ensure the continued operation of the safeguards put in place by the ESOS Act. I would like to turn now to Australian Education International. In May this year the minister announced the end of the Australian International Education Foundation and the creation of Australian Education International to replace it. The minister's press release also promised $21 million over four years for marketing and promotion of Australia's education export industry. Sadly, two-thirds of the $21 million promised by the minister for the new Australian Education International marketing body has simply been cut from other existing programs. The government is replacing the Australian International Education Foundation, to which it allocated $3 million a year, with the new Australian Education International, to which the government has committed new funding of only $1,016,000 in 1998 and $2.4 million in 1999. The Howard government is clearly failing to recognise the importance of the education export industry, which generates more than $3 billion a year for Australia. The Howard government is also damaging Australia's universities and their reputations through the funding cuts it has imposed in recent years. Massive cuts to operating grants have made it extremely difficult for Australia's universities to maintain their facilities and their research effort. Courses and even campuses have had to be axed. News of this government's attacks on Australia's educational institutions can only have a negative impact on students considering studying in Australia. On top of this, the minister for education, Dr Kemp, has a new secret plan on research funding, which poses another threat to Australia's internationally respected reputation for high quality research. Prominent Australian academics have been horrified by the plan which they say will have a severely detrimental effect on the quality of Australian university research and therefore Australia's education reputation. It will have this detrimental effect by replacing the peer assessment grant process of the Australian Research Council with block grants to universities. Given that today in another chamber the Treasurer is introducing some legislation on the GST, I might be forgiven for making a few remarks about the impact of the GST on Australia's education exports. The negative effects of the GST will not be confined only to Australian students and their families, who will face increased prices for books and software, as well as for basic food, clothing and public transport. The impact of the GST will not be confined only to Australian educational institutions, which will be faced with a nightmare of administration and cashflow problems at the very least. The GST will also affect overseas students by increasing their costs and making Australia's education exports less competitive. If the Australian dollar were to reverse its recent fall against the US dollar, the impact of the government's decisions on the competitiveness of Australia's education exports would be very serious indeed. In closing, I restate Labor's support for the bill and the protection that it provides to Australia's vitally important education export industry. It is extremely important that international students have confidence in the quality and the stability of Australian education and training providers, not only because of the value to Australia in terms of the industry and the dollars earned but also because the industry is already under some strain as a result of the economic downturn throughout Asia. Perhaps I could end on a positive note by extending my congratulations to the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, RMIT, which last night was the winner of the national export award for education. The Deputy Prime Minister was present, I understand, at that award ceremony last night—unlike a different person last week who happens to be able to inhabit the Lodge. RMIT and many other Australian education exporters have every right to be proud of the quality of the courses and training they provide and proud of the long-term bonds that they help form between overseas students, their countries and Australia. 10:16:00 1227 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley LP 1 0 —I join with the member for Dobell in congratulating my alumni at RMIT. It is a great institution, one that understands that international students add a further boost to the resources available to universities, a boost that has been encouraged by the coalition through both its higher education policies and its support for international students. The Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998 is another proposal carried over from the last parliament. It demonstrates the government's strong commitment to ensuring that the 150,000 students from overseas who choose to study at university, TAFE, private colleges, schools or English language training centres can do so in the certainty that their investment in tuition fees will be protected. International students who come here help Australia generate jobs and export income. The sector is a $3.4 billion earner for Australia; and, as the member for Dobell suggested, the multiplier effect would add to that considerably. Students who come here generally leave Australia not just with a positive view of their educators and fellow students but also with a respect for our institutions—democratic, educational and the like—and the way we treat each other in our wonderfully diverse society. These intangible benefits are converted in many valuable ways to benefit our country. Former overseas students may hold positions of influence or may choose Australia ahead of other nations as a country with which to do business, one to travel to for holidays and to promote among friends and acquaintances. This has been brought home to me by some interaction I have had with Indonesian students who at various times have been studying at the Chisholm Institute of TAFE's peninsula campus in Frankston. These students spend money in our community and are very welcome contributors to the Dunkley community in general. They are a very friendly bunch. They enjoy the whole experience of our beaches, shopping communities and restaurants, plus the education they gain. This is why one of the things I have been working on since being elected is to have the Greater Frankston area recognised as an educational precinct—just as Oakland is for San Francisco—as a place where you can come and enjoy all good things our nation has to offer and the excellent educational opportunities that are there but perhaps not be distracted by some of the things that are occurring in the Melbourne CBD, which research shows does cause some concern for parents of overseas students in particular. I am aware that one of our local institutions has found that such things as the casino and other distractions of that kind do concern parents. My advice to parents thinking of having their sons and daughters study in Australia is to come down to the Mornington Peninsula. Not only is the member virtuous and pure but so are the educational opportunities and the wonderful lifestyle they will enjoy. This bill extends the sunset clause from 1 January next year to 1 January 2002. It will ensure that education providers to overseas students are listed on, and carry the responsibilities of, the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, known in the education world as CRICOS. This measure ensures that, where a provider goes into administration or otherwise defaults, a refund is available. There is an obligation on the provider to offer alternative arrangements for their students' tuition so that they can complete their placement. I note that around 70 per cent of overseas students seem to be well aware of these arrangements. They appear to be well accepted and viewed as matters of confidence and quality in our offering as an international education provider. Initial and annual registration charges for education providers cover some of the cost of maintaining this register. As the Assistant Treasurer noted in his second reading speech in the Senate three weeks ago, maintaining a stable domestic policy environment is important during a period of economic volatility in major source countries for overseas students who are educated in this country. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs estimates that the number of overseas students being educated in 1998 has shown a small increase over 1997, to 152,200 this year. This is a remarkable achievement. While I will not deny that currency devaluations may have contributed to increasing the number of students from Europe to an estimated 9,800 this year—up 20 per cent from last year—the Australian currency has appreciated against other Asian currencies and yet enrolments from the region continue to be strong. So it is especially impressive that the number of students from Indonesia is only projected to fall by 1,300 this year to 16,800, that the number of students from Singapore is expected to rise this year by about 750, and that Japanese student numbers are stable. This gives weight to the government's continuing strong case that careful economic management, things like low home loan interest rates—and there was another official rate cut this morning—low inflation, complementary and forward-looking tax reform like that referred to by the member for Dobell, and a good business environment, will continue to make Australia attractive. Concerning that good business environment, we had Malaysian Airlines saying yesterday that, after a reported $US110 million loss for the last six months, Australia was where the action was and that they would cancelling some flights to Vancouver and introducing additional flights to Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane. That augurs well for the future. I should add also that student numbers from Malaysia are likely to be up almost 500 to 16,200 this year—an outstanding performance. Numbers are fine but growth in the future is what we are looking for. The estimated expenditure by overseas students in 1998—on top of the $3.4 billion, which we have talked about before—is projected to be six per cent higher than in 1997. In 1999 a similar growth rate is expected. In the year 2000 a 10 per cent growth rate is expected and in the first year of the new millennium a 13 per cent growth in spending is forecast. This creates jobs, especially if the coalition continues to manage the economy so that we maintain those attractive characteristics I just spoke of. The Labor senator who said that there will be little growth in overseas student numbers from 1996 should acquaint himself with the international student number projection data. Surely a projected increase from 143,711 students in 1996 to an estimated 181,000 in the year 2001 is nothing to sneeze at. In the Senate, Senator Stott-Despoja queried the government's support for the promotion of the education and training export sector. I doubt that the $21 million over four years to fund Australian Education International can be described as minimal. The member for Dobell in his contribution talked about the number of education provider registrations in recent years that have been cancelled and suspended. I would point to that as an indication of the success of the scheme. I would add also that it is a far smaller number than the crisis in 1991 that triggered this policy reform. Perhaps the trend in the number of people required to administer the scheme reflects not only the number of people who are defaulting but where action needs to be taken because of their performance under the scheme. I agree with a DETYA officer who, in evidence to the Senate Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee, argued that there could be a risk to the integrity of Australian education if the CRICOS registry and related accountabilities were allowed to lapse. Fortunately, problems with education providers who cater for overseas students have been out of the news for some time now. The cooperative approach by providers and federal and state governments, and the complementary legislation such as in Victoria, helps us to educate these students and increase the number of jobs available to Australian residents. In winding up, this proposal before the House is about the quality of courses available to international students and security for participants, both in terms of the course being available to them and the fees they pay up front. It provides a very distinct market advantage and a confidence boost for people looking around for education and considering Australia as an option. It shows a commitment by the government to continue to work with the sector and with other levels of government to make sure that we have a first-class international student education sector in this country. I commend the bill to the House and thank the Government Whip for giving me the opportunity to speak on the subject. 10:25:00 1229 Worth, Trish, MP Ms WORTH 8V5 Adelaide LP 1 0 —in reply—I would just like to thank the member for Dunkley and the member for Dobell for taking part in this debate on the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998. It was important that this legislation be passed as quickly as possible, given that the date of 1 January is fast approaching. And of course it was an imperative that visas continue to be given to those students seeking to come to Australia. Again, I thank colleagues who have taken part in this debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills 1229 s180 Consideration resumed from 26 November. 1229 10:27:00 1229 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra LP Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation 1 0 —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the government can effectively discharge its fundamental responsibility to prevent the entry and stay in Australia of non-citizens who have a criminal background or have criminal associations. This bill is largely the same as one which was before the last parliament. The government has, however, made two changes from that bill. The first of these extends the time limit for lodging review applications with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the second doubles the time which that tribunal will have to review such applications. In considering this bill, we must remember that the vast majority of non-citizens who come to Australia are in fact law-abiding people. In a world of rapidly increasing people movements, our immigration arrangements must be designed to streamline the entry and stay of all genuine visitors, students, business people and permanent residents. However, a small proportion of non-citizens seeking to enter Australia do have substantial criminal backgrounds or criminal associations. Others commit crimes while they are in Australia. Steps to improve the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs's ability to detect visa applicants with substantial criminal backgrounds or associations are being taken, including consultation with law enforcement bodies overseas. For these steps to be effective, however, they must be complemented by legislative provisions to ensure that non-citizens with criminal backgrounds or criminal associations can be refused a visa. The provisions must also enable the government to remove those non-citizens who are detained following convictions for crimes committed in Australia. Experience over recent years has shown that the existing legislative provisions are inadequate for this task. This is despite the fact that they were amended as recently as 1992 with the express purpose of improving the government's ability to deal with visa applicants and visa holders with substantial criminal backgrounds. In broad terms, the bill seeks to enhance the government's ability to deal with non-citizens who are not of good character in three ways: . First, decision making in routine cases will be improved by: - requiring applicants to show that they are of good character; - deeming that certain levels of criminal sentences will lead to an automatic finding that the non-citizen concerned is not of good character; and - allowing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to give binding directions to decision makers. . Secondly, in exceptional or emergency circumstances, the minister, acting personally, will be given powers to act decisively on matters of visa refusal, cancellation and the removal of non-citizens; and . Thirdly, information provided by Australian and international law enforcement agencies will be afforded more effective protection so that such agencies can be confident about passing information to immigration decision makers. I will now describe the major provisions of the bill in more detail. The character test The amendments proposed in this bill introduce the concept of a character test. Under this test, the onus will be on visa applicants and visa holders to satisfy decision makers that they can pass the test. This will redress a significant deficiency in the legislation arising from the changes made in 1992. Since that time, decision makers have been required to establish that a person is not of good character before they could refuse a visa to an applicant or cancel a visa. This has meant that, whenever there has been doubt about the criminal background or criminal associations of a non-citizen, the doubt has been resolved in the non-citizen's favour. I understand that this was not the intention of the 1992 amendments. This bill takes us back to the situation that existed before 1992 by placing the onus of proof on the visa applicant to demonstrate that he or she is of good character. This means that, where there are real doubts about the criminal background or criminal associations of a visa applicant or visa holder, the objective of protecting the Australian community will take precedence in immigration decision making. Deeming provisions This bill also seeks to establish clear benchmarks for criminal behaviour that would automatically lead to a non-citizen failing the character test. Non-citizens who have been convicted to a single sentence of detention of 12 months or more, or where the length of several sentences aggregates to two years or more, will fail the character test. This will truncate the character assessment process and cover most non-citizens of character concern who come to notice. This will provide more certainty as to who is able to pass the character test. Binding directions on exercise of the discretion Once it is established that a visa applicant or visa holder does not pass the character test, decision makers will have to decide whether to refuse the application or to cancel the visa. Exercise of this discretion will need to take into account a wide range of factors including the non-citizen's links to Australia, the nature of crimes committed, and any international law obligations. This bill will enable the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to give precise written directions on what weight is to be given to each of these factors. These directions must be binding on all decision makers, including merits review tribunals, to ensure a consistency of approach. The written directions will be tabled in parliament. Protection of criminal intelligence Criminal intelligence and related information is critical to assessing the criminal background or associations of non-citizen visa applicants and visa holders. At present, it is difficult for the department to use such information in making character decisions because its disclosure might be threatened. Australian and international law enforcement agencies are reluctant to provide sensitive information unless they are sure that both the information and its sources can be protected. Greater protection for such material would complement broader national and international strategies to counter transnational crime and the activities of those associated with it. This bill increases the level of protection for such information. I cannot overstate the importance of this protection to the job of preventing the entry of foreign criminals to Australia. This was highlighted in my most recent discussions with officials of international law enforcement agencies. Merits review The opportunity to appeal character decisions to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, will be retained. However, there is a critical need to reform these arrangements in two main respects: first, in terms of speeding up merits review processes; and, secondly, in terms of ensuring that merits review decisions reflect community standards and expectations. Merits review streamlining and time limits Where a non-citizen who is already in Australia is refused a further visa or has had their visa cancelled on character grounds, it is essential that merits review cannot be used to prolong stay in Australia at taxpayers' expense. The average time currently taken for such cases at merits review is 227 days from the initial notification to a final decision. Many cases take even longer. During this time, the non-citizens involved, many of whom have committed serious crimes, either will be in detention at great cost to taxpayers or will be at liberty in the community. Quite frankly, this must stop. This bill introduces more streamlined procedures for dealing with such cases. It also introduces a strict 84-day time limit for the conduct of merits review cases involving character where the non-citizen is in Australia. We will ensure that all relevant documentation necessary for the AAT to determine the matter will be provided quickly, at the outset of the process. The amendments will establish a new process where the department will be required to provide two copies of the relevant documentation to the applicant at the time of the decision. Then, at the time the appeal is made, the applicant only has to lodge one copy of the documentation with the AAT. The need for strict time limits is consistent with other review processes in the immigration area, where delay can prejudice not only the applicant but, more importantly, the Australian community as a whole. The provision will result in a more streamlined process, with the applicant, the department and the AAT using less time and resources to obtain the necessary documentation. Currently, much effort is devoted to, and delay arises in, pursuing papers and documentation from non-citizens and the department. The strict time limit will prevent non-citizens from further attempts to delay the resolution of their case. It will not be in their interests to do so. Minister's power to intervene or set aside Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions Over the past 12 months or so, the AAT has made a number of character decisions that are clearly at odds with community standards and expectations. The AAT has found a number of non-citizens who have been convicted of very serious crimes to be of good character, and has ruled that they should be granted visas. There was one case where a determination was made where they effectively conducted a rehearing only hearing some of the parties, not all, in a case where a court, on appeal, had said they doubted whether or not the sentence that had been afforded in that particular case was in itself sufficient. It is for this reason that I have taken a considerable interest in the way in which these matters have been dealt with, because those decisions about which I have spoken have alarmed the community, and I might say that the community, when they are aware of these decisions, hold the government and not the AAT responsible. It is essential that the minister, acting personally, have the power to intervene and to set aside such decisions in the national interest. The minister should, however, continue to be required to table the making of any such decisions in the parliament. In other words, the accountability for a minister is to the parliament, and would be if he was making capricious decisions in this area. Emergency cases From time to time, there will be emergency cases involving non-citizens who may be a significant threat to the community. These people may be threatening violence or some other act of destruction, or have a prior history of serious crime. In these emergency circumstances, the minister, again acting personally, should have the power to act without notice and have them taken into detention. Once the visa is cancelled, the non-citizen will have a right to make a submission to the minister as to why the cancellation should be revoked. Natural justice will apply in such cases. However, if they cannot satisfy the minister that they pass the character test, they should be removed immediately. Parliament should be notified of the making of such decisions but the decisions should not be subject to merits review because of their national significance. The minister is very accountable for his actions to the parliament, his colleagues and the people of Australia. The provision is similar in nature to other provisions already present in the Migration Act. Subdivision F of the Migration Act—that is section 128—provides for cancellation offshore without notice and the right of the non-citizen to make a subsequent submission as to why the cancellation or refusal should be revoked. This subdivision was inserted in 1992 by the previous government. Conclusion In summary, this bill sends a clear and unequivocal message on behalf of the Australian community. The Australian community expects that non-citizens coming to Australia should be of good character. To discharge this expectation, the government must have the ability to act quickly and decisively, wherever necessary, to remove non-citizens who are not of good character. During debate in the House of Representatives before the election, the opposition indicated that they supported the objective that the government provides for in this bill. This bill now incorporates some amendments reflecting discussions between me and the then opposition spokesman. I hope thus for a speedy passage. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. I apologise in advance that, given that I am hosting a reception for Olympic athletes who have been involved in visiting a number of refugee situations, I may not be able to be here for the whole of the debate. 10:39:00 1233 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA 6J4 Bowman ALP 0 0 —This is the first occasion I have had, since I have been re-elected, to make a contribution to any debate in this House. I am very pleased that it is on something that the opposition has agreed to support. The government brought in the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions Relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 during the last parliament and, of course, it lapsed because of the election. We have made it very clear that we are prepared to support it; in fact, we supported it in the Senate. I want to make a couple of statements; I do not want to go too long. In fact, I will confine my remarks to a few minutes. I will leave it to my colleagues to look at the more technical aspects of the bill. Basically, all this is doing is giving some more power to the minister in terms of making sure that we do not bring people into this country who are undesirable and may have been convicted of offences. We are strengthening our diligence in that area. The opposition has no problems with that. I want to make it clear to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs here today that the government, and the minister for that matter, have a mortgage on ensuring that the integrity of our migration system is kept intact. We have that same willpower and that same intention to ensure that our migration program has an integrity which is beyond reproach. We all know that there will always be people who will come into this country and sneak through the systems. But I do warn the government and the minister—and I have said this to him outside—that the opposition will not be prepared to agree to a situation whereby you make it that tough that, in effect, you take away the ordinary rights of human beings to not only their right of review but their right to justice. We will not countenance a situation of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. When the minister and the government are prepared to come up with something which is reasonable—and I believe that this is reasonable, and that is why the opposition is accepting it—then they will always get some constructive agreement from us. I make that clear to the minister. I have known him for some time and I think everyone in this parliament has a great deal of regard for him. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —He is a good minister. 6J4 Sciacca, Con, MP Mr SCIACCA —He is not a bad sort of fellow. But the point is that, in the end, when you are in opposition you can say all sorts of things and do all sorts of things, but you are more constrained when you are in government. I have been there, done that. But, by the same token, I say to the minister: do not think that, by implementing your government's policies, you can simply throw out all the appeal procedures or at least some of the appeal procedures, because we are not going to let you do it. You might get away with it, as you did yesterday with the disallowance rule. You got a certain senator on side and you were able to get away with it, but you will not always be able to get away with it. All I say to the minister is that this bill will rely on your good graces and on your intelligence to be able to decide whether somebody can come into the country. You can overrule even the AAT. I can understand that and I am quite comfortable with it. I know that you will do everything properly and that you will have a compassionate view and all the rest of it. But no-one can know what future ministers for immigration might do and, once the power is there, it is there. I just want to make that very clear. I will make a number of other comments later on in other bills that come before the parliament. We are pleased that you were prepared to at least accept the amendments that we negotiated with you. There is now extra time for the merit review process. Again, I make it clear that you do not have a mortgage on keeping the integrity of our migration system intact. I have been watching from afar over the last couple of years; you can be a bit more objective when you get out of this place. The cornerstone of the time that I have in this portfolio on the opposition side will be to ensure that the public of Australia are aware of how great, how good and how much of a contribution our migration program of successive governments over the years has been to this country. We should not be afraid of using the word `migration'. I migrated. If you look around, I think you will find a lot of other people migrated to this country. Where would this country be without our migration program? Where would the culture that we have now be if it was not for our migration program? Frankly, over the last couple of terms—particularly the last term—I have noticed politicians of varying persuasions get themselves in a situation where they have said, `The general mainstream public out there is a little worried about this. It has given rise to all sorts of fringe groups and politicians around the country. We've got to be careful.' I think we should not be looking at it that way. My view is that we should be out there selling to the public of Australia the benefits of having a multicultural country and the benefits of an immigration program that has been wonderful for this country. That is what I am going to be about. It is something which we should be able to do on a bipartisan basis. I would like the minister to do something about the Living in Harmony Community Grants Program—and I will talk to the minister about that later on. Let us make sure that we do get the message out to the public of Australia on just how good immigration has been for this country. There are ways and means of doing it. I am happy to cooperate with you on that as well. We support this bill. As I say, I will allow my other colleagues to speak on it. I just wanted to take the opportunity to make a few general comments on what I am about in this portfolio. I look forward to a constructive relationship with the minister, which I am sure I will have. He has been excellent so far. But do not feel too comfortable. If we think you are doing the wrong thing, we will be out there and we will be opposing you not only in the parliament but in the media and everywhere else. The opposition supports this bill. 10:47:00 1235 Gallus, Christine, MP Mrs GALLUS CU4 Hindmarsh LP 1 0 —I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct Bill) 1998 , and on the amendments he has made and thank him for being in the chamber for the first part of the debate today. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —And the first part of your speech. CU4 Gallus, Christine, MP Mrs GALLUS —And the first part of my speech. Before I say anything about the bill, I would like to echo the thoughts of the member for Bowman on the contribution that migration has made to this country. In recent days we have seen attacks on migration—perhaps we have had enough migrants and there have been some questions in certain quarters about migration. I think that is a very narrow view from a very small number of people. It has been my experience that when actually faced with an attack on migrants the people who would question the benefit of further migration are the most likely people to stand there in their defence. I have seen this on a number of occasions. It is somehow the theory that upsets people, rather than the actual fact. I have seen on a number of occasions—certainly in my electorate—the support that people will give to recently arrived migrants, to the extent that they will come to my office and say, `I think this family needs more help. We are concerned. They are around the corner and they are not getting enough help. Isn't it our responsibility to make sure that they settle in?' It is always good to see that. I echo the thoughts of the member of Bowman. This piece of legislation was originally introduced into the 38th Parliament. It has sat in the parliament while the Senate looked at it since October 1987. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —1987? CU4 Gallus, Christine, MP Mrs GALLUS —1997. Indeed, had it been 1987, that would have been a long time. It was subject to examination in the Senate. I did have a chance to go back and briefly look at the speeches given in the House of Representatives when the bill was originally brought in and passed through the House of Representatives. At that time, some concern was expressed by the Labor Party opposition. In principle, they approved of the bill, but they had some minor concerns. This was reflected in the early days of the debate in the Senate on the bill, but as time progressed there was a general change of attitude, I think, and general approval of the bill, especially after the minister's amendments, which he has referred to, one of which is the lengthening of the time—from 42 days to 84 days—for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to make a decision. Again, as the minister has mentioned in his speech, this was highly necessary when you consider that the average time that the AAT was taking to make a decision was 227 days. I note that in the earlier bill it was in fact 240 days. The average has come down from 240 to 227 days, but that is nowhere near good enough. That long period of time—let us face it, it is almost a year—allows people who have a criminal background and perhaps criminal intent to stay in the country and to make use of that long time in which the AAT is deliberating on whether the cancellation of the visa should be upheld. This is a sensible move that forces the AAT to move along and it is certainly what the people of this country would expect. Although we are totally supportive of migration in all of its aspects, one thing that will cast aspersions on the migration program is if we allow into the country people who have criminal backgrounds, and whose intention when they stay here is to follow on with the type of criminal activities that they have indulged in. These are people who are not of good character, and is what this bill is all about. Let me address some aspects of the bill. Section 501 introduces the character test, which in itself has quite a few aspects to it, some of which, I suspect, are a little more contentious than others. I do not think anybody would disagree that this section would exclude anybody who has a substantial criminal record or who has had an association with someone else, or with a group or organisation, whom the minister reasonably suspects has been involved in criminal conduct. A person would not pass the character test if: (d) in the event the person were allowed to enter or remain in Australia, there is a significant risk that the person would: (i) engage in criminal conduct in Australia; or (ii) harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia; or (iii) vilify a segment of the Australian community; or (iv) incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community; or (v) represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of the community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to, or in violence threatening harm to, that community or segment, or in any other way. For the purposes of the character test, there is a list of items to address when a person has a substantial criminal record. It basically comes down to if a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see that these are the types of things that are extremely important in guarding our very valuable migration program, and the entry of people into Australia, so that the migration program can maintain its integrity and the high regard in which it is held by the people of this country. I commend the bill to the chamber. 10:43:00 1236 Theophanous, Andrew, MP Dr THEOPHANOUS QJ4 Calwell ALP 0 0 —I also wish to support the comments of the member for Bowman and welcome him to that portfolio. I support his general comments about the need for us to be more supportive of the general immigration program and to point out the benefits of immigration to the Australian community. I hope that we can get a bipartisan position on this matter following what has been a pretty disruptive 2½ years with some misrepresentation, especially by the former member for Oxley, on the benefits of immigration. As the member for Bowman has indicated, we support the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 . However, I have a few concerns about the way in which the government is approaching this issue. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration presented a report in June of this year titled Deportation of non-citizen criminals. I was surprised that the member for Hindmarsh did not mention the report because she is the chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The report deals with many of the same sorts of issues that are in this bill. I point out the following. Firstly, in his second reading speech the minister did not even refer to the report, yet many of the issues which are dealt with in this legislation are also dealt with in the report. This seems to me to be a pretty serious matter, especially since there are two aspects to it. There is the question of refusing a visa to come to Australia to somebody who has made an application from overseas and who has a criminal record or has problems in relation to criminal records. But there is also the other question of actually cancelling the visa of a person who is already here. When you bring those issues into it, you bring in directly the issues of deportation; and they are the issues dealt with in this report. I would have thought that there was a correct procedure for the government to follow to deal with this issue. Why was there such a rush to bring the bill in again? Why not first do the proper parliamentary thing and have an official government response to the report Deportation of non-citizen criminals? Why not use the material from this report—which is a unanimous report of the bipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Migration—to then have a consistent position as between, on the one hand, the criteria which we use in judging people when they make an application and, on the other hand, the criteria which we use in the cancellation of visas when people have arrived here as non-citizens and have broken the law? The issues here in relation to the deportation of non-citizen criminals are relevant if we are going to have some consistency between the set of criteria that are going to be used when people make an application for a visa and the set used either when people actually are in Australia and perform a criminal activity here or when it is discovered that they did not tell us the full facts of the matter about their previous criminal activities in the country from which they came. We have a situation where what we should have done in terms of process was, firstly, to have a government response to the report of the joint standing committee. Secondly, the minister should have incorporated in the legislation issues concerning deportation as well as issues concerning the judging of people who are making application. But the legislation makes it perfectly clear, and so does the explanatory memorandum, that this issue does not deal merely with cases of people who have made application but also with people who have arrived here and whose visas are to be cancelled by the minister. It seems to me that there is a whole range of issues that ought to have been incorporated, and the recommendations of the committee ought to have been taken into account, especially—when we are talking about the cancellation of a visa—with regard to the delineation of what constitutes a serious offence. If we have somebody arriving in Australia who then commits a minor criminal offence, that is one thing; but, if we have somebody arriving in Australia who commits major criminal offences, that is a different matter. You might think this is a pretty straightforward issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the fact of the matter is that defining minor and major offences is actually quite a complicated question. It is an issue which the committee took up at great length and debated and discussed. I would commend the recommendations of the committee report to the minister when he is exercising his powers in determining whether to cancel a visa. These issues are very important, I believe, to the general thrust. We need consistency between the principles that we apply to people who are making application to come to Australia and those that we apply to people who are already here, when the minister is deciding to actually cancel a visa. The second issue that I wish to raise about the legislation concerns the nature of the character test itself. Of course, we totally agree with most of the provisions and we have no problem with them, because they deal with criminal issues—although, as I said, I think it important, when looking at the defined detail of what should be the relevant criminal issues to be taken up, that we refer to the discussion and the recommendations of this report. There are another couple of very important provisions in this bill. In particular I refer to proposed subsection 501(6) which lists why a person would not pass the character test. Subparagraph (d)(iii) says that a person does not pass the character test if they: vilify a segment of the Australian community; and subparagraph (d)(iv) says they do not pass the test if they: incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community; This is a difficult provision because it can be misused. I do not say it will be misused by the current minister for immigration, but let us assume another minister for immigration does not like a particular political perspective being presented to the Australian community. Such a minister would be able to use the subparagraph `incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community' to exclude someone whose political views he might think are objectionable. UU5 HORNE Mr Horne —And it has been done. QJ4 Theophanous, Andrew, MP Dr THEOPHANOUS —In fact, as the honourable member says, it has been done in some cases. We have to be very careful about this. Have a look at the juxtaposition of rationalisations which the minister has used in relation to the exclusion of Gerry Adams from Australia. Initially we had a situation where we were told that he was a person of bad character. Then we were told that he might have been involved in association with people who had criminal activities. Then we were told that the minister has an absolute discretion to decide this matter, irrespective of what anyone thinks. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —But he wasn't the only one excluded. QJ4 Theophanous, Andrew, MP Dr THEOPHANOUS —Just a minute. You will have an opportunity to speak later on if you wish. The extraordinary thing about this is that we were told initially that Mr Adams was a person of bad character and that he ought to be excluded. Then, lo and behold, after he had played a very constructive part in the peace process, we were told that Mr Adams is actually a person of good character and is going to be allowed into Australia. That was a remarkable transformation. There is a humorous element to this but there is also a serious element. The serious element has to do with the fact that if we are going to use political criteria in the assessment of this clause we could have difficulties with respect to people being able to come into Australia who have an alternative point of view. Let us take the following example. Suppose a leader of a Muslim community wants to come to Australia to talk about fundamentalist Islam. Do we then say that this person is going to incite discord in the Australian community or in a section of that community? Are we then going to say that, because someone has a fundamentalist religious view, we do not allow them to come in because they may be of bad character? I know this a hard question but immigration policy involves facing up to hard questions. That is what it involves. It seems to me that we need further clarification of this particular clause. I would like the minister in his summing up to give this chamber a clarification of what the meaning is of that clause and how he intends to put it into operation. I say this not from any particular perspective. I am not at all a supporter of fundamentalist Islam, but at the same time there is the question of religious freedom. There is the question of interfering with people's rights to hear a point of view. I think there is a difference between that and the issue of actually coming into Australia to, as it says in subparagraph (iii), `vilify a segment of the Australian community'. I agree with that clause. I think that clause is important, because if someone comes in and wishes to spread racism and hate by vilifying a section of the Australian community that is a different thing. That clause I agree with; I think we should in fact be more explicit about what that clause means, but I agree with the general thrust of that particular clause. That clause can deal with such issues as not allowing blatant racists into Australia who are going to come and actually go around vilifying a section of our Australian community. But the question of inciting discord, in terms of the definition of discord when it may be used for political purposes or quasi-political purposes, certainly needs to be further clarified in this legislation. I have raised a couple of issues that I think are very important in considering this bill. They are raised in a constructive fashion, not against the bill but as to how we should deal with the bill and the issues raised by the bill. I hope that the minister will respond to those comments. 11:06:00 1239 Horne, Bob, MP Mr HORNE UU5 Paterson ALP 0 0 —In rising to support this Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 , I cannot help but feel that there is a conundrum here. For many of our original European settlers who came to his country, one of the conditions to be allowed into the country was that they had to have a criminal record. Now, of course, we do not. I wonder how Francis Greenway—that well-known forger who become one of our great architects—feels today! There is a message there also: that many people who do come to this great country of opportunity, once they get here, regardless of their background, perceive the opportunities that exist and grasp them with both hands. Certainly many of them became great Australians. While we support this amendment because it is about the integrity of our immigration program, it is also about the accountability of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I would like to briefly refer to what was perhaps a small incident to the minister that occurred in the electorate of Paterson 12 months ago, but one that was of major concern to a number of Australians because, as a result of the decision of the minister, those people lost their jobs. That was the result of the minister making a decision about the skilled personnel provision that allowed a number of Korean chicken-sexers to come to Australia. The fact that they are Korean has absolutely nothing to do with it. The organisation that applied to bring these people in claimed that they were skilled, claimed that they were going to train Australians, and then simply used them as a ram to get rid of Australian jobs and force those that had to continue working to save their homes to work for half their original pay and a loss of conditions. That is one of the things that I would ask this minister to revisit. If we are talking about the accountability of the minister, we are talking about accountability to Australian citizens. Our immigration program should not result in a reduction of living standards for Australians. Yet, as a result of a decision by this minister, a number of Australians that I know quite well have had the quality of their life degenerate considerably. And what do we find? These people were brought here to train Australians, and once they were here it was discovered they could not even communicate in English. Twelve months down the track, while the majority of those people that were allowed into Australia are still here, not one hour's training has taken place and they are still holding down the jobs that were previously held by Australians. I also believe, from talking to the workers there, that there has not been any improvement in the standard of chicken-sexing. There has been no increase in productivity. My involvement in this debate is purely to ask the minister to revisit this decision, look at it, and decide if the original approval satisfied the statement that was made when the application was made to bring these people here and whether or not they should be allowed to continue to reside in Australia and hold down the jobs of Australians. I do not believe that they do satisfy their original conditions of entry. I would appreciate a reply from the minister. 11:10:00 1240 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 —I note the Senate inquiry into the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 . As the member for Hindmarsh noted, along the road the opposition has tended to come behind the vast majority of provisions in this bill, and that, of course, reflects the agreement by the government to a number of amendments. Philosophically, there are very diverse views on this matter. The Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office in their submission to the Senate inquiry articulated one position when, on pages 1 and 2 of that submission, they noted: If there is good reason to believe that serious harm will be done to the common good by allowing a person or persons to enter the nation, then it becomes the duty of the State to protect the common good by preventing that movement. However, our presumption should be in favour of people's right to freedom of movement and any exception needs to be justified. The onus of proof of bad character should lie with the State. No one should have to prove themselves worthy of a basic human right. Perhaps I might dispute their belief that entry into the country is essentially an immediate human right. However, DIMA, in submission No. 23, page 3, in regards to onus of proof, put forward an alternative position when they said: The result of introducing the character test will be to focus the decision maker's attention on the relevant decision which is whether in all the circumstances of the particular case the non-citizen should be permitted to be the holder of an Australian visa. In reaching this decision, the decision maker will, as a matter of course, consider the range of factors that in many of the submissions should be considered first. Essentially, there is a very wide divergence of views. There is a belief that essentially these changes would put particularly onerous burdens on people in establishing their right to come to this country and that the legislation could be utilised for purposes of political discrimination. The legislation might catch up people who spent time in overseas prisons where there are no legal due processes such as we have in this country and where people are essentially in gaols for political opposition. We can go around the world. We saw yesterday that people were detained in China for attempting to establish an alternative political party. We note that Burma, Myanmar, is the leading example put forward, where members of the National League for Democracy are gaoled. There are people who come to this debate, particularly NGOs, who will articulate those concerns. We have to put a degree of faith in the current Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and his long-term commitment to Amnesty International and human rights. We have a person in the job who would, on balance, be responsible in these matters. There are some questions that should be considered in the long-term review of how effective this legislation is. I, for one, would have some difficulties with the insanity provisions. 0V5 SLIPPER Mr Slipper —Not personally. 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Subsection 501(7)(e) deals with an instance of a person who has been acquitted of an offence on the grounds of unsoundness of mind or insanity and who, as a result, has been detained in a facility or institution. The Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales said that this was regressive in terms of Australian social policy. FECCA noted that it was not limited as to time, and that the detention in that facility could be as short as three months. For the member opposite who interjected in regard to mental stability, if he is talking about mental difficulties in politics, I refer him to a number of works on the former conservative minister for justice in New South Wales who finished up in the Broadmoor mental asylum after a few murders. There is a situation here where the insanity provisions could cause some concern. There is a worry that in certain circumstances the legislation could be used by a person, with less concern for human rights than the current minister has, not to allow people in who had committed political offences. There is the question of rehabilitation of people: how long past are the offences; has the person basically changed their ways? The other thing that I would be concerned about is the question of confidential information. I think some convincing arguments were put in the Senate inquiry. I asked the adviser—because I had not followed the debate closely—whether the government had accepted those points. Apparently, the government, surprisingly to me, had not acceded to some of the submissions that perhaps the information could be confidential to the tribunal alone and not given out to other parties. I think there could be worries that decisions could be made that should perhaps see further consideration and alternative views rather than being suppressed. In DIMA's argument in chapter 2, point 2.95, the department stressed: Confidential information would not allow for someone to mischievously or maliciously disrupt the processing of an applicant's visa because information would have been assessed and agreed by a professional law enforcement agency before being passed on to the parliament. It added that the decision-maker would still have to decide what weight should be given to the information, having regard to other elements of the particular case. I personally do not find that convincing. I think there is a real danger that material that is considered by one person perhaps should not be given the weight that person gives it, and it should have further examination. I support fully the attempt by the government to expedite these kinds of matters. It is alarming that the 1996-97 AAT annual report shows that the period of time from the receipt of application for review to the actual hearing is 45 weeks. It is very alarming. Unfortunately, it sometimes gives people a perception that they have inherited a right to stay here for a long period by establishing ties. This is one of the constant problems of the Australian immigration policy. The quicker we can process these claims and appeals, the better. In reading about this matter, I was directed to one unfortunate use of the legislation. I was overseas on a tour related to Veterans' Affairs at the time of the Lorenzo Ervin case and I did not catch up fully with the nature of that case until I looked through it in the last week or so. There are some interesting quotes in regard to the government's handling of that case. On 10 July, the Australian noted: Under terms of increasing arbitrariness, Ervin has been declared to be a bad character. . . . Once a bad character, always a bad character, it seems. That, of course, arose from the claims of the former member for Oxley. The Prime Minister went on public radio and said, `Let me be quite precise that, firstly, he concealed his conviction of plane hijacking and, secondly, he used a different name from the one that was on the outwatch list.' Over the course of the next week or so, that elicited a lot of media coverage. The Sydney Morning Herald , on 12 July 1997, stated: The Prime Minister's kneejerk reaction to the complaints of two far-right organisations about the former Black Panther, Lorenzo Ervin, triggered a week of high farce ending in a humiliating backdown. The article also stated: Vanstone decided Ervin was not of good character under section 501 of the Migration Act, revoking his visa. No document has surfaced in which she explains what she had taken into account in reaching her decisions. She simply circled a series of yes/no propositions for decision at the end of Immigration's brief. And, further on, it said: Overnight, the Government realised it did not have a leg to stand on. To avoid the ignominy of the court ruling against it, the Government consented to an order cancelling Vanstone's decision and paying Ervin's costs. In the Weekend Australian , on 26 July 1997, Dennis Shanahan said: About the same time as ageing US black panther Lorenzo Ervin left Australia yesterday, the Minister for Immigration Philip Ruddock cancelled his visitor visa. . . . . . . . . . Attempts by Acting Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone to have Mr Ervin expelled immediately failed after a court challenge, and Mr Ruddock was recalled from a ministerial visit to Belgrade to deal with the situation. In the Sydney Morning Herald , on 12 July, the editorial said: . . . Ms Pauline Hanson who accused him of being "a known terrorist and gun-runner". It is, however, a win for Australia's image as a tolerant country, although that victory came at the expense of Australia's reputation as a competent country. The editorial further noted: Mr Howard's determination to "have something done" about "someone with that sort of background" was an unfortunate overreaction. Mr Ervin is at worst a Grey Panther with a colourful Black Panther past. But that past is well distant from his present activities. The Ervin case raises questions about Mr Howard's judgment when confronted with allegations from Ms Hanson. It is hard to avoid the belief that he panicked. The Age of 12 July, under the heading `A Pink Panther rerun', said: Leaving a trail of ineptitude fit for characters modelled on Peter Sellers' bumbling Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther films, the Australian Government yesterday withdrew from the pursuit of the former Black Panther Mr Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin. Furthermore, the newspaper noted that: He was jailed on Tuesday and this triggered protests in several countries and flak in the US, where it was pointed out that two former Black Panthers, now congressmen, would be visiting Australia before the Olympic Games. That is an instance of some of the overreaction that can occur and some of the difficulties, if we are not careful, with the right to exclude people of bad character. As the newspaper also notes, it can reflect on other parties. People from the Black Panthers are now in the US Congress. Stokely Carmichael's death the other day really indicates how far distant these issues, allegations and offences were. In broad outline, I would agree with the opposition that, on the balance of requirements in this country, we do have a government power to exclude people that are not of good character and that perhaps in the past, because of the onus of proof, there has been too much consideration of the rights of people who are not citizens of this country in regard to access. It has perhaps in reality thwarted swifter decision making and essentially meant that too much consideration was given to their rights. I think that on balance this legislation is in the right direction. I would also take the opportunity to have a slightly different position from the member for Calwell in regard to Gerry Adams's access to this country. I think that both parties in this country have had reasonable grounds, if you do take it that a number of other people have been excluded on the grounds of internal terrorist campaigns, et cetera. I think that the situation has materially changed in the last half-year and that the government have made the decision at the right time. I commend them on that and, as I say, a number of people are excluded for good reason. On balance, this is reasonable legislation. 11:22:00 1243 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra LP Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation 1 0 —in reply—I say, firstly, that I appreciate very much the contributions of the honourable members for Bowman, Hindmarsh, Calwell, Paterson and Reid. I thank them for their contributions in this debate. The purpose of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 is clearly to safeguard the Australian community and to enable the government to effectively discharge its duties and responsibilities to the Australian people. The bill is about sending a very clear and unequivocal message that the immigration program is one of integrity. The immigration program is one where character issues are germane. The Australian community should not be feeling that the program is the way in which people who have linkages with organisations which we hear about in disparaging terms—such as triads, mafia and yakuza—are able to enter Australia and pose a risk to the Australian community. It is a very difficult area in which to operate, because a lot of the information you receive about people of character concern is intelligence information. If you are really dealing with somebody who has significant organised criminal links, and where people have been informants about their activities, you cannot readily open to the public gaze the information and the decision making undertaken in cases of that sort. I was listening to the honourable member for Reid putting one side of the argument, which is that people like to know what is alleged against them and to be able to respond to those matters. But we do have situations very often where the information shared with us comes from police informants overseas on the basis that it will not be made public and not be provided to the applicant. The difficulty we face is in providing avenues of appeal. Disclosure can be sought because judges and tribunal members say, `We expect that information to be before us to be able to make a proper decision in relation to it,' and you may put somebody's life in jeopardy. This bill is to try to deal with those sorts of questions because there needs to be a responsible cooperation between decision makers and the government about how much information can be disclosed and in what circumstances it might be disclosed, so that the courts will be involved in a proper role of protection of the people who have provided information. I want to also take up the last point made by the honourable member for Reid because it was one that I think demonstrates in relation to this bill two propositions that I have been putting forward. You do not always know the facts, and the honourable member for Reid demonstrated that. Lorenzo Ervin had been not just a member of the Black Panther movement. Using a weapon, he had hijacked an aircraft with a large number of people on board, putting their lives at risk. He had been sentenced in the United States to two life sentences for that crime, but claimed that he had been pardoned in relation to that offence. We found later that that information that had been provided was incorrect. And, when he entered Australia and was asked about his prior criminal convictions, he failed to disclose that he had been sentenced to two life sentences. Migration rules have to have integrity. If you work on the basis that, if somebody fails to disclose the information, it is of no consequence, I think, perhaps, you have got a distorted view. Sure, what happened in relation to the Lorenzo matter was a decision made by a minister. Ministers have to have regard to how they are going to be seen when they take decisions. There are consequences. This is the point I made about accountability. You have got to explain your case. You have got to be able to justify it. Sure, Lorenzo was a geriatric Panther. Some people might want to ridicule you for that and that is a matter that you have got to take into account. But I must say I would not be afraid to go out into the community and say that people who have misled me as to their intentions when they have filled out forms and who have failed to disclose very serious criminal convictions are of character concern. I think they are. In relation to this bill, there were some other points made during the debate. The honourable member for Calwell was concerned about the Joint Standing Committee on Migration report into criminal deportations. There will be more legislation arising from the committee's work. This was dealing with character issues in the broad. It was not dealing with criminal deportation and obviously the report is one we will be responding to. When you bring in a migration bill, of course you are asked to deal with other issues. The honourable member for Paterson was concerned about Korean chicken-sexers. Let me say that I do not regard Korean chicken-sexers to be of character concern but obviously there are issues relating to the entry of people under temporary entry visas for employment in Australia. Those issues had been raised by the former member for Paterson with me. I looked very closely at the circumstances in which Korean chicken-sexers entered into Australia. Any matters of concern that might be ongoing that the member for Paterson thinks ought to be examined, obviously I am quite prepared to ask my officers to further investigate. But I am not about to use the provisions to maintain essentially a closed shop in which people who have experience in a particular field and can come here and train Australians in using more advanced and more productive techniques might be denied that opportunity. I think some people were keen to see that happen. I think we have to take a balanced view in these matters. Certainly, when the concerns have been raised with the department, we have investigated fully all of those matters. The honourable member for Calwell also raised issues about some of the more generic terms in relation to character questions. Character deals with criminal records. It deals with people who have been associated with terrorist organisations. It also deals with those people who are likely to incite civil disorder and discord in Australia. There have been some difficulties in relation to the implementation of those provisions. We saw that when the decision by former Minister Bolkus in relation to David Irving was challenged in the courts. It is already fairly restrictively construed because of the judicial decisions that have been made there. It is important to protect the Australian community from those with extremist and polarising views. I think it can be addressed in a number of ways. People will have seen my decision in relation to the American Islamic leader, where we counselled him on our multicultural character as a nation and invited him to be constrained in the way in which he commented in Australia, so as not to incite discord. It proved to be a satisfactory way of addressing his entry to Australia. But it is not always going to be. I do not know that Pol Pot was ever convicted of any serious crimes, given the fact that the Khmer Rouge were either in government or rampant in a situation where nobody could be convicted. But let us say he applied for a visa to enter Australia. Do you think the presence of a person of that sort would be conducive to a quiet and quiescent Australian community? QK6 SERCOMBE Mr Sercombe —It would be fairly reckless if he applied now. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —It would be. I am using him as an example. He may not be the only one in the world. There have been a number of people out of the former Yugoslavia that ministers of governments of your persuasion have excluded on character grounds. Given the concern with the political situation that has existed there, there could be a polarisation of views within the Australian community. Powers like that in the hands of ministers I do not think are unreasonable. I have never complained about it when I have been sitting in the chair opposite and ministers have had to make those sorts of decisions and have had to make that sort of call. I think it goes with the territory. Ultimately, ministers are responsible to the parliament. If you make the wrong call, you are going to be very embarrassed about it, so you do it with a great deal of care. This bill has been designed to put most of the decision making in the hands of officers. It has reconfigured the burden of proof. I think that is important for the reasons I outlined in my second reading speech. The bill has provision for me to be able to give decision makers clear and objective criteria against which they can make decisions, to help them with some advice as to what weight they will put on those matters. I do have a concern that sometimes the rights of a child in Australia of someone who has been selling drugs, for instance, are given greater weight than the rights of the many children of other Australians who are abused by those who are trading in those sorts of products. I do have a view about that, and I do not apologise for it. Certainly, in looking at the statements that are being prepared for decision makers, I intend that the statement will reflect that concern. I think we have gone overboard on the Convention on the Rights of the Child to be concerned only about the rights of children of those people who want to enter Australia, and not the impact that their presence might have on other children, for instance, or the Australian community as a whole. With that guidance, we might find coming from the AAT decisions that are more sensible. I do not want to be bagging the AAT but, when you look at some of the decisions that have been taken, it is hard to come to any view other than that they are remote from current community standards and from the expectations of the Australian community. I will retain a discretion, as this bill provides. It is a discretion that ought to be in hands of the minister. It reflects the fundamental principle that has operated in this area over time; that is, that the government of the day—rather than unelected, merely appointed, individuals who very often seek to assume powers that the parliament has never intended that they should have—ought to be able to take responsibility for these matters. It is one of the reasons that, in other legislation that I will be inviting the parliament to consider, I am putting very strongly the view that the elected legislature and its delegates ought to have responsibility, and not unelected judges or tribunal members who are intent on creative decision making which puts them in the position where they are making the laws. As I said in the House recently, it was not so long ago that my department was faced with a situation where, because of judicial decision making, we were having to allow entry to 20,000 people who would not otherwise have been able to access Australia under any selection criteria that had been developed by the government. Such distortions cannot, in my view, be entertained. It was certainly the view of Robert Ray, when he was a minister and had moved to constrain that particular operation, that the changes should be implemented. He achieved those changes because of the cooperation of an opposition that understood what was involved. I welcome the opposition's cooperation in relation to the bill, but I invite them to consider the long-term interests of being able to run an efficacious migration program, the problems that they had to deal with when they were in office and the sorts of measures that are necessary to deal with them. I invite the opposition to separate themselves out from the advocates, who often have a very significant conflict of interest when they are arguing to us. Some of the advocates who are very vocal on these issues at the moment are the very people who are members of law firms which are taking class actions and advertising to some of the most vulnerable people—in journals called the `Bangladesh News' or some such thing, and in the Fijian and Filipino papers—for people who are unlawful to join in class actions to challenge decisions; and they are making very large amounts of money as a result. Then they come in here and face up to us with a bit of special pleading and say, `We need to be able to take these matters to the courts'—to get the judges to turn their minds to some particular esoteric point. There are some very cooperative judges in the Federal Court of Australia—not many, but some—who take an expansive view in relation to these matters; and it makes the task of running an efficacious program that can be defended with vigour from the likes of the Hansons of this world very much more difficult. I commend the bill to the House. I am glad we have it. I think it will strengthen our ability to deal with these particular issues. But there is an unfinished agenda. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick) —If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills 1247 r651 1247 Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Vaile: That the bill be now read a second time. 11:40:00 1247 O'Connor, Gavan, MP Mr O'CONNOR WU5 Corio ALP 0 0 —The opposition will not be opposing the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 . This particular bill gives effect to the recommendations of the McColl report which suggested a refocusing of rural adjustment assistance in this country. It is part of the government's AAA package that was implemented for Australia's rural sector. There are aspects of that particular package that we in the opposition do not support, but this is a bill which has received broad support from us and the farming community across the length and breadth of this country. The process of structural adjustment in the Australian economy is a process that has intensified over the last two decades. In my own electorate, for example, which is a manufacturing based electorate, we have had significant restructuring in key industries. Textile, clothing and footwear and automotive manufacturing were the two main areas where intensive industry restructuring took place and we have seen considerable job shedding in those particular industries. The processes that were at work in those industries as we refocused those industries to deal with the challenges of the global marketplace have been at work in Australia's rural sector, where over the past two decades we have seen quite monumental structural changes in the rural sector. Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, I am sure you would appreciate this, given your history and acquaintance with the rural sector. When I cast my mind back to my own upbringing on a dairy farm in the Western District of Victoria, we milked the cows by hand. The milk went into cans and then the truck came to pick them up to take them to the factory. It was a fairly labour-intensive operation at that stage. Now you see dairy farms with upwards of 1,000, 2,000 and sometimes 3,000 head of cattle being milked and quite enormous gains in production. The application of technologies has seen modern dairy farms quite unrecognisable from the old dairy farms that were in existence as far as the new technologies are concerned. Even the production of hay was a very labour-intensive operation. I can recall the days when we used to stook the hay as well as bale it and pitchfork it onto a truck and then put it in a stack. All of that was quite labour intensive and it provided significant employment for a rural work force who were not owners of capital or the land base. These were farm workers who worked in a variety of areas in the rural sector at the time, be it carting hay, be it relief milking, or be it bagging onions by hand. Even in the potato and onion area, one which I am more familiar with than others, the changed requirement for labour, the application of new technologies, and the advances in transport and packaging and handling, have transformed that industry. And that process of transformation is still fairly intense. Of course, this puts significant demands on farmers who seek to make their living in the rural sector at the moment. Just sweeping with the broad brush here, we have seen the number of farmers decline, the number of farms decline, production increase substantially, and many of the industries refocusing their efforts in the export area. But we have also seen an interesting structural adjustment on farm with the diversification of product that is produced on farms or in particular regions. I happened to take a drive a couple of weeks ago to my home area, which was basically a dairy farming area with some cropping—potatoes and onions mainly, but some hays, lucernes and various other crops. As I drove around it was interesting to see the subtle changes that have occurred in my own local area. On the side of Red Rock we now have vines—there is quite a degree of planting of vines in the area now. There are several small businesses growing flowers quite intensively and making a very good living out of that, and I saw a deer farm where before there had been a dairy farm. Observing the dairy farms that exist there, I cast my mind back to the time when the herds were 30 to 40 head of cattle. Now, the average is around 200 to 300, but some are 1000-head dairies. So there has been significant on-farm adjustment and there has been a reorientation of the rural sector to the export task. What we have here is a piece of legislation which will be of assistance to farmers as they cope with those adjustments to the new realities of their market environment. I note the objectives of the legislation are to improve on-farm productivity and to improve the management skills of farmers. This is very important. If we look at an industry like the wool industry that is going through a period of quite significant turmoil at the moment, its rate of on-farm productivity improvement is well below that of mixed farms and dedicated cropping farms. The disparities in the annual increases in productivity are quite staggering when you consider some wool properties compared with, say, cropping properties. There is a real need to educate farmers and retrain farmers in new techniques of production and in other dimensions of their business so that they can become more productive and survive in the very challenging and changing environment that they find themselves in. There is considerable debate in the rural community about the future of the family farm. We know that the family farm at the moment really depends not only on the production on farm but on the capacity of members of the farm to earn off-farm income. This issue of productivity is going to be central to the survival of those family farms in the new millennium. I note the other objective of the legislation is to improve the management skills of farmers. I am not sure how to put this, Mr Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I can say the `Achilles heel' of the agricultural sector is the resistance to change that has been apparent over the past decades in some sectors. I know there are some very progressive sectors in agriculture today, but certainly in some areas there has been a reluctance on the part of many farmers to take on new technologies, to seek out training, to explore knowledge about their own markets. I guess the problem that many rural industries have had has been changing the culture of production and getting farmers into the broader race to improve skills and to cope with the challenges of their market environment. Having read through the minister's second reading speech, I would like to canvass some of the activities that will be supported by the legislation. I refer to skill development, farm planning, financial planning, quality assurance matters, performance benchmarking, risk management, marketing and natural resource management. These are part of a lexicon of today's production environment that, I guess, was not there 20 years ago. If you went up to a farmer and said, `We need to give you some skills to benchmark your performance against others,' he would say, `I do that. I take a drive around the district and have a look at other farmers' onions and I have a look at mine.' There was, perhaps, no science in the way which producers benchmarked their performances against others in the industry—and, indeed, others in the world. Similarly, if you go through any of these terms that describe the activities that are going to be supported by this legislation, farmers would have approached these issues in a very instinctive way in the past, but not, perhaps, in the most rational or scientific way to their own benefit. So that range of activities that has been described really says it all as far as refocusing the Rural Adjustment Scheme, or rural adjustment for the agricultural sector of this economy, is concerned, and I think that it is a worthwhile refocusing at this stage. I might sound a note of warning here. This is not to pour any cold water on the objectives of the government or the activities that are going to be supported in this legislation, but I think there is a very clear emphasis here on education and training. I would support that, but I think there needs to be some care taken in the way these training programs hit the ground for the benefit of farmers. We certainly do not want training for training's sake, or a plethora of training programs that supposedly focus on improving individual skills of farmers but, in fact, dilute the training effort and do not maintain the sort of focus that is required. I think that focus can be maintained with proper structures and providers being funded and, of course, a review process of substance put in place to ensure that proper education and training are being delivered. There has been some concern expressed, for example, by Mr Clay Manners of the Victorian Farmers Federation. He had this to say: . . . farmers will be very sceptical about education and training being seen as the panacea. I do not think that farmers would see education and training as being a panacea; the problems that are facing the rural sector are broader than that. But the key to the survival of Australia's farm sector in the new millennium is certainly going to be based very much on the capacity of producers to respond to their marketplace and to produce products for that marketplace. Of course, the acquisition of knowledge about that marketplace, and the tools and incentive to obtain that knowledge, will come from a culture where education and training are respected and seen as worth while, and are encouraged by government. So as far as the opposition is concerned, we will be supporting the legislation that has been put before us here. I think it is interesting to note that the effectiveness and strength of this particular program, FarmBis, and the $50 million that is being allocated—which is not an insignificant amount of money—will lie in the partnerships that will be constructed and developed, in an ongoing sense, to deliver the programs and to support the activities that I have just described. It is very important that the training infrastructure in rural and regional areas is sustained and developed for the benefit of those who choose to live in those regions. Of course, the funding that is made available in this program, in cooperation with state governments and other institutions, will ensure that that training infrastructure stays in place and is used effectively for the benefit of the rural sector. We support the general thrust of this Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 . We are from the opposition and we are here to help you! This is one dimension of the AAA package—a small part of that package that we do support. 11:52:00 1249 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN OK6 Eden-Monaro LP 1 0 —In speaking in favour of the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 , I wish to highlight the fact that this bill is part of an overall strategy that addresses many of the problems experienced by the farming sector. These problems have gone on for many years and we have seen government after government simply applying bandaids to them—bandaids to droughts, floods, low commodity prices and those sorts of things. In many cases, the bandaids only entrenched poverty. More often than not, they forced farmers into a situation where they were always going to have to rely on government assistance. Some of the assistance measures, such as low interest rate loans, simply had the effect of increasing the farmers' debts. Probably—and more importantly—what many of these bandaid measures produced was a culture which has meant a reliance on government every time something went wrong. The government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, the AAA package, which was launched in my electorate in Hoskintown in September last year, was a comprehensive program aimed very squarely at changing the culture in the farming sector. It covered a variety of measures, including things like the Farm Family Restart scheme and the Retirement Assistance for Farmers scheme. The Farm Family Restart scheme has improved welfare support to the farm sector and offers adjustment assistance to farmers wishing to leave the industry. It provides a welfare safety net for low income farmers experiencing financial hardship. This particular scheme is available to those who cannot borrow further against their assets and/or who are not ready to sell their farm and apply for welfare support under the normal social security hardship provisions. It also provides family income support payments, re-establishment grants and financial assistance to participate in business assessment and financial counselling. The Retirement Assistance for Farmers scheme, which was allied to this, allows farmers of the age pension age to transfer the legal title of their family farm to a younger generation and be eligible immediately for the age pension. Without this provision, there is normally a five-year wait before the pension is given, when assets of more than $10,000 a year are gifted. This particular scheme also applies to veteran pensioners and to those who have transferred legal title of their property in the last five years preceding the introduction of this particular legislation. These two aspects of the AAA package have worked very well in my electorate, particularly the Retirement Assistance for Farmers scheme, as both in the Monaro and in the Bega Valley we have had a great number of farmers—and I often come across these people, many in their 80s—still working the land with a son or a daughter, on properties which now effectively are struggling to support one family, let alone two. But they really had no choice. The son or the daughter was not in a position to buy the farm and the parents were not in a position to gift it, because, if they had, they would be left with nothing and then would not be able to claim a pension for five years. Many of the tragic circumstances, of which I have seen a number over the last year or so in that very difficult part of the Monaro, and following on from the five-year drought that we had, have been able to be overcome through the government's implementation of the AAA package. I have mentioned these other schemes, which were part of the package, as an introduction to this bill to highlight that it is an integrated package. This bill which covers the Farm Business Improvement Program—or FarmBis—is crucial to the overall success of primary industry adjustment. The other two schemes, the restart and retirement assistance schemes, are primarily to help farmers retire gracefully out of the industry or to start again in a more viable way. The FarmBis program is basically the education and training side of it. This program is a recognition of the changing world. It is a recognition that it is not possible to continue doing things the same old way; a recognition that the average farmer needs to be more involved in the overall management of his or her industry. The FarmBis program is designed to help farmers in all of these areas. The government will be making direct financial contributions towards the cost of these types of training activities—as the member for Corio said, something in the order of $50 million. It is not insignificant, but it also is a recognition of the importance that we place on having those skills right and further education and training. The sorts of things that will be included in this program cover quite a variety of areas such as further development of skills, farm business planning, financial planning, financial advice, farm performance benchmarking, quality assurance, risk management, marketing and natural resource management. If I may I will just pick up on a couple of those. On farm performance benchmarking—as the member for Corio was saying—some years ago `benchmarking'—which was not a word which you would have found used by the average cocky—probably meant wandering around having a look at a few other fields of wheat or whatever, checking out the sheep or cattle of the other farmers in the district at the shows and those sorts of things. You worked out a bit of a gut feeling benchmark from there. But it has become very scientific. I have to say that one of the real advantages of this type of program that we are funding is in this area of farm performance benchmarking. In particular, I will just mention the example of a company in my electorate, Michael Boyce and Co., who are accountants in Cooma and who also have offices in other parts of New South Wales, and who have specialised very much in accounting services for rural industry. They have been running this type of benchmarking under their own steam. Because they are dealing with such a wide variety of farmers throughout New South Wales, and increasingly beyond, they have access to an enormous amount of information. They have been able to run this information into a system so that their clients can then access it and do some of this benchmarking. It is based on real scientific work. This was an initiative that they started themselves without government funding, but it is the sort of program that will come into this FarmBis category. I commend them for that, because it has certainly been absolutely crucial in an electorate like the one I have. It has been particularly crucial in an area like the Monaro, which has undergone very difficult times. Every little bit extra that you can get out of the farm has been worth while over the last few years. Another aspect is risk management. I would like to just say a bit more about that too. Increasingly that is going to become a very important aspect for farmers to do in a far more scientific way. But, at the end of the day, there still is a certain amount of gut feeling needed—as in the case of the Monaro, which I go back to—because the difficulty is that a lot of farmers were making the decision of `Do we join this year?' In a place like the Monaro—prime sheep, prime wool country—it would be inconceivable, you would think, even to think about that but unfortunately many farmers were placed in that position because of the lack of feed and water. They thought, `Can we really cope with additional stock if we do join?' That was a risk management decision that they had to make. Certainly, training and scientific work that can be done over periods of time will help them make that decision. I was talking only yesterday with some farmers who have a property south of Dalgety. They were probably in some of the worst country during the very difficult drought. I have never seen country like it was earlier this year. It was just devastating for such an excellent property. They had been handfeeding sheep for over 12 months. They had reduced their stocks to about a third. In the wintertime they came to the point of saying, `We are down on stock. We are going to be down on substantial income next year. Do we take a risk and put in a crop? Do we put in a canola crop and risk that we will get the necessary rains?' They took that risk and fortunately—and I am just delighted for them—we did get the rains in the right sorts of places. It has been worth while and that will give them some additional income, although they are a bit worried about the grasshoppers that are starting to breed right now as well. They are the sorts of really hard, on the ground, risk management decisions that have to be made. If we can help farmers in that way I think that is excellent. The focus of the program is on partnership. The example I just gave of Michael Boyce and Co. is a good example of how the partnership aspect works well for a broad range of farmers. In many cases the program will bring together state agencies, industry bodies, farmers and community groups. Landcare groups, for instance, I am sure will be involved. All will be working together to determine and implement training needs. The program will also be divided between a state component and a national component. The state component will be funded fifty-fifty with the states. This is a recognition that farm development can have different focuses from state to state, between states and nationally. I mentioned earlier that this program recognises the need for farmers to be more involved in the overall management of his or her industry and the management training aspects of the program will be of great assistance in that regard. A good and current example of the need to have farmers more involved beyond the farm gate is the wool industry. It is now recognised that the average wool grower cannot just do a good job in producing top class wool, stand back and watch the bales get trucked out of the gate and then wait for the cheque to arrive. They recognise that they must have a greater say in the promotion and selling of their product, a greater say in the research and development aspects of their product because it is their product, not that of highly paid bureaucrats. It belongs to the farmer. That is why the wool growers voted in large numbers to express no confidence in the way their product has been promoted and sold and how money has been spent on research and development. The federal government, I know, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry here at the table will be moving quickly to give this control and the control of their stockpile back to the wool growers—in my view not a moment too soon. That no confidence motion is a defining moment in the wool industry. Wool growers now need to take their industry by the throat and make sure that they are not the ones being choked in the future. Developing skills necessary to be involved in the further running of the industry is just one of the many potential benefits that will come from the Farm Business Improvement Program, the subject of this Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998. I commend this bill to the House. 12:09:00 1252 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE KV5 Hinkler NP 1 0 —I am more than happy to speak in support of the Farm Business Improvement Program. As the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said in his second reading speech, the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 is to make a number of amendments to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 to allow the introduction of the Farm Business Improvement Program known as FarmBis. I am a wholehearted supporter of this initiative because it replaces aspects of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. I am also a wholehearted supporter of the umbrella policy of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package. The $525 million Agriculture—Advancing Australia package was released in September 1997 after close consultation with industry, rural communities and state and territory governments. Its aim is to help the rural sector maximise its contribution to Australia's economic, social and environmental wellbeing by boosting its profitability, competitiveness and sustainability. FarmBis is a key feature of this visionary AAA package. FarmBis not only contains benefits for farmers wishing to improve their business management skills in the modern world but also holds benefits for the wider community—particularly in electorates like mine that encompass provincial cities and rural areas, and are heavily dependent on the rural communities. FarmBis is dedicated to helping farmers and their employees, and others directly involved in the sector, such as contractors, improve their management skills. Direct financial contributions will be made towards the program and the training costs in a range of areas. These include skills development, farm business and financial planning and advice, farm performance, benchmarking, quality assurance, risk management, rural leadership development and marketing skills. I was a bit disturbed to hear the shadow minister's concept of benchmarking. I think benchmarking involves a lot more than just going around and having a look at the other guy's onions, as he put it. I think benchmarking today requires a lot greater skill. It involves such things as personal training through the Internet, field days, scientific field days and shed meetings. I think part of the problem with farming was that a lot of farmers flew by the seat of their pants. Today there are a lot of mechanisms in place. I think benchmarking should be seen as a much more sophisticated mechanism—albeit there are plenty of mechanisms around to enhance it—rather than the comme ci, comme ca basis on which we did things in the past. This FarmBis program dovetails perfectly with the Farm Family Restart scheme which provides a welfare net for low income farmers experiencing financial hardship and who cannot borrow further against their assets and/or who are not ready to sell their farm and apply for welfare support under the social security hardship provisions. The Farm Family Restart scheme also provides income support at the same level as unemployment benefits, as well as paying farmers to obtain professional advice about the viability of their business. It is this aspect which dovetails well with FarmBis and provides an opportunity for farmers to gain skills which may be lacking. One of the saddest things for me is that when farmers come to see me I cannot help thinking that if they had had the right skills development they would not be in the position that they are in. I see this a lot after hailstorms and floods, that provision has not been made for insurance and other safeguard mechanisms. While I appreciate that crop insurance is a very expensive field, I cannot help thinking that if farmers had a better opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons of entering into insurance—or at least into some form of partial insurance—they would be better able to cope. If we create a structure in which farmers have access to those skills, and they are readily available and supported by government, as they are through these programs, then I think they will be better able to cope. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme and the retirement assistance scheme for farmers are other components of this AAA package. I am a great believer in these programs, but I must make the comment that I am finding now that the $500,000 limit when passing on the family farm from one family to another—it is not so bad when there are two or three families involved—does have some difficulties in it. Also, where families have set up trusts or family companies and the major breadwinner has been removed from the scene—perhaps by some fatal illness—before the family can get the opportunity to restructure is a difficulty that needs to be addressed to make that program work better. Rural industries and the coalition have worked closely together in the development of the `Action Plan for Australian Agriculture', which sets a forward agenda for improving the profitability, sustainability and competitiveness of the farm sector. The action plan is underpinned by a shared vision that, within 10 years, Australia will have an outward looking agricultural sector based on profitability, sustainability and competitive family-farmed businesses. We are recognised in that field as world leaders and we should endeavour to enhance our efficiency, our product quality, our application of innovation, and our ability to supply and respond to market needs. The vision is supported by eight themes, under which a range of actions can be taken by the industry and the government. These themes include increased profitability, with financially self-reliant producers involved in increasingly productive and profitable enterprises; and skills development and leadership, guiding highly-skilled food and fibre industries, with a culture of ongoing skills development. That is where FarmBis fits in very well. Other themes are a close relationship with customers, driven by ongoing trade liberalisation, innovative marketing strategies and efficient supply channels able to respond to market demand; increased quality and value of Australian food and fibre products; and enhanced ongoing planning, with producers, industry organisations and government planning for the future and undertaking ongoing analysis and monitoring. A very interesting aspect of this was seen last year, when the Taiwanese pork market collapsed because of foot-and-mouth disease. I was involved with a number of groups of pork producers who wanted to respond to that circumstance. I found it absolutely staggering that they could not get the abattoir capacity in Australia to be able to respond quickly enough. We had Japanese buyers out here, and they actually like Australian pork. They particularly like the lighter quality of Australian pork. I remember attending a function at Monto and seeing how keen they were to take our product. In the end, the only place they could get this additional capacity was at Cannon Hill, which is a state abattoir in Queensland. Even then it was only on a limited basis, and the chilling had to be done on the other side of Brisbane. It staggers me that, when opportunities like that are around, we cannot respond. Enhanced planning is a vital part of a creative package that empowers farmers and their organisations to act in a better way. The package also deals with sustainable natural resource management, reflecting the application of ecologically sound agricultural practices and the maintenance of long-term productive capacity of the natural resource base at local, regional and national levels. I often speak about this in the parliament, but integrated pest management was pioneered in my own area of Bundaberg and it plays a very important part in the use of chemicals and fertilisers. One aspect of integrated pest management is to breed up some benign insect or bug that does not affect the crop, in order to remove those bugs on the crop that may be causing difficulties. In that way, you use very little chemical, if any. It allows you to reduce the use of chemicals to perhaps one-quarter, one-third or one-fifth of what you were using before. We need to be doing a lot more of that. Other themes reflect the need for high levels of innovation, with high investment in, and uptake of, well-focused research and the application of biotechnology to increase the sector's competitiveness. Above all, we need robust, prosperous rural communities with effective social and physical infrastructure, with local industries cooperating to shape their own futures. I do not throw that in as some sort of pious dream. I think all governments have been guilty over recent years of denuding rural communities of services that are important to keep prosperous rural communities effective. Farmers should not have to travel great distances to get to a bank, and they should not have to travel great distances to get appropriate telecommunications linkages and the like. I acknowledge that many farmers in my electorate have already adopted world's best practice in farm business management techniques. In fact, I am proud to say that my electorate boasts some of the best farm managers in Australia. That applies equally in a number of fields, especially sugar, small crops and, in more recent times, aquaculture. It is high time that government was seen to be actively encouraging farmers to get skilled in these areas because it is something that producer organisations have been hammering us about for years. FarmBis will provide a framework to help farmers adopt a positive approach to change across the whole farm sector leading to improvements in productivity, profitability and sustainability in all facets of farm business through improved management skills. This is not to say that farmers are using antiquated management techniques. Farmers in my electorate use computers to monitor soil conditions and to run irrigation and fertiliser programs. As well, they do their accounts on computer and catch up with the latest farm information on the Internet. FarmBis will assist all those involved in the management of farm business to build on their existing skills and improve the performance of their farm business. The exciting part about FarmBis is that it will promote continuous learning by making training more accessible. This $50 million program over three years has received strong support from farmers, which is fitting because the focus of the program is on partnerships. State agencies, industry and local farmer and community groups will contribute to meeting the training needs of the farmers. This program will be further localised with local coordinators to take primary responsibility for further skills development of farmers in their area. Of course, another spin-off from this program will be the fact that local training providers will be in a good position to provide these services. My electorate is blessed with having excellent trainers and I can envisage Bundaberg becoming the training centre for the Wide Bay-Burnett region and Gladstone for the Callide-Port Curtis area. In my years before entering parliament I was actively involved with the development of the TAFE agricultural campus in Bundaberg and with the development of the fishing and marine college in Bundaberg. We now have these facilities in place, but there has been a weakness. There has been this lack of funding to drive the link between the farmer and the facility and I see this FarmBis package as being a very important linking mechanism. Ultimately, however, the FarmBis program, the other components of the AAA package and the action plan for Australian agriculture will only achieve real benefits for regional and rural Australia if the coalition government is permitted by a hostile Senate to exercise its mandate in implementing its tax reform package in full. I do not say that flippantly and I do not say that just to nark the opposition; I believe that. The improvements to excise and sales tax are critical for regional Australia. The reforms in excise will mean the tilting of the playing field by $3.5 billion towards regional and rural Australia. If you then take the whole package involving exports as well you are looking at $4.5 billion. That is the sort of thing that farmers and rural communities have wanted for a long time. The sheer cost of getting parts and components to rural areas and getting the product or the semi-finished product out of the region to port and to market has been a very difficult feature. Indeed, there are also all those other things that are important for life in a rural community, right down to the health insurance rebate. We have a structure of public and private hospitals in provincial Queensland. If one sector of that collapses, what we are going to have is that people in rural areas will not be able to get specialist and focused health needs in their own areas but will have to go to capital cities. In the last two or three decades we have been improving that. It all comes back to the coalition being able to get a whole range of measures through. This FarmBis in itself is great. But if we are deprived of the other mechanisms around it to make life attractive in rural and regional areas, it will be a tragedy. On that note, I support the legislation and commend the bill to the House. 12:26:00 1256 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE SU5 Lyne NP Trade 1 0 —in reply—I would like to thank all members who have participated in the debate on the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 , which, as far as the farming community in Australia is concerned, is very important as it gives effect to a number of measures that the previous minister responsible for agriculture and the Prime Minister announced with regard to the AAA package. Primarily, as has been identified by the two previous speakers, it provides for the opportunity under the FarmBis program for the governments of Australia, on a partnership basis between the Commonwealth and the states, to provide for further training in the rural community. The agricultural community in Australia is very quickly recognising that not only have we got to be able to produce the best food in the world but our business practices have to be as good as those around the world. We have to continually look for means of improving those, and always be prepared to embrace change and new methods of doing things. This is a way that the government, instead of just providing straight-out assistance for farmers in times of crisis, can help the farming community manage a lot of those risks they face from time to time that are out of their control, such as climatic conditions. We are experiencing a number of those across Australia at the moment: we have seen the severity of frosts in Western Australia and Victoria, some unseasonal rains and some drought conditions, all at the one time but in different parts of Australia. That is just part and parcel of the continent we live on. What our government is aiming to do is to introduce programs to help the farming community better manage for those risks and also introduce better business management skills within their own businesses because, at the end of the day, that will help improve their productivity and profitability and, most importantly, their sustainability. A farming operation is no different to any other business operation throughout this economy—and it has to be viewed that way. So where there are difficulties and challenges and individual risks that only apply to that business activity, they have to be managed. We need to be able to provide the skills to help the farming community work through that area because our economy is commodity based. It is important that we recognise that and we accept that. We have to ensure that we have a viable and sustainable agricultural production unit within our economy well into the future, because it is in the engine room of what we do in this country; it is the basis for a lot of the exports that we send out of this country that bring export income into the country. In supporting and closing the debate on this bill, I would like to thank all those who have made a contribution to this bill. I understand it is getting support from the opposition—that is why it is in this chamber. The agreement on the program framework has been reached as well with the state jurisdictions across Australia, through the ARMCANZ group, so there should be no impediment to the full implementation of this program once it passes through the parliament. I commend the bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills 1257 r604 1257 Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Dr Wooldridge: That the bill be now read a second time. 12:30:00 1257 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 0 —The opposition supports this Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 . The legislation contains minor amendments to the legislation for the National Health and Medical Research Council to simplify procedures, and addresses a problem highlighted by a recent court case. The opposition supports the bill and believes that it should be passed promptly. There is a need, however, for a considered and lengthy debate on the current directions of medical research in Australia, but this bill is not the right occasion. Later this week, I understand, the report of the health and medical research strategic review conducted by Peter Wills over the last eight months will be released. From our point of view, this report will give an opportunity for all of us to reassess current policies and priorities for medical research. The government has recently made some major changes to the way that research is funded, including reducing tax concessions to investors. The new commercial arrangements just announced with County Investments take the research sector into unchartered waters which could unseat current partnerships and create new difficulties about intellectual property rights over fundamental medical research. But those issues can wait until we see the report that Peter Wills has conducted, and we will have that debate then. Peter Wills has written publicly of the problem of some of our best and brightest medical researchers leaving our shores for overseas. He cites as reasons for the brain drain of Australian researchers a lack of funding for medical research in Australia, a slower than international standard career path and a lack of career entry positions. This lack of certainty in continuation of funding is also a key problem for those Australians wanting a career path in medical research. While medical research takes only a very small part of our total health budget, the savings that we could expect from successful medical research are enormous. Once again citing Mr Wills, he has pointed out that the cost savings from measures such as the identification of direct avoidable costs in Australian hospitals could be as great as $870 million a year. The opposition looks forward to what we expect to be a thought provoking report from the inquiry and, from our point of view, the release of the report will provide an excellent opportunity for a full discussion of the topic. I trust that the minister will take the opportunity to make a major ministerial statement on this report which will provide all of the parliament with a chance to enter into a decent debate about this very important issue. From Labor's point of view, of course, we are very strongly supportive of the independence of the National Health and Medical Research Council. It was one of the major reasons for creating the NHMRC as a statutory authority, giving it clear statutory independence, back in the early 1990s. I think that all Australians want to know that the NHMRC will provide expert and impartial advice. This bill today will just strengthen it a little bit further and I have no doubt the government shares that view. To Australia's credit, we are a world leader in the field of health and medical research—extraordinary, given the size of our population. Our contribution to critical international medical advances ranges from those early pioneers, such as Howard Florey, to our current greats such as the recent Nobel Prize winner, Peter Doherty. Probably the greatest resources are out there in the vast number of laboratories all around the country which are filled with people at the cutting edge of research. They are the ones with the enthusiasm and creativity of a new generation of graduates. I want to say something personal in relation to an outstanding research institute in my own electorate, the Austin Research Institute. I visited this institute and saw the extraordinary enthusiasm of the young graduates who are at the international cutting edge of medical research. It is one of the most exciting things to be able to witness. As a parliament, the more we can do to encourage the excellence that takes place in institutes such as the Austin, the better. The people at the Austin, and in all the other labs around the country, keep both health and medical research at the forefront. Of course they depend—not entirely, but to a significant degree—on the NHMRC both to set national priorities for research and also to fairly distribute funds on merit. The NHMRC also plays a very important role in the national public health research agenda and in considering their work, when we come to debate this issue of future research, it will be very important that we support, as far as possible, the public health tasks of the NHMRC as well as the medical research. This morning, we had a meeting of the parliamentary group on AIDS and I think that provided an excellent example of the parliament, across the political spectrum, working together on one of the most important public health issues facing Australia, that is, of course, the AIDS epidemic. The work that has been done by all members of parliament to make sure that the political leadership has been there to address that enormous public health problem needs to be commended—for those who have gone in the past. That work is always led by the excellent research that the NHMRC has funded. In addition, I wanted to mention briefly the enormous potential that medical and health research has to offer Australia in the way of economics. There is no doubt that there are real opportunities for our basic research to be translated into products that will be of enormous benefit to our nation financially. As the Minister for Health and Aged Care outlined in his second reading speech, the bill introduces a streamlined, single stage public consultation process that will be followed when the council is issuing guidelines. These changes facilitate a process of advertising the intentions of the council, making available a synopsis of the guidelines and contact points for obtaining copies. The council is required to take account of all submissions before finalisation of that particular guideline. Further minor changes to a committee name and to some of the council's committee operations have also been made in this bill, while it will also extend the council's power to appoint deputy chairs and to have working committees. These are all sound procedural measures in line with the operation of other organisations. As I indicated, it is a machinery bill which the opposition supports. I again emphasise that the opposition looks forward to receiving the review of the medical research inquiry that Peter Wills has done. I understand it will be released this Friday. We particularly look forward to a substantial debate in the parliament when the minister responds to that inquiry. 12:39:00 1259 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr NELSON RW5 Bradfield LP 1 0 —Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin I would like to acknowledge the hardworking and diligent clerks who are working with you today. I am very impressed with the way they go about their work. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —I certainly endorse your remarks and, on their behalf, I thank you for them. 10000 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr NELSON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In starting to speak to the amendments to the NHMRC Act 1992, I would like to join the member for Jagajaga in emphasising the importance of research not only to society but also for our economic welfare. We see so much of our economic and cultural past leaving us every day, whether it is in the form of BHP steelworks and collieries, the timber industry, the pork industry, citrus growers or anything else. Our future actually lies in areas that relate to and are the product of research. The intention of these amendments to the act is to streamline the council's procedures so it might more effectively maintain its role as a national leader in the field of medical and public health research and advice. These amendments introduce a streamlined, single-stage public consultation process that the council will follow when seeking to issue guidelines. Having served on that council myself for four years, thanks to the former minister for health, Mr Brian Howe, I understand the importance of some of these amendments to the council and the community that it serves. The process consists of advertisements notifying the council's intention, a summary or outline of the guidelines and information on where interested parties can obtain a copy of the full draft guidelines. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 makes it clear that the council must take into account all submissions received before finalising and issuing a guideline. The bill also provides for the council to endorse and issue guidelines developed by other bodies, whilst enabling the council to demand of other bodies the very public consultation that it itself would have engaged in. One of the principal committees, the Medical Research Committee, will be renamed the Research Committee. The provisions also enable principal committees to appoint a deputy chairperson and extend the council's power to delegate to the working committee. One of the things that I wanted to speak to in the context of this bill was Australia's expenditure on health and medical research, but I see that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has arrived to sum up, so I do not want to take up too much of his time. I know he is extremely busy. Australian expenditure on health and medical research has been the subject of some political debate, apart from active consideration in the scientific community, over the last few years. First of all, health research expenditure is narrowly defined by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and is published in health expenditure bulletins and the other general purpose publications that it releases, such as Australia's Health 1998. The Australian Bureau of Statistics provides the backbone for health research estimates. Health research expenditure is narrowly defined. In trying to compare what we spend in Australia with spending in other countries, we need to have a look at how it is defined in other nations. It is defined in Australia specifically for the socioeconomic purposes of health, clinical research, public health research, and research into health and support services. Under the ABS standard for research classification, some other expenditure is attributed to other purposes—for example, the significant expenditure in the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals is classified as being for the purposes of manufacturing and not for health specifically. Some pure basic research into health in the medical and health sciences is classified as for the advancement of knowledge. In 1994, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare established that the research and development by non-business enterprises for socioeconomic purposes of health was $432 million in 1990. There was another $52 million spent by business enterprises to give a total in 1990 of $484 million. When the other health related research expenditure was included, the totals came to $495 million and $639 million respectively. The narrowly defined health research and development spending is nearer to 80 per cent of the wider health related definition. Over time, national health research spending has increased not only as a share of national health expenditure but also as a share of GDP. In 1990-91, government expenditure was $371 million, which was 1.19 per cent of total health expenditure. In 1994-95, that had increased to 1.49 per cent of total health expenditure and, in 1996-97, to 1.58 per cent of total health expenditure. Health and medical research expenditure as a proportion of GDP, the nation's entire productivity, has increased from 0.09 per cent in 1982-83 to 0.12 per cent in 1993-94 and around 0.15 per cent last financial year. This latter ratio records the larger rise over the period as national health expenditure increased as a proportion of GDP from around 7.7 per cent in 1982-83 to 8.4 per cent in 1995-96. But federal government budget expenditure on health research generally grew as a proportion of federal health expenditure and of GDP until 1991-92. Federal spending on health and medical research, as it is currently defined, peaked at 0.9 per cent of total federal health spending in 1983-84 and has never again passed that level. The two trough periods significantly were with the introduction of Medibank in 1973 under the Whitlam government and the introduction of Medicare in 1983, which, of course, was associated with significant increases in health expenditure generally. Although the forward estimates suggest a fall in both ratios, federal government spending as a proportion of total health expenditure and of GDP, historically the forward estimates have shown a bias of understating actual spending. In this regard, for this and indeed much of this information, I am grateful for a paper produced by Roger Kilham from Access Economics and also for material from John Goss, who heads the Health and Welfare Expenditure Unit at the Institute of Health and Welfare. Actual spending has varied in most years from between 120 per cent and 137 per cent of the first forward estimate of the corresponding year. In other words, the estimates have always—except on two occasions—underestimated what actual spending ended up being. Those two exceptions—in fact, the only exceptions—were in the years 1992-93 and 1994-95 when actual expenditure was below the forward estimates. It is interesting when you reflect on the MPI in which the member for Dobell participated yesterday—he criticised the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and questioned this government's commitment to science and research and furthering knowledge—that, in the area of medical research, the only two years where spending was actually below forward estimates were in the period of the Hawke-Keating governments, in 1992-93 and again in 1994-95. As a proportion of total federal expenditure, federal health and medical research expenditure has increased. In fact, it now stands at a record 0.14 per cent, due in no small way to the efforts of the current minister and member for Casey. It is up from its 1975 low of 0.3 per cent. It is rather interesting that a number of Australians, particularly those in the Labor Party, eulogise Mr Whitlam as a former Prime Minister for his vision. Mr Whitlam did indeed have an inspiring vision for our country, but the problem is he had no plan. We have just finished paying off the legacy of his vision. At the end of the Whitlam years, health and medical research expenditure was only 0.03 per cent of total federal expenditure. Federal spending on health and medical research also grew as a proportion of GDP until 1991-92. But it has been flat ever since and it is currently running at about 0.032 per cent. Australia's spending on health research as a ratio of GDP is low in comparison to many OECD countries. In fact, we rank 12th at 0.09 per cent; the US leads the way at 0.23 per cent. When you look at the countries that are actually ahead us, they are countries that we consider to be, by and large, affluent nations. Again, I think the entire culture of Australia needs to change significantly, particularly in the private sector, in terms of the amount of money that we put into research and development. One of the things that I would like to emphasise before I conclude is the former Labor government's 1993 election promise—and this is where some things stick in your craw at times here in this place. YK6 WILTON Mr Wilton —But you voted for them; you voted for them all your life. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr NELSON —I was campaigning very hard against the Keating government in 1993 and I am very pleased that I did. In the run-up to the 1993 federal election, the then Labor Prime Minister made a commitment that the government would lift health research spending to two per cent of total health expenditure by the year 2000. At the time of the election, as a proportion of total health spending, the government then was spending 1.4 per cent on health research. The election commitment was to take it to two per cent. In fact the press release that was issued at the time was entitled Labor supports science and technology. It included the following paragraph: We will also continue to support our high quality health and medical research system. Since 1982-83, Commonwealth funding of this important area has more than doubled in real terms. The results, in terms of research which improves the health of all Australians, have been outstanding. Labor will work with medical researchers and the business community to lift research funding to 2.0% of total health expenditure by the year 2000. The National Health and Medical Research Council's Research Strategy will be important in helping the Government achieve this goal. Many of us, including me, interpreted this commitment to mean that the federal government would substantially increase—in fact, roughly double—its own spending on health research which had been running at less than one per cent of federal health outlays. This interpretation was reinforced, for example, in the 1994-95 budget papers, the year after the election, which stated: As a step towards the 1993 election commitment to lift health and medical research funding to 2% of total health expenditure by the year 2000, additional funds of $13.8 million in 1994-95, rising to $30.3 million by 1997-98, are to be made available to fund new research, with an emphasis on areas of priority such as breast cancer and aboriginal health. I might also emphasise that in the MPI yesterday, when the member for Dobell was attacking the current minister for education, he tried to suggest that it was improper for political interference in determining research priorities. He ought to be reminded that the Labor government, when the member for Fremantle was the health minister, actually picked a disease, a very important disease—that is, breast cancer—out of the scientific ruck and put it into the political arena, with the establishment of the Kathleen Cunningham Foundation and the multi-centre research centres across Australia. This is not to say that breast cancer, in any way, is not deserving of significantly more effort, but to do that and then try to accuse this government of politicising research priorities instead of looking at things on a peer review basis is just a little rich. Subsequent budget papers included forward estimates that implied health research spending would fall away in real terms. Labor simply maintained the status quo with regard to its spending on health and medical research. The then government's desperation to wriggle out of the promise was communicated again by the member for Fremantle—at the time, the health minister. She was later to imply that the election commitment was not a commitment to increase federal spending on health and medical research, but a commitment to ensure an increase in national spending on health and medical research, although there was no policy framework to effect any increase in non-government spending. Again, this is something which has been addressed by the current government and, indeed, the current minister. She then attempted to demonstrate that the commitment had already been honoured by concocting a mismatched ratio totally devoid of meaning—that is, the Institute of Health and Welfare estimate of health research spending undertaken by the Commonwealth sector expressed as a ratio to federal health spending. In the 1998-99 budget, the coalition, again under the leadership of the current minister, increased spending on health research and lifted the forward estimates—perhaps not enough to reverse the earlier decline as a share of federal health spending. But, in a climate where we have had to embark on a program of fiscal consolidation to not only preserve and quarantine the Commonwealth's commitment to health and medical research, to substantially increase it, is a legacy which the government—indeed, the minister—will undoubtedly be proud of for many years to come. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak to this bill. Clearly, it is something that I strongly support. I seek leave to table a document published by Access Economics in relation to health and medical research. Leave granted. 12:54:00 1262 Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MP Dr WOOLDRIDGE 8E4 Chisholm LP Health and Aged Care 1 0 —in reply—I want to thank honourable members for their contribution, particularly the member for Bradfield for his thoughtful and well-researched contribution. This is a chance, in a non-controversial bill, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 , to talk about the National Health and Medical Research Council, the country's premier scientific and medical body. It is something we look at all the time to provide us with timely evidence based advice on which to make decisions, which is not easy as minister because there are many pressures in the health portfolio, and many people wanting you to make decisions for certain illnesses or conditions. In the bill, we are trying to change administrative and other procedural arrangements that will make the NHMRC work in a slightly more streamlined manner. The most important of these is the manner in which the NHMRC undertakes public consultation, which will still be a very important part of its role, but which has been shown to be very cumbersome. This change will allow it to operate in a little more efficient manner. The NHMRC has been very successful as an organisation in its leadership on clinical guidelines, so much so that other organisations are now developing guidelines for themselves by using its rigorous process. We are also seeing other organisations seeking to have the NHMRC endorse their own guidelines. In this bill, we seek a situation where the NHMRC can actually endorse externally developed guidelines—something that it cannot do at the moment. Administratively, the bill includes a change in name, a broadening of its sphere of responsibility in appointing deputy chairpersons, and an extension of the NHMRC's power to delegate to include the chairperson of council and working committees appointed by the NHMRC. In total, the amendments put forward are intended to ensure the NHMRC maintains its position as leader in the fields of health and medical research. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Main Committee adjourned at 12.57 p.m. Answers to Questions in Writing 1264 The following answers to questions were circulated: 1264 (Question No. 140) 140 1264 Latham, Mark, MP Mr Latham K26 Werriwa ALP 0 0 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 November 1998: What were the words in the oaths of office taken by the Ministers in the second Howard Government. 1264 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The oath of office made by Ministers of the Second Howard Government on 21 October 1998 was as follows: "I, [Minister's full name], do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia in the office of [position] and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second. So help me God!"