1998-12-033911REPS126501998-12-03Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous1265Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Space Activities Bill 1998 Bills1265r6801265Bill presented by Mr Anderson, and read a first time.126509:32:001265Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 1998 amends the legislative framework for the setting of standards for motor vehicles when first supplied for use in transport in Australia and provides for improvements to the administration of the act.The proposed amendments will provide a wider definition of a `vehicle standard' to include standards designed to promote energy saving. This will allow the development of a standard for model specific fuel consumption labelling as announced by the Prime Minister on 20 November 1997 in his statement on greenhouse issues `Safeguarding the Future: Australia's Response to Climate Change'. This amendment is an important early step in implementing Australia's international commitments to reducing the level of growth in emissions of greenhouse gases to eight per cent above 1990 levels by 2010.This standard is being developed by the Australian Greenhouse Office and will be subject to the normal consultative and development processes. The standard will provide consumers with comparative information about the fuel consumption of particular models of motor vehicle so they will be able to take this information into account when purchasing a vehicle. In the longer term, it is hoped that this initiative will encourage industry to develop more fuel efficient vehicles.The bill also includes amendments to establish the position of `Associate Administrator'. The Administrator performs the function of my delegate and can exercise certain of the powers under the legislation. The appointment of one or more Associate Administrators allows more routine matters to be dealt with at a more appropriate level.The remaining amendments improve the administration of the act by correcting errors and restoring the connection between this act and the Customs Act 1901. They are mechanical in nature but designed to improve the enforcement provisions of the legislation. Importantly, one amendment removes a duplication of penalties by removing criminal sanctions where there are already administrative sanctions.The net budgetary impact of the amendments will be nil.The amendments will come into force on the day on which they receive royal assent. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills1265r6961265Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.126509:35:001265Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to remove the regulation of superannuation as an allowable matter in federal awards. The bill will mean that businesses and employees would no longer be forced to have their superannuation rights and obligations governed by duplicate layers of regulation—the existing layer of regulation created by the award system will be subsumed by rights and obligations under the superannuation guarantee legislation. This measure will reduce compliance costs, minimise complexity and simplify administration.It will also enhance the process of award simplification.This proposal is not new. When the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 was originally introduced, the allowable award matters proposed did not include superannuation. The amendments subsequently agreed with the Australian Democrats retained superannuation in the list of allowable award matters as a temporary measure, on the in-principle basis that superannuation could be removed from award regulation in conjunction with the implementation of the coalition's `choice of funds' legislative package.The continued pursuit of this sensible measure to remove the regulation of superannuation from the award system was specifically reaffirmed in the coalition's workplace relations policy More Jobs Better Pay released during the recent 1998 federal election campaign.The Australian Industrial Relations Commission, in its 1994 superannuation test case decision, recognised that the superannuation guarantee legislation established the safety net for superannuation entitlements. Removing superannuation from award regulation reflects the safety net role of the superannuation guarantee legislation. Those employers and employees who wish to use the workplace relations system to regulate occupational superannuation beyond the safety net level can continue to do so through the agreement making processes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 or through over-award payments.An earlier bill dealing with this matter, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997, was introduced on 4 December 1997, along with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, which contained provisions for the choice of superannuation funds. That bill was passed by this House, but did not pass through the Senate in the previous term of the coalition government. The bill introduced today is similar to the previous bill but now includes transitional provisions that were not previously necessary as the removal of superannuation from awards would have then been effected as part of the award simplification process introduced by the 1996 amendments.The present bill will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to prevent the commission from dealing with disputes about superannuation by arbitration. Superannuation will cease to be an allowable award matter, and the commission will not be able to make exceptional matters orders about superannuation.The transitional provisions in the bill will have the effect that existing superannuation provisions in awards will cease to operate after a six-month transitional period. The commission will then be required to remove superannuation provisions from awards. The bill will preserve existing superannuation clauses beyond this six-month period where they are `special consent provisions'. This is consistent with the treatment of special consent provisions by the award simplification process under the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996. Special consent provisions are provisions of awards made in accordance with the particular wage fixing principles of the commission that were put in place through national wage decisions from 1991 to 1995. Such special consent provisions are no longer provided for and therefore this preservation will not be an avenue to introduce new or amended superannuation provisions into the award system.Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to enable employers to continue to use `notional earnings bases' based on current award provisions in determining obligations under that act, even after the award provisions cease to operate. This will ensure that employers do not incur additional superannuation costs as a result of the removal of superannuation from awards. In combination with the Super annuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 , the changes in this bill will mean that `flat dollar amounts' will also continue to be recognised for superannuation guarantee purposes. These amendments will complement the new choice of funds arrangements contained in the choice of funds bill, introduced into this House on 12 November 1998. In combination, these bills deliver genuine superannuation reform.This bill will have no significant impact on Commonwealth expenditure.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills1267r7041267Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.Bill presented by Mr Fahey, and read a first time.126709:41:001267Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This is a historic occasion for the parliament. It is the last time on which cash based annual appropriations will be presented for the parliament's consideration.The next budget, which is to be brought down in May 1999, will be prepared on an accrual basis consistent with the recommendation of the National Commission of Audit. Under that framework, the focus in the appropriation bills will be on:. achieving agency outcomes rather than the current input focus; and. funding for the full price of agency outputs or expenses estimated to be incurred rather than merely estimates of cash payments to be made.Taken together, these changes will disclose to the parliament the full costs of the government's activities and allow a greater focus by the parliament on performance of agencies. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , which I shall introduce shortly, comprise the additional estimates for 1998-99.In the bills the parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made for the 1998-99 year under appropriation acts Nos 1 and 2 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act.The additional appropriations in these three bills total some $1,638 million. That is broken down into $1,382 million in Appropriation Bill (No. 3), $255 million in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and about $1 million in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2).These amounts are partly offset by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Acts Nos 1 and 2 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1998-99. Reflecting the government's determination to improve the efficiency of continuing programs, these savings, amounting to some $379 million in gross terms, are detailed under the relevant appropriation headings in the document Statement of savings expected in annual appropriations, which has been distributed to honourable members.After allowing for prospective savings, the total appropriations sought represent a net increase of $1,260 million in appropriations for 1998-99, an increase of about 3½ per cent on the amounts made available through the annual appropriations at the time of the 1998-99 budget.Honourable members should note, however, that this increase does not translate to a similar increase in estimated outlays as:(a) the appropriations include amounts which are functionally classified as net advances or financing transactions; and(b) the figures relate only to expenditures financed by annual appropriations, which compose about 25 per cent of budget headline outlays. The figures do not include variations to estimates of expenditures from special appropriations, transactions of the Reserved Money Fund, the Commercial Activities Fund or the Loan Fund, nor do they incorporate any revisions to receipt items which are offset within outlays.I now turn to the main areas for which the government seeks additional provisions in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 to meet payments for the ordinary annual services of the government.Running costs appropriations provide for the recurrent and minor capital costs of agencies in providing government services. The total gross supplementation for running costs for all departments is $609 million. After allowing for estimated savings in running cost appropriations of $16 million, the net increase in the provision for running costs of $593 million represents an increase of about five per cent on the funding for running costs included in Appropriation Act (No. 1).Principal factors contributing to this increase are:. higher than anticipated carryovers of unspent moneys from 1997-98 of some $136 million;. borrowings against the forward estimates of $152 million; and. for the Department of Defence, a $119 million reallocation within the Defence global budget from program appropriations to running costs to meet changing priorities.In gross terms, some $209 million additional estimates are sought for the Defence portfolio in Appropriation Bill (No. 3). In addition to the supplementation of Defence running costs that I have already mentioned, this figure includes:. $22 million for compensation and legal expenses in respect of the Military Compensation Scheme;. $8 million for Defence production for new capability and production payments for high explosives facilities at the Mulwala site; and . $58 million for Defence housing to allow the Defence Housing Authority to reposition itself in the market.The gross supplementation for Defence has been partly offset by reductions of $148 million in other Defence annual appropriations, giving a net increase in funding from that source of some $61 million.In addition, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) includes provision for:. $83 million for labour market training and assistance largely attributable to carryovers of funds from 1997-98 and supplementary funding for enhancement of Job Network services announced in August 1998;. $65 million for payment to the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency (Centrelink) for the delivery of income support services reflecting changes to the welfare payments cycle, supplementation for IT leasing and additional funding for medical assessments to determine eligibility for the disability support pension;. $32 million for child-care assistance reflecting a reduction in expected savings due to a delay in the implementation of the child-care smart card and therefore a change in the timing of child-care payments to families from two weeks in advance to fortnightly in arrears;. $10 million to the Australian Electoral Commission for the costs of conducting elections, referendums and industrial ballots largely attributable to the commission's costs associated with the recent federal election and the delayed election in Newcastle following the death of one of the candidates;. $39 million for contestable hearing services through a voucher system as a result of higher than expected demand for voucher services and increases in services and device fees negotiated for new contract arrangements with service providers and manufacturers on 1 November 1998;. $47 million for capital assistance for residential care facilities for older people largely reflecting commitments for additional funding the government made during the last parliament, together with a rollover from 1997-98 of capital funding for industry restructure;. $19 million for bounty payments under the Bounty (Computers) Act 1984 to cover the anticipated backlog of outstanding claims as manufacturers lodge claims prior to the expiry of this assistance program in 1998; and. $248 million for servicing the debt of the Australian National Railways Commission principally as a result of the decision that, consequent upon the sale of ANR, the Commonwealth would assume future responsibility for its debt.The balance of some $140 million in the amount included in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) is made up of minor variations across a range of programs in most departments and agencies. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills1269r7051269Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.Bill presented by Mr Fahey, and read a first time.126909:50:001269Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 appropriations totalling $255 million—additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1998-99—are sought for capital works and services; payments to or for the states, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory; advances and loans; and for other services. The proposed appropriations are required to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in the budget appropriation measures.The additions are necessitated by certain cost and price increases that have occurred since the budget, together with other commitments that have been made by the govern ment. Areas where significant increases are sought over amounts provided in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1998-99 include:. $16 million for rural adjustment largely as a result of a carryover of unspent funds from 1997-98 to 1998-99 and the declaration of exceptional circumstances in Duaringa, Cobar, Monaro C, Wilcannia and Wentworth;. $3 million for assistance to the sugar industry with funding allocated over four years for research into increasing the sugar content levels of sugar cane and related research;. $6 million for assistance to specialist pig meat processors in the pork industry through the Pig Meat Processing Grants Program;. $15 million for computer equipment for the Department of Family and Community Services;. $100 million to assist people and small businesses who were adversely affected by the interruption to the Victorian gas supply;. $11 million for a grant and $4 million for a loan to IIF Investments Pty Ltd for the Innovative Investment Fund Program;. $20 million for payment to South Australia for the runway extension at Adelaide airport reflecting a carryover of unspent funds from 1997-98;. $10 million for payment to the Northern Territory for continuation of the Northern Territory Health Indigenous Infrastructure Program to improve living conditions and health standards for indigenous people; and. $19 million for a community education and information program on reform to the Australian tax system.The remaining $51 million included in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) comprises minor increases in a number of programs across a range of portfolios. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned. Bills1270r7061270Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.Bill presented by Mr Fahey, and read a first time.127009:53:001270Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.In Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , appropriations totalling $1,129,000 additional to those made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1998-99 are sought for recurrent and capital expenditures of the parliamentary departments. This amount is partly offset by savings of $570,000 in the appropriations for the running costs of the Parliamentary Library and the Joint House Department made by Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1998-99.The increases sought relate primarily to increases in the running costs for the Departments of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Reporting Staff of $90,000, $539,000 and $500,000 respectively. These increases in running costs are largely as a result of a higher carryover of unspent funds from 1997-98 than anticipated at the time of the budget.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills1270r6181270Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.127009:55:001270Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. The substantive amendments proposed in this bill were introduced into parliament in June 1997 as the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901:(i) to provide a special approach for determining normal values of allegedly dumped goods from countries that are in the process of transition to a market economy when it is established that the domestic selling price of those goods is subject to government price control as announced by the government on 12 March 1997;(ii) to provide a new methodology for determining the normal value of allegedly dumped goods where the goods are exported from a country in the process of transition to a market economy and a raw material input into the goods which accounts for more than 10 per cent of the costs of producing or manufacturing the goods is supplied by a state owned;(iii) to clarify provisions of these acts which relate to the manner in which interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected; and(iv) to replace the terms `preliminary finding' and `Anti-Dumping Act' with the terms `preliminary affirmative determination' and `Dumping Duty Act' respectively to ensure consistency with the amendments to the Customs Act 1901 implemented by the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Act 1998.The first three items were the subject of the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997 which lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 31 August 1998. The last is necessary because of the abolition of the Anti-Dumping Authority by the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Act 1998.The amendments to the normal value provisions in section 269TAC of the Customs Act 1901 provide for a case by case approach to be taken by the minister in inquiries into the alleged dumping of products from countries that are in the process of transition to a market economy. Under the proposed amendments, if the minister is satisfied that the exporter's domestic selling prices of the product under investigation are subject to government control or substantial government control, normal values may be ascertained by reference to other relevant information, which may include the selling prices of like goods in a `surrogate' country.Section 269TAC of the Customs Act provides for the assessment of the `normal value' of imported goods, for the purpose of determining whether the goods have been exported to Australia at less than that value (thereby dumped). The structure of the section has been described as establishing a hierarchy of methodologies by which normal values are determined. Investigating authorities must progressively work through each of the prescribed methodologies until a point is reached at which a normal value can be determined.Until the latter part of last year subsection 269TAC(4) was utilised by investigating authorities to ascertain normal values for goods exported from command economies by reference to information obtained in a `surrogate' country. In November of last year legal advice was obtained as to the scope of subsection 269TAC(4). That advice confirmed that the section was severely limited in its application. Its stringent tests require that the government of the country of export has at least a substantial monopoly of all of the trade of the country, not just in terms of the goods under investigation, and must also substantially influence the domestic price of all goods in that country.Although the governments of economies which are in a state of transition from a command economy to a market economy may still maintain controls over the domestic selling prices of a significant number of sensitive products, it cannot be said that the extent of the control falls within the ambit of subsection 269TAC(4). Clearly, in such economies the government has moved from a position in which it maintained a substantial monopoly over all of the trade of the country.As subsection 269TAC(4) can have no further application to economies which are considered to be in transition from a command economy to a market economy, the determination of the normal values for exports from such economies, as a matter of law, must be made in accordance with the remaining provisions of section 269TAC. These provisions do not distinguish between `market economies' and those which are considered to be `in transition'. Therefore, normal values for exports from economies which are considered to be in transition from a command economy to a market economy must be ascertained by the application of the same methodologies that are required to be applied in the ascertainment of normal values for exports from countries such as the United States of America and Germany—that is, there is presently no flexibility available for investigating authorities to treat exports from economies which are in transition differently from exports from other countries.Investigating authorities require the flexibility to proceed to a methodology similar to that provided in section 269TAC(6)—that is, have regard to all relevant information—as soon as they are satisfied that the domestic selling prices of the goods under consideration are subject to government control. The proposed amendments therefore aim to confer such flexibility upon Customs.The provisions contained within the bill will operate in the following manner. If it is identified that the domestic selling price of the goods under consideration is subject to a price control situation, the normal value of the goods exported to Australia is to be determined having regard to all relevant information which may include information obtained from a surrogate country.Absent any such price control situation, the proposed amendments will allow the minister to proceed to examine the cost of production of the goods exported to Australia. If the minister is satisfied that a raw material accounts for more than 10 per cent of the costs of producing or manufacturing the exported goods (and is thereby considered to be significant) and that the raw material is supplied by an enterprise which is wholly owned by a government of the exporting country, the cost of the particular item could be ignored and, for normal value purposes, its cost could be estimated by the minister by reference to other relevant information which could, but need not necessarily, include the cost of that item in a surrogate country.To ensure that Australia is not in breach of its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organisation, the amendment provides for regulations to be made which will provide that the new methodology for calculating normal values will not apply in respect of specified countries.The bill also contains amendments which, in combination with those in the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998, clarify the operation of the provisions of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Act 1975 which relate to the manner in which interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected. The amendments make it clear that such interim duties can be imposed, pending final assessment of any dumping or countervailing duties, notwithstanding that the actual export price and normal value, or the fact that a countervailable subsidy has been received, have not yet been ascertained.Although these amendments are to be taken to have commenced on 1 January 1993, the date on which the interim dumping and countervailing duties were introduced, they will not require importers to pay an amount of dumping duty beyond that which has previously been demanded. The amendments merely seek to ensure that approximately $12 million in interim duties collected since 1 January 1993 is not subject to legal challenge.This bill also contains amendments which will replace the terms `preliminary finding' and `Anti-Dumping Act' with the terms `preliminary affirmative determination' and `Dumping Duty Act' respectively. These amendments will ensure consistency with the amendments to the Customs Act implemented by the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Act 1998. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned. Bills1272r6051272Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.127210:04:001272Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 to clarify, in combination with the amendments to the Customs Act 1901 proposed in the Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 , provisions of these acts which relate to the manner in which interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected.The amendments make it clear that such interim duties can be imposed pending final assessment of any dumping or countervailing duties, notwithstanding that the actual export price and normal value, or the fact that a countervailable subsidy has been received, have not yet been ascertained.These amendments have a retrospective commencement of 1 January 1993, the date on which interim dumping and countervailing duties were introduced, to ensure that approximately $12 million collected in interim duties since 1 January 1993 is not subject to legal challenge. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills1272r6751272Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.127210:06:001272Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 amends a number of acts coming within the Attorney-General's portfolio. It also amends one act within the responsibility of the Treasurer and one act within the responsibility of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The bill contains amendments of a minor policy nature, makes minor technical amendments to existing legislation and repeals a spent provision.The amendments are explained in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the bill. The amendments will not have any significant financial impact.Schedule 1 to the bill will amend part V of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act). Part V of the AAT Act provides for the establishment and role of the Administrative Review Council (the ARC). The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee produced a Report on the role and function of the Administrative Review Council in June 1997. The committee made 11 recommendations, of which the government has accepted 10.The committee's recommendations were designed to strengthen the role and functions of the ARC. A copy of the government's response to the committee's recommendations, indicating the government's implementation strategy, was tabled in the Senate on 1 April 1998. The amendments contained in the bill will complete the government's implementation of the committee's recommendations.The amendments to the Australian Law Reform Commission (Repeal, Transitional and Miscellaneous) Act 1996 will update certain references in, and provide for the commencement of, schedule 1 to the act.The bill will amend the Australian Protective Service Act 1987 to allow the Director of the Protective Service to lawfully charge for services rendered to non-Commonwealth persons and bodies. The amendment will require any such charge to be reasonably related to the costs of providing the services in question.The bill will amend the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 1996 and the Corporate Law Reform Act 1992 to correct drafting omissions. The amendment to the Copyright Amendment Act 1989 will correct a minor drafting error.The bill will make a number of amendments to the Evidence Act 1995. Some of the amendments will extend the operation of the Evidence Act to proceedings in all Australian courts in relation to certain forms, applications, claims, returns and other similar documents received by Commonwealth departments and agencies. The amendments will apply the rules in the Evidence Act on the adducing of evidence to how evidence of such documents is given in proceedings in a state or Northern Territory court. Other amendments will give effect to regulations made or amended after the commencement of the Evidence Act giving evidentiary effect to a certificate or other document, accommodate the taking of evidence by affidavit, and make minor drafting corrections to the act.The bill will make a number of amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.One amendment will allow additional judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, as well as resident judges, to be included on the Full Court of the Federal Court.Another amendment will provide that the Registrar of the Federal Court may authorise officers or employees of the court to administer oaths and affidavits for the purposes of the court. The bill will also insert into the act a standard regulation making power. This amendment will ensure that regulations can be validly made increasing the limit in relation to which the court may enter contracts, to a `prescribed higher amount' where necessary.The bill will insert a similar regulation making power into the High Court of Australia Act 1979 for the same purpose.The bill will amend the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 to include service as a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in the definition of `prior judicial service'. The amendment will put ACT judges in the same position as judges of the Northern Territory and state supreme courts.The bill will make a number of amendments to the Judiciary Act 1903. One of the amendments will expressly exclude the conferral of criminal jurisdiction on the Federal Court, except where that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court by some other Commonwealth statute. This will prevent a litigant from seeking to use the provision to bring a private prosecution before the Federal Court or to include a criminal matter as an element of a civil case in which the Federal Court has jurisdiction. Other amendments will repeal a spent provision and provide that the restriction contained in the act, that a superior court is not invested with federal jurisdiction over a summary offence against the Commonwealth, is confined to the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction by courts of summary jurisdiction.The bill will amend the Jury Exemption Act 1965 to update certain references in the schedule.The bill will make amendments to the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1997 and the Marriage Act 1961 to correct minor drafting errors. The amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 will correct a minor technical error in the numbering of provisions.The bill will amend the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 to correct a previous misdescription of amendments intended to have been made by the act, and to correct a technical anomaly. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills1274r6741274Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.127410:11:001274Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 will significantly reform the legal services market for Commonwealth legal work.The bill will establish the Australian Government Solicitor, the AGS, as a statutory corporation that will operate as a government business enterprise. It will strengthen the position of the AGS in the market for Commonwealth legal work with private sector law firms. The reforms will contribute to the delivery of more efficient and effective legal services to the Commonwealth. I therefore ask the opposition to take a more constructive approach than occurred when the bill was previously debated in November 1997.This bill has its genesis in the review of the Commonwealth's legal services contained in the so-called Logan report of March 1997. The report found that maintaining ownership of a government legal practice was in the public interest. The practice could meet the legal services needs of the Commonwealth and of government agencies because of its particular focus on government work, its ability to maintain a `whole of government' approach, its strong corporate memory, and the need for a government legal service provider to meet the unique role and needs of the Attorney-General in providing core legal services.The government considered all options, including the possible sale of the AGS, but concluded for the reasons outlined in the reported that it should be retained within government ownership.Establishment of the Australian Government SolicitorThe government has decided to restructure the AGS as a new statutory body to maximise its ability to operate on a commercial, competitive basis. Consistent with the usual approach for government business enterprises, it will also be able to employ staff outside the usual public service regime.The AGS will not be established under the Corporations Law but set up as a government-owned statutory authority, headed by a CEO, rather than a board of directors. It will have me as Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance and Administration as `joint shareholders'. This will not interfere with the legal professional functions of the AGS, nor the Attorney-General's responsibilities as First Law Officer.The AGS is not, and cannot be, the same as privately owned law firms. Its unique value to government is based on its government ownership and its expertise in delivering consistent and coordinated legal services to government clients. Some limited core areas of government legal work will be reserved to government legal providers, primarily the AGS, and not available to private law firms. The reserved areas of work are cabinet, constitutional, national security and most public international law matters. The public interest served by having the AGS undertake this role is not inconsistent with it operating at the highest level of efficiency and making a profit.Competitive neutralityThe bill contains measures to ensure that the AGS will not enjoy net competitive advantages over private law firms by virtue of its government ownership. In particular, the AGS will be required to make payments representing taxation that would have been incurred if it were a firm of legal practitioners.The AGS will also be required to pay a dividend, analogous to the return of profits to the partners in a law firm, under corporate governance arrangements to be agreed by the Minister for Finance and Administration and me, after consultation with the CEO for the AGS. The corporate governance arrangements will take into account the particular structure of the AGS and its function of providing legal services to governmentThe AGS will be subject to the requirements of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.Legal Services DirectionsThe bill gives the Attorney-General power to issue legal services directions applicable to Commonwealth legal work, whether it is undertaken by the AGS, private legal firms, counsel or in-house legal units.The directions will provide a framework for the conduct of the Commonwealth's legal affairs, but leave prime responsibility for the effective and efficient use of legal services with agencies.Once the legal services directions are in place under the Judiciary Act 1903, most Commonwealth litigation will be untied. This will complete the process of providing choice to government clients that began under the former Labor government in 1995. It is the logical extension of the measures put in place by the opposition. Until commencement of the new system, approval for untying of litigation will continue on an ad hoc administrative basis.The power to issue directions will ensure that, as Attorney-General, I will be able to manage risks that could arise from the provision of legal services that are inconsistent, lack coordination, or do not address whole of government and public interest issues. This is necessary with an increased range of government legal work contestable by private sector firms.As recommended by the Logan report, the Office of Legal Services Coordination has been created to assist me in discharging my First Law Officer role. The office advises on rules and policies for Commonwealth legal work, especially litigation. It will assist me in the preparation and administration of the new legal services directions. The office also has an important role to play in advising government agencies on their obligations in this area and on the purchase and delivery of legal services so as to achieve maximum efficiency and appropriate risk management.ConclusionThe reforms introduced by the bill will give the AGS the structure and flexibility in its business activities and legal services work to enable it to continue to provide efficient and effective legal services to government in an increasingly competitive market. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills1275r6721275Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.127610:17:001276Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.As members may recall, the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 lapsed before the Senate with the calling of the recent federal election. I am now pleased to reintroduce the bill which implements a number of significant and important changes to the administration functions and procedures of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. These reforms will enhance the promotion and protection of the human rights of all Australians and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission.The first major reform introduced by this bill is the government's response to the High Court's decision in Brandy v. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 127 ALR 1. In that case the enforcement mechanism in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was found to be unconstitutional on the basis that the commission, as an administrative body, could not make a final determination as to the rights of the parties to a dispute. This decision also affected the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and the Privacy Act 1988.As a result of that decision, an interim solution was introduced by the previous government. However, it was inefficient and cumbersome. The bill therefore proposes to maintain the commission's conciliation role, but to provide the parties with direct access to the Federal Court should conciliation prove unsuccessful. This will enable the parties to obtain a timely and enforceable determination of their respective rights.In order to ensure the court is accessible the bill also includes a number of additional reforms. The court will be able to adopt informal procedures as it will not be bound by technicalities or legal forms. In addition, the court will be able to make rules of court which delegate any of its powers to judicial registrars, apart from the power of granting interim injunctions.The second major reform involves the consolidation of the three complaint handling schemes under the sex, race and disability discrimination acts into one uniform scheme. The bill provides that all complaints of unlawful discrimination under those acts, and complaints involving alleged breaches of human rights and equality of opportunity will now be made under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. The president will assume responsibility for all complaint handling under the new uniform scheme while commissioners are to be given an amicus curiae function to argue the policy imperatives of their legislation before the Federal Court.The third major reform made by this bill will be to clarify the lines of management responsibility, facilitating timely decision making and providing for the better administration of the commission. The president is to become the chief executive officer of the commission, and will assume responsibility for those functions currently conferred on the commission itself.Finally, the bill also implements a number of changes suggested by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee when it considered the earlier draft of the bill in 1997. Amongst others, new provisions now deal with:. complaints against the president, commission or a commissioner;. the withdrawal and termination of complaints;. the replacement of a representative complainant; and. the amendment of a complaint.The amendments made by this bill are complex, primarily because the different complaint handling provisions in three schemes have been amended and a single uniform scheme included in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.In making these changes, the government has taken steps to ensure that the new procedures represent best practice. Notably, the bill maintains the commission's role in conciliation, as this step in the process has proved most effective. Indeed, most complaints do not proceed past this stage.The bill also clearly delineates the commission's function of impartially attempting to conciliate complaints from the commissioners advocacy role in promoting the protection of human rights. These, together with the new management structure of the commission, are important and timely reforms. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills1277r6891277Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.127710:23:001277Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill proposes amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908. The bill reflects the government's legislative response to the wide-ranging recommendations of the Australian Quarantine Review Committee, chaired by Professor Malcolm Nairn. The review commenced in January 1996 and its final report, entitled Australian quarantine: a shared responsibility , was presented to the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Anderson, in late 1996.The government adopted almost all of the 109 recommendations in the report, including the recommendation that the Quarantine Act 1908 be revised as soon as possible to reflect fully the changed scope and focus of quarantine advocated in the report.In its response to the Nairn committee's recommendations, the government delivered on its commitment to overhaul Australia's quarantine system and to provide the resources necessary to adequately protect our multibillion dollar agricultural, fishing and forestry industries and our environment. As part of this investment in the future of Aus tralia, the government announced that it would provide an additional $76 million over the next four years for quarantine.The Nairn report found that Australia has remained relatively free of many major pests and diseases of animals and plants, despite the massive increase in international trade and movement of people and dwindling government financial support for the quarantine service. However, the report argued for a new focus on quarantine, based on a shared responsibility between industry, government and the general public, to ensure that the effectiveness of Australia's approach to quarantine protection is not diminished and to ensure that Australia is best placed to meet the challenges that will confront us as we move into the next millennium.The proposed amendments to the Quarantine Act will ensure that Australia has the regulatory framework essential to the protection of our agricultural industries and environment and to the maintenance and development of the export markets which are crucial to our national wellbeing.The government accepted the report's view of the fundamental importance to the community of maintaining Australia's unique natural environment. The government proposes in this bill to give explicit expression to the role of quarantine in protecting the environment. In addition, the bill includes a provision which imposes an obligation on quarantine decision makers to consult with the environment minister in certain circumstances. Although quarantine decision making already takes environmental considerations into account, these amendments implement commitments given prior to the recent election in the policy statement entitled Our Living Heritage.The Nairn report recognised and endorsed an increasing role for industry in the performance of some quarantine activities. To facilitate this trend, the bill proposes changes which will provide a better framework for properly monitored industry involvement through the use of industry-developed quality assurance arrangements, and the use of approved commercial premises for quarantine purposes. The bill also updates the fees provisions to ensure that the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service can charge for the full range of services it provides to industry.The report confirmed that Australia must continue to practice a managed risk approach to quarantine, an approach based on scientific reasoning and consistent with international rules and standards. The changes proposed by this bill will further assist Australia in complying with our international obligations by formally introducing the concept of level of quarantine risk.The government endorsed the report's focus on the continuum of quarantine comprising pre border measures to reduce the threat of entry, border controls, post border measures such as surveillance and monitoring to ensure early detection of incursions and an ability to deal with emergency situations to ensure that the spread of pests and diseases can be contained, controlled or eradicated as appropriate.The legislative response proposed by the government in this bill recognises the need to ensure that there are appropriate powers to deal with quarantine risks across the continuum of quarantine. For example, the bill proposes to strengthen reporting requirements and questioning powers, to provide a more responsive approach to the types of treatments which can be required, to introduce a power to order re-export of illegally imported goods, to clarify the powers to deal with insanitary vessels and to broaden the emergency power.Effective border management is highly dependent on the ability of quarantine officers to obtain a full and accurate report from vessels. The bill proposes an improvement to the current pre-arrival and pre-departure report provisions while allowing for full coverage of all matters likely to be of quarantine interest such as ballast water but at the same time facilitating a reduction in routine reporting where the quarantine risk is low. The bill also proposes an expansion of the range of questions that quarantine officers can ask the master or medical officer of a vessel.In addition, the bill proposes a reduced reliance in the act on prescribed treatments or prescribed periods to allow more flexibility and responsiveness to particular circum stances. Quarantine officers need to be able to apply the most appropriate treatments and to ensure that the treatment fits the needs of each particular case. Prescription in these circumstances is too limiting.The bill proposes new powers in relation to goods imported contrary to the act or proclamation. Currently, these goods are automatically forfeited to the Commonwealth and there is no power to order removal from Australia of high risk goods or to order the return to the importer where the importer is willing and able to rectify the non-compliance. These new powers will enable a more practical and effective management of non-complying imports. In particular, the power to order removal from Australia of illegal imports means that high risk goods will be removed from Australia rather than linger at Australian ports awaiting the outcome of the often lengthy negotiations between exporters, importers and vessel owners about who is responsible for the non-compliance.The bill also proposes to put beyond doubt the scope of matters on which a quarantine officer may issue directions in order to deal appropriately with the quarantine risk posed by a vessel in an insanitary condition. In order to be better prepared for barrier breakdowns, the bill proposes to extend section 12A of the act so that the emergency power can be invoked in respect of a disease or pest which is unidentified. At present, the power can only be exercised when the emergency has arisen as a result of a quarantinable disease, which is a disease that has to be proclaimed by the Governor-General under the act.The success of the quarantine detector dog program was highlighted in the Nairn report and the government has accepted the recommendation that the program be expanded at international airports, international mail centres, seaports and courier depots by an estimated 22 teams by the year 2000. The government proposes in this bill to give full legislative backing to the role of the dogs in border activities.The government has also taken the opportunity in this bill to review the penalties for quarantine offences and to add a number of new offences. These changes will ensure that the regime of sanctions under the act properly reflects the seriousness of non-compliance with Australia's quarantine requirements. A significant amount of work has been undertaken in this bill to redraft the offence provisions so as to ensure that the Commonwealth Criminal Code applies. In addition, the entry and search provisions have been reviewed to ensure that they accord with Commonwealth legal policy.The bill proposes some updating of definitions and removal of anomalies and inconsistencies under the act to ensure that all matters of quarantine interest are able to be dealt with properly under the act. All of these proposed amendments are dealt with in detail in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills1279r6871279Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.127910:32:001279Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The primary industries levies amalgamation legislation will introduce administrative efficiencies and make the law more accessible those involved in agriculture, fisheries and forestry by:. amalgamating 40 primary industry levy and charge acts;providing a framework for future levies and charges to be imposed by regulation;. making minor technical amendments to improve levies and charges legislation.This legislative package includes two main bills: the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998 and three related bills which are required to amend related existing legislation to take account of changes that will result from the passage of the two main bills.Primary industries levies and charges are imposed and administered by the Commonwealth at the request of, and on behalf of, industry organisations. They are generally only increased or introduced at the request of industry peak bodies.Many rural producers lack the size to individually undertake activities such as promotion or research and development which are necessary to the longer term development of their industries. The government has long recognised this situation and provided a mechanism in the form of primary industries levies and charges to enable the collection of industry moneys to fund research and development, marketing and promotion, residue testing, and animal health programs.These activities play a valuable role in contributing to the international competitiveness of Australia's agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries and underpinning the exports of these sectors. The major delivery system for rural research and development, the Research and Development Corporation model, is financed by industry levies and matching government contributions. The National Residue Survey program and the various animal health programs funded by levies play a crucial part in guaranteeing the integrity of our products in export markets. The marketing and promotion programs funded by primary industries levies and charges have established the `Australian' identity of so many of our products overseas and helped to build consumer awareness and loyalty.Industry has been consulted about the amalgamation package and is supportive because the proposed legislation will streamline the process of amending levy rates and introducing new levies. As members will recall the government has established a set of principles for primary industry levy proposals. The principles require extensive consultation at grass roots level by industry bodies prior to a levy proposal being considered, so that a genuinely representative view is obtained.This legislative package represents a major step forward in the administration of primary industries levies and charges and has several important benefits.It will enable the government to better service industry by simplifying the processes and reducing the long lead times surrounding changes to levies and charges and being more flexible and responsive to industry requests for such changes as well as for new or additional levies. It will introduce new efficiencies to the public sector by streamlining and improving the administration of levies and charges legislation. Finally it will reduce the call on the time of parliament for the often involved process of making changes to levies and charges, by reducing the number of imposition acts that will have to be amended to effect changes in the future from the current 40 to two.The purpose of this bill is to:. amalgamate 27 existing primary industries levy acts;. provide a framework for future levies to be imposed by regulation; and. make minor technical amendments to improve levy legislation.I must emphasise at the outset that the amalgamation of existing levy acts does not involve any fundamental change to the levies imposed by those acts and does not result in the imposition of any new or additional levies. The existing levy acts are replaced by schedules to the bill.Schedule 27 of the bill will allow the Governor-General, on the advice of the minister, to make regulations imposing additional levies on primary industry products, whether or not they are already subject to levies. The government intends that such additional levies would only occur following a request from industry. This will apply not only to those industries which already have levies in place but also to industries which do not currently have levies in place, but at some stage in the future see sufficient benefit in these to approach the government to request their introduction.The government intends that such regulations will be required to be accompanied by a report setting out the extent to which the proposed levy or charge complies with the government's general principles for new primary industry levies and charges, when tabled in parliament and will be subject to disallowance by parliament. In addition, the Office of Regulation Review examines new levies through its regulation impact process and a regulation impact statement is required for each new levy or charge.As with existing levies, the operative rates for any new or additional levies will not be able to be set in excess of the maximum rates contained within the schedules to the bill. These maximum rates are broadly in line with the maximum rates for levies of similar products and can be changed only by parliament.I mentioned that the bill also includes some minor amendments. These amendments are for administrative reasons only and do not change the original policy intentions of the legislation. Nor do they affect existing levy rates.A minor but important technical amendment will correct the unforeseen consequences of legislative amendments in 1996 and 1997 to the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act 1986 which, in redefining the imposition of the corporation, promotion, research and Australian Animal Health Council levies, inadvertently removed the provision for the collection of these levies beyond 30 June 2000. There was no policy basis for ceasing the collection of these levies on 1 July 2000. This amendment is needed to ensure the legislation reflects the government's current policies with respect to the continued collection of dairy levies. Industry has been consulted on this matter and supports the proposed amendment.Other minor amendments include providing a threshold exempting growers from paying coarse grain levies where their total liability is less than $50 in a levy year, bringing the provisions of the coarse grains levy into line with other grain levies; placing a limit on the delegated authority for the determination of declared value of deer velvet to senior officer level within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; and in the case of the levy on rice, providing for consultation with state marketing authorities in any state in which they exist. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1281r6881281Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.128110:40:001281Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amalgamate 13 existing primary industries charge acts, to provide a framework for future charges to be imposed by regulation and to make minor technical amendments to improve existing levies and charges legislation.The structure of this bill is similar to the levies bill. Schedules 1 to 13 replace the current charge acts.Schedule 14 allows the Governor-General, on the advice of the minister, to make regulations imposing additional charges on primary industry products, whether or not they are already subject to charge. The same safeguards for the levies bill will also apply. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1281r6861281Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.128110:41:001281Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to repeal 40 existing levies and charges acts, provide for amendments to various acts consequential on the repeal of those levies and charges acts and the enactment of the new levies and charges bills, provide for transitional arrangements to ensure a smooth and orderly transition from the old levies and charges acts to the new levies and charges bills, and make minor technical amendments to improve levies and charges legislation.A minor technical amendment will extend to the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory the corresponding exemption from levies and charges that applies to the states, thereby removing any potential criticisms regarding discriminatory treatment of the territories in existing legislation and would be consistent with the treatment of these territories in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1281r6831281Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.128110:43:001281Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to provide for amendments to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 as a consequence of the repeal of levies and charges acts and the enactment of the new levies and charges legislation, and to introduce a minor technical amendment to remove the 1 July 2000 sunset clause on the relevant National Residue Survey dairy levies. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1282r6811282Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.128210:44:001282Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to provide for amendments to the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998 as a consequence of the repeal of levies and charges acts and the enactment of the new levies and charges legislation. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1282r6681282Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.128210:45:001282Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends a number of acts within the agriculture, fisheries and forestry portfolio.The government announced on 11 December 1996 that article 39(3) of the WTO agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights required Australia to provide protection for undisclosed test data submitted in respect of the evaluation of a new active constituent for an agricultural or veterinary chemical product. The proposed amendments to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 will provide five years protection for such data and thus remove any doubt as to whether or not Australia is fulfilling its obligations under article 39(3).The proposed amendments to the Dairy Produce Act 1986 will correct the unforeseen impacts of the operation of the government's Domestic Market Support Scheme during the recent Victorian gas crisis. During the crisis, many milk manufacturing plants in Victoria incurred significant financial losses due to lost production, factory conversion outlays and higher operating costs. In addition, the operation of the Domestic Market Support Scheme during this period imposed further hardship on farmers and manufacturers and created inequities within the Victorian dairy industry.The proposed amendments will remedy this problem by providing for two special payments. The first payment is a rebate to those manufacturers who, under the Domestic Market Support Scheme, were required to pay a levy on milk disposed of at the factory during the gas crisis. This rebate is designed to offset financial losses incurred by manufacturers through the imposition of the levy in this situation.The second payment is a payment to the producers of milk which was disposed of on-farm during the gas crisis. Under the Domestic Market Support Scheme, milk has to be delivered to a manufacturer before a farmer becomes eligible for a Domestic Market Support payment. This payment will allow producers, upon application, to receive the same entitlement as if their milk had been delivered to a factory. This payment does not extend to market milk.The payments will be financed from the Australian Dairy Corporation's domestic fund. This fund finances the Domestic Market Support Scheme, using monies collected from dairy industry levies on manufacturing and market milk. Accordingly, there is no financial obligation upon the Commonwealth.I would note that these amendments constitute the government's response to concerns raised by the Australian Dairy Industry Council, and clearly illustrates the government's preparedness to facilitate a lessening of the impact of the Victorian gas crisis on the Australian dairy industry.The bill amends the Export Control Act 1982 to ensure that Australia's export control legislation provides appropriate coverage for contemporary administrative arrangements.Under current export inspection arrangements there is a strong move for exporters to assume more responsibility for the quality of their product under quality systems approved and supervised by AQIS. The amendments to the Export Control Act 1982 seek to facilitate this move by allowing for the appropriate coverage of these systems in delegated legislation, and by strengthening the enforcement powers in the act in line with Commonwealth law administration policy.The purpose of the amendment to the Imported Food Control Act 1992 is to clarify some aspects of the act which have previously been confusing and to enable the consistent application of the act across areas which have previously been left open. This is sought as a result of inconsistencies being found by officers working with the act.As a result of the amendment, AQIS anticipates a more effective and efficient service to industry as it clarifies areas of the act that have previously been in doubt.All food imported into Australia must firstly comply with the requirements of the Quarantine Act 1908 before being inspected against the requirements of the Imported Food Control Act 1992. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to the Imported Food Control Act 1992 will have no effect on Australia's quarantine standards.The purpose of the proposed amendment to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 is to make the naming of new varieties easier.Currently, an anomalous restriction exists which precludes any duplication of plant variety names regardless of whether varieties are protected or currently in commerce.The need not to repeat a name makes the checking of proposed names to ensure novelty an unnecessarily laborious process for both the applicant and the PBR office.Therefore, it is proposed to allow the limited duplication of variety names provided that varieties with the same name are from an entirely different `plant class' and are unlikely to be confused in the marketplace. The duplication of names in closely related cereal crops, such as wheat, barley and oats, would not be accepted.A list of plant classes, maintained by the PBR office, will be accessible to prospective PBR applicants free of charge.This proposed amendment is in conformity with the international standards on the matter and will promote the use of a single name for each variety, regardless of the country in which it is marketed. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1283r6761283Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.128310:51:001283Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill makes minor technical changes to the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Act 1997.The Migration (Visa Application) Charge Act 1997 imposes a single visa application charge and establishes a ceiling for the maximum amount of the charge that may be prescribed in the migration regulations. This ceiling can be indexed each year in accordance with the indexation formula set out in the act. The indexation factor is based on annual movements in the consumer price index.From time to time, the consumer price index is `re-based'. All previous periods—not just the most recent period—are converted to the new base. The amendments ensure that only the index numbers published in terms of the most recently published reference base for the consumer price index are used to calculate the charge limit; ensure that the calculations disregard index numbers which are published in substitution for previously published index numbers, except where the substituted numbers are published to take account of changes in the reference base; and correct a minor inconsistency in terminology used in the act. I commend the bill's speedy passage to the House and table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1284r6701284Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.128410:53:001284Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Today I introduce a bill to modernise the regulation of business and our financial markets.The Australian financial sector reforms introduced earlier this year, together with the wide-ranging reform of Australia's corporate laws proposed under the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program, are a launch pad for this government's drive to make Australia a leading financial centre in the Asia-Pacific region. This bill builds the framework for Australia's business regulation to foster economic development and employment. It provides key reforms to our laws in the areas of fundraising, directors' duties, accounting standards and takeovers.In March 1997, the government announced it was taking a new approach to corporate regulation under its Corporate Law Economic Reform Program. The objective of this program is to promote efficiency in the Australian economy while facilitating market integrity and protecting investors from fraud, negligence or abusive market conduct.In developing this new regulatory regime, the government, in consultation with the business community and interest groups, is seeking to adopt a more flexible and efficient regulatory framework that can respond to market changes. It will permit market participants to adapt to challenges of technological developments, innovation and integration of the world's financial markets.To help the government in the consultation process, the Business Regulation Advisory Group, chaired by Mrs Catherine Walter and with representatives from key business groups, was established.The government appreciates enormously the contribution of all groups that have participated so actively in the reform program.Before I detail the reforms in the bill, I note that the OECD and the International Monetary Fund have recently endorsed the government's economic management, including its approach to corporate law reform. Together with other measures, such as the reform to the regulation of the financial sector, that the Howard government has introduced, the modernisation of corporate regulation contained in this bill will ensure that investment is facilitated and that we maintain Australia's strong economic growth.Corporate fundraisingThis bill will improve the fundraising provisions of the Corporations Law to facilitate more efficient capital raising by Australian business. A range of measures will be implemented to facilitate raising investment capital and to reduce the high fundraising costs faced by Australian companies.Prospectuses are often too long and complicated and can obscure information of interest to investors. Issuers frequently complain that they are forced to burden prospectuses with unnecessary information and that prospectus costs are too high.The fundraising rules will be improved and costs will be reduced by:. introducing short form prospectuses for retail investors, with technical information contained in separate documents available on request;. permitting investors in certain industries to be provided with a short profile statement containing key information rather than the full prospectus; and. allowing companies to issue prospectuses in electronic form and distribute them through the Internet or other media.It is also clear that uncertainty over liability for the content of prospectuses has added to the complexity and expense of fundraising and has detracted from the prime function of a prospectus to disclose relevant information to investors. The government will clarify the potential liability of parties for prospectuses by providing that their liability is governed solely under the Corporations Law. Due diligence defences will be made available in all cases of fundraising where there is a positive duty to disclose information.Facilitating fundraising by small and medium sized enterprisesThe cost of a prospectus can be excessive in light of the amount of capital small and medium sized enterprises seek to raise. This acts as a significant impediment to SMEs seeking public funds.A new fundraising mechanism will allow an SME to raise a total of up to $5 million through the use of offer information statements. The OIS introduces simpler disclosure obligations. Bodies wishing to use an OIS will be required to state the purpose for which the funds are required, the risks involved and include a copy of its audited accounts. Investors will be warned of the risks of investing without a prospectus and the desirability of obtaining professional advice.In addition, a prospectus will not be required if a person makes personal offers that result in securities being issued to 20 or fewer persons in a one-year period, with no more than $2 million being raised. This will cut the costs faced by SMEs when making small-scale offerings without exposing investors to unnecessary risks. To facilitate SME fundraising, a company will be able to raise funds from sophisticated investors without preparing a prospectus in a wider range of circumstances.Clarifying directors' dutiesEffective corporate decision making is hampered by legal uncertainties arising from the liability of directors for their actions. A business judgment rule will be introduced to provide directors with a safe harbour from personal liability in relation to honest, informed and rational business judgments. The rule will apply where an officer makes an informed decision in good faith, without a material personal interest in the subject matter of the decision and rationally believes that the decision is in the best interests of the company.The objective of the rule is to protect the authority of directors in the exercise of their management duties. It is not designed to, and will not, insulate them from liability for negligent, ill-informed or fraudulent decisions. The rule will not lead to any reduction in the level of director accountability, but will ensure that they are not liable for decisions made in good faith and with due care.Directors will benefit from the certainty that the rule provides in terms of their liability as they will be encouraged to take advantage of business opportunities and not behave in an unnecessarily risk averse way.To reflect modern business practices, directors will, where appropriate, be able to delegate functions to, and rely on advice and information provided by, other persons. The availability of an indemnity for legal actions and directors' liabilities in corporate groups will also be clarified.Greater accountability to shareholdersA new `representative' action will be introduced to enhance shareholders' rights to pursue an action on behalf of shareholders where the company is unable or unwilling to do so.This new right of action will provide an incentive for management to exercise powers appropriately and for the benefit of shareholders. Safeguards will be introduced to ensure that company management is not undermined by unjustified or vexatious litigation. The court will need to be satisfied that proceedings brought on behalf of a company are appropriate in that there must be a serious case to be tried, the applicant must be acting in good faith and the action must be in the best interests of the company.Making accounting standards more useful for businessFinancial reporting requirements play an important role in Australian companies' ability to compete effectively and efficiently.Accounting standards that are responsive to the needs of the Australian business community and investors have to be developed, thus ensuring that Australia maintains an informed and efficient capital market.To bring an investor and business focus to the standard setting process, an advisory body, the Financial Reporting Council, FRC, will be established with membership drawn from peak professional, business and government organisations. The FRC will have broad oversight of the Australian accounting standard setting process. It will report to the minister and provide advice on the effectiveness of accounting standards. As a result, the accounting standard setting process will become more responsive to the needs of preparers and users of financial statements.A key role of the FRC will be to ensure that the Australian Accounting Standards Board, AASB, is committed to, and works towards, adopting international standards having regard to what is taking place in major capital raising economies.The FRC will report to the government on the acceptance of international accounting standards in overseas capital markets, on the progress made by the International Accounting Standards Committee, IASC, on developing a core set of international standards and on the International Organisation of Securities Commission's acceptance of those standards.Streamlining takeover rulesThe current takeover rules are complex and impose excessive costs on bidders and target firms. The bill reforms the current takeover legislation to make requirements simpler and clearer.To facilitate a more competitive market for corporate control, a bidder will be able to exceed the takeover threshold—more than 20 per cent of the total voting rights in a company—through a new mandatory bid procedure before being obliged to make a general takeover offer. The mandatory bid rule will provide two big advantages. First, by giving potential bidders the choice of which takeover method to employ, they are more likely to proceed with their bids, resulting in an increased likelihood of assets being used in their most productive way. Secondly, the mandatory bid rule will ensure that all target company shareholders will have the opportunity to sell their interest at a fair price and to benefit from the premium a bidder for control places on the securities.The conditions generally applying to takeover bids will usually apply to mandatory bids. However, certain other conditions will also apply to mandatory bids to protect minority shareholders. For example, the conditions are designed to ensure that the mandatory bid complies with the equal opportunity principle—that target shareholders be given a fair opportunity to exit the company completely at a fair price.Takeovers panelTo address concerns with the current dispute resolution mechanisms for takeovers, the existing Corporations and Securities Panel will be reconstituted to become the primary forum for resolving takeover matters. The panel will retain its existing jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the spirit of the law. It will also be given jurisdiction to review decisions of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, on exemptions from the takeover rules given to corporations. All interested parties will be able to bring matters before the panel, not just ASIC. Court proceedings in relation to a takeover bid or proposed takeover bid will not be able to be started until after the end of the bid period except on the application of ASIC or another public authority of the commonwealth or a state.Listed managed investmentsInvestors will also have the benefit of the takeover rules applying to listed managed investment schemes.This program of reforms will ensure that Australia's corporate laws meet the challenges of the present and future marketplace in a forward thinking, responsible and innovative way. The reforms are designed to encourage free enterprise for the benefit of all Australians.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1287r6011287Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.128711:06:001287Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill contains two new exemptions from sales tax. The exemptions are for commercial space equipment and for certain goods imported by overseas participants and delegations attending the Sydney 2000 Olympics, Paralympics and associated events.The bill will also remedy some weaknesses in the recently enacted scheme to prevent sales tax evasion in the computer industry and correct a deficiency in the temporary importation exemption.This bill will implement the government's policy to exempt from sales tax space launch vehicles, payloads and other goods intended for launch into outer space or to be brought back from outer space. This measure was announced on 23 June this year.The exemption will:. encourage the development of a commercial space launch industry in Australia; and. provide Australia with access to the growing world demand for commercial space launch facilities.The space equipment exemption will apply from the date of royal assent. However, there will be a transitional credit for dealings on or after 23 June 1998 and before the date of royal assent. This will ensure that, as announced by the government, dealings on or after 23 June do not bear sales tax.This bill will also provide that certain goods imported by or on behalf of non-Australian Olympic and Paralympic family members and delegations and participants in the Olympics, Paralympics and associated events will be exempted from sales tax.This exemption is in line with current sales tax arrangements with respect to SOCOG.The first events covered by the new exemption and which occur during 1998 will be the cultural Olympic event `A Sea Change' and the international sailing regatta.The exemption will not apply to goods for sale, alcohol and tobacco products, motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts, television cameras and equipment for radio and television broadcasting.The amendments complement recent changes to the customs law to exempt the same goods from customs duty.The exemption will apply from the date of royal assent and, as for the space equipment measure, there will be a transitional credit arrangement. The credits will apply to dealings on or after 1 March 1998 and before royal assent.The government proposes three changes to overcome some technical problems with the new scheme for dealing with sales tax evasion in the computer industry.The first change will remove anomalies arising from current descriptions and tariff classifications in the law. This will apply from the date of introduction of the bill.The second change will increase the maximum penalty for a person falsely representing himself or herself to be accredited or falsely representing a transaction to be authorised, and will increase the maximum penalty for making improper or false quotes under the law. The new maximum penalty of $5,500 will apply from the date of royal assent.The third change will close a loophole that allows traders to falsely present themselves as exporters in order to purchase or lease goods tax free. This will apply from a date to be proclaimed.The amendments will enhance the integrity of the new sales tax rules for computers which have addressed the entrenched culture of sales tax evasion previously evident in parts of the personal computer industry.This bill also amends the sales tax law so that goods imported into Australia under a temporary importation exemption, used in Australia, exported and then re-imported, are subject to sales tax at the time of the second importation.The amendment will correct a deficiency in the sales tax law from 13 May 1997, which is the date the government announced the measure.I present the explanatory memorandum which explains in detail the changes to the law that the bill contains. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1288r6941288Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.128811:12:001288Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the superannuation legislation to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of the superannuation supervisory framework.Superannuation plays a significant role in the government's commitment to increase national saving and in the government's retirement income policy. It is therefore vital that an effective regulatory regime is in place and maintained to enhance the security of members' benefits and to ensure that superannuation entities operate for genuine retirement purposes.The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993—the SIS Act—provides for the prudential regulation of the superannuation industry between the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. An important aspect of prudential regulation is the monitoring and investigation powers of both regulators.This bill will improve monitoring and investigation powers by increasing the flexibility of the regulators' existing powers, expanding the parties to whom they apply and increasing penalties for noncompliance. It is vital to the prudential regulation of superannuation moneys in Australia that the regulators have effective monitoring and investigation powers.Another important aspect of the regulatory framework is the existence of a complaints handling body to deal with members' superannuation complaints. The Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act established the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to resolve fund member complaints about trustee decisions in a manner that is fair, informal and quick. This bill will enable the efficiency and productivity of the tribunal to be improved, including allowing single member review panels. This will enhance the tribunal's role in promoting public confidence in the superannuation regime.This bill also contains a number of measures which will finetune and clarify the operation of the supervisory framework, which will assist trustees in discharging their obligations to fund members.In conclusion, this bill implements miscellaneous amendments to maintain and strengthen the superannuation supervisory framework. The amendments will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory regime and improve confidence in the superannuation system more generally.I commend this bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1288r6951288Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.128911:14:001289Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill amends the income tax law to give effect to measures announced in previous budgets and in other government statements.This bill also honours a commitment made by the Prime Minister on 8 December 1997 when he announced, as part of the `Investing for Growth' statement, a package of measures which are aimed at making Australia a more attractive regional financial centre by building on Australia's existing advantages to ensure its participation in the increasing global trade in financial services.The amendments relate to the exemption from interest withholding tax available under section 128F, the offshore banking unit concessional tax regime, the foreign investment fund and the thin capitalisation provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. These measures were first introduced into parliament on 2 July 1998 and subsequently lapsed when parliament was prorogued. Since that time, consultation with industry bodies has continued and the re-introduced measures reflect that dialogue. These changes were announced by the Treasurer on 13 August this year.To ensure taxpayers are not disadvantaged by the delay in implementation, the amendments are to continue to apply from 2 July this year—the original date of introduction. The exemption from the foreign investment fund measures will continue to have effect for notional accounting periods of foreign investment funds ending on or after 2 July 1998. The amendments are estimated to cost $22 million in a full year.This bill contains consequential amendments arising from changes to the capital loss rules in Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 2) 1997. The technical amendments will not affect the practical effect of the debt forgiveness provisions. These amendments apply to debts forgiven after the date of introduction of this bill.The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is being amended to set a common base for the depreciation deductions for plant that can be claimed by exempt entities which first become taxable on or after 4 August 1997 in relation to plant they already own and by taxable entities which purchase plant from an exempt entity in connection with the acquisition of a business on or after 4 August 1997.The remaining measures will prevent franking credit trading and dividend streaming as announced in the 1997-98 budget. These include a holding period rule and related payments rule for shares and interests in shares to ensure that only taxpayers who bear the economic risk of ownership of the shares or interests will be entitled to franking rebates and credits under the dividend imputation system and the intercompany dividend rebate. These benefits will also be denied on trust and partnership distributions which are equivalent to interest on a loan. One measure limits the source of franking credits available for trading.The amendments to trust and partnership distributions and those implementing the related payments rule and the limiting the source rule apply from 7.30 p.m. Australian eastern standard time 13 May 1997. The holding period rule generally applies to shares and interests in shares acquired on or after 1 July 1997, with special provisions relating to trusts applying from 3.00 p.m. Australian eastern standard time 31 December 1997.On 10 October 1996 the Treasurer announced the government's intention to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to allow deductions for gifts of $2 or more to the Menzies Research Centre Public Fund.The Menzies Research Centre Public Fund will undertake research into economic, social, cultural and political policies to enhance the principles of individual liberty, free speech, competitive enterprise and democracy. The centre will publish and disseminate the results of the research to the public.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 Martin) adjourned.Bills1290r6551290Bill presented by Ms Worth, for Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.129011:20:001290Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This government has committed itself to reform to ensure a strong and viable private health system—a private health care system that complements Medicare and ensures Australia maintains a quality health care system.The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 sets in place the framework for the introduction of a number of important reforms to the private health insurance product. These reforms are designed to make the product more attractive to consumers and complements the government's 30 per cent rebate. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and concerns itself with reform in seven key areas. Parts 1 to 6 of schedule 1 deal with six of these reforms:. Part 1 deals with reforms to allow registered health funds to offer discounted premiums in specific circumstances;. Part 2 deals with reforms to allow health funds to offer loyalty bonuses;. Part 3 deals with reforms to pre-existing ailment provisions to allow for waiting periods to be extended in particular instances;. Part 4 deals with reforms to allow health funds to cover the cost to fund members of pharmaceutical benefits prescribed while as patients in hospital;. Part 5 deals with reforms to extend payments by health funds for procedures undertaken in approved procedures facilities; and. Part 6, the final significant reform in this schedule, deals with reforms to extend payment by health funds for specialist services provided in consulting rooms.Schedule 1 also includes at part 7 a miscellaneous provision further reinforcing the principle of community rating in light of the discounting, loyalty bonus and pharmaceutical benefit reforms proposed in this bill.Finally, schedule 2 deals with another significant reform in this bill, amending ministerial discretion with respect to fund rule changes, requiring that decisions in relation to a particular fund rule change include regard for the effects of the proposed change on the industry as a whole.In addition, this schedule takes care of few administrative matters, allowing for the transfer of the `rates of contribution' rule change provisions from the minister to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council prior to the repeal of these provisions in the medium term.This bill delivers another important part of the government's commitment to address the declining private health insurance membership. It follows on from major government reforms in the area of private hospital arrangements detailed in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 and complements the government's 30 per cent rebate for health insurance premiums at the time of the last election.I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned. Bills1290r6691290Bill presented by Miss Jackie Kelly, and read a first time.129111:23:001291Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Purpose of the billThis bill amends the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990.The Australian sporting community has been fully consulted on these amendments, from the administrators of our peak national sports bodies to the elite athletes who are themselves subject to drug testing. They recognise that the agency must have the flexibility to keep abreast of change.The proposed amendments will ensure that Australia's anti-doping regime is more efficient, fairer to athletes subject to drug testing but, importantly, tougher on drug cheats.BackgroundIn 1990, Australia became the first country in the world to establish a national sports drug testing authority under legislation.However, the act, in its current form, has hampered ASDA's pursuit of best practice principles. In late 1997, the government initiated an independent review of the ASDA legislation. That review recommended the removal of significant levels of operational detail from the act. The government endorsed those recommendations.Major Features of the billThe amendments streamline the ASDA Act so that it clearly establishes the legislative framework under which ASDA will operate. The act will no longer contain detailed operating instructions. These will be removed to subordinate legislation.Through the regulations, ASDA will be required to conduct testing in accordance with a `charter of athlete rights' that preserves all rights which this parliament guaranteed for athletes in 1990.The bill strengthens the capacity of ASDA to deal with positive test results recorded by foreign athletes. If an international body takes no action, ASDA will be able to notify a relevant Australian sports body so that it may take appropriate action. This creates a level playing field for Australian athletes in Australia.The bill puts in place a mechanism to enable the Australian Customs Service to pass information to ASDA about prohibited imports which are also banned for use in sport. The agency will use this information to better plan its testing activities.The bill provides for the establishment of an Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee. The committee will provide scientific and medical expertise to support ASDA's drug testing activities and the anti-doping policies of national sporting organisations. The establishment of this committee is strongly supported by the Australian sporting community.The committee will assist laboratories determine whether the presence of a banned endogenous substance is due to the substance being present at naturally high levels for that competitor or due to doping—in other words, cheating.Secondly, the committee will provide independent approval of athlete requests to use prohibited substances for therapeutic reasons where the athlete has a serious medical condition. The committee will only do this where the rules of the sporting organisation permit therapeutic usage.Finally, the committee will be able to provide expert medical advice to the sports doping tribunals that hear cases of alleged doping offences.The bill also provides a legislative framework for state and territory governments to enact complementary legislation that will enable ASDA to undertake drug testing on state level competitors. This measure has the strong support of all state and territory ministers for sport.In addition, the bill will enable ASDA to provide `safety checking services' for sporting organisations to test for the presence of substances such as alcohol, which can impair judgment and compromise the safety of competitors.Financial Impact StatementThe agency's 1998-99 budget will absorb the costs of the establishment and operation of the Medical Advisory Committee. Annual funding required by the committee in future years will be taken up in the 1999-2000 budget.I am sure that most Australians will want to ensure that the Australian sporting ethos based on honesty, fair play, excellence and opportunity for all is preserved for future generations of Australian sports people. This bill will enable ASDA to adopt world's best practice when delivering drug testing services. It will provide the Australian sporting community with an independent, high quality and accessible anti-doping program, and so enable Australian sport to deter drug use by athletes.I must also take this opportunity to stress that this bill is only one expression of the government's commitment to drug free sport. I am currently working on pulling together a whole suite of anti-doping measures with a view to developing a comprehensive and coordinated anti-doping strategy.I would like to thank Natalie Howson, who heads the Australian Sports Drug Agency, and her team at the agency for all the work they have put into the preparation of this bill.I commend the bill to this House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills1292r6841292Bill presented by Ms Worth, for Mr Entsch, and read a first time.129211:30:001292Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The National Measurement Act 1960 provides the legislative basis for the Australian national measurement system. The objective of this act is to ensure that measurements are made on a consistent basis throughout the nation and are compatible with measurements in other countries.While trade measurement in reticulated water, electricity and gas already falls within the ambit of the act, the act does not provide a detailed measurement control system to enable traders to easily comply with its broad requirements for legal traceability. This bill amends the act to provide mandatory requirements for specified utility meters as recommended by the Review of Australia's Standards and Conformance Infrastructure (the Kean report).The Kean committee recognised that the present system of utility measurements was wasteful, inadequate in today's environment and inappropriate to address the privatisation and corporatisation of utility authorities. In recommending an amendment of the National Measurement Act, the Kean committee was aware that a state and territory based solution would not effectively address the transborder nature of the utility sector which includes the national electricity grid and interstate gas pipelines.The proposal contained in this bill has significant benefits for utility meter manufacturing industry, utility companies and consumers. National pattern approval and verification will provide local manufacturers of utility meters with the efficiencies and benefits of scale of a single national market for utility meters.As a consequence of international harmonisation of requirements, the proposal will enhance export opportunities for local manufacturers of utility meters. While the proposal will expose local manufacturers to additional competition from imported meters, it will at the same time safeguard them against unfair competition from substandard imported meters.The proposal contained in this bill will provide direct benefits for utility companies by eliminating multiple, inefficient testing of utility meters for pattern approval purposes that is only partially effective. The associated cost burden will be removed and the exposure of these companies to risk arising from the purchase of substandard utility meters will be greatly reduced.Consumer confidence in utility metering will be increased because of the independent third-party approval and auditing of meters, reducing the present asymmetry of information between utility companies and consumers. This will translate into indirect benefits to utility companies because of fewer consumer complaints and a consequent reduction in transaction costs.The proposal contained in this bill will cause additional costs for utility meter manufacturers, but these will be more than compensated for by the efficiencies and benefits of scale associated with a single, national market for utility meters and the increased access to export opportunities. In addition, the proposal has clear benefits for consumers, utility authorities and state and territory regulators. However, it is not possible to quantify these benefits. There will be minor costs to the National Standards Commission associated with coordinating the system.The bill broadens the objects of the act to embrace the verification of utility meters and extends the functions of the National Standards Commission to ensure that utility meters used for trade are verified. The bill introduces a new section 4A that defines the extent to which the amended act will exclude state and territory laws relating to utility meters used for trade. In particular, this section provides for the concurrent operation of state and territory laws relating to the reverification of utility meters used for trade and the in-field replacement of meters that give inaccurate measurements.The bill requires that utility meters used for trade, not prescribed as exempt in the regulations, must be verified by the National Standards Commission or a verifying authority appointed by the commission for that purpose. One of the requirements for verification is that the pattern (design) of the utility meter has been approved by the commission under the existing pattern approval provisions of the act.Provision is made for the commission to audit the work of verifying authorities to ensure both that the meters conform to their approved patterns and that they have been correctly verified. Enforcement provisions are included to provide the commission with access to evidence in the event that offence provisions of the bill are contravened. These enforcement powers are similar to those of a trade measurement inspector in a state or territory jurisdiction.It is intended that all classes of utility meters will initially be exempted from the application of these new provisions. Following the satisfactory completion of consultations and the expiry of an agreed introductory period, the exemption will be lifted for a particular class of utility meter. Provision is made in the bill for utility meters already being used for trade to remain in use, provided that they give accurate measurement.Recommendation 6 of the Kean report, to which this bill relates, has been accepted by both the present government and the previous government. In addition, the proposal is strongly supported by the utility meter manufacturing industry.I commend the bill to the House and present the signed explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills1293r6731293Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.129311:37:001293Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 and contains provisions to streamline the administration of the Research and Development Tax Concession Scheme, with the aim of reducing compliance costs for companies. It responds to the need for such measures identified in `Investing for Growth', the government's industry statement of last December.The bill will make the registration process easier for companies that wish to claim the tax deduction. The period for making an application for registration will be increased by four months, to a total of 10 months from the end of the year of income for which the company seeks registration. This will be more convenient for companies with normal accounting periods, giving them more time to prepare their applications and shifting the deadline away from busy periods on the calendar.The bill also addresses some rigidities in the procedures for company registration.The proposed changes will allow the Industry Research and Development Board a limited discretion to consider some late applications for registration and to correct minor errors made by companies in their registration applications. At present, even if there are exceptional circumstances, missing a deadline or getting the company name wrong in an application can cost a company its access to the research and development tax concession. This bill will give the board more flexibility to treat such cases based on the specific circumstances attaching to each.The discretions being given to the board will, however, be limited in such a way that they will not weaken those provisions of the act designed to prevent retrospective access to the tax concession.In addition, this bill will give the board the flexibility to require different levels of information from different classes of applicant. This will enable the board, for example, to reduce the information requirement and, hence, the compliance cost of the scheme for companies undertaking smaller dollar amounts of research and development.Companies eligible for approval to undertake up to 10 per cent of their research and development activities overseas will also benefit from this bill. The proposed change will make the effective date for any board approval the date on which the application is received. At present, any expenditure a company incurs between the date of application and board approval—which can take some months—is not eligible for a con cessional tax deduction. This bill will fix that situation.The bill also contains a raft of minor measures aimed at improving the administration of the Research and Development Tax Concession Scheme consistent with improving its integrity and efficacy.These minor measures include clarification of the board's powers in the areas of exploitation of R&D results and overseas expenditures on R&D; administrative improvements to the Registered Research Agency Scheme; and housekeeping matters relating to board appointments, sharing of information and recruitment of consultants.I commend the bill to the House and present its explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Special Adjournment1294Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 7 December 1998, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Committees1294129411:41:001294Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I 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 COMMITTEESAppointment323 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 committees324 (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 Privileges325 (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 Committee326 (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 Committee327 (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 Committee328 (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 recommendations 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' Interests329 (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 Procedure330 (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 Committee331 (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 COMMITTEESApplication332 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 members333 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 Speakers334 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 interested335 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 chair336 (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.Quorum337 (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.Subcommittees338 (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 committee339 (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 documents340 (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 committees341 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 committees342 A committee shall have power to confer orally or in writing with a similar committee of the Senate.Records of proceedings and divisions343 (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 visitors344 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 Members345 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 evidence346 (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 time347 A committee shall have leave to report from time to time.Chair to prepare report348 The chair of a committee shall prepare a draft report and submit it to the committee.Consideration of draft report349 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 report350 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.Reconsideration351 After the draft report has been considered, the whole or any paragraph may be reconsidered and amended.Chair to sign report352 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 presented353 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 down354 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 COMMITTEESSelect committeesAppointment355 The House may appoint select committees by motion.Report from select committee356 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 committeesProposal to appoint357 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 committee358 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 Members359 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 proceedings360 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 committees361 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 COMMITTEESummoning of witnesses362 (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 committee363 (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 Members364 (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 Senate365 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 committee366 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 protection367 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 House368 A witness before the House shall be examined at the Bar unless the House otherwise orders.Examination of witnesses368A (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 leave368B 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.This motion and the following motions relate to the government's response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure entitled Ten years on: A review of the House of Representatives committee system .The changes being made today to the standing orders are a continuation of the government's excellent record, which we have forged since coming to government, in relation to responding to suggested improvements to House standing orders. This general approach of the government started when we were elected back in March 1996. At that time, we dusted off all the outstanding reports of the Procedure Committee, asked them to update those responses and provided substantial responses to the work of the Procedure Committee. It is an important committee. We acknowledge the work that it does.Unlike our predecessors, we believe it is important that due time, attention and appropriate responses be provided to the Procedure Committee. When Labor was in government, the committee's reports used to gather dust on the shelves. Under this government, we have acted to improve procedures, and we appreciate the advice of that committee. For example, in the last couple of years we abolished the Keating ministerial roster system, which was infamous for preventing the accountability of ministers. We were able to make changes to the timing of question time so that the parliament question time could be televised, which is very important in order for people to have a better understanding of government and information about government. It improves the accountability of government.We established a right of reply to allow persons aggrieved by adverse mentions in the House to make a submission in writing to the Speaker to seek a right of reply. We established a more streamlined procedure for the conduct of divisions, which now operates on a permanent basis. We introduced constituency statements and a half-hour adjournment in the Main Committee on Thursdays. As would be appreciated, during question time the Prime Minister requires ministers to answer questions. We have been running at 20 questions or thereabouts at question time. That is a marked improvement from the shambles that used to preside when question time was run by our predecessors in the Labor Party.These changes have been made to enhance the standing of the parliament and to improve the opportunities for members, backbench members particularly, to raise issues of concern to their constituents in the parliament. This has been part of an ongoing process by the government to effect genuine improve ments in the standards and running of the parliament.The report that we have before us now contains a series of recommendations, many of which we adopt. In some cases we have not adopted them; they represent, however, the standard practice of government, and we will continue the practices that have evolved. It is acknowledged that many of the changes being proposed by the report are not of a radical nature, but I suppose that really indicates that we have addressed a lot of the difficult issues that we inherited back in March 1996 and that the parliamentary committee system has worked quite well. In fairness, it has worked quite well for the past 10 years and is a tribute to those who put forward changes at that time.The government endorses much of the committee's report and supports the committee's objectives of improving the operation of the House committees and rationalising the number of committees on which members are required to serve. The government agrees with the committee's recommendation to reduce the number of members on general purpose standing committees. A composition of 10 members, with provision for the appointment of up to two supplementary members, would reduce members' workloads without preventing members from participating as the committee deems appropriate. It has been agreed between the whips that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services will, however, have 12 members.The proposed reduction of the Standing Committee on Procedure is also a sensible measure which we support. The proposed balance in the committee—namely, six members from the government and four from the opposition—reflects the composition of the new House. It is not intended that this measure, as envisaged by the committee, operate as a permanent rule for later parliaments. By definition, a government will have the most backbenchers available to perform committee work and should have a corresponding proportion of committee positions. In addition, the government considers that the standing orders should expressly provide that the proposed two supplementary members include one government member and one non-government member, and the new proposed standing orders differ from the committee's recommendation in that respect.In relation to recommendation 11, that the balance between committee and delegation business and private members business be a judgment for the selection committee, I must say that I am not entirely convinced that trading private members' time for committee business will address members' concerns. However, we accept that some flexibility to maximise time for business—depending on demand—could permit more efficient use of House time. The hour after question time will, however, be preserved for private members business. On this basis, recommendation 11 will be supported, subject to a review, for a trial period of 12 months.With regard to recommendations 25 and 26, relating to the treatment of in camera evidence and, in particular, the requirement that wherever evidence is given in camera it not be released by the committee without the agreement of the witness, given that this imposes new requirements on the committees we propose that this measure should also be subject to a trial period.Whilst the government agrees, to some extent, to the committee's proposals to expand House committees' scope to initiate inquiries, we will not be supporting recommendations 6 and 10, which relate to committees being given the power to determine their own references and to a provision for petitions to stand referred to general purpose standing committees for any inquiry the committee may make. I point out that the committees already have a standing reference of annual reports and that that should provide ample opportunity for committees to pursue matters which they believe should be pursued.The government supports recommendations 7, 8 and 9 and will agree to the changes—which allows for reports of the Auditor-General to stand referred to general purpose standing committees for any inquiry they wish to make. In this case, a committee must notify in writing the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts and Audit when an inquiry is intended. That joint committee is to develop procedures to ensure that the views of general purpose standing committees are sought prior to the determination of parliament's audit priorities.As a general rule, bills should only be referred to the House committees; or, if necessary, the House may refer a bill specifically to a committee consisting of House members of a joint committee rather than refer it to the joint committee as a whole. This recommendation will clarify the procedure by which bills being examined by joint committees will only be dealt with by House members and will operate in accordance with House procedures.In relation to the committee's proposal in recommendations 13 to 18 for the treatment of government responses to committee reports, the government will not be supporting the recommendation. The government already maintains its three-month target for responses to reports and provides a six-monthly schedule of government responses to reports in the House of Representatives and joint committees and also of the reports presented to which responses are outstanding. In my view that is perfectly adequate, and we therefore do not propose to pick up this recommendation.We do not propose any changes to the arrangements for the presentation and debate of government responses as also proposed by the Procedure Committee. In essence, the timing of debate of government responses should, in my view, be a matter for the government. It is a political decision. It has always been that way, and it is perfectly reasonable for the government to adopt that approach.Recommendations 19 to 23 will also be supported by the government. We support recommendation 24 in principle, but fixing those guidelines in a resolution may attract issues of arguments and interpretation over committee procedure, adding to the time and cost of inquiries and distracting from the business of the committee.Other minor changes which are being made today include some minor housekeeping changes which have been suggested informally by the Clerk. Specifically, these include, when a situation arises such that a position on a committee becomes vacant and the House is not expected to sit for a further period of at least two weeks, that the relevant whip or whips, depending on whether the position was vacated by a government member or a non-government member, may nominate by writing to the Speaker the appointment or discharge of a member of a committee.In conclusion, I thank the members of the Procedure Committee for the work which they undertook in this review. I particularly mention the work of the member for Aston, the former chairman of the committee, who is in the chamber. He has always taken a close interest in these matters and has worked hard to provide relevant reports over the past few years which this government has been willing to implement.I also thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his calm and considered response to these proposals and, in particular, for the discussions that we have had on the report. I must say that I welcome the discussions that we have had; I think that is appropriate. Many of these things can be blown up out of all proportion to become major political events, but the reality is that most of these issues simply go to the processes of the House—QI4PRICEMr Price—You are sounding very statesmanlike.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Let that interjection be recorded in Hansard ! I put it to the Manager of Opposition Business that, if he and I can have a reasonable conversation about these matters, perhaps a slightly different attitude to the management of opposition business in the chamber would also be appreciated.For example, we offered more time for the address-in-reply so that speakers could have an opportunity to raise matters which they probably have been wanting to raise since the election. That is fair enough, and I think we should provide additional time for members, particularly given this is a very short parliamentary session after the election and there are issues that people properly want to raise in the parliament. Unfortunately, the opposition refused that proposal. We said, `Why don't we give people more time?' and they said no. Then, of course, on ABC AM they said that the government is gagging debate. We offered a further opportunity, more time, and they refused it.Last night we had a vote on the referral of the address-in-reply to the Main Committee. The opposition had agreed to the referral of the address-in-reply to the Main Committee, and so what happened? They came in here and voted against it. What does that do? With great respect, it is just a complete nonsense. It is just playing games for the sake of playing games.On the question of the tax legislation, the opposition is complaining about the time that will be provided for the debate on the government's new tax system. We said that we intended this legislation to go through the parliament and across to the Senate by Christmas time. We are sitting an extra week, which will give people ample opportunity to put their point of view. The Labor Party does not need a lot of time because it is opposed to it. In fact, it is opposed to virtually everything. It is certainly opposed to the government's tax reform proposals.I said to the Manager of Opposition Business, `We've got a week. Can we have discussions about properly managing that week so that, instead of spending the whole week having divisions, people can have the opportunity provided in that week to debate the issues?' What was the response? `No, we don't want to discuss how we manage the business. We want you to put in a guillotine motion.' That was the response. I have been in opposition, I have been in that position, and there are lots of people on your backbenches saying, `Give it to the government. Make their life impossible.' With great respect, that is just juvenile. It is just stupid.Mr Cadman interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I know you will never believe this, and it will be impossible for me to convince you, but we as an opposition did not take division after division after division. For example, last night the shadow minister for small business wanted to move an amendment. I was quite happy for him to move an amendment, so I said to him, `Are you going to divide on one of the procedural issues? If you do not divide on that, instead of our having a division, why don't you have five minutes having your say?' He asked the brains trust on the tactics committee on the opposition side, `Do I get to speak or do I have a division?' What did they decide? They decided to have a division. Quite frankly, I am sorry, but that is just plain stupid. If he has something worth saying, he ought to be given the opportunity to say it.How many divisions did we have on the Workplace Relations Bill? Was it seven, eight or nine? I do not know. We were here for about an hour having divisions. Why? It beats me why. You are opposed to it. You voted against it three times in the last parliament. You are still against it. You are always going to be against it. So what is the point of having people sitting around in divisions? As I said to the Manager of Opposition Business, `Do we want to discuss how we are going to have this debate or are we just going to have a whole lot of divisions?' What was the answer? `We'll have a whole lot of divisions.' I do not think the public is impressed by that. In fact, I do not think the public could give two hoots about it. It is just silly games, as far as I am concerned.We are more than happy to facilitate the proper management of issues. Sure, there will be times when, from the government's perspective, there will be some haste or some requirement to get on with things and push things through. That has been the way of governments since the federal parliament first met. We are more than happy to sit down and negotiate and have sensible arrangements, but in the first few days of this new parliament we have had a repeat of the juvenile tactics that we had last time. I do not think you get anything for it. You get absolutely nothing for it. Saying on AM that the government is gagging you on the GST is, quite frankly, a joke. It just turns people off. It is the sort of thing that encourages people to vote for Pauline Hanson because they do not think much of the way we run the House.You can make all the political points that you want to make. You can hit us as hard as you like when making political points, and good luck to you for doing so. In some ways you are obliged to take political points against the government of the day. Hold us accountable, that is fine, we are happy to be held accountable, and so we should be; but why prevent your own people from speaking just for the sake of having a division?With those words, the response of the government to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure is to accept many of the proposals. It is a good report. It continues the good traditions of this committee, certainly in the time that we have been in, to produce quality reports. I thank all members for their work on the committee.11:58:001304McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The opposition will be supporting the motion. It is a great pity, however, that we had matters about which we had substantial agreement adorned by such sanctimonious humbug at the end of that particular speech. We already had an agreement that we would only go for an hour in this session, and the hope was that a number of backbenchers would have the opportunity to speak. I had indicated that I would speak briefly, and I will speak briefly, about the motion, although there are some things that need to be said.Notwithstanding the fact that we agree with what is in it, our concern is about the things from the Standing Committee on Procedure report that are not accepted, and we will make some comments about those. Of course, I will be obliged to respond to those remarks. To the extent that that might interfere with anyone's opportunity to speak on this matter, I regret it. But it was gratuitous sanctimonious humbug so I will have to respond.The matters with which the government has agreed from the Procedure Committee report are matters with which we also agree. This is not surprising. All those recommendations were bipartisan recommendations from the committee, and the two recommendations from the Procedure Committee about which there was a minority report the government is not adopting. I think it is correct in not adopting those two, so we welcome that.I am not absolutely convinced that every one of the changes in detail is exactly what I would personally have preferred, but it is the unanimous recommendation of an experienced and competent committee. I welcome the fact that the government is adopting it. So we will support it. I think what you would say is, `This is okay, but it is not enough.' It is not part of creating a 21st century parliamentary institution, but it is a useful, modest attempt at improving the operation of the committee system that we now have. The one thing I do agree with the Leader of the House about is that the committee did a good job in its deliberations and in its report. It is a considered and thoughtful report. Even the bits I do not agree with have been thought through and the recommendations are not lightly made. They are based on the argument of the people who proposed them, even where there is disagreement. So I think it has done a good job.There is also some restructuring of the standing orders in terms of presentation and reformatting and some minor changes, as the Leader of the House implies, recommended by the Clerk. Those are also things which we support. I am not convinced, personally, that reducing the size of the committees to 10 is a good idea, but that is the majority position. It was the agreed position. I accept it, and I welcome the fact that the government has agreed to increase the rural committee to 12, in effect, as we all know, to accommodate the interests of the Independent member. I think that is an appropriate thing to do, and we welcome and support that also.The one place where the government has varied the committee's recommendation in a way that we will support—and it is not necessarily a contradiction of the committee's position; it is simply making a more specific indication, but we have some reservations about how it will work—is the committee's suggestion that there should be the potential to add two members to a committee for particular references. The government has made it specific that that should be one plus one from government and opposition to maintain the balance. We have no interest in that operating otherwise. I am sure no-one ever envisaged it would operate otherwise, but there is some concern as to how that selection will be made. I raised this with the Leader of the House in our discussions but we did not actually get anywhere. The nature of those negotiations is something I would not have raised but, as he has raised it, I will happily discuss it.Our concern is that the way the standing orders are written now, in particular and in effect because of the numbers in the House, the government has a veto over the circumstances in which the opposition may seek to have an extra person on a committee. It is obvious that on any occasion when the opposition would want to have that extra member the government would want to exercise its right to have that extra one as well—not that it is necessary, because the government would still have a majority without it. But we understand they would always wish to do that and nobody would suggest that you would allow this one plus one extra members mechanism to be a backdoor device to change the balance on the committee.But where either whip or leader indicates that this is a circumstance in which the right to an extra member is going to be exercised—it should automatically trigger, of course, the right of the government to exercise its right also—the power of initiative should come from the opposition, and not have a right of veto resting with the government. I regret that the government could not accept that suggestion, but they did not accept any of our suggestions, so why should we be surprised they didn't accept that? I think in the drafting of standing orders 324 and 333 there is a potential for this to operate a little awkwardly. I am not convinced that we have got that absolutely right. I think our proposal was better, but we are not going to vote against it. It is simply a concern we have, and if it operates as we fear on some occasion then we will have something to say. I simply flag it now.It is a pity the government did not accept recommendation 6 with regard to references. I think that is a change which we in government did not make. In the Senate, in which I was a minister during the time of the government, that power does exist and, I have to say, for all the apprehension that House of Representatives members always had about the crisis that this would cause, it never caused one. I understand, and we understand, the way governments react to that. We have had the same experience. I think it is time we all changed, but I accept it. I cannot be too profound in our criticism. We had the chance to do it and did not do it. So, while noting my regret, I do not want to take it any further than that.The failure I am concerned about—which I did raise with the Leader of the House, but it is not one that in this instance I think there is any chance that he would accept; so, while I will have something to say about the general question of negotiating with this Leader of the House in a moment in response to his remarks, I do not apply it to this matter because this is a matter of principle, not just a matter of process—relates to the question of petitions. I think we all have to accept that the way the once very important petitioning of parliament process is handled is a farce and a scandal. If the people who put the time and effort into gathering petitions knew what happened to them, they would be appalled. A very important part of the petitioning of the parliamentary process is the gathering process, out in the community gathering the signatures. Nothing that we do interferes with that, and that is good.The second benefit which this does not interfere with is the political impact, when there is a major petition, of its presentation to a member and the media events surrounding that. Those two things will continue and nothing in the government's failure to act will in any way impede that. But I think we have to refine the way we deal with petitions to take that power of the citizen and reflect it more effectively in what happens in the parliament.My preferred position on this is not the committee's preferred position, but the committee's position is a significant improvement. If the government had supported it we would have supported it. But we will give some consideration perhaps to alternative mechanisms. We may not come back when we put forward our point of view with that which the committee has recommended. Personally, if it were me I would not; I would do it slightly differently. But I welcome the fact that it has addressed it. I welcome the fact that the committee has suggested these petitions should be taken more seriously. I hope that the government will do something about that. So we will support the motion because those things which are being done are things which we support. We welcome that. We are disappointed there is not more and we look forward to better in the future.I will make some quick comments in response to the other statements that the Leader of the House made. I will not take long. I guess it is all very predictable but disappointing that we hear all this sanctimonious stuff. I had the same experience in the last session when we shadowed each other in a different capacity. Discussions, laughingly called negotiations, with the Leader of the House are what I describe to the caucus as amiably useless. You walk in and he smiles and keeps smiling, but at the end of the day when he runs out of arguments against your position, he says, `I'm sorry, we're the government.' Nothing ever changes.Dr Wooldridge interjecting—WI4REITHMr Reith—You have no idea what it used to be like.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I have a very good idea. My only concern is that you are being so sanctimonious in pretending that it was otherwise. Am I shocked that it is so? No, I am not. Am I concerned that you come in here and pretend that it is otherwise? That is what leads me to respond. I prefer things to be amiably useless than useless with acrimony, so I suppose it is a mild compliment. But let us not pretend that you negotiate. You come in, have a discussion—Mr Reith interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Exactly. If it is called damning with faint praise, it might be closer. We have a situation where discussions can be held, but if you pretend that anything is going to come out of it, you are headed for sad and imminent disillusionment. I was not disillusioned because I had no expectations.WI4REITHMr Reith—We could have started the GST today. We decided to start it on Monday at your request. That's amiably useful.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—In relation to the proposal to start it today, for the shadow Treasurer to be expected to respond to what is supposed to be the greatest tax reform since Federation without having a chance to go to caucus or the parliamentary party and having had the bills for 24 hours is an insult. You offer up something that nobody could reasonably accept and then say, `We offered you something and you knocked it back.' You could have said, `We offered you a drink. Here's a glass of arsenic. You were very uncharitable and you didn't accept it.' It was an entirely unacceptable, unreasonable and impossible proposition and nobody was in the slightest bit surprised.Mr Reith interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I never agreed to that. I accept that you may believe I did. I do not mean that you are deliberately misleading. I certainly did not. That was something which I took back to my show and told them about it—Mr Reith interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Thank you very much. `Gratuitous' is your middle name. Let us not worry about the chief whip. He is doing all right.The address-in-reply procedure has significantly outraged the backbench of the opposition. Views are very strongly held about it. They are extremely concerned. We did not agree with it being referred. We have indicated that we think it reduces the significance of the contributions which people have to make in that debate, which is one of the important opportunities for the backbench. We have indicated today that we will participate in the Main Committee deliberations. We are not happy about it. We are doing it under sufferance, but we will do it so that our colleagues can speak. But we are most unhappy about it.Mr Reith interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I do not know what you are talking about with regard to that because what you are saying does not reflect the reports I have received about the discussion, but that is a matter for another day. I am very happy to say that what you have said is not an accurate representation of my understanding, but I am not surprised.With regard to the Workplace Relations Bill, it is not surprising that some of our colleagues were a little concerned. There were 23 speakers listed and almost none of them got a chance to speak. They did not think that was a reasonable way of handling something which they thought was important on behalf of their constituents and about which they are correct. Last night when asked, `Can we have a discussion about this?' the shadow minister's response was, `If we can have a few speakers,' and you said, `No', and so we said, `There is no point in having a discussion.' And that was the end of that. You are quite right—there was no point in having a discussion. I was not in the mood for `amiably useless' at that time.Let us not pretend that you are other than absolutely unchangeable in all these matters and that any negotiation has ever achieved any useful outcome, either when you were shadow minister and I dealt with you or in your capacity as Leader of the House. I will continue to participate in those discussions because it is my obligation and, you never know, one day I might break my duck, but it is highly unlikely. I do not mind that; just do not come in here and be sanctimonious about it. It is sickening.Unfortunately, there were matters where I felt we could have been in agreement in the House because the motion the government is moving is one which we support. We are somewhat disappointed that it is not stronger, but, to the extent that it goes in the direction which we agree with, we support it. With those remarks and that response to the unnecessary, sanctimonious humbug which we had to endure during his remarks, I support the motion.12:13:001307Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—In response to the member for Fraser's comments about discussions being amiably useless, I spent six years on the other side and in our dealings with the then government the exchanges were certainly not amiable and they were certainly useless most of the time and pretty vitriolic. I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on the government's response to this report as I was the chair of the committee that brought the report down. Clearly, I welcome the fact that the government has accepted a number of our recommendations. I am also disappointed that it has not picked up all of those recommendations because we felt that most of them were pretty valid.It is perhaps worth making the point that the timing of the report was relevant in two senses. One was that the review took place 10 years after the inception of the committee system in this place and therefore it was an appropriate time to take a long-term look at how the committee system had developed, how it operated, what was done in practice and what was recorded in the procedures as being allowed to be done so that we could modernise and bring the system up to date. Also, we would see whether the committees were achieving the purpose for which they were set up and whether there was a need to look at some restructuring.Secondly, we were conscious that it was important this inquiry was completed well before the end of the last parliament. Whilst those of us on our side expected that the incoming government would be us, those on the other side clearly thought it might be them. All of us agreed it was important that the incoming government had the benefit of the report before this parliament started so that the government could look at how it wanted to go about setting up committees and what the rules might be and so on at the beginning of the parliament. It seemed to me that that was a practical approach. I am pleased that the government has taken up a number of the recommendations in that sense.There are two things the government has not taken up that many of us on the committee were disappointed about. We felt that there were just too many committees and that the committees were too large in size. The most constant refrain we heard from just about everybody who gave evidence was that people were stretched too thin. They were having to be on too many committees, they were having to go to too many meetings, and they were really not doing justice, in many cases, to their commitments on those committees because they did not have the time.It was felt that reducing the number as well as the size of the committees would enable members to perform more effectively. Therefore, the majority of the committee felt that reducing the number of committees was an ideal thing to do. The way to do that was to cut out some of the joint committees that already had their equivalents or that could have their subject matter dealt with by other committees that exist either here or in the Senate. But the government has obviously chosen not to proceed with that recommendation, and we will accept that.Another issue I am particularly disappointed about is the fact that the committees will not be allowed to initiate their own references. There was overwhelming support in the committee and in all the evidence we took for that to happen. Certainly we were very keen that, as the gentleman from Fraser mentioned, petitions be treated in a more serious way than they are at the moment. We put forward a particular proposal, which the government has not accepted. I nevertheless urge the Leader of the House to perhaps look at another way of making sure that this chamber does deal with petitions more seriously in the future.In terms of reducing the size of committees, as I have mentioned, we went for a particular formula for size. One accepts that from time to time it may be necessary to change that depending on the composition of the House. Again, it was very much a question of trying to make sure that members have the capacity to contribute seriously on the committees on which they serve. This involves not overstretching them so that their contribution is lip-service, if you like, but enabling them to make a proper contribution.It is also about recognising that there are occasions when, if you cut down on the size of committees, you may want some extra people for a particular task or you may want some particular expertise which is not necessarily on that committee on an ongoing basis. Hence, there was the suggestion of having additional members. I am very pleased to see that the government is going to go down that road.The restructuring of the standing orders was, it seemed to me, a long overdue and important piece of housekeeping, if you like. At present, the standing orders in relation to committees are, frankly, scattered throughout the document. Drawing them together, restructuring them, rewriting them and bringing them together in one place seems to me a sensible idea. We have also put forward recommendations, which the government has accepted, in some cases on a trial basis, to deal with the real situations that committees deal with when they meet and which are not covered properly in the standing orders. An example is the handling of in camera evidence. Those things will be very useful from the point of view of future committees. It will enable the committees to work much more successfully.There was a minority report, which I was disappointed about. Some of those who contributed to the minority report had not been active participants in the committee's activities. They produced that minority report very much at the death knock. Nevertheless, the issues about which they were concerned have not been proceeded with. I can understand why the government would do that.I am pleased that the government has accepted so many of our recommendations. I also say to the Leader of the House that there is very great concern about the ability of this chamber, as the parliament, to debate the reports that the parliamentary committees produce and the government responses. I ask that he treat that issue empathetically and sympathetically in the future. I am generally pleased that the government is introducing the motion that it is. I urge the House to support it.12:20:001309Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I would certainly like to make a few remarks. I do not want to rehash the report on procedure. I will make a couple of points about it, though. Obviously, the review did a useful job. The chairman and the committee limited themselves very dramatically when they failed to take into account expenditure. I know they said that this was outside the terms of reference. However, given that in the last parlia ment $10 million was slashed out of the committees and their staffing was reduced, it seemed to me a real limitation in reviewing their progress over 10 years. In particular, I was looking forward to looking at what the role of committees might be in the future.I happen to agree with the honourable former chairman of the Procedure Committee on the recommendation about too many committees, although I do so from a different point of view. The different point of view is this: without in any way wanting to be disrespectful to those honourable members who serve on committees, it is the quality and amount of resources that underpin committees that will have a significant impact on the quality of their work. At the end of the day, the committees need to stand and fall on the quality of the reports that they deliver into the parliament.For example, I have long held the view that, to try to get extra resources into the parliamentary committees, we need to offer internships to university students so they could be placed on a contract for 12 to 18 months. We would get the benefit of their enthusiasm and minds, and they would get the benefit of being able to put on their CV that they worked for a parliamentary committee.Given that parliamentarians and the institution itself are suffering somewhat from low public esteem, parliamentary committees are one way in which the people of Australia can have a sense that their voices and their views are being heard and taken into account by the parliamentary process. As members of parliament, I think we ought to be very concerned about our parliamentary committees and nurture their ongoing development. I for one would be very disappointed if the next 10 years of parliamentary committees merely replicated the first 10 years, yet I would be the first to concede that the first 10 years have made a very profound impact on them.On the issue of petitions, it is a very ancient right of a citizen to present petitions. I have put a standing order on the Notice Paper that would allow people who had taken the time and effort to gather a petition about a subject matter which they wanted to have presented to the parliament and who were able to travel to the parliament to come to the bar of the parliament and read out the prayer of the petition. And, in the event they could not do that, it would allow the honourable member in whose electorate they resided to at least read the prayer of the petition. Some may say that is not a big deal, but I think there is a great deal of symbolism in allowing an ordinary citizen of our country to come to the bar of the parliament and read the petition. I am a great one for thinking about the need to keep on making parliamentarians and parliamentary processes accessible to the people of Australia.It is true that not only the previous Labor government but also this government has extended the forms of this House, and they are to be congratulated. I have a particular interest in the three-minute members' statements and note that that now has been permanently incorporated in standing orders. I would sincerely hope that the Leader of the House might consider extending the six per Thursday to 20 or 10 a side, as was originally proposed.I should not have got off committees so quickly because, as in the last parliament, I believe that the House should have a staffing and appropriations committee so that Mr Speaker can be assisted by members of parliament in the discharge of his responsibilities. It needs to be said that, in an era of openness and accountability, it is only the expenditure of the Department of the House of Representatives which receives no scrutiny whatsoever. The Senate—and it was a Liberal member setting up the Staffing and Appropriations Committee—always envisaged that the House would have a staffing and appropriations committee and that, on appropriate occasions, the two houses could meet jointly. I certainly hope that we may be able to do this.The other thing is having an estimates committee. There is no doubt that estimates are troublesome things to all governments, Labor and Liberal. But, from a backbencher's point of view, the omission of an estimates committee for the House means that you have a much lesser opportunity to get across the operations and impacts of different departments.The executives, whether they are coalition executives or Labor executives, are always going to want to resist estimates committees. But, in terms of the committee system and particularly the development of backbenchers' knowledge, skills and ability to more than adequately represent their constituents, I think House of Representatives estimates committees are worthy of consideration. Should they be implemented, there would then be the pressure on the Senate to see whether or not it would be appropriate to then have joint estimates committees. I suggest that there would be some advantages to the government of the day in having joint estimates committees.There was one other standing order that I thought I should draw to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, because both sides in the past when dissent from Speaker's rulings are moved have gagged debate on the dissent motion. Given that the more recent practice of Speakers is not to defend their rulings but to leave it up to the Leader of the House, there must be nothing more demeaning than to make a ruling, have dissent moved on it and then have the whole matter gagged through. I would have thought at the very least, given the importance of a dissent motion, that that motion should be debated.As the Manager of Opposition Business has indicated, the opposition are not opposing this motion and are welcoming some of the changes. I sincerely hope that the government will be prepared to consider further changes to the standing orders in the life of this parliament.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business13101310Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to: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 business101 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 reports102C 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—procedure104A 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.Committees13111311Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:(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 1999.13121312Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:(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.13131313Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:(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.13141314Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:(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.13151315Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to: (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.13161316Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to: (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. 13171317Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to: (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.13181318Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:(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 Terri tory 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.13201320Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:(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.Bills1321r6531321Consideration resumed from 2 December.12:33:001321Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (line 27), omit "100 penalty units", substitute "1000 penalty units".(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 2), omit "100 penalty units", substitute "1000 penalty units".Amendments 1 and 2 relate to increasing penalty units for the misuse of electoral roll information. They actually amend items 8 and 9 in the amendment bill. The government's proposal is to increase the penalty to 100 units, which is $11,000. The opposition thinks that this is a step in the right direction. However, the opposition believes that a more severe penalty should be imposed, given the increased access to electors' information and the sensitivity and value of that information.The opposition's amendments propose to increase the number of penalty units to 1,000 for disclosure of or using for a commercial purpose electoral roll information. If our amendments were accepted, this would currently attract a fine of $110,000, a sum which would more accurately reflect the value of the information provided to politicians. The opposition's view is that the disclosure of this information to marketing companies could offer enormous commercial advantage. It is essential that a penalty exist to act as a serious deterrent to such commercial advantage.It is the opposition's view that 100 penalty units or $11,000 does not do that but that we hope that $110,000 would. What this is about, pure and simple, is deterrence. In the modern society in which we live, there is more and more information that is being accessed. There is more and more information that is valuable to be traded as commercial information. In the opposition's view, this is the only way—or at least a better way—to ensure a deterrence effect and that there is not a trade in this information for commercial advantage. It is a small penalty for companies to pay if they have access to this information. So the opposition would implore the government to consider these amendments.12:36:001321Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—This is a stunt by the opposition. We certainly do not support the misuse of information. There is no evidence out there in the community of widespread misuse of this information. If the government were to detect evidence that the information was going to be inappropriately used and that it was a widespread practice in the community, then we certainly would be happy to revisit this matter. But, at the present time and in the absence of any other compelling reason, we believe that the increase to 100 penalty units is appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances. The increase proposed by the Labor Party is inappropriate. It is a stunt. The government's increase is adequate, given the circumstances, but were we to detect widespread abuse then obviously the government would be happy to look at this matter again. But we do reject the opposition amendments.Amendments negatived.12:37:001322Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 3:(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 3 to 4), omit the item, substitute:10 After paragraph 93(8)(b)Insert: (ba) is serving a sentence of imprisonment which: (i) commenced on or before the return of the writs for an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate; and (ii) continues at the issuing of the writs for any succeeding election for the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be; orThe amendment relates to a prisoner's five-year voting rule, and it amends item 10 in the amendment bill. The opposition is of the view that the provision currently in the amendment bill will deny all prisoners a vote. Hence, a person sentenced to eight weeks in gaol coinciding with an election period could not vote, yet another prisoner sentenced to two years in gaol coinciding with a favourable electoral cycle would be able to vote.Parliament has previously accepted that certain classes of prisoners should not be able to vote, and we do not oppose that view. It is possible, however, to distinguish between major and minor crimes, as the parliament has previously done. The opposition strongly believes that the five-year rule should remain. Our amendments are designed to ensure also that if any prisoner has been continually imprisoned during the period from the return of the writs of one election to the issuing of the writs for the next election, their vote will not be admitted to the count. We believe that this provides greater consistency to the five-year rule.We will have some shrill response from the government, saying that we are soft on crime—`What are we doing allowing those prisoners to vote?' There is already a penalty attaching to these people. I think it is worthwhile comparing what is happening in other jurisdictions that do not necessarily have Labor governments. In the ACT there are no restrictions as there is no gaol in the ACT. If people are imprisoned outside the territory, they are disqualified as they would not be residing in the territory. In the Northern Territory it is as per the Commonwealth Electoral Act—that is, a sentence of five years or more disqualifies prisoners from having a right to vote in the territory. This is a fairly conservative regime that has had a continuous conservative government. In Western Australia there is a disqualification if the sentence is for one year or longer.In New South Wales there are no restrictions. There are postal votes and polling booths in prisons. In Victoria there are no restrictions. In South Australia there are no restrictions. The legislation gives special mail provisions to prisoners—that is, mail that is sent to returning officers by a prisoner cannot be opened. In Queensland, it is as per the Commonwealth Electoral Act—that is, disqualification in the case of a sentence of five years or longer. There is also provision for them to be entitled to enrol if they were not eligible under the Commonwealth act but they were entitled to be enrolled under the Elections Act 1983 on 31 December 1991. That earlier act allows British subjects and certain defence members, et cetera to be enrolled but disqualifies prisoners with sentences of six months or longer. This relates more to British subjects than to prisoners.What we have here really is the government purely seeking political advantage, feeding into the prejudice in the community. We on this side say that the principle of disqualification for prisoners with gaol terms of five years or longer has been around for a long while, and we have got the situation in the states, which I have just read out, where there are governments of all political persuasions—and in recent times there have been conservative governments in most of those jurisdictions—who have made no attempt to water down the right of prisoners to vote. I think that the hangers and floggers in the government are trying to push this amendment without due regard to civil liberties and without due regard to our rights under the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If this government keeps going the way it has, not only in this area but in other areas as well, Australia is going to be seen to be a pariah in the interna tional community as we further and further strip away the basic rights that people currently enjoy.12:42:001323Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I have to say that the suggestion that this provision is a concession to the so-called hangers and floggers in the government is nothing short of pathetic. The amendment proposed by the ALP would be extremely impractical to implement. Even with the current seven-day close of rolls period, it would be difficult for the AEC to determine the eligibility of prisoners, as this can be resolved only when the date of the issue of the writ is known. The AEC would also be reliant on timely advice from the prison authorities following the issue of the writ, and the AEC has already highlighted that there are inconsistencies among the various states and territories in relation to the notification received from prison authorities. The government notes that there was no proposed ALP amendment to section 109 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act relating to the forwarding of conviction details to the AEC in this regard.It also appears that the ALP amendment would be inconsistent in its application to electors imprisoned for a period of less than five years. A person's eligibility may well depend on the date of his or her incarceration in relation to the timing of an election rather than the length of his or her sentence. Further, while the House of Representatives writs are returned together, the various state Senate writs may not all be returned on the same day. The period between elections also varies.The government believes very strongly that in our society people certainly have rights but accompanying those rights they have responsibilities. If one goes into any shopping centre in the nation and asks people one meets there, `Should prisoners have the right to vote?' then people would simply say no.Mr Melham interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is important to make sure that the parliament represents the collective will of the Australian people. The honourable member for Banks ought to appreciate that people have had an absolute gutful of the ALP being soft on crime. He said that we would say that the ALP is soft on crime.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The honourable member for Reid ought not to interject. The fact that the ALP is opposing these amendments is proof positive that it does not take the view that accompanying the rights of Australian citizens are also responsibilities.I am pleased to refer to the situation in other places. The honourable member for Banks referred to certain state jurisdictions. I would like to take a more global point of view and emphasise that the amendments proposed by the government, if carried by the parliament, would certainly bring the law in Australia in line with that in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, Belgium and a number of states in the United States of America. This legislation is consistent with community practice around the world. It is fair and reasonable. I believe that the Australian people will strongly reject what the ALP is seeking to do.I am privileged to quote the view of the government as stated by my good friend and parliamentary colleague Senator the Hon. Nick Minchin. Earlier this year he said:The right to vote is one of the privileges of living in a democracy. If you have committed an offence against society so serious that you are actually incarcerated in a prison cell for a period of time, then you entirely lose your rights, privileges and freedom as an ordinary citizen for the period of the imprisonment. It is quite an extraordinary anomaly that, despite all that, a prisoner actually retains the right to vote, so that a prisoner's vote is worth as much as the most law abiding of all our citizens.That sums it up. That says it all. Quite understandably, the government completely rejects the proposals put forward by the honourable member for Banks.Amendment negatived.12:46:001323Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 11, 22, 25, 28, 31 and 32:(11) Schedule 1, item 18, page 5 (lines 24 and 25), omit the item.(22) Schedule 1, item 29, page 8 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item. (25) Schedule 1, item 36, page 8 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item.(28) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (lines 18 to 21), omit the item.(31) Schedule 1, item 59, page 12 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item.(32) Schedule 1, item 69, page 13 (lines 17 to 20), omit the item.As outlined earlier, we do believe that prisoners should be entitled to be enrolled and that the current five-year rule should remain. These amendments are consequential to ensure that this remains the case. We have just had a dissertation from the parliamentary secretary at the table which confirms that this is purely just a low-grade exercise in politics on the part of the government trying to feed into those elements in the community. What we need to do is step back here. There are many people who are imprisoned, but not for serious crimes. There are many people in the indigenous community who are imprisoned in relation to offences of drunkenness and offences that carry very small penalties. What this would seek to do is disenfranchise them.For instance, someone may be penalised for their involvement in a drink driving offence where someone dies or suffers grievous bodily harm. Such people might have short prison sentences as a result of those drink driving offences, but they are still being penalised. These are not offences that necessarily involve criminality where people set out deliberately to do things, but an accident may occur, and they might be drunk. There is a whole range of other things. There are instances where there are a number of people who are, in our view, entitled to continue to participate and have their legitimate right to vote accepted. It seems to me that in abandoning the five-year rule this government is just playing low-grade politics.I repeat what I said earlier in relation to what is happening in state jurisdictions and the penalties there that disqualify people from voting. Those state jurisdictions had conservative governments for many years, including the Bjelke-Petersen government, yet even they did not attempt to do this.12:49:001324Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I will not revisit all of the truths and obvious corrections to the misleading statements made by the opposition in relation to these amendments. The simple fact of the matter is that, in our society, people have rights, privileges and responsibilities. When the courts of this land determine that a person should be subjected to a term of imprisonment, the government takes the view that the right to vote ought to be suspended for the period that a person is incarcerated.The honourable member for Banks referred to certain people who are imprisoned for short periods and suggested that it was inappropriate that those people should lose their right to vote while they are imprisoned. The government takes the view that people who are in prison for short periods should have their right to vote lost for those short periods. When people re-enter general society, then the right to vote would be resuscitated. The government opposes, quite understandably, the amendments moved by the honourable member for Banks.Amendments negatived.12:51:001324Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 4, 5, 6, 21, 23, 24, 29 and 30:(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (lines 5 to 20), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (lines 21 to 23), omit the item.(6) Schedule 1, item 14, page 4 (line 27) to page 5 (line 14), omit the item.(21) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 17) to page 8 (line 3), omit the item.(23) Schedule 1, item 30, page 8 (lines 6 and 7), omit the item.(24) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (lines 8 to 13), omit the item.(29) Schedule 1, item 53, page 11 (lines 5 to 11), omit the item.(30) Schedule 1, item 54, page 11 (lines 12 to 23), omit the item.These items would close off rolls three working days after the issue of the writ and set up a postponement period during which new names could not be added to or deleted from the roll as a result of enrolment practices. That is what this government wants to do. We are seeking to delete items 30, 31, 11, 12, 14, 28, 53 and 54 from the amendment bill.The postponement period for new electors commences at 6 p.m. on the date of the issue of the writ until the close of polling. This means that no new electors can get on the roll once the election has been called. The rationale is that the new proof of identity and other crosschecks for new electors will take too long to carry out and will not make the three-day limit. About 80,000 new enrolments occur once an election is called. Closing the rolls so quickly would disenfranchise a large number of first time voters, most of whom would be young people.Even worse, the postponement period for new electors would see those 80,000 people who apply to get on the electoral roll when an election is called disenfranchised. As for everyone else, at each election we know there is a rush of people who either apply to get on the roll or who need to update their address. It is often not until an election is called that many people consider their election enrolment.Evidence given by the Australian Electoral Commission to the joint committee shows that a majority of the 320,000 people who notified a change of address did so at the last available opportunity. I repeat: a majority of the 320,000 people who notified a change of address did so at the last available opportunity. To restrict the period in which to change your address prior to an election to three days is massively distorting. It could lead to more than 200,000 people voting still listed at their previous address, which would be completely contrary to the intention of the Electoral Act. That is why our amendments omit these items.We should be ensuring the integrity of the roll. That is why we have this period. To contract it the way the government wants to will disqualify voters. These limits are also going to come in with provisional voting and they will try to bring in subdivisional voting. Why? Because there is paranoia on the other side. Each and every one of their amendments is aimed at sections or groups in the community whom they regard as predominantly Labor voters.We say that the system is working well. There is no evidence that fraud is occurring in relation to these enrolments. The onus is on the government to put up or shut up. They have not satisfied the opposition that this change is necessary. If anything, this change will disenfranchise people. That is what this is about—disenfranchisement. Instead of encouraging people to get on the roll, we are setting up barriers to stop them from getting on the roll. That is what this is about. This will not add one new elector to the electoral roll at election time. This will disqualify a whole range of electors.The Electoral Commission statistics show that many 18-year-olds are reluctant to vote but the older people get the more they enrol. About 95 per cent of those people eligible to be on the roll get on the roll by the time they are 25. The government amendments are a disenfranchisement provision. The opposition's amendments are aimed at restoring the status quo. It is about time this government tried to help people get a vote, not try to disenfranchise them.12:56:001325Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—We are absolutely determined to make sure that everyone who is entitled to have a vote has a vote. We want to make sure that only those people who are entitled to be on the electoral roll in fact go on the electoral roll. These amendments go to the heart of the integrity of our electoral system. In Australia we are privileged to have a democracy. We have a way of life, we have freedom, that is the envy of people throughout the world. But at the heart of our democracy is the integrity of the electoral system. As I said last night, it is very important that when the result of an election is declared following a poll the result represents what the Australian people wanted to do on polling day.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Then you should be in opposition.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The ALP, by opposing the amendments put forward by the government, have exposed themselves as people who support rorts and fraud in the Australian electoral system. These changes are reasonable. They are designed to ensure integrity of the electoral roll. They are designed to keep people off the electoral roll who ought not be on the electoral roll, people who are not entitled under the law of Australia to be on the electoral roll.It also should be recognised that the AEC has previously stated that it is not possible to check the validity of all new enrolments received during the close of rolls rush period. These amendments address the increasing community concerns regarding fraudulent enrolments. It is a fact of life that at the moment we have an honour system as far as enrolment under the Australian Electoral Act is concerned. Any person is able to fill out thousands of enrolment cards. They can send the cards back, using the reply paid envelopes supplied by the Australian Electoral Commission, and these people will automatically go on the electoral roll.Noms de plume can get on the electoral roll. If this happens on a widespread basis throughout the nation, then it is obvious that the election result can be skewed and stolen, and there can be gross amounts of electoral fraud. The government believes that we ought not to have merely an honour system. We ought not to have a system that simply depends on the honesty of individual people. We need checks, balances and safeguards. The proposals contained in the amendments before the chamber put forward by the government will ensure the integrity of our electoral roll. That is very important.I believe that it is eminently regrettable that my colleague the member for Banks has imputed incorrect motives to the government. We are all about making sure that our system is open, accountable and fair, and that those people who are not entitled to be on the electoral roll are not included on the electoral roll prior to a vote.It is important to ensure that people are not disenfranchised, and resources will be devoted to encourage electors to update their enrolment outside of election periods. It is true that numbers of people have sought to enrol or change their address after an election has been called, but it is important to create a culture in Australia where people will apply to get on the electoral roll when they turn 18 or become otherwise entitled and, if they change their address, will fill in the change of enrolment card and send that to the Electoral Commission, so that we do not have this last minute rush.The Australian Electoral Commission is currently moving towards a process of continuous roll update. Any concerns put forward by the opposition should be allayed by the fact that we will have a continuous roll update. The AEC will liaise with electricity authorities and the like to update electors as they move, rather than relying on electoral roll reviews conducted once every two years or when an election is called to prompt electors to update their electoral details. So it is important that people recognise that they have an obligation to fill in the card to change their enrolment or to get on the roll as soon as they are entitled to do so. The government stands by its position, and I commend it to the chamber.Amendments negatived.13:01:001326Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20:(7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 4 (lines 24 to 26), omit the item.(8) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item.(9) Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item.(10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (lines 19 to 23), omit the item.(14) Schedule 1, item 21, page 6 (lines 13 and 14), omit the item.(15) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item.(16) Schedule 1, item 23, page 6 (lines 17 to 20), omit the item.(18) Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (lines 4 to 12), omit the item.(19) Schedule 1, item 26, page 7 (lines 13 and 14), omit the item.(20) Schedule 1, item 27, page 7 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item.These amendments are to do with re-enrolment within a month of moving and they omit items 13, 15 to 17, 21 to 23 and 25 to 27 of the government's amendments. What we now have is a government that legislates the exception rather than the rule. The government is paranoid about some exceptional circumstances that might occur or an odd person here or there doing the wrong thing, but that is leading to the disenfranchisement of many others.If the bill goes through in its present form—our amendments would stop this from happening—these items would disenfranchise a number of voters, particularly itinerant electors, by requiring electors to re-enrol within one month of moving. 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. These items cut that time back to only four weeks.However, from the opposition's point of view, a much greater concern exists for itinerant electors. Item 17 seems to actually eliminate the entire category of itinerant electors. Item 17 provides that:Subject to subsection (9), a person ceases to be eligible to be treated as an itinerant elector under this section as soon as the person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a Subdivision.However, the other items in this group of amendments provide that a person becomes entitled to be enrolled in the subdivision immediately with no one-month waiting period. Therefore, an elector would cease to be treated as an itinerant elector as soon as they moved somewhere. That is the import of what these government amendments say to us on our reading of them and it shows that some amendments have been constructed in haste.We say that there is an anomaly here and the government should look to rectify that. Really, they only discovered this anomaly—and I am interested to hear what the parliamentary secretary has to say for himself—in response to some research and discovery. The whole import of a lot of these amendments is that there are a whole range of paranoias on the conservative side about the integrity of the roll. I concede that there are individual members in this House who can come forward and point to some individual circumstances where some things have happened that should not have happened. I concede that. I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in my first six years in the parliament, but our whole approach was that we did not legislate for the exception which would then create problems for the vast majority of other people.We are about improving the integrity of the roll—the opposition wants to improve the integrity of the roll—but we do not want to create the wrong structure or legislation, especially after the Snowdon v. Dondas case and the McGinty case in the High Court. They basically said that—in terms of the states, not the territories—your constitutional right to vote has now vanished; your rights to vote now are referenced to the Electoral Act.That is why we as a parliament need to be much more careful in the amendments that we move in this place because we have the power now to enfranchise or to disenfranchise. Our concern is that a lot of these provisions that are now being moved on the part of the government will create greater disenfranchisement. What we say is, `Yes. We know why it is happening.' It is not the government worrying about the integrity of the roll. They are doing little things to try to disenfranchise voters who they think will not support them. It is like their first budget when they took away funding that was aimed at getting indigenous people on the electoral rolls. The Australian Electoral Commission were forced to cut workers in the field who were out there helping indigenous people understand what the system was about and getting them on the roll. In that first budget, whack, out went those people. So we encourage the government to reconsider.13:06:001327Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—The shadow minister was somewhat inconsistent in what he said. Initially, he claimed that members of the coalition are paranoid about the integrity of the electoral roll, and then he went on to suggest that we were not interested in the electoral roll but we were interested in disenfranchising certain people. Nothing could be further from the truth.Mr Melham interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am pleased that you agree that you have been inconsistent. The government will not apologise for these amendments. We believe that they are appropriate and we have introduced them to the parliament only after due consideration. There is no suggestion that this is legislation on the run. Much of this legislation emanates from the report into the 1996 poll and there has been consideration of the items to be included. The government has been very careful to ensure that the bill includes provisions which continue to improve the integrity of the electoral system.I for one do not really believe it is a crime to be paranoid about the integrity of the electoral system. Each and every one of us in this place should be paranoid about making sure that only those people entitled to be on the roll are on the roll. So we are determined to pursue in an ongoing way the integrity of the electoral roll, and the amendments currently before the chamber help this process.There is no deliberate intention on the part of the government to remove the itinerant elector status. The AEC has advised that, while the proposed amendments would appear to severely limit an elector's ability to claim itinerant status in the application of the current provisions, the AEC has based the determination of eligibility not solely on the length of residency at a particular address but on whether that address is considered to be a permanent address of the elector—that is, one to which the elector has a fixed intention of returning to live on a permanent basis rather than just a temporary abode for a fixed period of time. The AEC advises that it will continue to adopt this approach in considering applications if the proposed amendments are passed into law.Current provisions provide for a one-month qualifying period before a person can enrol in a new division and then a 21-day period by which time a person is required to have notified a change of address. However, if a person changes address within the same division, he or she only has the 21-day period in which to notify that change. As many electors are unaware of divisional boundaries, this requirement is unnecessarily confusing and the amendments we are making here aim to reduce confusion for electors.Amendments negatived.13:09:001328Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 17:(12) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (lines 26 to 28), omit the item.(13) Schedule 1, item 20, page 5 (line 29) to page 6 (line 12), omit the item.(17) Schedule 1, item 24, page 6 (line 21) to page 7 (line 3), omit the item.These amendments will omit items 19, 20 and 24. They relate to enrolment reform and prescribed persons and regulations. From the opposition's point of view, the critical problem with these items is that their success is dependent on regulations that the parliament is yet to see. We have said since May this year, when this was first introduced, that we are not able to support these provisions until we are satisfied that the draft regulations are acceptable. We have had platitudes from the government that we will be consulted in their drafting and that draft regulations will be made available to us. Yet over seven months since the legislation was first introduced, we still have not sighted the draft regulations, nor have approaches been made by the government to consult us on their make-up.We are concerned that the witnessing, proof of identity and citizenship and hand lodgment of enrolment application provisions and requirements will prove so laborious and unreasonable that people are disfranchised or deterred from pursuing their eligibility. The government's motives behind these provisions are driven more than by unfounded paranoia that there is widespread electoral fraud. They are also motivated by a real desire, we know, to improve the integrity of the electoral rolls. But this is just a sledgehammer to crack a walnut at this stage. The provisions will lead to an enormous rise in bureaucratic procedures, and will cost $3.9 million annually. We believe that such funds would be better spent on habitation reviews. Cut the paranoia: what you need to do is put up or shut up; you have not produced substantial material or information to impugn the integrity of the current system. It is a paranoid and delusional fear. It is really interesting that the parliament secretary cited Senator Minchin and quoted him—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He is a very good minister.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—There is no doubt on my part that he is a very good minister and one of the few competent ministers that this government has. But the fact is that he is a party apparatchik and that is what these amendments are being driven by—party apparatchiks, and seeking gain for the Liberal Party. Government members are clothed in the `integrity of the roll' and `we're worried about this and that.' As I have said before, let us have the material; let us see the widespread fraud. Let us see the material from the Electoral Commission to show that there is systemic, systematic and widespread fraud and abuse of the electoral system. There is not. We concede that the odd individual is manipulating the system, but not to the extent that these sorts of provisions should be brought in. The government talk about red tape in small business and say they are not the government for red tape—but they are producing red tape everywhere. Our concern is that this will result in the disfranchising of genuine electors. Those electors might be a bit sloppy, but what are we going to have now? Are we going to get to the stage where Aboriginal people—indigenous people—have to go to the police station and have their enrolment form witnessed by a police officer? That is not an inducement for them to get on the electoral rolls. It is about time the government pulled back from their paranoid, delusional behaviour.13:13:001329Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—If I correctly heard the shadow minister, he conceded that these amendments were directed towards improving the integrity of the electoral roll. He seemed to suggest that there was no widespread evidence of fraud or abuse of the system and that, because he claims that there is no evidence of such widespread abuse or fraud, the government ought not to proceed with these amendments which dot i's and cross t's and improve the integrity of the electoral roll. There is nothing in the amendments being proposed—Mr Melham interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I will come to that. There is nothing in the proposed amendments about which the opposition or anyone should be concerned. They are designed to make sure that people who get on the roll are people who are entitled to be on the electoral roll. I outlined before that we have an honour system and that people are able to fill in any number of enrolment cards and automatically get placed on the electoral roll. All we are saying is that, with respect to new electors, they ought to produce an item of identification to prove that they do in fact exist—to prove that they are not a nom de plume, to prove that they are persons eligible to be on the electoral roll. What is wrong with that?The member for Banks seems to be suggesting that this amendment is not in fact necessary, because he is claiming that there is no widespread evidence of abuse. But the fact is that this is a further mechanism to enhance the correctness of the electoral roll. Why does he object to the need for people to show some item of identification when seeking to take the very important step of becoming an elector of the Commonwealth of Australia?These days people have to provide 100 credit points to open an account with the Commonwealth Bank. They have to provide all sorts of evidence to get an Australian passport and, as they go through life, they have to produce evidence of the fact that they are a real person, that they do exist and that they are not a nom de plume. How much more important is getting on the electoral roll than simply opening an account with the Commonwealth Bank or getting a passport or applying for a social security pension?The fact is that getting on the electoral roll is one of the most important actions which any Australian can take at any time in his or her life.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Next you'll want voluntary voting.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I do support the principle of voluntary voting, as the shadow minister knows, but that is not included in this bill and it is another issue.The shadow minister also drew to my attention the matter of regulations. It is obvious that, under our parliamentary system, regulations can be disallowed if indeed they are not approved of by the parliament, so the regulations will be available when we are good and ready. The honourable member for Banks and his colleagues, along with everyone else, will have the opportunity of looking at them, and there are certain courses of action that they can take if they are not in fact happy with what is being proposed by the government.Included in these amendments are everyday changes that will enhance the integrity of the electoral roll. I know I repeat that over and over again, but it is important to stress to the Australian people that this government is all about ensuring that our electoral roll has integrity and that those people who are on it are in fact entitled to be electors of Australia. For those reasons—very compelling reasons, I am sure you will agree—we oppose the amendments being put forward by the honourable member for Banks.Amendments negatived.13:17:001330Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 26 and 27:(26) Schedule 1, item 44, page 9 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item.(27) Schedule 1, item 45, page 9 (lines 28 and 29), omit the item.These amendments omit items 44 and 45 and relate to funding disclosure and thresholds. Isn't it interesting that what we need from the government in their paranoia is proof positive on a whole range of things? They are putting up all these barriers and saying that we should have all these regulations, most of which are about disfranchising, before we can get on the roll. But when it comes to transparency and disclosures as to who are behind it, who are disclosing and who are funding, it is a different ball game, a different set of rules. There is obfuscation, the setting up of freedom funds and a whole range of other things. We are not ever really to know who is funding the members of the coalition, because they come up with every loophole in the book and resist every amendment in the book in terms of full disclosure.What we are doing is trying to stop the coalition, because under items 44 and 45 they are basically attempting to weaken disclosure. That is a policy that they have consistently pursued for the past 15 years. The ALP is of the view that these increases in electoral funding disclosure thresholds would allow for significant sums of money to go without disclosure. Even the Australian Electoral Commission does not support these measures; they have been driven by the Liberal Party federal secretariat. In their submission to the Senate inquiry into this legislation, the AEC, in regard to thresholds for reporting of donations, said:The AEC advised against such changes in a submission to the JSCEM inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal election.During the Senate inquiry into this legislation, the head of funding and disclosure at the AEC conceded the following:The way that 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 plus with a national secretariat, you are looking at nine separate identified parties, in effect, for disclosure purposes.A donor can make separate donations to each of those parties. Because they are not aggregated across the party across Australia, only within each state and territory, they will not be disclosed. So . . . 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 has also conceded there are a number of other ways in which donors could split their donations so they would not be disclosed—for example, by each member of a family or a company donating up to the disclosure limit. The coalition's tacit approval of the Greenfields Foundation rort does nothing to inspire confidence in the arguments they have brought to bear in the case of these clauses.The Labor Party will be pursuing further amendments in the Senate to close, once and for all, the Greenfields rort. The Labor Party has always advocated very tight and transparent funding and disclosure provisions, and we will oppose these items, driven by the Liberal Party national secretariat, to undermine the integrity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.We do not want the best politicians that money can buy. That is what these provisions are about. They are about having the carpetbaggers and the bagmen in corporate Australia and other sections being able to disclose without being exposed. We want transparency, honesty and openness in the electoral process. These are very dangerous amendments. They are aimed at hiding the donors to the conservatives.Frankly, in modern Australia I think more disclosure and more transparency are required, not these tricks that the government come up with to hide their donors, their $1,000 a head lunches where they get a whole range of people together—a bit of openness, a bit of honesty and a bit of integrity.You talk about the integrity of the roll. What about the integrity of disclosing the puppeteers, the people who pull the strings behind the Liberal and National parties? If there is nothing wrong, then you should not be frightened as to who is funding. If they are not getting favours in return, then you should not have a problem in disclosing who they are. Or are they the same people that are getting the contracts when they are outsourced? Is that what you are frightened of, that your donors are the ones that are taking the government jobs? (Time expired)13:22:001331Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I want to immediately rebut any suggestion that donors to the Liberal Party are in some way receiving outsourcing contracts because they are donors to the Liberal Party. We are a party that has always supported openness, honesty and integrity in politics.I believe there is a general understanding across the political spectrum that there ought to be disclosure and that the community is entitled to know who is funding political parties. The difference between the government and the opposition with respect to these amendments is really a matter of degree. We both now accept the firmly entrenched idea in the Australian community that, indeed, there ought to be openness and disclosure.The thresholds included in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 are simply updating the thresholds to more realistic values as we approach the turn of the century and the new millennium. They also seek to relieve the unnecessary administrative burden placed on often voluntary party officials.I also think it is a bit rich for the honourable member for Banks to refer to `the carpetbaggers and the bagmen' when one looks at the way the Labor Party over the years has been funded through huge donations from the union movement. It is interesting that many members of the unions included in that union movement do not support the Labor Party; yet, despite that, the unions send their members' contributions, against their will, across to the Australian Labor Party.There was some reference made to the attitude of the Australian Electoral Commission to these amendments. I think it is widely recognised in the Australian community that the Australian Electoral Commission is a highly professional, very competent body which has a world-class capacity to run elections. Indeed, when the South African elections were held following the settlement in that country, I was pleased to hear that the Australian Electoral Commission had a role to play in assisting South African citizens in this country to cast a vote in the South African elections.It is also undeniable that the Australian Electoral Commission is not the government of this country and that it was the government of this country which was given a mandate by the Australian people to govern Australia for the next three years. The Electoral Commission may well have had views on certain aspects of the legislation, but at the end of the day it is the government which brings legislation forward to the parliament. This legislation is fair and reasonable. It updates the thresholds to more realistic values and it relieves the unnecessary administrative burden placed on political parties and, indeed, in many cases on the voluntary officials of those political parties.Also, there was a suggestion that, because we have state and territory branches, one is able to aggregate the amounts and that somehow this would mean those figures which were not disclosed would be substantially higher than would apparently be the case. But, even if you did that, that is not going to buy an election, that is not going to provide for fraud, because in the overall scheme of things we are still talking about relatively small amounts of money. I also want to place on record that the Liberal Party and the National Party have always scrupulously observed the law of disclosure and have always scrupulously observed the law of this land.These amendments make an important change by updating thresholds to realistic values, and the legislation before the chamber improves the integrity of the electoral system. The ALP will pay a heavy price at the next election for refusing to support the ongoing moves of the government to make sure that the result of an election, as declared following a poll, is what the Australian people want.Mr Melham interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is about time, my friend, that you supported what this government is seeking to achieve. (Time expired)Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.1332Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1332r6311332Consideration resumed from 1 December.Senate's scheduled amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8), omit "subsections (2) to (10)", substitute "this section".(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add: (11) Schedule 22 (except Part 2) commences immediately after the commencement of Schedule 16. (12) Part 2 of Schedule 22 commences on the day after the day on which the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Act 1999 receives the Royal Assent. However, if this Act receives the Royal Assent after the day on which that Act receives the Royal Assent, that Part commences on the day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(3) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add: (13) Schedule 23 (except Part 2) commences immediately after the commencement of Part 1 of Schedule 22. (14) Part 2 of Schedule 23 commences when Part 2 of Schedule 22 commences.(4) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The amendments of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 made by Schedule 22 do not apply in relation to an assessment for a child support year, or a child support period, starting before 1 July 2000.(5) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (6) The amendments of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 made by Schedule 23 do not apply in relation to an assessment for a child support year, or a child support period, starting before 1 July 2000.(6) Schedule 12, item 5, page 57 (line 17), omit "special".(7) Page 147 (after line 31), after Schedule 20, insert:Schedule 20A—Further amendmentsChild Support (Assessment) Act 19891 After section 159 Insert:159A Statements made recklessly etc. (1) A person who recklessly: (a) makes a statement to an officer which is false or misleading in a material particular; or (b) omits from a statement made to an officer any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading in a material particular;is guilty of an offence. Penalty: 5 penalty units. (2) In a prosecution of a person for an offence against subsection (1), if, having regard to: (a) the person's abilities, experience, qualifications and other attributes; and (b) all the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence;the person has acted without taking reasonable care as to the accuracy and completeness of the statement, or with wilful disregard to the requirements to obtain and provide relevant information, the person is to be taken to have acted recklessly in making the statement. (3) A reference in subsection (1) to a statement made to an officer is a reference to a statement made to a person exercising powers under or in relation to this Act, whether the statement is made orally, in a document or in any other form, and includes, for example, a statement: (a) made in an application, form, notification, appeal or other document made, given or lodged, or purporting to be made, given or lodged, under this Act; or(b) made in answer to a question asked of the person under this Act; or (c) made in any information given, or purporting to have been given, under this Act.159B Failure to notify required information (1) A person who, intentionally or recklessly, fails to notify the Registrar of information required by section 55A or subsection 60(4) is guilty of an offence. Penalty: 5 penalty units. (2) In a prosecution of a person for an offence against subsection (1), if, having regard to: (a) the person's abilities, experience, qualifications and other attributes; and (b) all the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence;the person has acted without reasonable care or with wilful disregard to his or her obligation to notify the Registrar as required by section 55A or subsection 60(4), the person is to be taken to have acted recklessly in failing to notify the Registrar.(8) Page 149 (after line 7), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 22—Liable parents' reportable fringe benefits totalsPart 1—Amendment of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 1 Section 5Insert: reportable fringe benefits total has the meaning given by subsection 158A(3).2 At the end of subsection 38A(1)Add: ; and (c) the liable parent's reportable fringe benefits total (if any) for the year of income.3 After section 158Insert:158A Disclosure of reportable fringe benefits total (1) This section applies if one or more fringe benefits are provided in relation to a year of tax in respect of the employment by an employer of an employee who is a liable parent. (2) The liable parent must notify the Registrar, in accordance with the regulations, of the reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income ending on the first 30 June after the end of the year of tax. (3) The reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income is the amount worked out in accordance with the regulations, taking account of the value (worked out in accordance with the regulations) of the fringe benefit or fringe benefits (other than a fringe benefit of a kind that is prescribed by the regulations). (4) An expression used in this section and in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act. (5) This section applies in relation to a liable parent who is an employee of the Commonwealth, or of an authority of the Commonwealth described in paragraph (e) of the definition of employer in subsection 136(1) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , as if the Commonwealth or the authority were an employer for the purposes of that Act. (6) This section applies in relation to a benefit that is an exempt benefit because of section 57A or 58 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 and would be a fringe benefit apart from those sections as if it were a fringe benefit for the purposes of that Act. (7) This section does not require notification of a reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income before the 1999-2000 year of income.158B Penalty for failure to notify reportable fringe benefits total accurately (1) A person must pay the Registrar a penalty of the amount worked out under subsection (2) if: (a) section 158A requires the person to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income; and (b) the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income is at least 10% greater than the amount that the person notified the Registrar under section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income. (2) The amount of the penalty is 10% of the difference between: (a) the administrative assessment of child support based on the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income; and (b) the amount that was or would have been the administrative assessment of child support based on the amount that the person notified the Registrar under section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income. (3) If a person is required by section 158A to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income and does not do so as required by that section, this section operates as if the person had notified the Registrar under that section that the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income was a nil amount. (4) The penalty is a debt due to the Commonwealth, payable when the administrative assessment mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) is made. (5) The Registrar may make an administrative assessment of child support for the purposes of this section at any time. (6) The Registrar may remit penalty payable under this section if he or she thinks it is fair and reasonable to do so.Part 2—Amendment dependent on fringe benefits reporting legislationChild Support (Assessment) Act 19894 Section 5 (definition of reportable fringe benefits total ) Repeal the definition, substitute: reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income for a person who is an employee (for the purposes of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , whether it applies of its own force or because of the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 ) means the employee's reportable fringe benefits total (as defined in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ) for the year of income.5 Section 158ARepeal the section.(9) Page 149 (after line 7), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 23—Entitled carers' reportable fringe benefits totalsPart 1—Amendment of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 19891 At the end of subsection 45A(1)Add: ; and (c) the entitled carer's reportable fringe benefits total (if any) for the year of income.2 At the end of subsection 158A(1)Add "or an entitled carer (within the meaning of Subdivision D of Division 2 of Part 5)".3 Subsection 158A(2)After "liable parent" (first occurring), insert "or entitled carer".4 Subsection 158A(2)After "liable parent" (second occurring), insert "or entitled carer (as appropriate)".5 Subsections 158A(3) and (5)After "liable parent", insert "or entitled carer".Part 2—Amendment dependent on fringe benefits reporting legislationChild Support (Assessment) Act 19896 Section 158BRepeal the section.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs DeAnne Kelly)—It is my duty to draw to the attention of the House an issue concerning the Senate's amendments to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . The Senate has returned the bill to the House with nine amendments. Amendment (8) inserts new provisions in the Child Support (Assessment) Act concerning what is known as `liable parents reportable fringe benefits totals'. As I understand it, the effect of the proposal is that, in calculating a liable parent's liability, the value of fringe benefits will be taken into account as well as ordinary income. This can increase the assessment of the amount of child support that the liable parent must pay and thus the amount collected under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act.Under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act, amounts equal to those collected are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. This means that, where amounts payable by liable parents are increased, the amounts to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund must be increased automatically.Because of the provisions of section 56 of the constitution, it would therefore seem that such alterations should be accompanied by a message from the Governor-General recommending the appropriation.The House will need to consider the way in which it should proceed to deal with the matters raised in Senate amendment (8). If it wishes to entertain the proposals reflected in the amendment, it may choose to proceed by alternative means.Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) agreed to:That the House endorses the statement of the Deputy Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by message No. 9 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 .Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) proposed:That Senate amendments 1 to 7 and 9 be agreed to.13:31:001335Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I am pleased that in the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 the government has taken up a number of Labor's suggestions, in particular our suggestion to include fringe benefits in the assessment of income of entitled carers and liable parents. This will help to ensure that both parents are assessed more fairly in accordance with their respective need and capacity to pay. On the other hand, the government's refusal to support Labor's amendment to increase the maintenance income test threshold in the Social Security Act is far from pleasing.This bill will have the effect of reducing the child support income of some carers. There will be some compensation in the form of an increase in the level of family allowance, but this will not provide full compensation. Our amendment sought to provide some further compensation, particularly for carers at the lower end of the income scale. It would have gone some way towards ameliorating the effect of the bill on children whose families will receive less child support.However, the government declined to support our amendment, claiming that it had achieved the right balance between payers, payees and the social welfare contribution. It seems to me that this is just another way of saying that the government was simply not prepared to take responsibility for ensuring that the measures contained in this bill did not hurt carers and their children.The Labor Party absolutely supports the need to make the child support system as fair as possible, as a responsible government should never act with anything but the welfare of our nation's children uppermost in its mind. We believe also that there remains room for further improvement in this scheme.13:33:001335Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I am not going to debate the substance of the statement just made by the opposition spokesman, the member for Lilley. It had nothing to do with the motion I had just moved, which concerned Senate amendments 1 to 7 and 9. I place it on the record that the amendments to which the member referred were rejected both in the House and in the Senate.13:34:001335Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to make the point that the passage of the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 has taken an extraordinarily long time.3E4SULLIVANMrs Sullivan—That point was made in your speech on the second reading.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I just want to emphasise the point. It was a tad disappointing that, when the bill was reintroduced, we were allowed only one opposition speaker prior to its going to the Senate. I think I need to make the point also that the bill and the Senate amendments are hardly going to stir the hearts of those who are caught up in the child support scheme. I noticed that during the debate in the Senate, particularly in relation to the proposed changes to the family allowance, the responsible minister bemoaned the fact that it was going to cost consolidated revenue an additional $8 million. I find this quite derisory, given that the bill itself makes consolidated revenue the overwhelming winner. This bill reduces Commonwealth expenditure; in fact, consolidated revenue wins between $30 million and $40 million through this bill.There is a great deal of dishonesty in the way the government has proposed some of its changes; for example, in proposing that the paying parent's exempt income be increased by 10 per cent. At no time has the government been prepared to share with the people of Australia the modelling information which presumably would underpin such a change and would allow the government to argue that this is a superior approach to the 20 per cent recommended by the joint committee. I am not trying to stand on my dignity and say that we should always be locked in by the 20 per cent recommendation, but at the very least you would have thought we could have seen some of what must have underpinned, presumably, the government's thinking on this matter. There is no way that that has been done. The very best that has been done is to model a couple of family instances to show what the impact of the changes will be. They are going to be very minimal, I have got to tell you.With regard to the amendments that the Senate has moved, I congratulate the Senate not on the fringe benefits amendment but on that relating to the making of reckless and misleading statements—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Your congratulating the Senate would be a first, wouldn't it?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I am always prepared to give credit where credit is due. I am prepared to give credit to the government for making some changes. Along with all those involved in child support, I am really disappointed at the timorous nature of these changes and the lack of explanation. I want to make the point that one of the most consistent complaints you hear is about the ability of either party to make reckless and misleading statements to the Child Support Agency. Of course, that was the subject of a recommendation by the committee. I am very pleased to see it being taken up. It will have some immediate and significant benefit. I will reserve my remarks on fringe benefits for when we come to that section.Again, the committee recommended that the residential parent should have the exempt income reduced to the pension cut-off level, not as a maximum but as a minimum, but the government has decided to take another level. This may very well be the most appropriate thing to do, but the real tragedy is that neither the opposition nor the people of Australia have been given any indication as to why that should be so. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.13:39:001336Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I move:That the Senate's purported amendment No. 8 be disagreed to.I shall be moving an amendment, set out in a schedule to be circulated shortly to honourable members, which will have the same effect. I am moving this motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the reasons you gave a few minutes ago in a statement to which the House has agreed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.13:40:001336Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I move:(1) Page 149 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 22—Liable parents' reportable fringe benefits totalsPart 1—Amendment of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 19891 Section 5 Insert: reportable fringe benefits total has the meaning given by subsection 158A(3).2 At the end of subsection 38A(1) Add: ; and (c) the liable parent's reportable fringe benefits total (if any) for the year of income.3 After section 158 Insert:158A Disclosure of reportable fringe benefits total (1) This section applies if one or more fringe benefits are provided in relation to a year of tax in respect of the employment by an employer of an employee who is a liable parent. (2) The liable parent must notify the Registrar, in accordance with the regulations, of the reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income ending on the first 30 June after the end of the year of tax. (3) The reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income is the amount worked out in accordance with the regulations, taking account of the value (worked out in accordance with the regulations) of the fringe benefit or fringe benefits (other than a fringe benefit of a kind that is prescribed by the regulations). (4) An expression used in this section and in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act. (5) This section applies in relation to a liable parent who is an employee of the Commonwealth, or of an authority of the Commonwealth described in paragraph (e) of the definition of employer in subsection 136(1) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , as if the Commonwealth or the authority were an employer for the purposes of that Act. (6) This section applies in relation to a benefit that is an exempt benefit because of section 57A or 58 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 and would be a fringe benefit apart from those sections as if it were a fringe benefit for the purposes of that Act. (7) This section does not require notification of a reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income before the 1999-2000 year of income.158B Penalty for failure to notify reportable fringe benefits total accurately (1) A person must pay the Registrar a penalty of the amount worked out under subsection (2) if: (a) section 158A requires the person to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income; and (b) the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income is at least 10% greater than the amount that the person notified the Registrar under section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income. (2) The amount of the penalty is 10% of the difference between: (a) the administrative assessment of child support based on the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income; and (b) the amount that was or would have been the administrative assessment of child support based on the amount that the person notified the Registrar under section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income. (3) If a person is required by section 158A to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income and does not do so as required by that section, this section operates as if the person had notified the Registrar under that section that the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income was a nil amount. (4) The penalty is a debt due to the Commonwealth, payable when the administrative assessment mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) is made. (5) The Registrar may make an administrative assessment of child support for the purposes of this section at any time. (6) The Registrar may remit penalty payable under this section if he or she thinks it is fair and reasonable to do so.Part 2—Amendment dependent on fringe benefits reporting legislationChild Support (Assessment) Act 19894 Section 5 (definition of reportable fringe benefits total ) Repeal the definition, substitute: reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income for a person who is an employee (for the purposes of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , whether it applies of its own force or because of the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 ) means the employee's reportable fringe benefits total (as defined in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ) for the year of income.5 Section 158A Repeal the section.Explaining it very briefly, this is the fringe benefits tax submission. When this amendment was mooted in the House, when the bill was originally debated, the minister indicated to the House:The government supports the principle of counting fringe benefits in assessing child support payments, but we are not anxious to deal with this matter in isolation. The government proposes to address this issue as part of the wider reform of the fringe benefits tax arrangements. The tax reform package will provide for fringe benefits to be included on group certificates and therefore to be included in income for child support purposes.Since then the tax reform package has been introduced into the House. In the interest of getting this bill passed, we have agreed to amend the bill in this way. The provision will take effect from 1 July 2000 at the same time as other elements of the tax reform package.The member for Chifley made reference in an earlier intervention to the time allowed for debate of this bill. It has, of course, been around a long time. It was in the previous parliament earlier this year and because of the dissolution of parliament has had to be reintroduced and debated and voted on. We are now anxious to get the bill in place so that its provisions can start to operate. For these reasons we have decided to go quietly, as it were, on the fringe benefits tax provision which was one that we were taking into account anyway and support in principle.13:42:001338Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—This is an amendment to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 that was moved by the opposition in the Senate and came in a form unacceptable to the House. I would like to thank the government for picking up this initiative. However, I need to just place on record a few observations. In terms of repairing the income base, of their own volition they have picked up negative gearing. At the urging of the opposition they are now looking at fringe benefits. But there was a whole raft of other proposals in the report to repair the income base.The point that I would also like to make, of course, is that using taxable income is becoming increasingly less appropriate in terms of trying to determine people's capacity to pay. As we see the phenomenon of salary sacrifice really taking off, unless we are able to have these things adequately quantified then, of course, people will be able to obviate their payment.I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the abuse of trusts, the transfer of property, and a whole raft of other proposals that were in the original report have yet to be adequately addressed. The report, of course, was always a balanced one but I would point out that the failure of the government to act in repairing the income base in terms of child support in a much more breathtaking way really affects those people who have residency—that is, the parent who has the residency of the children.I just want to say that I agree with the parliamentary secretary that it did take a long time to go through the House. I want to place on record that it is now some four years since the report was originally delivered. The recommendations in terms of changes to the formula were on the basis of the barest minimum necessary to restore some fairness and equity. Quite frankly, now some four years after the report, I think we need to seriously move on in relation to child support and try to develop approaches which are fair and equitable to children and parents.I want to place it on record that, prior to the last election within my party, I sought to seek a provision in reviews which would have allowed a departure on the basis of discrimination against children. If that departure were sought, it would allow the household income of both parents to be examined. Then if it were, on reasonable balance, clear that a child or group of children in one household were able to be less supported than in another, we would allow a departure. If we are looking at all the anomalies in child support, it is this area of second, third and fourth families that is the most contentious and, indeed, the most urgent. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in closing the debate in this House—I do not propose to speak again—would indicate to the House what might be the timetable for further changes to the Child Support Scheme and, indeed, what might be the process of reform to the Child Support Scheme. She might indicate those things to the House, because I can assure her of one thing: whilst I am happy to concede that there are some improvements in this bill, we are not going to be able to satisfy either ourselves or people caught up in the Child Support Scheme that all the reforms that need to be undertaken are undertaken.I have one regret, and that is that the processes of this House really do not permit a more bipartisan approach. Just as there are quite a number of opposition members wanting to see further reform of the Child Support Scheme, it is equally true that there are government backbenchers that want to see further reform. We will be derelict in our duty if we do not take that challenge up in this parliament.13:47:001339Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I will break my own golden rule and debate the issue after all, having objected earlier to the debate being broadened. I will just respond very briefly; I am not in the position that the minister would be to respond to the specifics raised by the member for Chifley.One of my very earliest experiences in parliament was to debate the Family Law Bill in the Senate in 1975. I remember very well that there was a Senate report that was very germane to that debate. The then Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, had brought in a couple of versions of the bill and the version that came in post the 1974 election rejected a very large number of the Senate committee's recommendations. Members of the committee moved amendments in line with all that committee's recommendations, and on every occasion the recommendations in the Senate committee's report actually prevailed in a free vote in the Senate. It is a little bit different, of course, when you get into Child Support Agency arrangements. It is not the same as actually voting on the substance of the Family Law Bill itself.I acknowledge the great sincerity with which the member for Chifley approaches this matter and his very long experience. I mentioned my experience of having been one of those who actually debated and voted on the Family Law Bill, as it was in 1975. I just say that I too have been around this subject for a very long time—from the institution of the Family Law Bill to the institution of the Child Support Agency and so on. I know it is an area that is absolutely fraught.When you get into the matter of personal relationships between husband and wife, or ex-husband and ex-wife, where children are involved the passions run very deep. I think it is a very good example of how inadequate any legislative system is to address some very real human problems.It is first and foremost our responsibility, as legislators in the national parliament, to make sure that we provide a good framework for marriage and families, whether that be formal marriage or not, I suppose, in these days. But I believe that always the number one concern of this parliament has been the welfare of children and to protect them appropriately when passions run rather strongly, as they do in the breakdown of relationships, particularly if a parent is going to be substantially separated from a child—parent-child attachments being what they are.I have always had a great deal of sympathy for parents in that position. I do have a lot of sympathy for a lot of male parents who tend to not be the custodial parents. I am not saying that I have more sympathy for them than I do for the mothers, but I do have sympathy for them because they find themselves in situations they had not anticipated. The situations become extraordinarily difficult, emotionally and financially, on both sides.We must do the best we can. I do not think anybody in the parliament has an axe to grind on this issue. We must approach it as fair-mindedly as we can and do the best we can for all parties, particularly with the welfare of children in mind.I take on board the contribution yet again of the member for Chifley. It is, as always, a valuable contribution. I take on board also the contribution made by the committee in undertaking the inquiry and in taking evidence from a lot of people who I am sure were in significant pain when they appeared before the committee. I thank the committee for bringing together all that information in an orderly way before the parliament. Nevertheless, it is not always possible to do all the things that a parliamentary committee recommends.The government has honestly addressed the issue. The passage of this bill will be a further step in refining what I well recall the minister at the time—Minister Howe—saying. He said that he knew it was an imperfect attempt to address the issue of child support and that that first attempt would undoubtedly be revisited on a number of occasions in the future as we attempted to improve it. It will probably be revisited yet again in the not too distant future. We all must strive in this terribly important area, as I have already said, to do our very best.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1340r6121340Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.13:52:001340Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 amends the 1992 act following the signing of a new ANTA agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories to apply for the period 1998-2000. It also clarifies the exemption of ANTA from state and territory taxes to which the Commonwealth is not subject.On the issue of tax, I note that the government intends to make some, but not all, vocational education and training courses GST-free. In keeping with its narrow view of education and its lack of understanding about the need for lifelong learning, this government intends to tax so-called hobby courses. This approach ignores the fact that the needs and capacities of adult learners vary enormously and the most recreational of courses may be the only way back into formal education for some.On top of that is the issue of the costs that institutions will face in administering the new tax. This matter was raised in the Vos committee's report, which recommended that the education sector share in the funds earmarked for the business sector to assist with compliance costs.The education sector will face significantly increased costs through the GST. The sector, generally, is not subject to wholesale sales taxes. Unlike in the business sector, the GST will not relieve educational institutions of other taxes. It will instead impose an entirely new layer of administration which will further diminish their capacity to provide education and training on top of the direct cuts to funding already inflicted by the Howard government.There is also the fact that students will face increased costs in terms of books, computer software, Internet use and other study requisites. Nothing could sum up this government's backward looking attitude better than the fact that it is prepared to put a tax on learning.This bill also amends the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 to supplement the 1998 and 1999 amounts for price movements and to add to the general pool of funding the amount previously separately identified for off-the-job training for traineeships.Vocational education and training is important to Australia. It enrols far more students than higher education. It is a major access point for adult education and life-long learning. Significant numbers of university graduates enrol in TAFE courses to finetune their skills for employment. Enrolments in vocational education and training have grown from 952,000 in 1988 to almost 1.5 million last year. In 1997, VET catered for 48,200 students with a disability, 38,500 indigenous students and 252,000 students who were born outside Australia. But education and training are not valued by the Howard government or recognised for their contribution to Australia's prosperity.The attack on vocational education by the coalition began early, in its first budget, in 1996, when the government announced $160 million in funding cuts, including the abolition of growth funding, which had been provided by the previous Labor government. For good measure, the Howard government also cut nearly $13 million from ANTA's operating expenses. This was followed, in 1997, by a further $72 million cut labelled as `benchmarking efficiencies'. God save us from benchmarking efficiencies!The government has been keen to put in place a new ANTA agreement because the agreement negotiated by the former Labor government, as part of its major overhaul of vocational education and training in the early part of this decade, committed the Commonwealth to providing growth funding on a continuing basis. The Howard government recognised that it had to scrap Labor's agreement and replace it with one which reflected the coalition's narrow, mean-spirited and short-sighted approach to skilling Australia.The prospect of a new ANTA agreement was first raised by the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in a media release on 8 June 1997. In that release the minister claimed that TAFE places would increase by 500,000 over five years. He also said that the new agreement would lead to a major upgrade of the TAFE system. Needless to say, these claims have not come to fruition. They turned out to be another typical example of this minister's mix of extravagant rhetoric and bodgie statistics.The minister for education's media release was titled `$4.5 billion TAFE deals for states and territories'. It did not take the states and territories long to work out that there was not much in this new deal. In fact, on 28 August 1997—Mr Barresi interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Look, if you do not believe what I say about Dr Kemp, just have a listen to what Victoria's minister for training, Phil Honeywood, had to say about your favourite minister for education. He called the proposed agreement with the Commonwealth `the biggest cost shift to the states since Federation'. That was your own Victorian minister, a state Liberal minister.This cost shift involved the Commonwealth withdrawing from growth funding for vocational education and training at a time when unmet demand for TAFE places was some 35,000 a year. All future growth was to be funded by so-called efficiencies made by the states and territories. Discussions continued acrimoniously for months and, on 22 August, the state and territory training ministers issued a joint communique expressing their concern that the Commonwealth's declining one-third share of VET funding was inadequate to meet the demands of a truly national system which was internationally competitive.Memorable contributions were made to the debate about the minister for education's performance by a number of state Liberal colleagues which I am sure will be of great interest to members on the government side of the House. Comments were made by people such as the Victorian minister, Minister Honeywood, who said—just as the minister walks into the chamber; I am sure he is keen to be reminded about Minister Honeywood's remarks about him—and this is a Liberal minister:Kemp, just to get headlines, goes out after each ministers meeting and hits us with another bombshell that we have not agreed on.He also said:I feel that this is a betrayal of trust.That is what his own Liberal colleagues say about the minister for education—a betrayal of trust and the greatest cost shift since Federation from the Commonwealth to the states. The comments seem to sum up the tone of the meetings and the negotiations as they unfolded, month after month.The new agreement was eventually finalised in April this year. The first thing to note about it is that it covers only a three-year period, not the five as originally trumpeted by the minister in his typical press releases.Labor believed that ANTA was the way to make sure that additional federal funding was placed into our TAFE colleges to lift the level of training for young Australians, to make sure that they got the training that they needed to ensure that Australia was better positioned to develop sustainable jobs and growth in years to come. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.Leave granted; debate adjourned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Dobell. It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.Miscellaneous134214:00:001342Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I wonder whether I could have the indulgence of the House for a moment to say something about the tragic loss of life in Victoria overnight.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—As I am sure the House would be aware, five volunteer firefighters for the Country Fire Authority in Victoria died last night during a battle to save the town of Linton, 30 kilometres south-west of Ballarat. The firefighters were found at 9 o'clock last night. They had been operating a Geelong West tanker, as part of the strike team with four other tankers, on a bulldozed fire trail north of the township.The death by accident of anybody is a tragic event. But there is something particularly heartbreaking and poignant about those people who lose their lives in these tragic circumstances when they are, in effect, defending us. Whether it is a soldier, a police officer, an ambulance officer or a member of a firefighting unit, they have a special place in our thoughts.To the families of those who lost their lives in such tragic circumstances, I express the condolence of the government and, I know, the thoughts of all members of the House. We again express our admiration for those men and women who volunteer for firefighting service in Australia. There is something deeply embedded in the Australian psyche about bushfires, and the onset of summer all over Australia is a time of foreboding for many Australians.This loss of life by the Victorian CFA is the first since the tragic Ash Wednesday fires in 1983. These firefighters were all volunteers. They were all helping their fellow Australians. They had all put their lives on the line—and, tragically, a sudden change of wind and circumstance meant that they lost their lives. I know that the thoughts of all members of the House will be with them and their families.Appropriately in a little while the federal government will be supporting efforts to provide appropriate support and relief to the families, and I will be announcing some arrangements in relation to that. I simply wanted to say on behalf of the government—and, I know, on behalf of everybody—that this is a very upsetting event, and I hope that there is some comfort to be found for those who have been left so suddenly bereaved by this tragic development.14:03:001342Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, may I seek indulgence for the same purpose—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Of course.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—and to agree completely with the Prime Minister in his remarks. He does speak for all members of the House when he expresses his condolences to the families of those who have suffered as a result of the events in Victoria overnight, and also his expression of appreciation for those who, both professionally and voluntarily, take up the task of protecting our community. It is an appalling irony that it is just a year ago yesterday that he was doing something similar in this place—and I was joining with him—in regard to the loss of life of two firefighters in Lithgow.It is the case that our country is a demanding country. It is a harsh, difficult country, subject to natural disasters—and, unfortunately, some natural disasters encouraged physically by irresponsible individuals from time to time. It is a country which requires all of us to band together and to support each other, and many do; many do in the voluntary organisations and, of course, many do professionally as well.On many occasions, unfortunately, life is lost in the task—fortunately, hardly ever so many—and five brave souls lost yesterday is an appalling price for our community to pay. We ought to have an appropriate recognition of that, and I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister say the things he did in relation to properly supporting the families.Can I take it a point further and urge him to consider another matter too. That is, that this is our national capital and this is a place where memorials are established. A memorial established for those who volunteer and lose their lives, and also those who lose their lives professionally, in protecting the community in this nation of ours would be an entirely appropriate thing to erect. I hope he does, at some point in time, give that matter consideration over the course of the next couple of years.I understand that one of the folk who lost their lives yesterday was at his first fire fight and was aged either 17 or 18—I am not sure which. But these are terrible, tragic events. And our hearts go out to the families, to the colleagues, to the people who joined them in the fire fight. It will be a distressing day in Geelong; it will be a terrible day, of course, in Linton. People will not forget these events for a very long time.1343Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Can I just add that all occupants of this building join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing their distress at these events and their condolences to the affected families.May I also say that I understand that, by arrangement with the whips, there will an opportunity later this day for there to be further expressions of condolence; that is what I understand to be the arrangement.Questions Without Notice134313431343Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall his statement in this House on 30 March this year in which he said:. . . one of the central elements of our tax reform package will be the elimination of tax avoidance practices, whether they occur in relation to family trusts or in relation to other aspects of the taxation system.Prime Minister, you undertook to eliminate tax avoidance in these areas. Where is the legislation? Why does yesterday's legislation contain no measures to address the problems that you identified in those remarks? How will it be possible for the Senate inquiry to properly scrutinise any anti-avoidance measures you are planning and have incorporated in your current legislation if you do not release the legislation in time?1343Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the Leader of the Opposition is yes, I do recall that statement. I remind him that, when the tax plan was released several months ago, the Treasurer made an announcement that certain practices in relation to the use of trusts would be prohibited with effect from the date of that announcement. He also made a further announcement that part of the new arrangements would involve the introduction of entity taxation, which will of itself eliminate a number of practices that have led to unreasonable tax minimisation.It is also the case that the introduction of a goods and services tax and the compliance measures associated with it and the Australian business number will enhance the effectiveness of compliance work by the Australian Taxation Office. It is also the case that further tranches of legislation, as foreshadowed by the Treasurer, will be introduced in the new year.13431343Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, what reaction has the government had from the states in regard to the private health insurance rebates? How important do the states regard this issue? What is the government's response to that attitude by the states?1343Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question. This really follows from a question I was asked on Tuesday by the Leader of the Opposition, who in his question claimed that Mr Kennett had made comments that `Medicare should be axed basically because the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities as far as the public hospital system is concerned'. I went and had a look at Mr Kennett's comments. Obviously I should take a lesson from the experience of the Prime Minister, who does not ever believe anything at face value until he looks at it himself.I could not find anything at all in Mr Kennett's comments to suggest that the Commonwealth was not meeting its responsibility toward public hospitals. In fact, Mr Kennett's comments related more to the duplication of health services and the difficulties that occur at boundaries between one system and the other. I did notice that in Mr Kennett's comments he also described senators who were opposing the rebate as `turkeys treating private health fund members in an inhumane way', which I think is far more appropriate.The interesting thing is that Bob Carr is on the record as having said, `As fast as we hurled money at the hospitals, there was a further abandonment of private health cover and a further rise in the demands on the public system.' He obviously understands the interplay between private health and public health.There is a Senate committee inquiry tomorrow which the New South Wales government was due to come before and give evidence in support of the opposition. We find out at 7.30 last night that the New South Wales health minister, Andrew Refshauge, cancelled his appearance before the Senate committee of inquiry. Can you not just imagine Andrew getting the telephone call from John Della Bosca telling him, `There are 1.8 million New South Wales people with private health insurance, and there are 1.8 million people in New South Wales that the Labor Party is denying a rebate to. We have an election coming up on 27 March, and this is going to hurt us.' You bet it will.13441344Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that his package of legislation introducing a 10 per cent GST on almost everything does not contain a specific legislative provision locking in the rate at 10 per cent? Isn't Premier Kennett right in his claim that your `fantastic mechanism' is not locked in your legislation? Treasurer, if Premier Kennett does not trust you on this issue, why should the Australian public?1344Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As the bill that was introduced yesterday makes entirely clear in its objects, as I recall, this is being introduced as part of a Commonwealth-state agreement in accordance with principles agreed between all states and the Commonwealth. Indeed, as I have also already indicated, once the agreement is brought to conclusion, the legislation will be part of the second package that the Prime Minister indicated will be in the parliament early next year. I do not suppose that the Labor Party would vote against that, but there is no telling what the Labor Party will do. I thought that a provision to lock in the mechanism would be uncontroversial and would be able to be enacted without opposition, but I may be going too far.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order concerning relevance. Is the Treasurer confirming that there is no specific lock-in measure in his legislation? Because that was the question, and he should answer it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. I recognise that under the anticipation provisions the Treasurer finds himself in a marginally invidious position. I noticed him thumbing through the act and hoping he was not going to trip over the anticipation wire. I call him to answer the question in general principle.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Again, I have said in very specific principles that the lock-in mechanism will be legislated in accordance with the agreement in the tranche of legislation to be introduced next year, which I expect to sail through the parliament quickly because I could not conceive of the Labor Party opposing it.In conclusion, I want to say that we did appreciate the fact that the state premiers and state treasurers worked very constructively with us. In particular, I would like to single out for praise the state Treasurer of Tasmania, who was very supportive of getting a share of the GST.13451345Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you inform the House of the application of junior rates of pay in other countries and how these rates apply? Are you also aware of any recent commentary on the issue of junior wages?DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Tell us about Bangladesh.1345Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Bangladesh does have a GST; it is 15 per cent. In answer to the honourable member's question, a lot of countries have developed systems which reflect the fact that, if you want to preserve the employment of young people, you need to understand the differences for young people who obviously do not have the maturity and experience of adults. For example, in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands—just to take three from Europe—the adult rate is reduced successively for each year below 23, 21 and 18. So they have acknowledged the point.This has been a significant issue recently in the UK where Tony Blair established a commission to look at these issues and to set a minimum. It is interesting that the third way in the UK has seen the UK government exclude 16- and 17-year-olds from the new minimum hourly rate. They did that because the UK government was worried about the jobs that would be available for young people. It is definitely worth reading the work of the Low Pay Commission in the UK because it is current, it is relevant and it looks at all the international experience. But for those who would not be interested in the UK experience even the Irish National Minimum Wage Commission has recently recommended—has Ireland got a GST?CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Yes, they have.WI4Mr REITH—There you are; they are a modern economy. That commission recently recommended a separate minimum wage for people under 18, which is set at 70 per cent of the full-time adult rate, and a training rate of 75 per cent, 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the adult rate for job entrants without experi ence in their first three years of employment, regardless of age.I point out that young people—the people for whom we are trying to create positions through this legislation—as a rule, are more happy with their rate of pay than just about any sector of the work force. The irony is that a research program in place when Labor was in office—the Australian Industrial Relations survey of workplaces—showed that, whilst Labor was legislating to take away the prospects of their having a job, young people across the Australian work force were as happy as anybody with the rate of pay that they were achieving under that system.The bottom line is that, if we are unable to achieve our legislation, Labor's policy on this will destroy the jobs of literally tens of thousands of young people. I conclude by referring honourable members to the Canberra Times of today. Mike Taylor, who I would have to say is not our greatest supporter, in his article titled `Cogent case for retaining youth wage' says to the opposition:To have credibility, the ACTU must come up with a viable alternative competency-based system which will not disadvantage young workers or unduly add to Australia's current unemployment levels.In the end, it may require an acknowledgment by all concerned that junior rates of pay represent the most equitable answer to an inequitable situation.Well, he is no supporter of the government but surely if Mike Taylor can see the point it is time that the Labor Party did.13451345Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I seek clarification of an aspect of your goods and services tax bill. Is it a fact that health products including Panadol, Codral, Strepsils, Mylanta, Canesten, vitamins, bandaids, bandages, skin creams, sunscreen, sanitary products and many other items are currently exempt from sales tax? Does your legislation now mean that these products will attract a 10 per cent GST?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Minister for Health and Aged Care, I remind the minister that under the anticipation provisions he is not obliged to address those things that are directly a part of the debate that will occur in the detailed stages on the bill.1346Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I just say to the honourable member that health has done extraordinarily well out of this package, and unless you are planning to have your tattoos removed or have cosmetic surgery it will not affect you much either!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The moment I need any assistance from the members for Grayndler, Prospect and Canberra, I will seek it. I was in fact about to chasten the minister and could not be heard above the nonsense emerging on my left.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Well, chasten the minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I invite the minister to withdraw the remark he made which I found much more derisive than I would tolerate.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Mr. Speaker, I apologise. I was making no attempt to be derisive at all. It was just to highlight that health does extraordinarily well out of this.13461346Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House what steps the Australian government is taking to assist stability in the world economy? To what extent do Australia's strong economic fundamentals allow us to play a role in assisting other economies?1346Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Today in Washington the IMF executive board has approved a financial support package for Brazil. Agreement on the IMF program with Brazil and the financial support package is very welcome. The Brazilian program will be crucial to efforts to stabilise the international financial crisis. Stability in Brazil is important for financial stability in Latin America.Loans will be provided under the IMF's new arrangements to borrow. The new arrangements to borrow were set up with Australia playing a pivotal role and, as the Treasurer of Australia, I am chairman of the IMF's NAB. As a member of the new arrangements to borrow, Australia will be making a contribution to the IMF in the form of loans up to $A500 million. The loans will be repayable by the IMF and will bear interest. Because these are financing transactions, the loans will not appear on the budget bottom line because they will be secured by the IMF and repaid.As the House knows, Australia has concentrated its bilateral involvement in programs in its own region. Australia has on a bilateral basis agreed to provide funding to Thailand and second-tier funding to Indonesia and also to Korea. In this case, Australia will not be partaking in bilateral assistance in relation to Brazil because we have considered our contribution through the new arrangements to borrow to be sufficient and because we have the focus of our contribution to these financial packages in our region.As I informed the House yesterday, whilst nearly all of our region is in recession, the Australian economy continues to perform strongly, with the national accounts yesterday recording growth of five per cent—outside China, the fastest growing economy in the region—and an economy which is growing faster than all the major European nations and the United States. Australia has shown remarkable resilience in the face of the Asian and international crisis. That illustrates the importance of good strong economic policy, the policy that this government has put in place over the last three years, particularly the low interest rate policy.I pay tribute again to Australia's exporters who have been successful in diverting exports. By doing the hard yards—putting the budget back into surplus, getting a new monetary policy and promoting competition—the Australian government has been able to withstand and ensure that the policy can withstand the crisis in the region. It provides an example of what this country must do in the next two to three years to provide a strength and foundation to face the challenges which will come in the new century. Most importantly, that involves laying down the groundwork for a new taxation system which will make our country strong and prosperous in the future. Let us confront those challenges and build a new tax system rather than disintegrate in oppositionism, which is based on populism, for which there will be no future for the Australian economy.13471347Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that the ABS national health survey found that, in a two-week period, 4.3 million Australians use pain relievers, 1.3 million use medication for coughs and colds, 1.7 million use skin ointments and creams and 4.6 million use vitamins and supplements? Why will there be an extra 10 per cent tax on the most commonly used products? Is that what you call doing well?1347Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Of course many of those would be S3, S4 or S8, so they will be GST free.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No! Wrong!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Don't argue. You don't know what you are talking about. In the same week, 5.8 million Australians had private health insurance, and they will be better off, and 18 million Australians will be better off under the proposal as a whole.13471347Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister advise the House of the progress of the government's campaign to immunise Australian children against measles? What data is available on the immunisation rates?1347Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The measles control campaign started on 3 August this year and wrapped up on 6 November. It had very strong support from members right across the House, and I thank members very sincerely for their support.It was the biggest single public health campaign ever run in Australia's history. We were doing it for two reasons. The first is that the National Health and Medical Research Council advised me that we should bring forward the second measles vaccination from 12 years of age to five years of age. Secondly, the World Health Organisation was predicting that Australia would face an epidemic of measles in the next 12 months. This gave us the opportunity to attempt to basically immunise the whole of the primary school age population in Australia.The results are that we managed to get to 1.3 million Australian children directly through schools, which is really an extraordinary effort—7,200 schools around Australia. A further 10 per cent of children were vaccinated at a local health clinic or by their general practitioner through the campaign. Six per cent of students were not at school on the day the teams came around. They are currently being followed up through general practitioners and local government, and an estimated two to five per cent of children had already had the vaccination.So our best estimates are that, over the last four months, we have been able to get to 94 per cent of all Australian school children between five and 12 years of age. This is a highly acceptable level of measles vaccination and, quite clearly, will prevent us from having the epidemic that was predicted.The other interesting thing is that it gives us very good data on the rate of side effects and reactions to the measles vaccination. There is a very tiny group that nonetheless gets a lot of publicity that prior to our campaign was predicting up to 334,000 adverse reactions. Just today I got the definitive data and, rather than having 334,000 adverse reactions, we had 71—and 71 adverse reactions in 1.3 million school children is one adverse reaction for every 18,300. Most of those adverse reactions were fairly trivial—rash, fever and faintness. They accounted for well over half the adverse reactions.There were five serious adverse reactions—anaphylaxis, which is a life threatening condition—but at one in every 260,000 children that is a tiny incidence. I am pleased to say that all those children have successfully recovered. This is something that all of Australia can be proud of. It is an example of preventive health. It is an example of everyone working together to achieve a fantastic health outcome.Distinguished Visitors13471347Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Rt Hon. Don McKinnon, MP, the New Zealand Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and some New Zealanders who are part of his delegation. I should inform the House that we have also had in the gallery a parliamentary delegation from Japan. A number of members were fortunate enough to join up with them both yesterday evening and this morning. Through his Excellency the Ambassador I know the House would want us to extend to them notice of our pleasure in having them in our country.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice134813481348Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My question is directed to the minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. How does the minister justify the unfair impact of the government's tax legislation on young mothers? Why does your GST bite into family budgets with an increased cost for food and increased costs for over-the-counter health items, such as calcium and iron supplements, pain killers, baby formula, nappies and even pregnancy testing kits? What representations did the minister make to reduce the burden on young mothers?1348Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It is entirely within the standing orders for the Prime Minister to respond to the question, and I invite him to do so.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The taxation plan is the most pro-family taxation policy this country has ever seen. I am delighted that the new member asked me this question because only this morning I had the opportunity to launch a book co-authored by the honourable member for Menzies called Changing Australia . I commend it to the honourable member who asked the question. Indeed, I commend it to all honourable members because it traces some very important social, economic and demographic changes in our country.One of the things it traces is the appalling increase in the tax burden on families that has occurred over the last 20 or 30 years. It records that in the last 20 or 30 years the effective marginal tax rate on an individual has risen by something like 83 per cent but the effective marginal tax rate on families has risen by 360 per cent. That underlines the crying need in this country to have a government that will introduce tax measures to provide some relief to mothers and fathers for the costs of raising children. We did it with our family tax initiative before 1996 and we have done it again with our taxation plan introduced by the Treasurer yesterday. We are doing it in relation to private health insurance. The party that the honourable member represents is voting against a measure that will advantage millions of mothers around Australia—Opposition members interjecting—83LGILLARDMs Gillard—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: on the subject of relevance, my question was directed to what representations the minister had made to reduce the burden on young mothers. If the Prime Minister is taking the question, then he ought to be responding on the question of what representations he received. If the answer was none, he should say so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lalor will resume her seat. The question dealt with the whole matter of tax reform and the way it impacts on families and the Prime Minister is responding. So far as I am aware, except in extraordinarily traditional roles young mothers are regarded as part of families.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I say this very seriously to the honourable member who has just come into this parliament: if the honourable member is interested in striking a blow for tax equity for young mothers, she should vote for our private health insurance rebate. If she is interested in striking a blow for tax equity generally, she should vote for the coalition's taxation plan, which produces the greatest measure of taxation justice Australian mothers and Australian families have seen in the last 30 years.13481348Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. The minister would be aware that today is the International Day of People with a Disability. Minister, what has the government done to assist people with disabilities and to celebrate their abilities?1349Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—May I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. I recognise the particular interest that he takes in the welfare of his constituents with disabilities, particularly employers who give young and older people with disabilities an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to the workplace. I acknowledge that today the member has from his electorate in the gallery employers such as BTR Automotive and Woorinyan Employment Services. They are among the large group of people who assembled in the Great Hall today to commemorate the Prime Minister's Employer of the Year awards for people with disabilities. These awards—and they have been going now for the last nine years—recognise those employers who give opportunities to people with disabilities.The remarkable thing that I am sure the honourable member for Dunkley and the honourable member for Mitchell and others who were present would have taken from that event was that the employers who are engaging people with disabilities do so because of their capacity to contribute to their workplace. They are good employees, they contribute to the profitability of their company and they are a practical demonstration that people with disabilities have talents and abilities to contribute to the nation as a whole.On this day, when internationally we recognise people with disabilities, it is appropriate that we honour those employers who have made that particular effort. I acknowledge those employers, particularly the winner of the small business award, Benbro Electronics; the larger employer, HM Five-Star Engines; in the education sector, the South Metropolitan College of TAFE in Western Australia; and, the Commonwealth department that was acknowledged as doing the most in this area, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. All of those people demonstrate to others that people with disabilities can contribute to the work force.That is not all this government has done. It has signed the new agreement with the states for disability services, for the first time providing a common commitment to disability services and providing more funds than were ever provided under the previous government—a major boost in funding for people with disabilities. Today I announced the fulfilment of another coalition election promise to provide an additional $15 million of targeted assistance for ageing carers, those people who have the responsibility for, and who have been concerned as they grow older about their dependants with disabilities and what their future might be. These grants to all of the Australian states will help provide targeted assistance to those people.Since July 1996, more than 20,000 new job seekers with disabilities have received assistance from our employment services network. So this government has an outstanding record in assisting people with disabilities. We particularly acknowledge those in the community—those carers and those employers—who recognise, and who help to celebrate today, the contribution of people with disabilities to our community.13491349Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I seek clarification of an aspect of your goods and services tax bills. Is it the case that some marriage services will be subject to a GST and others will not? It is the case that some funeral services will be subject to a GST and others will not? By what reasonable criteria do you intend to distinguish between those fundamental family occasions which your government believes should be taxed and those that should not?1349Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government's tax plan lists religious services as being GST free. I am sure the honourable member would approve of that. That means that, where churches or any religion so defined—it does not have to be a church—is delivering a service which is an integral part of that religious belief, it will be GST free. There will be no input taxes on it. They get all their input taxes back and they will not be paying any tax on outputs. 13501350Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, are you aware of the recent development of any financial markets' trading products and, if so, how these developments help Australia become a leading financial centre in the Asia-Pacific region?1350Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—This is good news for Australia in a good news week. Apart from the national accounts figures that came out yesterday, apart from the 25 basis point drop in cash rates and apart from the introduction of structural change to our tax legislation by the Treasurer yesterday, I would like to advise the House that the Sydney Futures Exchange and Dow Jones, which is one of the world's largest business and financial publishers, have agreed to launch in the second quarter of next year a new index series known as APELS, Asia-Pacific Extra Liquid Series. It will be known as APELS around the world.This means that a funds manager sitting at her desk in New York will be able to trade index-linked products in Australia in real time. It means funds managers can buy and sell those products linked to, for example, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange or Japanese equities. They can trade them sitting at their desks in New York, London or Chicago. That will potentially extend to a wide range of products across the Asia-Pacific region. Obviously, funds managers around the world will have access to that.Initially, this product will cover Hong Kong and Japan, but it is an exciting development for Australia because it opens the doors to massive amounts of international funds that will come through funds managers around the world. It will also trade on regional financial interests, not just Australian financial interests. Importantly, it provides an opportunity for international banks to base their operations in Australia, to run a single clearing account to access markets around the Asia-Pacific region. That means more jobs for more Australians.This comes about through no small amount of effort. It comes because Australia has leading-edge world technology. It comes because we have better and simpler corporate law reform. It comes because we have a stable and growing economy. It comes because we have an innovative and sophisticated work force. It comes, most importantly, because of our commitment to a 21st century taxation system.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At what point does a minister standing there reading a statement become a ministerial statement rather than an answer to a question?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The minister is responding to a question and the answer is entirely relevant to the question.DT4CREANMr Crean—On the point of order: are you disagreeing with former Speaker Sinclair's ruling that ministers should not be able to come into this chamber and read their answers and that the only reference they can make is in terms of quotes from documents? That is a clear ruling that former Speaker Sinclair made. I thought you had indicated on a previous occasion that you were going to adopt it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is absolutely nothing in the standing orders that prevents a minister from reading a reply if he so desires. I happen to consider it inappropriate for a minister to read a reply. If he were to do so in detail, I would draw his attention to the fact that he was doing so.DT4CREANMr Crean—He's doing it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will determine whether or not the level to which the reply is being read is appropriate. There is nothing in the standing orders that makes your point of order in any way valid.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I am amazed at that ruling in light of former Speaker Sinclair's ruling. Standing order 101, which sets down a process for ministerial statements, makes it quite clear that this process is out of order. He made that ruling on 4 March 1998 in Hansard at page 394. We request that you uphold that correct ruling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have given my ruling and I call the minister.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The opposition does not want to hear this good news.UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—You are reading—you are looking down!1351Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I am looking down because I cannot stand looking at you. Dow Jones chose Australia over other regional financial centres, including Hong Kong and Singapore. Dow Jones chose Australia because of all that we offer and all that we will offer in the future. They are investing in Australia and Australian jobs. What it is going to bring to Australia is billions of tradeable dollars every day, every week and every year. That is good news for Australian jobs.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I ask that the paper the minister was reading from be tabled.JT4BAILEYMrs Bailey—He wasn't reading!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister reading?DK6Mr HOCKEY—No way!5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I want to ask the next question. Before I do, I want to have that ruling clarified. Are you saying that if a minister asserts he was not actually reading but was only referring to a document he no longer has to table it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not necessary for me to offer any further explanation. Out of the respect I have for the member for Fraser, I will indicate that from the vantage point of the chair it was perfectly obvious that the minister could not have been reading from a document that in fact had four lines on it.DT4CREANMr Crean—He turned three pages. We saw him from here.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have ruled. I do not expect to have to enter into a debate with anybody in the chamber. I do not expect to have the member for Hotham engage in some other derisive remarks.13511351McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer and, it follows by that, the member for Franklin. Having now indicated that weddings and funerals conducted by religious services are GST free, why are you proposing to not treat those conducted by civil celebrants in the same manner?1351Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government determined in its policy that religious services would be GST free. That was the policy that we put to the Australian electorate and it is the policy that we are going to enact. In the last election, this government put out a detailed policy. We said to the Australian public, `If you want tax reform, vote this government back and we will enact it.' This is a government which seeks to do no more than fulfil all of its election pledges. That is why the Labor Party is so at odds on the particular issue. The Labor Party has never come across a government that wanted to actually deliver promises before.We remember the 1993 election when the Labor Party said, `No GST', and then hiked every wholesale sales tax after the election. We remember when the Labor Party said that it would cut income taxes.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. There is a very obvious question of relevance, apart from your previous ruling about scorn and derision which led you to comment to the member for Hotham but not refer to the Treasurer. I also wish to raise with you the question of relevance. On both those grounds, it seems that the Treasurer is wildly out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Treasurer and ask him to come back to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I do. The point I make is that this government is implementing its policy and that that is our policy. The point I am also making is that the Labor Party is engaged in one effort in this parliament. It is engaged in an effort to try to make a government break its promise to the Australian people.This government puts out a policy and it asks to be elected. It comes back into this parliament, and it seeks to legislate it. To the Labor Party, this is some kind of novel proposition. It is a novel proposition. Before the 1993 election, the Labor Party said that it would cut taxes, but it did not. It said that it would not hike indirect taxes and it did. This government put out a policy in relation to income tax cuts and in relation to the goods and services tax and this government intends to implement them in full.13521352Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Many constituents in my electorate of Groom have raised concerns about the decision by the previous Labor government to close the analog mobile phone system by the year 2000. Would the minister outline to the House what the government is doing to ensure that regional residents are not disadvantaged by the proposed phase-out of the analog phone network?1352Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The short answer is that the government has been working very hard to overcome and untangle the mess left behind by the member for Dobell's appalling decision in 1992 to enter into contractual arrangements which clearly discriminated against the needs of rural and regional Australians, who, above all Australians, need access to top-quality telecommunications technologies and corridors.The government is absolutely delighted to be able to say that we have reached agreement with the three existing mobile phone carriers—Telstra, Optus and Vodafone—to ensure that all areas of regional Australia will continue to enjoy services where they have them now. There will be a 12-month extension of the analog coverage until 31 December 2000, and that coverage will remain in place until there are alternatives available. In short, this really means that regional Australians do not lose out as a result of the quite disastrous and appallingly ill-thought through decision that the member for Dobell entered into in 1992. We will be imposing licence conditions on Telstra, requiring it to replace the analog AMPS network with an alternative digital network which provides reasonably equivalent coverage. Telstra has recently announced that it will be introducing a technology known as CDMA to construct a new network which will completely replace the existing AMPS network in both city and country. I think this is testimony to the commitment and the effectiveness of the Howard-Fischer government in meeting the needs of rural and regional Australians.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Through you, I ask the minister to table the document from which he was reading.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister reading from a document?4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—Apart from referring to a couple of notes, no.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no obligation on the minister to table that document.13521352Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question to the Treasurer. Doesn't the definition of `financial supplies'—UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Reading!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. Members on my right must know that that cacophony of sound does not in any way assist the House or the Speaker. The member for Hotham not only has the call but is entitled to be heard in silence, and I call him.DT4Mr CREAN—And I am happy to table this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will not get to ask his question unless he proceeds straight to it.DT4Mr CREAN—I direct my question to the Treasurer. Doesn't the definition of `financial supplies' in your goods and services tax bill imposing 10 per cent on almost everything mean that credit unions will have to pay a GST on the sorts of financial services that they outsource, such as data processing and cheque clearing? Isn't it true that banks will not have to pay the same GST, because they perform most of these activities in-house? How will this inequitable imposition of the GST assist the competition between credit unions and banks that you are so keen to encourage?1352Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I think I answered this question earlier in the week, making the point that credit unions will be treated the same as any other financial institution and will be under the same tax treatment. I also made the point earlier in the week that this problem so-called only arises because it was only when this government legislated that credit unions got the right to issue cheques. The way you solved the problem of credit unions was banning them from putting out cheques.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This went to the question of the definition under his bill which treats them effectively differently.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The chair is, in fact, exercising a good deal more latitude than the standing orders allow on these questions on tax reform. The obligation is on the Treasurer to answer the question in principle without specific reference to the legislation. I call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said, the treatment is precisely the same for a credit union as it is for a bank. It is precisely the same for any financial service provider. But I go on and make this point.DT4CREANMr Crean—You go on and on and on.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You have had a bad week, haven't you?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will return to the question, and the members for Prospect and Hotham will contain themselves.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The only reason the question arises as to how you would treat cheques issued by credit unions is that this government, for the first time in Australian history, gave credit unions the right to issue cheques. They did not have it in 1983 or 1984 or 1985 or 1986 or 1987 or 1988 or 1989 or 1990—he is counting with me.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Can he stop his Thespian performance and answer the question about the differential treatment—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. I was interrupting the Treasurer and I call him now.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have concluded my answer. 13531353Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can the minister inform the House how today's announcement on the official recognition of foreign awards made to Australians during the Vietnam conflict will benefit Vietnam veterans in my electorate of Herbert?1353Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question and I commend him on his enthusiasm for the concerns of veterans in his own electorate. I also note that tomorrow he is holding a presentation for veterans in his electorate. I would like to be with you but, unfortunately, I cannot. Today I announce—Opposition members interjecting—YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—You don't want to hear about this, do you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call; he will address his remarks through the chair.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—You don't want good news. Today I announce that Australian Vietnam veterans can now formally accept and wear South Vietnamese government and Cambodian government awards which were earned during their service in the Vietnam War. Records show that several hundred Australians received South Vietnamese and Cambodian awards during the Vietnam War, but at the time Australians were not allowed to officially accept or wear individual foreign awards.Under the government's foreign awards policy, there is now a mechanism whereby honours and awards, issued by a former foreign government which has ceased to exist, may be formally recognised and approved for wearing. This will allow those veterans to wear those awards and medals with great pride. This recognition has been sought by Vietnam veterans for a very long time, and it is hoped that more recipients and their families will apply for the official recognition of their service during the Vietnam War. I advise that applications are available from the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam Association, the RSL, the defence department and PM&C. This is good government policy brought forward by this government. It is going to be very much welcomed by the Vietnam veterans, and I hope it will be supported by both sides of this parliament.13541354Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I again direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's supposed concession to charities where they will not have to pay GST on sales of donated goods if they sell them for less than half the market price. Will there be inspectors examining the range of stock on sale by charities, item by item, to ensure that this concession is not being abused? And will this require separate documentation of every item received and sold by such charities? Aren't these currently tax exempt without this administrative nightmare?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Treasurer, I indicate that the question seeks more detail than I would have thought it reasonable to expect without abusing the anticipation rule. I invite the Treasurer to answer the question if he so desires.1354Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Well, I earnestly desire, Mr Speaker. The question of course starts from a false premise, as usual.DT4CREANMr Crean—Why is it?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will tell you why it is false. There are two exemptions: it does not apply in relation to donated second-hand goods; nor does it apply in relation to non-commercial sales, which are judged on either of two grounds—either 50 per cent less of the price or 50 per cent less of the cost.DT4CREANMr Crean—How do you determine 50 per cent?CT4Mr COSTELLO—You said that there was a double test. It is an individual test on any one of those three grounds. That is the first point. The second point—DT4CREANMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If we have now established that you have to determine a price, what policing mechanism is he going to have to insist upon it? That's the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat and consider himself warned. CT4Mr COSTELLO—He asks a question, you are in the middle of answering it, and so he asks a different one.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The question is wrong. In relation to charities the reason we put that test is that we think that, by and large—and I think there are reasonable grounds for this—most charities are honest. As a matter of fact, we do not think there is going to be any great problem with the Salvation Army cheating on the tax system.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—No, or the St Vincent de Paul.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Or the St Vincent de Paul or the Catholic Church cheating on the tax system. I think that, by and large, you can trust the Catholic Church. You can trust the Anglican Church. I think that by and large you can trust the churches if they say they are engaging in non-commercial activities. But I suppose, if there is any evidence to the contrary—in the same way as if there is any evidence to the contrary in relation to all of the taxes that currently apply—you have a look at it. That is the way you do these things.13541354Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of the results of the national literacy tests conducted to date? What are the implications of these results for educational equality?1354Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question. I am aware that results of the first tests against the national benchmark have been announced by the education minister in Western Australia. This is a very historic moment for Australian education, because for the first time we now have placed on the public record an assessment of the literacy standards of all students in one state in years 3 and 5 against an objective national standard. This standard has been established by this government in consultation with all the states and territories.For the first time, now all students in Australia have an opportunity to be brought up to the basic literacy level that will be required for them to continue successfully with their education. After 13 years of the previous government, there was no such standard in place. With regard to literacy, the Labor Party included a mere five lines within its education policy at the election. It was going to hand over the national literacy standards to the Australian Education Union.The results of the Western Australian tests will be of interest to the House. Western Australia found that 20 per cent of all students were below the national standard. It found that 60 per cent of all indigenous students were below the national standard. I congratulate the Western Australian minister on being prepared to put this information on the public record in order to be honest with the Australian people and to indicate the determination of his government to finally address this problem once and for all. Literacy is the greatest social equity issue in education today. It falls to the coalition to address social justice issues in education which have been unaddressed for decades.This government has committed an additional $112 million to literacy and numeracy standards in Australian schools. Today I announced that next year the government will be putting in place a National Indigenous Literacy Strategy within the national plan to ensure that educational equality is finally delivered to indigenous students in the shortest possible time, building on the excellent results of the strategic result projects that I announced earlier this year. We will be working to ensure that all Australians students—indigenous and non-indigenous—will reach the literacy levels by the end of year 3 in school that will enable them to continue successfully with their education. This will have a dramatic effect on the quality of schooling in Australia, the quality of the classroom experience, and is fundamental to addressing the tremendously difficult problem of youth unemployment.13551355Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Isn't your new 10 per cent GST going to create a compliance nightmare for Australia's 1.3 million small businesses, turning them into tax collectors? Can you confirm that administering the nightmare—3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Blaxland shall resume his seat. I will allow him to continue, but I have a point of order.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House has allocated 20 hours to debate the legislation. In that question there is no pretence of a request for specific clarification. It is an invitation to debate. Why would any of us contribute to the debate on the legislation if it has already been fully canvassed in question time?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta will resume his seat. The question is not inconsistent with other questions that have been allowed and, as ministers are aware, the way in which they answer the question determines the degree to which they in fact refer to the legislation.LN6Mr HATTON—I will begin from the beginning again. Treasurer, isn't your new 10 per cent GST going to create a compliance nightmare for Australia's 1.3 million small businesses, turning them into tax collectors? Can you confirm that administering that nightmare will cost $1.3 billion for the first three years of the GST? Can the Treasurer inform the House of the number of new GST police that will be involved?1355Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the last part of the question is none, no police—strangely enough, no police.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will respond through me.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, let me read for the member some of the advantages of a broadly based consumption tax:A broadly based consumption tax . . . would—. provide much larger income tax cuts.. reduce marginal tax rates . . . at all income levels . . . . increase the tax take from people who continue to avoid or evade income tax.. provide . . . revenue to enable a more generous benefit for wage and salary earners . . . . enable the existing wholesale tax to be abolished . . . 5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question asked was whether this tax was going to cost $1.3 billion, as the document the Treasurer released tends to indicate. We want to know that. We do not wish to hear him quoting from himself or anyone else.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The Treasurer's reply, as you have in fact indicated, is consistent with the question and is entirely relevant.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I read about the benefits that come from indirect tax reform from a book in fact written by a former member for Blaxland, Mr P.J. Keating. And, because I was reading, I table the document from which I was reading. I want to table a copy because it is the only original I have. I think they tried to destroy them down in the Treasury.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Treasurer has tabled the document.13561356Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of comments in recent days about the growth prospects of the Australian economy? What are the implications of these comments?1356Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In reply to the honourable member for Fairfax, can I say to him that I am aware of statements made in recent days about the growth prospects of the Australian economy. I am also, as it happens, aware of some statements made about the growth prospects of the Australian economy in not so recent days. In fact, I follow comments about the growth prospects of the Australian economy, and I follow them particularly closely, as befits the discipline in my office, when they are made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition over the last few months has made some very interesting comments about the growth prospects of the Australian economy. For example, on 22 July 1998, interviewed by Fran Kelly on Radio National, he had this to say:The growth that has come off in Australia over the last couple of years as a result of Costello's Budget, before the budgets before the Asian crisis hit us, has been entirely a product of their misplaced fiscal policy and nothing to do with the rest of the world.That was not bad. Then on 27 September 1998 the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:The problem is this, the Government took a baseball bat to growth, completely unnecessarily.Some baseball bat, I have got to say! Some growth! I think you are thinking of the baseball bat that the voters of Queensland took to your predecessor. But on 18 November 1998 this is what he had to say:A slowing down the pace of growth—yes. We have had that as a result of John Howard taking a baseball bat to the Australian economy immediately after he came into office and that now the Asian region crisis kicks in and that will slow our growth rates.And so the list goes on. The reality is that month after month the Leader of the Opposition was predicting doom and gloom and despair and desperation. Now even the most stubborn critics of the Australian economy would have to acknowledge that we have turned in remarkable growth rates, for which the entire Australian community deserves a great deal of respect and thanks from the government. Can I, on behalf of the government, particularly thank my colleague the Treasurer for his contribution and the work he has done in relation to the stewardship of the economy.I also record my gratitude to the Reserve Bank of Australia for the way in which it has managed the monetary policy of this country over the arrangement that was entered into between the government and the Reserve Bank when we came to office in 1996. In fact, the behaviour of the Reserve Bank of Australia is an object lesson in the conduct of monetary policy to central banks around the world.But, in the face of all this evidence, the Leader of the Opposition is now starting to change his tack. Do you know what his tack now is? Having blamed the coalition for the last 2½ years for any kind of bad sign that might be around, now that there is unambiguous good news, what is the response of the Leader of the Opposition? The response of the Leader of the Opposition is to say that today's good news is really due to what Labor did before we were elected in 1996. That is an unbelievable performance. He is still saying it.This is what he had to say. He said that, while Australia was not completely fireproofed for the Asian currency crisis, Labor could take some credit for helping shield the economy. Labor left us with a $10½ billion deficit. They opposed every attempt we made over the last 2½ years to correct their mess. They predicted gloom and despair. Every time we had good news, they talked the Australian economy down. They ran around and sent their emissary to Kyoto to try to undermine that greenhouse safe arrangement we made. The Leader of the Opposition allowed Senator Bolkus to ride over to UNESCO undermining the representations of the lawfully elected government of this country. That happens every time they get a chance.They want the views of foreigners to destroy Australian jobs. As far as that great uranium mine in the Northern Territory is concerned, there are 1,000 Australian jobs, $12,000 million of export income and untold revenue to the federal Treasury. But what does the Labor Party want? They want that mine closed down. They want to close down Australian jobs. In office they neglected the national interests. In opposition they have not changed. I can only say that it has been a great week for the Australian economy. It has been a great week for the Australian national interest. But it has been a terrible week for the Australian Labor Party. Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker135713571357McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, I ask you a question based on the considerable concern on this side of the House regarding your continuing habit of making comments and assisting ministers as to how they might answer questions. I seem to recall that a few people here raised points of order about that when they were in opposition.Mr Reith interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser has the call and he is experienced enough to know better than to reflect on the chair.5I4Mr McMULLAN—I am not reflecting; I am telling you that we have great concern about this, Mr Speaker. I want to ask you a question about it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am prepared to hear the question of the member for Fraser.5I4Mr McMULLAN—I want to know—and, I have to say, a lot of people on this side want to know as well—whether that habit of yours is going to continue and whether it reflects your view—Mr Reith interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am prepared to hear the member for Fraser.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Does this reflect your view that your role should be that of a commentator rather than a neutral presiding officer?WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that the convention and the practice in this chamber is that members are entitled to ask you questions about the matters within your administration. It is inappropriate for the member for Fraser, or any other member, under the guise of a question, to get up and attack or make inferences about your speakership. That is totally inappropriate. I invite you to make it clear that you will not take questions of that sort again in the future.1357Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I wish to inform the House that I have no intention of changing any of the habits I have exhibited in the chair over the last two weeks.13571357Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—Mr Speaker, my question to you relates to standing order 84, which provides that no member may interrupt another member whilst speaking unless to call attention to a point of order or to raise a matter of privilege or something like that. I have noticed the increasing tendency of members of the opposition, particularly the member for Hotham, to rise during question time while a minister is accurately and effectively answering a question and interrupt the minister in his answer—not even under the guise of raising a point of order.Mr Vaile interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyne will hear this in silence. The member for Indi has not sought the call on the basis of a point of order. If that is offering a commentary, bad luck. That is the state of play. The member for Indi has the call in a question to me.XU5Mr LIEBERMAN—The member for Hotham, particularly, is increasingly coming to his feet whilst a minister is answering a question, not even saying, `I raise a point of order.'10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I presume the member for Indi is coming to a question to me.XU5Mr LIEBERMAN—Yes, sir. He is launching into a denial and rebuttle of the minister's answer. I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether that continuing and increasing poor practice is bad for the House and should not be permitted under standing order 84.1358Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Indi will resume his seat. The Speaker will continue to determine who does and does not get the call.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After your admonition to the opposition about the member for Fraser's question to you, the member for Prospect very clearly called out that you were biased. I ask her to withdraw that statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not hear the member for Prospect. She has said nothing this day that has offended me.13581358Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you in respect of the role that you exhibit in this place as keeper of the Hansard . In Hansard of yesterday at page 939 where the record shows that at approximately 7.48 p.m. there was a division in this House in which the Deputy Speaker was in the chair there seems to have been an omission. There was a check of the tape made because a number of members of the parliament had made comment at the time.The tape has indicated Mr Deputy Speaker said, `I think the noes have it.' The honourable member for Hunter, Mr Fitzgibbon, said, `The ayes have it.' Mr Deputy Speaker said, `No, they don't . . . You don't want the member for Hunter to be able to move his amendment. That is the impact of what you are saying. Well, okay, all right. I will accept what you want. Division required. You're absolutely mad. Ring the bells for four minutes.'My question to you is that if, in fact, those words, which I think many people in this place heard last night, form part of the record, why aren't they in Hansard? Secondly, in picking up a point the member for Fraser asked, is it going to be the intention of the Deputy Speaker to make comment or simply just to adjudicate on the standing orders in this place as well?1358Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—What the member for Cunningham knows better than most people in the chamber is that the Hansard he has in his hand at this stage is a proof Hansard . I will check the record and come back to him. I was not in the chamber obviously at that time. I did notice, however, from where I was seated that the chamber was in some turmoil, so it may have been difficult to get an accurate record of precisely what was happening.13581358O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Mr Speaker, during question time when we observed that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation was reading his response to the question, I asked you to rule on the question of ministers reading. In your response, you observed that the minister could not have been reading because he had only one piece of paper with four lines on it. It was very clear to us on this side of the House that he was on to page 3 by the time we got to this discussion. So I am asking you, Mr Speaker, will you view a tape taken from this side of the House and, if our observation is correct, will you rethink the ruling that you gave?1358Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In response to the member for Burke, I have sat on that side out of the House for longer than I care to remember, as everyone will understand. In that time I have watched a number of ministers read answers to questions. There is no standing order that forbids them from reading answers to questions, so I have no intention of referring to the TV tape record of the proceedings.13591359Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—Mr Speaker, my question to you relates to comments that were made by yourself during question time in respect of a question asked by the honourable member for Lalor. The comments that you made were to the effect of: `So far as I am aware, except in extraordinarily non-traditional roles, young mothers are regarded as part of families.' In the context of a question about the harm a GST will cause to young mothers, don't your comments on your personal experience of women's lives run the risk—UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Withdraw!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my right! The member for Gellibrand is a new member.83KMs ROXON—In the context of a question asked by the member for Lalor about the harm a GST will cause young mothers, don't your comments on your personal experience of women's lives run the risk, perhaps not intentionally, of stigmatising the 467,000 single mothers in this country?1359Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Gellibrand will resume her seat. I have rarely in my time in this place faced as offensive a suggestion. There is nothing in my ruling that in any way reflected unfavourably on any young mothers at any time. I was merely endeavouring to make the point that the traditional family is no longer a husband, a wife and two children.Documents13591359Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—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—Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Report for 1997-98. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 1997-98.Sugar Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Department of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedule for period January to June 1998.International Labour Organisation— International Labour Conference—83rd Session, Geneva, 20 June 1996— Convention 177 Home work. Recommendation 184 Home work. Submission report—Instruments on home work adopted June 1996.Witness Protection Act—Report for 1997-98.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers: Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Report for 1997-98. International Labour Organisation— International Labour Conference—83rd Session, Geneva, 20 June 1996— Convention 177 Home work. Recommendation 184 Home work. Submission report—Instruments on home work adopted June 1996. Witness Protection Act—Report for 1997-98.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Miscellaneous135915:30:001359Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—In conjunction with my friend and colleague the member for Corio, I move:That this House express its sympathy and support for the families of the five volunteer firefighters who died in the fires at Linton.Words of condolence at this time are difficult, and their relevance to the families concerned will probably only come with the fullness of time. Today, no words could relieve the unbearable pain they must be suffering, or relieve their unimaginable sense of loss. Any members of the families of the men and women in this country who are part of our emergency services are always aware of the dangers; however, nothing can prepare them for the type of tragedy which occurred last night. Last night, as the House is aware, five fellow Australians died, serving not only the organisation which they represented, the Country Fire Authority of Victoria, but also the people of Victoria and the people of Australia. The member for Corio will be speaking shortly, and he and I are co-sponsoring this motion.While I am sure that all members of this House are devastated by the events that occurred last night, I would not have thought that anyone would be more so than the member for Corio, in whose electorate these five very brave men resided. I know that the member for Corio will take a very strong leadership role in relation to the grief that his community will suffer. He is a highly respected member of that community. The leadership that he has exhibited in his time as federal member, I am sure, will continue in the weeks and months ahead, and that leadership will obviously be very much required.The role of firefighters in this country, whether they be men or women, and especially of volunteer firefighters, is quite an extraordinary one. These are men and women who respond to a call. In the normal course of events they have no idea where they may be going or the type of danger they may be facing. They do know that their contribution to our community very often will be made in circumstances fraught with danger, but the exact nature of that danger they do not know until they get into a particular situation.Last night's tragedy was one of extraordinary magnitude. These men were putting out a fire when the main fire had, indeed, been all but extinguished by the large number of firefighters who attended. A wind change, I understand, caused this extraordinary tragedy. While the CFA is not able to release the names of those who died so tragically, I am sure that the member for Corio in due course will notify the House of those names so they can be put on the public record.I do not think any words that we can say today, as I said earlier, will relieve that pain. But I would hope that the families of those firefighters will be able to reflect in due course that the federal parliament, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister took the opportunity not only to send their condolences but also to thank those families for the contribution that their husbands, sons, brothers have made. I think it is entirely appropriate that, as a national parliament, we recognise what occurred last night. At the end of the day, we are only servants of our communities in one particular sense. The volunteers in this country, especially those in the emergency services, are there representing everyone in situations that are unpredictable and very often dangerous.Speaking on my own behalf and that of the member for Corio—I understand that the members for Corangamite and Wannon will also be speaking, and I think I speak for all of them when I say—we believed that it was absolutely essential that recognition be given today to those five men. While I think we would have preferred to have done it when we could talk about them as individuals as opposed to a group of five, I am sure honourable members will appreciate that, with a tragedy such as this, identification was not possible at this time. Hence, as I said before, I am sure that the member for Corio will notify the House in due course once the names of those men are released.I think this is probably the most difficult thing that I have done in my nine years in this parliament; I know I speak for the member for Corio when I say that. The member for Corio has the support of all his colleagues. He is in a difficult position while he gets his community back together. As I said before, I have enormous confidence in his ability to do so today. I commend this motion to the House.15:36:001360O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues on the floor of this parliament in extending my sympathies to the families of the five firefighters from Geelong who lost their lives yesterday. This is an extremely difficult time for those families and a difficult time for the Geelong community. To those families, I would like to extend the condolences and the support of every member of the national parliament of Australia. As you sit here representing all other Australians, I am sure that those fami lies will be comforted by the gesture that you have made today in recognising them in their hour of sorrow.These were five ordinary blokes—ordinary working blokes from Geelong, who had a deep sense of duty to their community. That is what motivated them in the great volunteer effort that they performed yesterday and have been performing over a long period of time.We have a deep commitment to volunteerism in our community, and it was typified by the commitment and the sacrifice of the five firefighters who lost their lives. On behalf of the Geelong community, as I stand here on the floor of this House, I extend to the families our condolences and our support as they wind their way through a most difficult period of their lives. These men did not die in a foreign war on foreign soil; they died on Australian soil 100 kilometres from their own homes defending the homes of other Australians. It is a noble pursuit and one I am glad this House has seen fit to acknowledge.I can say only one thing to the families who have suffered this tragedy: we understand your sorrow. But, as night turns to day and day turns to night, the sadness that you are experiencing today will be replaced by the greatest and warmest of memories of the contribution that your loved ones made to the Geelong community.15:39:001361Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Ballarat and effectively seconded by the member for Corio. The firefighting circumstance confronted by so many volunteers and regulars across Australia each and every summer can be horrific. Obviously last night in those circumstances near Linton it became extraordinarily difficult, leading to a tragedy which has caused five deaths and which is affecting families in Geelong, as we just heard in direct terms from the member for Corio.I join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others in supporting the extension of condolence and sympathy to those families and to the community of Geelong. It has in more ways than one had a hellish decade for one reason or another. No community needs this sort of tragedy. It is an added burden, but I am confident in the bounce-back spirit of Geelong that by dint of community spirit and renewal they will seek to work through the huge problems created by these tragic deaths.I take this opportunity also to salute the firefighters who face yet another summer of great difficulty across Australia. Even though circumstances can be that there seems to be an easing of the burden of a particular fire, the change of direction of wind, the equipment circumstance, the conditions and the local terrain can make the challenge very great very quickly and can lead to horrific circumstances arising very quickly. Yet these people put their hand up to volunteer, or as regulars to participate, in carrying out work to protect the community, to protect homes, to protect the lives of other Australians all over the country and, last night, at Linton near Ballarat and Geelong in Victoria.I hope and pray that the families will have strength during this particularly difficult period. I extend my best wishes to the Geelong community and to those directly affected at Linton and elsewhere who had the impact of these most recent fires—and to Lithgow and elsewhere from previous fires. We can never be complacent in this country with regard to the task of firefighting. The late spring has led to a last-minute build-up in fuel around many parts of Australia. Clearly, we are going to have to work through yet another horrific summer. I support the motion before the House, and I salute those who have just given their lives in this circumstance for the wellbeing of other members of our community.15:42:001361Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I join in supporting the motion moved by the member for Ballarat and seconded by the member for Corio. I share the words that have been put forward by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister on what is a very sad day for those families from Geelong. As many members would be aware, Linton is in the electorate of Wannon. Those five volunteers have given their lives at a time, no doubt, when they were young people with a great future ahead of them.As has been pointed out already, fire is one of those things that we have in Australia. Every year we face the same threat. Every year the same danger is confronted by volunteers. One of the great strengths of our society is that there are so many people from so many walks of life who are prepared to volunteer to go out and save the lives and property of other people. I think it is a great Australian trait that people are always willing to continue to volunteer to do that.The fire started yesterday just after 2 o'clock in a pine plantation at Snake Valley. It burnt within a kilometre of the town of Linton. At one stage there were more than 300 firefighters attending it, with 42 fire trucks and five aircraft battling that fire. They managed to keep the damage in property terms to 500 hectares of bushland, but in terms of the loss of life it was quite tragic.In conclusion, I join with other speakers in saying that our thoughts are with those families who have been so tragically affected on this occasion. I too add my thanks to those five individuals. They have indeed made a very great contribution to Australia. It is a tragedy that they have lost their lives in trying to help others, but I am sure that the example they have set will live on for many years.15:44:001362McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I would like to be associated with the motion moved by the member for Ballarat and the member for Corio, in honour of the five volunteers who lost their lives fighting the fire at Linton last night. Those five volunteers lost their lives in the execution of duty in a volunteer capacity. It gives us a grim reminder of the terrible fire of Ash Wednesday in 1983 and of the fire that swept through the region in 1977.Fires are always a possibility in western Victoria. There will be hundreds of other smaller fires where there are life-threatening situations—smaller outbreaks where volunteers will go and fight on behalf of us and other Australians, where their lives will always be threatened at every moment. There is a very slender thread, as members of the House would be aware, for those firefighters, who fight fires in any circumstances. A change of wind, such as brought about the catastrophe last night, a truck failure, a pump failure and rough terrain of rocks or forest can bring people's lives into jeopardy in a matter of seconds. The impact of smoke, where visibility is almost impossible, means that people risk their lives in these circumstances.Western Victoria, where these five volunteers gave their lives, is the most fire-prone zone in the world. Not only have we lost lives in the past but there is always the potential in the future that volunteers may be in life-threatening positions. I acknowledge on this occasion, on behalf of members of the House, the spirit and dedication of all CFA firefighter volunteers who will go forward in the future to fight such fires and protect property for all Australians. Our hearts go out to those families who have suffered such an unexpected and grievous loss at this time.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.Matters of Public Importance1362136210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The damage to families and pensioners which would be caused by the imposition of the GST.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—15:47:001362Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I scarcely feel like making a speech that is part of the normal parliamentary process after we have had all our endeavours put into perspective by the motion which has just been passed. Nevertheless the business of the House must proceed, and therefore I have raised this matter of public importance.There is a strange, almost schizophrenic disjunction between the two propositions of the Treasurer's handling of his tax legislation yesterday and his noting of the fact that, after three years in office, the government has finally caught up with the growth rates that they had inherited. He understands thoroughly, and so does the Prime Minister, that the relative strength of the Australian economy in relation to the region around us is, in very large measure, a product of the changes put in place by the previous government during the 1980s.Take the removal of managed currency: can you imagine the crises that would have afflicted this government and this country over the course of the past 18 months if we had left the arrangements associated with the Australian currency where we had inherited them from John Howard? Can you imagine the crises which this country would have confronted over the past 18 months if we had left the financial sector in the shape it had been in when we inherited it from John Howard? Can you imagine the crisis which would have confronted this country if we had had the narrow base for our exports—in terms both of the location to which they went and their character—that we inherited from the previous government when we came into office? Can you imagine what our growth rates would now be, were that to have been the case?Further, can you imagine what those growth rates would have been if we had managed to sustain, during the course of the first two years of the Howard government, the level of growth that we had had? That growth was reduced entirely as a result of completely unnecessary fiscal manoeuvres by them—fiscal manoeuvres directed not so much at the proper management of the economy as directly at the prejudices of the Liberal party.Given all of that, we find some other oddities in this curious disjunction as the Treasurer boasts of finally achieving the Labor government's level of growth after three years. He also had, in the remarks he made in question time today, words of praise for the Chinese. He might have added to that the Americans. What makes Australia, China and the United States unique among APEC powers? What makes them unique in contemporary Asian circumstances, apart from the fact that they are the only powers enjoying good growth? What makes us unique is that all of us fail to have a goods and services tax.The country that we look to now to pull much of Asia—and itself, at the same time—out of the crisis that it is in is Japan. What did we find yesterday but the leader of a Japanese political party now formally joining the governing coalition of Japan—a leader whose principal argument for the recovery of the Japanese economy is that they should remove the Japanese goods and services tax left at five per cent. He says, `There will never be recovery in Japan until we remove the goods and services tax.' He has just joined the Japanese government. Why should this be so? The simple reason is this: we have enjoyed a comparative advantage in the fact that our service industries are not taxed. Our great growth industry of tourism is not taxed.We have enjoyed enormous growth extending from the fact that small business and, in particular, microbusiness have been great generators of employment in this country over the last decade or so. They have done that, in part at least, because they are not tax agents of the government, and now they will be. Now they will be tax agents of this government, to their very great detriment. The coalition have discovered one or two things. You can have a bit of triumphalism when you first put down your legislation, but that is your best day, because what starts to happen from that point on is the cold realisation of what it means.It was interesting to hear those accountancy firms coming out today saying, `This tax is a bit more complex than we thought. This tax is going to be a little harder to implement than we thought. This tax is in fact not as simple as the New Zealand tax in its administration'—though we would question whether or not that was all that simple—`and this is going to impose considerable burdens upon those in business, particularly those who do not have well catered-for accountancy arrangements. This is going to impose some very substantial burdens upon them.'So the first set of families who are going to be impacted upon by this tax are those hundreds of thousands of families who operate those microbusinesses which make up about 50 per cent of small business in this country, where the accountant of the business is effectively mum or dad who are working at night to put the processes of that business together. Most of them are working in their businesses 14 or 15 hours a day anyway. They have received a new title, an unpaid title, a new role, a new job in Australian society—that is, tax collector of this government. They will receive new impositions in relation to it because one thing that the Treasury of this nation understands is this: a goods and services tax breeds non-compliance.In Europe, for example, at the present time, the black economy, which is largely an economy determined as being black by virtue of its evasion of the goods and services tax, has already reached a level of the size of the entire British gross domestic product. That is what the level of tax evasion is in Europe as far as that is concerned. The British Treasury came out recently and said that, invariably, governments overestimate receipts from a goods and services tax because, over the last 10 years, non-compliance has become rife and it is an extraordinarily difficult tax to enforce. This will now be the experience of small business in this country: firstly, a great imposition and, secondly, an extraordinarily intrusive mechanism of enforcement as the Australian Treasury grapples desperately, as the hired agent now of the states, to ensure that those very inflated dollars in the government's propositions will be met.That is the problem for the families in small business. What about the problems for the rest of our families and our pensioners? Contemplate this: the government boasts that its tax package, on balance, benefits families. That is based on a number of assumptions, which I do not think a commonsense approach to any aspect of family life in this country would accept. When it says that families are compensated more via changes in the income tax system and changes in family benefits—family payments; and when it says they are benefited more and can cope with this; it is based on this assumption, this fundamental calculation, that each kid in your family costs you 30c a week additional as a result of these taxes.In other words, somehow or other a tax which for the first time is going to come on all the fresh food that you buy, a tax which is for the first time going to come on all the services which are essential for you—the services when you fix up your plumbing, when you bring in an electrician, when you bring in somebody to affect your water supply in your house, that you obtain when you send your kids down to the corner to get their hair cut—along with food, clothing, school uniforms and shoes for the kids, will cost a family 30c a week per child. If that calculation is wrong, families in this community are going to have their living standards devastated by this tax which has been put on top of them.This is a lifestyle tax. This is a tax which goes to the heart of every aspiration of every family for their children and themselves. What does a good parent do these days? A good parent these days seeks to engage their young folk in sporting and cultural endeavours in their community. They do it for many reasons—sometimes it is disciplinary, sometimes it goes with that dreadful phrase of `keeping them off the streets' and sometimes it goes with the concern that they have for their educational advance, for their physical attainment. For the first time in their lives, if they happen to be administering those affairs, they will experience the obligation of becoming a tax collector for the government and, whether or not they are responsible for the administration of those clubs and those other cultural activities, having to pay a goods and services tax on it. The lifestyle of parents is going to change dramatically.The Treasurer is very proud when he gets up and says that there are anomalies in the wholesale sales tax—a tax which, whatever its faults, is actually universally collected; a tax which nobody seeks to avoid—but he is very proud when he gets up and says, `There are no anomalies in that.' Then, as we sit here in this place and stand to ask him questions on precisely the anomalies that he is creating, all he does is brush it off.So, if you happen to be amongst the small group of families who send their kids to greater public schools—which provide truly excellent education for the people in this country who can afford it—you will find that, on the extra tuition that you get when you need remedial attention, on the sporting endeavours that are associated with those schools which can afford to run them effectively in-house, when you go and get your music lessons which you can get off the back of those school operations, when you get the musical instruments and the other things that you can borrow from those operations, there will be no tax.On the other hand, if you happen to be a parent in the majority of Australian families and you seek private tuition, as many do, particularly in those run-ups to the crucial exams when there might be a weakness in mathematics or science or English or whatever, you are taxed. When you seek, because your school cannot provide it, the opportunity for music lessons out of school, you are taxed. When you seek an arrangement that is associated with some sporting endeavour out there because the school does not run after-hour tennis clinics or cricket clinics or whatever, you are taxed. This is a lifestyle changing tax when you look at those dimensions of it.It is no wonder that there is still a growing dissent out there, a growing recognition and understanding that what we all really mean by education, what we are all concerned about in relation to education, is not exempt in the way the government has attempted to portray it, but a raft of anomalies have been created. If you fall on either side of the anomaly, you will find it most likely that if you have the least capacity to afford it you will fall on the side that is paying. If you have the most capacity to afford it, you will fall on the side that benefits most from the tax cuts. This is a scandalous situation for the ordinary Australian family.Then we come to the issue of health. No claim of a government's has been more bogus than the claim that they have exempted health from this tax. The fact is that the vast bulk of health products that parents acquire for themselves, currently totally untaxed, not caught up with the wholesale sales tax arrangements, will now for the first time be taxed in the pharmacies and sometimes in the supermarkets where these products are acquired. By a huge proportion, the bulk of those products which are now being acquired by parents are acquired not on prescription.Parents will find that healthy living, healthy eating and healthy operations for their families are all now going to attract taxes for the very first time. And the government assumes that these new taxes are going to cost families 30c a week for every child in those families! The government assumes that the coverage which just meets it is going to be adequate to deal with the problems that Australian families confront. This government is going to find its triumphalism very much misplaced when the people of Australia have a chance to understand the impact of this tax on family life. (Time expired)16:03:001365Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I can understand that the Leader of the Opposition would want to extend his time because he hasn't said anything in the first 15 minutes. It was a very lacklustre, disappointing performance from the Leader of the Opposition before a tired and demoralised backbench. He failed to fire up an even more lacklustre frontbench, most of whom are on the record in the past as being supporters of a GST.The Leader of the Opposition scurries out of the House, not anxious to have his own record in this area exposed. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition, a former supporter of the goods and services tax model, along with many of those who sit alongside him, are embarrassed now that they have to come into this place and try to present a different view.The opposition leader's empty rhetoric is an attempt to hide some of his personal embarrassment at the outstanding economic performance of this government—the fact that this government has delivered real economic growth to Australia in spite of the difficult environment that surrounds us and the fact that this government has provided real taxation relief, real reductions in interest rates, a real chance for Australian industry through better industrial relations reform and the like to deliver a much better Australia for us all to live in and enjoy. The opposition exposes its own policy vacuum with a whole pile of lacklustre, empty rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition.It is perhaps extraordinary that Australia's economy has done so well considering the way in which it has been burdened by an old-fashioned taxation system. When you look around at the other countries that we share a wholesale sales tax with, countries like Botswana, Swaziland, the Solomon Islands and Ghana, they are not exactly the leading economies that one would imagine any progressive Australian political party would want to set up as models for a tax system for Australia. Of course, when I talk about progressive political parties one has to always exclude the ALP, which has very little in its bones that could be described as progressive. The coalition is proposing a radical reform of our tax system, something that will help provide the sort of incentive that Australian business needs to grow but also provide the sort of support Australian families need to build a better future for themselves and the children of this country.Perhaps one of the great features of the coalition's new tax system is the way it lifts the burden of taxation from productive industry. It takes, for instance, $4½ billion off the cost of producing exports in Australia. Labor seems happy to impose these penalties upon those who earn the real wealth of our nation, those people who sell to other parts of the world the products of our farms, our factories, our mines and our educational institutions. These people ought to be encouraged because they produce the wealth that delivers the standard of living that all Australians want for our country. Yet Labor is happy to continuously impose a heavy burden of taxation on these people so they are taxed on these goods before they go overseas.One of the remarkable things about the way we treat the exports of Australia is that we penalise them, under Labor's old tax system, to the tune of about $4½ billion by way of indirect taxes, but as soon as they go overseas, in almost every market in the world that they enter, the first thing that happens is that a goods and services tax is imposed upon them. So they get taxed twice—two burdens, two levels of indirect tax.On the other hand, goods coming into Australia come produced without the burden of indirect taxes in their own country, but when they get here, unless there is a tariff, duty or a wholesale sales tax imposed upon them, they are largely let in duty free. So we have a double penalty on Australian industry: we penalise their exports and we allow the imports in at an advantage.These are the sorts of tax arrangements that ought to be swept aside by any progressive country and by any progressive party. That is why this government is putting before the parliament at the present time a reform of the tax system which will give our country a new chance, give our exporters a new chance, give our industry a new chance and give our families and the people of Australia a real chance.One remarkable feature of this tax package, which is good for industry, good for business and good for exporters, is that it is also good for families. It is good for Australians. The income tax cuts that are being offered will benefit all families. The welfare benefit increases that are proposed will benefit all people receiving benefits. So there will be a great deal of confidence when the government says that every Australian will be better off under these new arrangements—every Australian who is paying their fair share of tax now will be better off under these new arrangements. This system ought to be warmly welcomed by all in this House, just as it was by the people of Australia at the recent election.I will now look at some of the benefits that are included in the new tax system. There are income tax cuts by way of an increased tax-free threshold from $5,400 to $6,000 and significant cuts in all marginal rates except the top rate. So all Australian income tax payers will get a tax cut. A significant number of people will no longer pay tax because of the rise in the income tax-free threshold. In addition to that, all of the tax rates are re duced, except the top rate—and you have to be earning $75,000 to pay any tax at that rate.The remarkable feature of these new tax scales for Australian families is that, under the new arrangements, 81 per cent of Australians will not pay more than 30c in the dollar on any of the income that they earn. That is great for Australian families because Australian families will fall into the lower tax paying categories. They will all get significant tax cuts. All will be paying less tax than they have ever paid previously.The other tremendous benefit of these new tax scales is that people will be able to earn extra money—they will be able to spend a little bit of extra time in their work earning a bit of extra overtime—without moving into a punitive new tax bracket. They will be able to keep more of the extra income that they earn. That provides an important incentive to earn more, to be more productive and to do the sorts of things that will help improve the quality of life of their family and their community.So the cutting of the income tax rates benefits all families. In addition to that, families with dependent children will also get a new range of additional benefits. This government provided $1 billion worth of tax cuts for families at the beginning of last year. Now that $1 billion worth of tax cuts will be doubled—double the benefits for families and double the incentives and rewards for Australian families who earn some extra dollars to assist them with the cost of raising a family. We will be doubling the $1,000 tax-free threshold for each dependent child under the family tax initiative to $2,000—that is equivalent to $140 per year per child and a 70 per cent increase in assistance. We are doubling the extra $2,500 tax-free threshold for one-income families with a dependent child under the age of five to $5,000. That is equivalent to $350 per year per family, a 70 per cent increase in assistance—a dramatic improvement in the circumstances of families.In addition, we are increasing the maximum assistance for child care for lower income families by $7.50 a week. We are removing some of the poverty traps in the current tax system that were left for us by Labor. These circumstances include where the breadwinner is better off refusing a pay rise because the subsequent increased taxes, loss of social security benefits and the like can mean a lower take-home pay. That is the sort of system that Labor is arguing we should retain. That is what we are sweeping aside with these new tax reform arrangements.One significant measure we are taking to remove these poverty traps is increasing the level of income at which family allowance begins to be income tested from $24,350 to $28,200 and easing the withdrawal rate from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. So families will get more family allowance and some families will get assistance where currently they get none. We will also be simplifying the complicated 12 separate family assistance payments into three payments and having them delivered through a single families office. Two of them will be tax related measures and the third a child-care benefit linked through Centrelink. These increased benefits will certainly help families.Opposition members have from time to time shed crocodile tears expressing concern about the plight of the elderly, those on pensions and those with disabilities. This package is good news for all people receiving pensions and benefits because it contains two rock-solid guarantees from the government—rock-solid guarantees which are reflected in the legislation that has been brought into this House. The first is that up-front on 1 July pensions and benefits will be increased by four per cent. That is above the anticipated CPI increase as a result of the new tax system.There will be a four per cent up-front increase in pensions. However, if perchance the government has its estimates wrong and the increase in the CPI is greater than Treasury and all the experts predict, there is a second guarantee—namely, that pensions and benefits will be kept at 1.5 per cent above the actual CPI rise associated with the new tax system. So pensioners and welfare beneficiaries can be absolutely assured about this double guarantee coming from the government. Again, let me contrast this guarantee from the coalition of a real increase in pensions and benefits that we took to the last election with what Labor offered. It is the party that on many occasions in government over 13 years ruthlessly increased taxes. On many occasions, it increased indirect taxes. Never did it offer any up-front compensation; there were never any compensation packages from Labor. The pensioners, the aged and the infirm all had to bear the cost of these increases in taxes.In the recent election campaign, the story was exactly the same. There was no promise of pension rises from Labor. The only parties in the election campaign that offered real, guaranteed improvements in the standard of living for pensioners and welfare beneficiaries were the Liberal and National parties. We guaranteed a real pension increase. Families are better off under this new taxation package. So are those receiving welfare benefits, particularly the aged.For the aged and retired, there is also the aged person saving bonus and the self-funded retiree supplementary bonus, which can offer benefits of up to $3,000 for people who are above retirement age or, in some instances, are dependent upon their own income for their day-to-day survival. A major reform that will benefit many self-funded retirees or those who live on a part pension is an easing of the taper in the pension test for the age pension. It will mean that thousands of Australians will become eligible for a pension for the first time and that all part-pensioners will receive more support. There will also be an increase in the pensioner tax-free rebate and low income aged persons rebate. They will be able to earn additional income without losing any of their benefits.Another major measure that will benefit families in Australia—it is being proposed by the coalition and resisted by Labor—is the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance. If ever there were a group in the Australian society that needed this 30 per cent rebate it is families and the aged. They are the ones who want the private health cover. They have been struggling and doing without so that they can maintain their premiums.I would have thought that all these proposals would be unambiguously great news for families. However, Labor opposes them. Labor opposes these reforms because it has no vision for families. It has no concern about the need to improve their living standards; it has no desire to help Australian families in the important national task of raising the future generation and ensuring that it has a great start in life. This matter of public importance fails because of Labor's poor record in the past, its lack of policies for the future and its lack of concern for Australian families and those receiving benefits.16:18:001368Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—We have just heard from the Minister for Community Services some words that really have my sense of humour going. Captain Courageous Costello is leading us all on the boat to Utopia. For heaven's sake, what do you expect the community to think when everything, by your words, is just so absolutely perfect? You say, `Trust us, and we'll deliver you a world full of roses and butterflies.' That is not the reality. I can remember how in my childhood my dear old mum used to give me cod liver oil or castor oil and say to me, `C'mon Annette, this is good for you.' It is not good enough to say, `It's good for you.' You really have to get down to the facts.This GST hits so many Australian families at a time when they are least able to pay higher prices on the basic necessities of life. Families spend more on food, clothing and housing than other groups in our community. Families with children spend up to 60 per cent of their income on food, clothing and housing. Couples without children spend about 30 per cent on those same items.When children are very young, families are often relying on one income and have less ability to pay the higher costs that will be inevitably associated with a GST. The coalition's tax package estimates that the GST will add a measly little 30c per week to the cost of living for a family with one child and with an income between $30,000 and $65,000, yet it has the gall to stand here today and try to convince us and others that the compensation packages it talks about so bravely are adequate.As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier in this debate today, it is 30c per week, and there is a list of items that that needs to cover. That 30c per week is supposed to cover all those extra costs that a GST will place on the raising of children. That 30c per week is to cover the extra costs of food, nappies, clothing, shoes, sporting activities, videos, haircuts, books, school uniforms and music lessons and so on. The amount is already well over 30c when I tally it up in my head. Does anyone really believe that 30c per week will be enough to cover the additional costs of the GST on raising a child?The coalition's tax package underestimates that GST impact on raising children. It is not telling families the full story about how much extra a GST will cost them. I am not going to accuse it of perhaps telling a mistruth, but I am certainly going to say that it is not telling the full story.Around 70 per cent of people over 65 rely on either a full or part age pension. Many of the remaining 30 per cent of non-pensioners are on low incomes compared with the rest of the community. These people are very sensitive to policy changes that affect their finances. They ask that the compensation for a GST be fair and adequate. I will quote briefly from a paper put together by the Council on the Ageing—an initial reaction it made in relation to the GST. This comment actually still stands very strongly:One of COTA's concerns is that little attention has been paid in the tax package to government expenditure in important social programs and infrastructure. On the contrary, the package is based on the vast expenditure cuts which are included in forward estimates into the next century.We are really talking about two edges of this sword that are going to affect those older people in our community. For those in receipt of a full age pension, the bottom line is that their pension should be increased to adequately cover the price effect of the GST. We also have to be especially mindful that the compensation is adequate for those people living in rural and remote areas. Food, transport, household services, repairs and energy are often far more expensive in those rural and remote areas. The Council on the Ageing, COTA, has serious concerns about the adequacy of the compensation package for older people on fixed incomes. The government has assumed a population wide consumer price index effect of 1.9 per cent from the GST, but COTA believes that this average CPI measure does not reflect the expenditure patterns of older people. Older people tend to spend more on food, health related items, and electricity and gas as a proportion of their income than the rest of us in the community.Food and energy, as we know, are so far still going to be subject to the GST. Older people on low incomes spend around 28 per cent of their income on food compared with wage and salary earners spending around 18 per cent. The government's package, unfortunately, provides for only a four per cent increase in the maximum rate of age pension and all other social security payments. The coalition's pension increases are simply not enough to compensate the older people in our community for the cost of this GST.I want to talk for a couple of moments about two specific areas about which I have special concern when we talk about those older members of our community. One of them is taxi fares. Many older people in their later years rely on taxis to get around. In some cases, when they become more frail, it is their only way of getting around in a secure and safe fashion. In some states and territories they have access to taxi vouchers. What is really worrying me is to what level will those voucher systems be eroded and what compensation packages have been put together—if any—to make sure that the true value of those voucher systems actually holds water as far as older people are concerned.The other area which I am really very worried about is public housing and the level of rent that will be paid by those who receive pensions and who happen to be tenants of public housing. This matter was discussed in question time earlier this week and was also discussed in an MPI earlier this week, but I think we will need to continue to bring it up until those opposite take us seriously on this issue. We all know that state and territory housing authorities in general terms charge 25 per cent of income for pensioners for their rent, and the rest is rebated or is concessional rent by the state or territory authority concerned. Every time the pensioner's income goes up through that pension, they automatically lose a part of that to rent. In answer to a question earlier this week, the Prime Minister confessed that there was no plan—as far as I can ascertain from his answer—to address this particular instance. So, if those pensioners get this highly heralded four per cent increase as a compensation for the GST, a portion of it is going to immediately walk out of their wallets and into the bank accounts of state and territory housing authorities. I would like to take this opportunity to very strongly urge the federal government to take a bit of leadership on this: to go to COAG or to some other organisation between all of the governments and see what they can do about coming to some legislative arrangement where that will not happen, where the component of support received by the pensioners from the state and territory housing authorities stays as it is—because, believe you me, these pensioners are going to have enough trouble as it is to survive financially on this miserly four per cent, let alone having some of it walk right across the board and go straight off to the state and territory housing authorities. I cannot urge strongly enough the suggestion that COAG or some other mechanism ought to be used to examine it very carefully.The saddest thing that I have heard in this place today, which affects families in every respect—at birth and at death—was the Treasurer saying that, unless you do burials, cremations or naming services in a religious fashion, you are going to pay GST. I think this is pathetic. It is discriminatory. It is the most appalling piece of policy admission that I have heard from the government to date.I will be warning my constituents out there quick smart that, if they plan to die and they are going to be buried or cremated, they had better tell their families to bring in a priest or a minister straight away, otherwise they are going to incur a GST. If they have a baby and they decide not to christen it but to have a naming service, then they had better change their mind because they are going to incur a GST. This is manic. I do not understand the logic behind it, and I do not understand how a government can proudly prance around in this chamber touting the fairness to families and pensioners when we use that as an example. It is an absolute outrage. I say in finishing that there is no way at all that any sane person in this country is going to understand any equity or fairness in this proposal from the government. It is outrageous. It is an assault on the financial independence of pensioners, of families and of those less well-off. It is an unfair and inappropriate move of the tax burden onto those who cannot afford to pay it. I do not care how often the Treasurer arrogantly comes into this chamber and pretends that he is that Captain Courageous leading us all onto the boat to Utopia. He is leading us to the boat of financial destruction on the part of our families and pensioners. (Time expired)16:28:001370Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—About five minutes through the Leader of the Opposition's speech, I had to get the Notice Paper and read what the MPI was, because I thought perhaps I had prepared myself for the wrong debate. For the first five minutes, the Leader of the Opposition took a tour around the world: we had economic crisis, we had currency issues, we had financial sectors, we had APEC. Indeed, it seemed like a five-minute apologia for something that had twigged him during question time rather than addressing the terms of the matter of public importance. He took seven minutes to get to families and, given my high regard for the Leader of the Opposition, I must say that I do not think I heard him mention pensioners very often at all during his speech.5K6ELLISMs Ellis—I did. We're a team.HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—You are a team. You are the pensioner part. From the terms of the MPI, which I will endeavour to address, one would assume that the government was just introducing a goods and services tax—nothing more, nothing less. That has been the whole tenor of the assault that the Labor Party has attempted to mount on the government's platform. Far from being just a GST, what is actually being proposed is a complete overhaul of Australia's outdated, inefficient and unfair tax system. The Labor Party wants to overlook this fact for what I think are populist political reasons but also because it does not have the courage itself to undertake such reforms, even though it once knew, and possibly still in its heart of hearts knows, that it is necessary.Yesterday the Treasurer introduced into this House, amongst a number of other bills, A New Tax System (End of Sales Tax) Bill 1998 . I understand that it is a bill the Labor Party will probably vote against. This bill will abolish Australia's wholesale sales tax system and at one step remove taxes of 12 per cent, 22 per cent, 32 per cent and 45 per cent on goods which are in the WST basket.The government's tax reform plan will also see the abolition of a number of financial institution duties, bank account debits taxes, a range of stamp duties, and also Bob Carr's bed tax. It will end once and for all the ridiculous system where businesses pay tax on their business inputs, only to charge more tax on their business outputs.The fact is that the government is not introducing a GST by itself. It is not just stacking it on top of the existing indirect tax system, nor is it applying the GST to everything—which is a phrase that flutters in and out of the Labor Party lexicon. A whole range of items are GST-free: health and medical services, pharmaceuticals, education, age care, child care, charitable activities and religious services. In many of these sectors the combination of the abolition of wholesale sales tax and the non-application of the GST will mean price reductions.The bottom line on all this is that the Treasury's estimate of the overall impact on prices of abolishing the wholesale sales tax, the range of other indirect taxes and imposing a 10 per cent goods and services tax is a 1.9 per cent price increase. That was the Treasury estimate. But not to be daunted, Labor denied this estimate. During the election campaign, Labor took out press advertisements saying that the impact would be five times as much as the Treasury estimated. And Labor tried to use the household expenditure survey model of the price impact, despite the fact that Labor itself back in 1992 had said that the household expenditure survey was not a reliable way of costing tax changes. John Dawkins, the then Treasurer, described the survey as `nothing more than statistical nonsense'.But it is sometimes worth indulging the Labor Party's statistical nonsense, and the Treasurer has provided information on the HES estimates. Much to the distress and chagrin of the Labor Party, this showed that the effect on the cost of living across 11 different household groups at five different income levels varied between 1.3 per cent and 2.5 per cent, with an average of 1.8 per cent. On the basis of the HES, the impact was less on average than Treasury had estimated. For all that the Labor Party might rant and rave about 10 per cent on everything and impacts of five times what Treasury has estimated, their claims are simply unfounded.Indirect tax reform is only one part of the comprehensive tax package and a compensation package which will provide significant benefits to all Australians, including families and pensioners. I would just like to address the compensation measures for pensioners. The fact is that even if the worst-case numbers in the HES are accepted, the compensation package still leaves pensioners ahead.Compensation measures for lower income earners, including pensioners and self-funded retirees, include: the four per cent up-front increase in income support, comprising a 2.5 per cent up-front compensation in advance for the effect of the GST and other elements of the package, plus a 1.5 per cent real increase; a one-off savings bonus of up to $1,000 dollars for pensioners; more generous free areas and thresholds; the reduction of the pension income taper test; and generous increases in assistance for low income families. The fact is that after the four per cent increase it is likely that the single rate of pension will actually exceed 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings at July 2000.I think it is also worth noting that the services provided to residents of nursing homes, hostels and hospices will be GST-free. Accommodation, medicines, dressings and meals provided to residents in the course of their care will also be GST-free. And community care services provided to the elderly in their own homes will also be GST-free.Families will benefit substantially through the tax reform package through a reduction in the marginal tax rates, an increase in the tax-free threshold from $5,400 to $6,000. Every family under a $50,000 income will have a top marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent, and 81 per cent of all taxpayers in Australia will have a top marginal rate of no more than 30 per cent. The family tax initiative will be doubled, with an increase in the tax-free threshold to $13,000 for families with children under the age of five. I could go on.The bottom line of all this is that the Labor Party's claims of damage to pensioners and families are invalid, fraudulent, incorrect and a scare campaign. But if one really wants to talk seriously about the damage done to pensioners and families, the damage related to a GST, one has to look at Labor's past. At the 1993 election, the Labor Party campaigned on the basis of opposing a GST, promising a raft of tax cuts and not to put up taxes. Once the election was over, with the GST rejected and Labor returned on the basis of no GST, Labor went on to impose massive, uncompensated revenue measures—uncompensated tax increases—on all Australians. They were tax increases that were in breach of their election commitments, that hurt Australia's families and that hurt pensioners perhaps most of all. Now, on the basis of totally fraudulent claims about the price impact of a GST, on the basis of ignoring the compensation measures and the tax cuts, Labor is complaining about a tax package that will actually benefit pensioners and families.If we really want to talk about the damage to Australia's families and pensioners, we should actually be focusing not on a whirlwind trip around the international economy, as the Leader of the Opposition did, but on Labor's attempt to deny them the coalition's 30 per cent health care rebate. This will benefit pensioners and families, even if they do not have private health insurance, by reducing the pressure on public hospitals. It will directly benefit 700,000 Australians with private health insurance who have incomes of less than $20,000 a year. It will benefit well over one million families that have private health insurance.When Labor show concern about low income earners, they should remember that they were the people who were punished by Labor's attack on private health insurance. The bottom line is that Labor's attack on the tax reform package is basically one designed to prevent a government keeping its commitment and meeting its mandate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills1372The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Resolution of Complaints) Bill 1998 Bills1372s1771372Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.1372Bill (on motion by Mrs Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1372r6121372Debate resumed.16:40:001372Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Before question time interrupted debate on the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 , I was mentioning some of the difficulties that the federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs had in negotiating the latest agreement on funding for ANTA and for TAFE colleges around the country. Perhaps this might be a convenient time to move the second reading amendment that is being circulated in the chamber now. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that Australia's future economic and social prosperity depends on a well resourced, quality education and training system; and(2) condemns the Government for:(a) refusing to provide growth funds to support Australia's vocational education and training needs;(b) failing to meet its commitment to `enhance the role of TAFE' and `reinvigorate the TAFE system'; and(c) imposing a GST which will make education and training more expensive and less accessible".Labor established the Australian National Training Authority structure in 1992 to develop and support a national system of vocational education and training which would meet Australia's needs into the next century. The then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, described the establishment of ANTA as a `root and branch change' to Australia's vocational education and training system. He said that the new agreement was `truly historic' and `would change the nature of vocational education in Australia for ever'.I note that the present minister had a few comments to make at the time that the Keating government was introducing its reforms in vocational education and training. In the Australian of 7 October 1992, Dr Kemp, the member for Goldstein, is reported as having opposed the Labor government's `centralist and bureaucratic plans'. He apparently described the plan for a national competency based training scheme as `highly theoretical'. He is quoted as saying that the process would `create an enormous amount of paperwork and powerful pressures toward uniformity without any coherent planning framework'.The minister for education has since changed his views. In his second reading speech to this bill, the minister praises the use of nationally linked competency standards developed through training packages and speaks glowingly of `a truly national training system'. We are very pleased that the minister for education has seen the light at last on this issue, if not on many others.The ANTA agreement was to be reviewed by the end of 1995. The review, conducted by Rae Taylor, found that the Commonwealth growth funding of $100 million in 1992 and subsequent annual increases of $70 million between 1993 and 1996 contributed to recurrent funding growth in real terms of around 20 per cent. The review found that activity increased significantly over that period, productivity improved and progress towards the Finn targets was on track but needed continued improvement and participation in order for the targets to be met by 2001.Labor's ANTA agreement was a document of vision and purpose, of leadership by the Commonwealth and joint action by all parties. The states and territories signed up to what was effectively an agreement which would operate indefinitely with a commitment of continuing federal growth funding. But, under the new rules set by the Howard government, the states and territories would not consent to a five-year period for the operation of the new agreement, only three. They clearly viewed this new arrangement with something less than thorough enthusiasm. This is not surprising, given the tens of thousands of people who missed out on a TAFE place last year. All responsibility for future growth in places now rests on the shoulders of the states and territories. Growth through efficiencies means larger class sizes and fewer course offerings. It means closed and amalgamated TAFE colleges. It means a more difficult task for TAFE in seeking to fulfil its role as a major provider of adult and community education as well as entry level training.It is interesting to note that the new National Strategy for Vocational Education and Training, which was agreed to at the ministerial council on 22 May this year, covers a five-year period, yet the ANTA agreement—the formal, legal framework to deliver the strategy—is only for three years. This simply highlights the point that we have been making about the refusal of the states to sign up for five years of coalition conditions—five years of no commitment from the federal government to continuing growth in its funding contribution.Another significant discrepancy between the agreement and the new national strategy relates to industry's contribution to the cost of training. While the agreement lists as one of its key objectives the need to increase investment in training by industry, the ANTA ministerial council specifically decided to change the wording of this objective in terms of the national strategy so that it became `to increase investment in training'. This can only be read to mean that industry has been absolved of its former responsibility to increase its own investment in training—as clearly spelt out in the previous wording.TAFE graduates have a high level of labour force participation—71 per cent—which demonstrates their value to industry and the appropriateness of their skills. The Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee reviewed the ANTA agreement and reported in November 1995. One of that committee's recommendations was that the ANTA agreement specify what is meant by the term `industry' and that the agreement make more explicit what was expected of industry with respect to its responsibilities for shaping and contributing to the maintenance of the national training effort.This has not happened. In fact, the new agreement, unlike its predecessor, does not mention industry's role. Some industries are performing particularly well and delivering training to their employees. I note that my colleague the shadow minister for training has been involved in the hospitality industry for many years and has been involved at various critical stages in making sure—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Not savouring the product.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—No, not consuming the froth and bubble of the industry but in making sure that there are strong training operations in place at a number of the larger employers, particularly in the hotel and hospitality industry. According to the most recent survey, mining tops the list of industries with high average training hours, with communication, education, personnel and other services also delivering high levels of staff training. A media release from the minister for education of 8 June last year said:It is vital that Australia expands and improves vocational education if we are to increase our competitiveness.Yet the new vocational education and training agreement, which sets the direction for the three years to the year 2000, requires growth to be squeezed out of the systems which are already not meeting demand for places. It allows the Commonwealth to turn a blind eye to its national responsibilities and a deaf ear to the needs of local communities. It sets in concrete the narrow view of education and training held by the coalition which is so damaging to Australia's interests.In August this year the chairman of both Lend Lease and ANTA, Stuart Hornery, told ANTA's annual conference that Australia needed to lift its game in vocational education and training. Mr Hornery said that Australia ranks 16th amongst OECD nations in terms of the percentage of people aged between 25 and 64 with a post-school qualification. What Australia needs is some leadership and substance at the national level, not the smoke and mirrors we continually get from the current minister for education.For example, the minister originally claimed that his new agreement would deliver 100,000 new places each year—that is, half a million new places over the five years. What we have seen in practice falls far short of that half a million target. In 1998 there were only 55,000 more places than in 1997, all of them funded by the states. In 1999, however, the expected growth figure is only 15,000—not 100,000, as the minister promised; not 55,000 but 15,000: only 15 per cent of the original inflated claims of the minister for education.We are entitled to ask how the minister defines a place. To talk of places in a TAFE college is to conjure up visions of students participating in full-time courses, or full-time equivalents, similar to the way we discuss places in higher education. In higher educational comparisons are made using equivalent full-time student units, or EFTSUs, but there is no consistency in vocational education and training.True to form, if there is a way for this minister for education to twist the statistics and use bodgie figures, he will do it. When the minister for education talks about places, he means enrolments. In 1997 about half of all students spent 100 hours or less in training. Sixty-three per cent of students undertook training of less than 200 hours duration. So, under the minister's definition, a place could mean anything—from an enrolment in a year-long course to one lasting 36 hours.When we make comparisons of other measures of VET performance, we get a better idea about the constraints being imposed by the Commonwealth's refusal to assist with growth funds. For example, the most recent ANTA annual national report shows participation in vocational education and training by 15- to 64-year-olds to be virtually unchanged over the last three years—that is, 9.4 per cent in 1995 and 9.5 per cent in both 1996 and 1997.As part of the former Labor government's reshaping of vocational education and training, it set targets for participation in VET—the Finn targets. One of these aimed at ensuring that, by 2001, 95 per cent of 19-year-olds would be participating in, or would have completed, some formally recognised post-school qualification. Yet, according to ANTA, if current trends continue, that target is at risk.Another meaningful measure which the minister for education could have used but has chosen not to is the annual hours curriculum, or contact hours. The November 1997 publication Directions and resource allocations 1998 projected an increase in annual hours curriculum of only 2,600 hours, or just one per cent, between 1997 and 1998.In the launch of the coalition's 1996 election policy, the member for Bennelong—the current Prime Minister—promised an enhanced role for TAFE as the major provider of technical and vocational education. He also said that his government would `reinvigorate our TAFE system'. But the effect of his government's policies have been just the opposite. Thanks to the Howard government's cost cutting, two of Victoria's largest TAFE institutes are apparently close to insolvency. The Age reported this week that internal documents from the Kangan-Batman TAFE show that the institute will finish 1998 with a cash balance of only $600,000, which would cover less than five days operating costs.The paper also quoted a budget briefing prepared for the Northern Institute of TAFE which said that the $1.8 billion funding cut being imposed would mean that the college cannot continue to operate for long in its current form. Yesterday's Australian quotes the Director of the Northern Institute as saying that `Victorian TAFE is drastically underfunded, to the point where insolvency will be unavoidable if the situation continues'. The paper also quotes another Victorian TAFE director as saying that the system is `in dire trouble'.Victoria, of course, is the current minister for education's `model' state—the benchmark state whose so-called `efficiencies' all the other states and territories are required to emulate.Mrs Stone interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage at the table interjects, supporting the serious cutbacks that have been made to TAFE education in her own state of Victoria. To the current minister for education, `efficiencies' are interchangeable with lower costs—the lower the costs the better, according to his philosophy. The very things that are pushing the Victorian TAFE system into `dire trouble' are regarded as virtues by the Howard government. Never mind quality, never mind access—just cut budgets to the bone and that will be regarded as highly `efficient'.Yet the July 1998 report Today's training, tomorrow's skills, by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, pointed out that TAFE has roles other than just low cost training delivery. The report in fact devoted an entire chapter to `TAFE's special roles'. I can do no better than quote from this section of the report, which speaks of the importance of TAFE to regional Australia. The report said:The existence of a vibrant TAFE sector in regional Australia is to be valued by all Australians. TAFE provides a range of services in rural communities which simply would not be readily available were commercial considerations to be the main priority . . . TAFE plays an important role in the education, training and general life of regional communities. In these areas, a TAFE institute is more than just an educational institution. It provides a focal point for current technologies, philosophies and skills, and can contribute significantly to a region's social and economic growth.The committee's report canvassed the problems facing TAFE through the rapid expansion of competitive tendering for public VET funding, which has almost doubled in terms of expenditure since 1996. Under this minister for education's user choice, TAFE must compete with private providers on a playing field that is far from level.The impediments to TAFE competing on an equal basis with private vocational education providers outweigh what some regard as the advantage it holds through possession of significant infrastructure. Such infrastructure is not essential to many types of training, and the growth of private provision—from two per cent to six per cent between 1996-97 alone—shows that non-government providers are competing more than successfully with TAFE for students. The question we need to ask is: are they competing too successfully? Certainly, the Today's training, tomorrow's skills report pointed out the need for TAFE to be adequately funded to fulfil all its roles, including second chance education, employment training and education for people with disabilities.The Howard government's withdrawal of growth funding, cuts to vocational education and its focus on efficiencies demonstrates its lack of interest in any community service obligations which the rest of Australia, especially regional communities, might expect of TAFE. In 1996, the coalition promised to `continue to support a strong and effective TAFE sector' and to `ensure that the network of TAFE institutions, especially in rural areas and regional centres, will not be undermined and that TAFE will continue its traditional role as a provider of further education and second chance educational opportunity, particularly for disadvantaged groups'.This turned out to be another non-core promise. The Howard government's policy is inflicting major damage on TAFE, just as it is on many other areas and sectors of education and training. It will be damage for which future generations of Australians will pay a heavy price.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the motion seconded?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:57:001376Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 was introduced to the House on 12 November. It was originally introduced into the House on 24 June and lapsed when the election was called. The bill's aim is to amend the act to reflect the terms of the revised ANTA agreement and ensure that ANTA is not liable for state or territory taxes—this will apply retrospectively from 21 December 1992—and to amend the act to provide Commonwealth funding to ANTA for 1998 and 1999 allocations.The Australian National Training Authority was established by a Commonwealth-state-territory agreement in 1992 to link a Commonwealth willing to assume full financial control of vocational education and training with states who still wished to retain direction of VET at the grassroots. This was against the background of Australia's relatively poor investment in vocational education and training and heavy focus on inflexible and traditional apprenticeships and concerns expressed by industry about the vocational education and training system. ANTA was established to maintain these joint resources, for while the states and territories continue to control VET policy they do so within the constraints of a ministerial council. ANTA therefore allocate funding on the basis of guidelines received from the ministerial council.The opposition spokesman canvassed the new agreement's development. Negotiations on the agreement spanned 1997 with consensus finally reached in April 1998, when a three-year funding agreement was devised. This bill will make that agreement a reality.Turning to the merits of the legislation, the new agreement is a real achievement in that it provides stability in vocational education and training for the next three years. Funding in real terms will be maintained over the life of the agreement. Further efficiencies, which will improve the numbers of students accessing the program, will be undertaken by the states and territories. In fact, for 1998, it is anticipated that 55,000 extra student places will be delivered.Over the next three years, the Commonwealth will contribute over $2.7 billion through the ANTA agreement in addition to $500 million in annual funding provided through other Commonwealth training ventures. This will bring total Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training in 1998-99 to $1.4 billion.Importantly, the new agreement is not simply a funding agreement, for it sets in train initiatives to improve the relevance and usefulness to students and industry of Australian vocational education and training programs. Industry is allowed a leadership role in the process, and a stronger training culture will be instilled in the community. National recognition of courses and awards is enhanced and, consequently, mobility in the labour market is significantly improved—an important step in addressing unemployment in this country.The revised agreement also addresses accountability in planning issues, including a national strategy with agreed performance measures, an annual statement of agreed national priorities based on the national strategy, provision of state and territory planning documents and an annual national report to be tabled in parliament. These initiatives are part of a broader reform process in the training sphere that is most clearly seen in the modernisation of the apprenticeship system and the expansion of work-school programs at all levels; it will strengthen burgeoning new developments in industries like information technology and communications—the growth areas of the next century.In general, this needs to be set in the context of the very good news we have received in the last 24 hours about the economy—that we have had significant growth, a lowering interest rate, stable employment and growing employment, a significant lifting of investment over the last two years, a significant step forwards in industrial relations and responsible management of the economy. So we have a whole new economic climate of which training is a very important part.When I first came to this place in 1993, I think there was a view out in the community that we were ending up with some of the best trained dole queues in the world. With the passing of the 1996 election and the advent of more appropriate economic policies, I believe that we are actually seeing the real horsepower of this economy, enabling us to take off and get the proper balance—that is, we have a strong economy which allows us to utilise the training. It is no good just being out there training for training's sake. I know that this bill, the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998, is very much about that whole process.It is all very well to say, `We must train, we must give more money to TAFE, we must do this, and we must do something else.' But, unless we get the whole lot of the building blocks together, we cannot hope to utilise the great skills that are out there waiting to be harnessed, as well as those existing skills and those which need to be further developed. The basic issue of literacy, of course, is part of this overall program. Of the stepping stones to a stronger economy, we have the whole issue of literacy linking into a stronger literacy program which gives that stronger base in terms of leading into the apprenticeship program, et cetera.As far as the institutions themselves are concerned, I would simply say that, in my experience, there is great variability around the country in the performance of the TAFE sector. To see the private providers coming in I think is quite encouraging. The previous speaker mentioned the lift in private providers from two per cent to six per cent of the training. I believe that is a healthy thing because, whilst many of the TAFE colleges were doing a fine job, I think those who are doing the best are those who have accepted the need for a dynamic change rather than doing things as they were done in the past.I have one example that I can remember quite clearly at the Whyalla campus of the virtual campus for nurse training and ancillary services training; that is now spreading all over Australia. So, out of that one community, with the dynamism of a handful of people, predominantly women—one person in particular comes to mind—who have looked for their market right across Australia, it is just quite remarkable what can be done once people have that vision to offer their courses right across the country. That is happening out of a regional city TAFE campus.As far as the general purposes of the bill are concerned, I have great confidence in the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp. His very considerable commitment to this overall program is no doubt an outstanding contribution. When we look back in years to come, the contribution of the member for Goldstein, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, will stand like a beacon, I believe, in the overall productivity and development of our wealth creation of this nation.That is all I want to say today on this bill, the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998. I have every confidence that this whole process will serve the nation well.17:06:001378Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—At the outset of addressing the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 this afternoon, I firstly would pick up the theme of the building blocks addressed by the previous speaker, the member for Grey. On that note, can I suggest that, when you think about nation building, one of the most important building blocks of a modern, forward looking economy is its skills base. It is for that very reason that the member for Dobell and shadow minister for education has moved a second reading amendment expressing major concern about the nature of this bill.We move the amendment because we believe that the Howard government has, once again, demonstrated through this bill its failure to address Australia's growing skill shortages through revision of the Australian National Training Authority agreement—and I emphasise that. At the moment we have a major emerging skills shortage in a number of key sectors of the Australian economy, and the last thing on which we can afford to go backward as a nation is the question of building our skills base.Australia is not going to compete on the basis of Asian wages and conditions of employment. Australia is going to compete on the basis of having the best skilled work force in the world. That is why the ANTA agreement is so important to the future development and strengthening of our economic base as a nation. For that very reason, I believe that the decision to further slash funding—and it is a slash in funding, irrespective of what the government would have us believe—from vocational education and training by the Howard government is astounding. It comes at a time when the demand for skills in Australia has never been more apparent.Instead of seeking innovative ways of addressing Australia's skill shortage, the Howard government will be playing an active role in reducing the supply of skilled people when the demand for skills is at a historic high. When pressed and questioned about this very issue, the only solution this government can point to to resolve immediate skills problems in Australia is not to lift the number of apprentices, especially in the traditional trades, but to rely on skilled migration. Over 740,000 Australians are unemployed, and more than one in three are now classified as long-term unemployed, effectively meaning that they have been unemployed for 12 months or more and basically remain unemployed because they lack the skills to get the jobs that emerge from time to time in the Australian economy. Those figures emphasise the need for this government to regard skills training as not a cost to the Australian econ omy but an investment in the future of Australia's development.These cuts to vocational education and training are taking place at a time when 32.6 per cent of Australia's labour force or 234,700 Australians have been unemployed for 12 months or more. That is not an insignificant number. Over 234,000 Australians have been unemployed for 12 months or more. We have a situation in Australia whereby this government is going to take away the growth funds for vocational education and training. On top of that, there are huge cuts already in place to expenditure on labour market training, which was about getting the long-term unemployed back to work.The situation has been worsened by the Job Network and the lack of a requirement on FLEX 3 providers to expend some of the money provided by government on the training of those long-term unemployed people. We could not get a worse situation in Australia. The emerging skill shortages are worsened by the fact that the youth unemployment rate at the moment is 27 per cent—higher than it was at the election in March 1996.Clearly, a crucial factor in finding these people jobs is to raise the level of skills. That is what it is about. It is about time the government faced up to the fact that a lot of those unemployed people were previously wonderful workers in a variety of industries in Australia. They were terrific workers, many of whom came to Australia from a range of different countries. As of October this year we had 719,800 unemployed Australians. One of the principal reasons they cannot get a job at the moment is that they do not have the necessary skills to make themselves attractive to fill one of those jobs.Let me break the figures down. Of those 719,800 Australians who are unemployed at the moment, 419,200 are unemployed males and 300,600 are unemployed females. Despite the fact that we have a major problem with youth unemployment, which is currently at 27 per cent, the biggest unemployment problem in Australia at the moment is middle-aged unemployment, especially for middle-aged men from a blue-collar background. That emphasises the requirement for this govern ment to start to accept that, if you want to make serious inroads into reducing unemployment, especially amongst the long-term unemployed, you have to invest in giving them the skills that effectively make them attractive to employers.The ANTA bill before the House today reinforces the very serious nature of the problem confronting Australia at the moment. It is a crucial factor, because if we are to find these people jobs we have to seek to raise their level of skills. That in many instances is the key to getting a job. These people want a job. In a lot of ways their morale is broken because they have been unemployed for an extended period. But, in order to make them attractive to employers, let us go out of our way as a nation to give them the skills which would effectively mean when they front up for a job interview the employer can make an assessment—`Yes, the government has invested in trying to get you the skills which mean I can give you a job; therefore, I am prepared to give you a start.' That is what it is about: giving people a second start in life in many instances.The problem is that the Howard government believes it does not have an obligation to increase skill levels in Australia. That is the nub of the problem. This was demonstrated when the Howard government slashed $1.8 billion from the former government's jobs programs in its very first budget after the election of March 1996, destroying no less than 230,000 skilled training positions. The majority of these skilled training positions were in programs which were targeted at the long-term unemployed and young unemployed people to help them get back into the work force. That is what it was about. It was about targeting the nature of the problem—not saying that there is one solution for all but recognising that amongst the massive number of Australia's unemployed different people have different problems and different barriers. Therefore, you come up with a menu of programs which is about trying to assist their individual needs.All the government has to offer in terms of training the unemployed today is Work for the Dole and the failed Job Network. I want to make it clear that the Labor Party were the ones who initiated the reciprocal obligation. The principle of the reciprocal obligation that underlies Work for the Dole really came under Working Nation which we introduced during our final term of office in 1995. I emphasise again that whatever programs we bring in when returned to government will be based on a continuation of the principle of reciprocal obligation.In terms of the Job Network's ability to train long-term unemployed people, I also raise this afternoon—because I think it is related to the problems of the ANTA agreement—the fact that the concentration of FLEX 3 in the hands of only four major providers has resulted in inadequate funds being allocated to training. The problem with most of those major providers is that they are driven by the accountants' bottom line, because there is no accountability in requiring them to spend those FLEX 3 payments. Therefore, the amount of training offered to the long-term unemployed has, in actual fact, gone backwards since Job Network was introduced.The inability of the Howard government to create greater competition in the provision of FLEX 3 has meant that the training, as I have indicated, for the long-term unemployed is worse today than at the time of the March 1996 election. Therefore, any attempts by the Howard government to further cut vocational education and training, as outlined in the ANTA Amendment Bill, should be greeted with much apprehension. The revisions to the agreement will mean that the states receive no additional funding for vocational education and training above 1998 levels up until the year 2000. To prevent criticism of this fact, the Howard government says that it will maintain funding in real terms until 2000.The amendments also allow for a continuation in the vocational education and training cuts announced in the 1997-98 federal budget, resulting in a cut of $20 million in the 1998 calendar year. The Howard government is using this cut to force the states to lower costs, it says, to the most cost-effective levels. I suggest that the Howard government is therefore accusing any high cost state of being inefficient in the provision of vocational education and training. However, a state with relatively higher costs may simply reflect comparatively higher demands for vocational education and training in that state and, therefore, greater costs in supplying that education and training. This is entirely plausible when the demand for vocational education and training can vary substantially between states. This, I suggest, is another example of the Howard government using the term `best practice' to distract attention from an overall cut in federal government spending.The amendment to the ANTA agreement involved forcing the states to accept the principle of growth through efficiencies. This will entail the abolition of growth funding, an initiative, I might say, of the former Labor government where increases in demand for vocational education and training were met with a corresponding increase in federal government spending. I suppose it was about leadership. It was about the national government fronting up to its responsibilities to actually invest in training so as to ensure that Australia maintains that competitive edge both domestically and internationally. As a result of these changes, any additional funding can be achieved only through so-called increased efficiencies, which as we all know is nothing more than a euphemism for job losses. That is what it is about—a euphemism for job losses. Clearly, these are not the actions of a government committed to addressing skill shortages in Australia.The Howard government has also announced in the revised ANTA agreement that it wants business to increase investment in training and play a leadership role in the provision of training to young people. While the Labor Party welcomes any contributions by industry to vocational education and training, because we believe there is more room to increase training at an industry level, we do not believe this should be at the expense of federal government involvement in vocational education and training, and that is what it is about—pointing the finger at industry. It is about a partnership, not pointing the finger at industry whilst the government walks away from its responsibilities. It is a two-way street. The government has also got to front up to its responsibilities.Instead of both industry and government having a shared and equal commitment to vocational education and training—an objective, as I have indicated, we strongly support as an opposition—the government has merely sought to shift responsibility for Australia's skill shortage to the private sector. The revised ANTA agreement also outlines the desire by the government to increase competition in the provision of vocational education and training, so public providers such as TAFE will be competing with the private sector for the specific training requirements of employers. This has all the attributes of a repeat, if we are not careful, of the Job Network fiasco pursued by the minister in his former position as minister for employment. That fiasco has done Australia serious damage and resulted in the Prime Minister basically instructing the new Minister for Employment Services, `You'd better fix it by Christmas or else.' We do not want the same to occur with the training of young people in Australia as has occurred with the Job Network debacle.The Howard government's continued commitment towards slashing vocational education and training, as demonstrated by the ANTA Amendment Bill, shows that it has also chosen to ignore the findings of a recent report by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs into skill shortages in Australia. Using a skilled vacancy index as a proxy for skill shortages, the report discovered substantial skill shortages for computing professionals, accountants, information and organisation professionals, and building and engineering professionals over the five years to April 1998. Vacancies increased by 334 per cent for computing professionals over this period, 140 per cent for accountants and auditors, 136 per cent for information and organisation experts and 93 per cent for building and engineering professionals. However, there is worse.The strongest growth in skill shortages was found to exist for trades, with vacancy levels rising by 141 per cent since 1993. Vacancies for construction workers over the past five years have increased by over 300 per cent, wood trades persons by 211 per cent, electrical trades persons by 193 per cent and metal trades persons by 146 per cent. These findings were further confirmed in the latest October 1998 skills vacancy survey, and the following statistics illustrate how the Howard government has directly contributed to the skill shortages outlined above.Since the government began cuts to apprenticeships and traineeships in 1996-97, recommencement levels have fallen by 67 per cent while commencements have declined by 19 per cent. The latest figures for the June 1998 quarter show that the rate of decline barely changed, with recommencements falling Australia-wide by nearly 63 per cent since June last year. The number of people completing apprenticeships and traineeships in Australia fell by nine per cent Australia-wide over the same period.Since these declines represent Australia-wide statistics, they can also often obscure the substantial differences in commencements and recommencements that exist at a state level. For example, commencements in Tasmania fell by 51 per cent while New South Wales and Queensland recorded declines of 39 and 21 per cent respectively in the year to June. Recommencements in Queensland fell by over 85 per cent, and falls of 68 per cent in New South Wales, 54 per cent in Victoria and 59 per cent in Tasmania were recorded.I could go on to refer to other facts relating to other states but, in the light of these falls in apprenticeship and traineeship numbers and the resultant growth in skill shortages, it is shameful that the Howard government is revising its legislation to enable a further slashing of vocational education and training in Australia. The Howard government has argued that a greater focus on skills in its migration program, particularly with regard to occupational targeting, has been important in addressing skill shortages in Australia. I err on the side of training and jobs for Australians, not skilled migration as a solution to our skill shortages at a time of chronic unemployment.While skilled migration can clearly be beneficial to Australia when employers are unable to fill vacancies for specialist jobs, it is not the complete solution to Australia's skill shortages. Skilled migration cannot be seen as a substitute or a quick fix to the Howard government's cuts to vocational education and training investment in Australia. Unfortunately, this appears to be the view taken by the Howard government. Moreover, the objective occupational target in the government's migration policy is based on meeting future projections of job demand rather than addressing current skill shortages in the Australian labour movement.I simply urge the government to revisit the intent of this bill. Australia, as I have detailed to date, clearly has major emergent skill shortages. We should actually be investing more in trying to get the unemployed back to work rather than making it more difficult for them to get the skills that make them attractive to employers. That is why it is my pleasure to second the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister and member for Dobell, Mr Lee, this afternoon. It is about clearly trying to urge the government to front up to its responsibilities. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mrs Stone) adjourned.Adjournment1382Motion (by Mrs Stone) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.138217:27:001382Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Following the remarks of the member for Batman, I would certainly urge upon the government changes to its Job Network. The introduction of a new system of employment services has been a farce. The government has made major changes. It is undoubtedly very difficult to establish a new service where the government is the sole buyer of services that are subject to tender.That difficulty, of course, is compounded if a government decides to make major financial savings at the same time, and that was the great mistake made under Dr Kemp, the great mistake that was made under this government's policy. They are trying to establish a new market, a monopsony market, where the government is the sole buyer. They are also trying to introduce major financial savings. That has led to a crisis in the provision of employment services around this country.I draw the House's attention to the problems caused for the former SkillShare in my electorate. Campbelltown SkillShare served the people of Campbelltown, particularly the young people who had no other way of obtaining employment services suited to their particular needs, for 25 years—a great service. The organisation, in its new format, trading as Complete Employment Services, has run into a cash flow problem. That problem, hopefully, will be addressed in the next round of tenders. It needs to be addressed in changes we are anticipating via government announcements next week. This government needs to recognise that a new market—a market where the government is the sole buyer of services—should not be accompanied by major cuts to spending. The cuts need to be reversed, and the government needs to improve the cash flow of organisations like Complete Employment Services in my electorate.There should be no need for the former SkillShare in Campbelltown to wind down. The damage should be repaired by this government, and it should be able to continue its very valuable services throughout the electorate of Werriwa. The truth is, given the very high youth unemployment rate in Campbelltown, if SkillShare is not available to provide those services, very few options are available for the young unemployed. In fact, in the 1996 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to do something specifically about the unemployment rate of young people in Campbelltown. The rate has gone up under his government, and it is getting worse because of the cash flow problems that are being encountered by employment services in the area.The truth is that, for young people, the problems are critical. We are talking about people who not only are unemployed but also come from families where very often their parents and grandparents have been unemployed, where their life expectation is not about education, skills and employment but about unemployment. So the pastoral care and the intensive case management needs of those young people are absolutely critical, and SkillShare provided those services in Campbelltown for 25 years. It is now facing a cash flow difficulty caused by this government. It requires remedial assistance. It requires the government to recognise that they made major errors in the introduction of this Job Network program. They should not be pursuing fiscal gains while establishing a new single buyer market in this particular area.We need to recognise young people have particular needs when they come from families that have been victims of long-term unemployment. Their pastoral care needs are critical. We are talking about young people who not only are lost to the work force but have been lost to society. They are losing the regular habits of work, the regular habits of a normal life, and their needs are absolutely critical.It is often assumed in the welfare debate that you provide the services and the welfare rights, and citizens have always got the capability to make best use of those services. We need to recognise in the new economic circumstances and with the new welfare needs not everyone has the capability to access the services that are being provided by government. Very often it requires reciprocal obligation; it requires some pressure on people to access the services. But so too it requires intensive case management to give them extra assistance, that extra pastoral care and attention, that will enable them to access services, in this case training, and, one hopes, employment.I am glad to see that the Minister for Employment Services is here. I thank the minister for seeing the delegation from Complete Employment Services earlier this week. He held out hope for some promising government announcements next week. I hope he is able to prevail in the cabinet and his suggestions actually become government policy. The key thing is to reverse the crisis in cash flow and ensure that organisations that are absolutely critical at a local level, particularly in addressing youth needs, are given their chance to prosper under the next round of tenders because, if they do not, the problem can only worsen. (Time expired)138317:32:001383Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—There has been some discussion lately of perceived morale problems in the Australian defence forces. I want to place on record my high regard for the men and women of Airlift Group and RAAF Base Richmond. They are a capable, conscientious and committed team. Before I talk more about them, though, I would like to make two other points. Firstly, there are changes occurring within the Australian Defence Force. Clearly change, no matter how necessary, can create some degree of anxiety and uncertainty. In any large organisation, especially one where it is essential to keep up with the latest technology and one where variable strategic requirements are so vital, change does by necessity occur. It is important, however, that we look at the positive, that we look at the outcome—and that will be a more capable and finely tuned defence force.The second point that I want to make is that exaggeration, feigned concern and attempted point scoring by the opposition do nothing at all to help the morale problem and nor do they do the government any credit. In fact, this merely highlights their own staggering hypocrisy. In their 13 years in power, Labor did much to undermine Defence Force morale. The low priority afforded defence and the cuts to a number of defence programs intensified the problem. Labor's razor gangs targeted defence establishments to help raise funds to cover their own financial incompetence. A total of 80 establishments were sold off, causing disruption to personnel, their families and the local communities. Labor had some 200 more establishments in its sights as it attempted to cash in to develop a $500 million slush fund.The Howard government is about improving Defence Force capability and increasing Defence Force morale. Accordingly, the ADF was quarantined from spending cuts required by the legacy of Labor's debt—a move that was opposed by a number in Labor's Left. The Howard government is putting money and resources where they are needed most. Its aim is to achieve high levels of technical competence using technologically advanced equipment whilst maintaining a defence capability that is highly skilled and that provides an effective deterrent to those who would consider Australia an easy target.The new government initiatives program introduced after the 1996 election provides clear evidence of this government's commitment to Australia's defence capabilities. The defence review program is estimated to achieve an annual reallocation of $1 billion from within the Defence budget to the sharp end, ensuring that Australia maintains a high ratio of teeth to tail. Australia's defence capabilities were seriously degraded during Labor's 13 year reign of incompetence. Labor's solution to defence efficiency was to increase spending on the tail, whilst neglecting the operational capabilities of the teeth. You cannot fight a war, or for that matter provide a formidable deterrent, with warehouses full of buckets and spoons.The coalition is redressing this imbalance by building spending on the sharp end to 60 per cent of defence spending. The Airlift Group at RAAF Richmond is a vital part of the sharp end of defence. The 37th Squadron is actively involved in the business of strategic airlift. Some people would consider the sharp end of Air Force to be confined to F111s, Hornet and Orion squadrons. However, this is far from reality. The Airlift Group, which comprises talented aircrew, exceptional ground crews and dedicated support personnel, is by all measures the sharp end of RAAF operations and, by inference, the sharp end of Australia's defence policy in action.The Airlift Group operating from RAAF Richmond has been involved recently in a number of activities proving their capability and their worth. The men and women of Airlift Group are an exceptionally hardworking group of individuals who deserve our recognition and respect. To restate what I said earlier, morale may well fluctuate, yet Airlift Group has never shirked its responsibilities. In good times and in bad times it delivers time and time again. I wish to publicly pay tribute to the members of Airlift Group. It is indeed an honour to represent the men and women of RAAF Base Richmond in this House.138417:37:001384Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The federal government is going to buy a fudge factory in Tasmania. I wonder if anyone knew that—a most extraordinary purchase, wouldn't you say? I am raising this matter because I believe the government used the federation funding during the election as a slush fund for all sorts of favours for their Liberal mates. One of these happens to be a fudge factory. Is there a fudge factor in this fudge factory? It is not that I mind money being spent in Tasmania, but surely that money should have been used for the betterment of the state, rather than to line someone's pockets.According to the latest reports, Tasmania is receiving $5.135 million from the Federation Fund for six culture and heritage projects. It was thought that these projects might develop infrastructure so that some of our heritage can be preserved. Many of the Federation Fund's submissions have a lot of merit, and communities have put in a lot of time and effort to get the proposals ready on very short deadlines only to find that these funds are being used to buy a business or worse.When the state government sold the Female Factory, it had someone use the site for a private enterprise while ensuring that the property would be preserved. It really consists only of some walls. I would not have minded if the public-spirited company had put together a proposal to help maintain the walls. But, no, the whole fudge company, the property and the garden are to be sold to the federal government. To add insult to injury, the person who made a pretty packet on selling this lucrative business is to go back as manager.This certainly will not help one of the businesses in my electorate—Anvers Truffles, makers of a top-of-the-range line of chocolate, who will be in direct competition with the federal government now. They have written to me with their concern and disgust. How will the public benefit from this deal? As was portrayed in the Mercury, probably as a result of the federal government's press release, Senator Alston, former federal minister for the arts, and Senator Robert Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, stated that the site will be bought as a gift for the people of Tasmania. What fun! We have already owned it before and were hard pushed to maintain it then. Now a private group will act as trustee and it will deed the land to the state government, thus avoiding council rates and charges, and the state or federal government will have to pay for the service costs. It is a neat little deal that one.Furthermore, Senator Brian Gibson apparently commented, when announcing the grants, that profits from the confectionery factory would be used to fund ongoing restoration and investigation work and administration. He also said that an area of the site would be developed as a tourist attraction in collaboration with the state government. So the state government has to cough up as well. I wonder what the new Labor government in Tasmania thinks of that.The purchase price for this bit of extravaganza was $825,000, leaving a balance of $150,000—presumably this is to be used for initial development of the site—and then income from the factory will be used for salaries. And I wonder who will get them. What a fudge of a deal! What a complete travesty of the role of government. Why has a group calling itself the Festival of Tasmania, a self-proclaimed tourist spokesgroup for activities in southern Tasmania, been given the nudge to manage this proposal? Whom do we have in here? None other than a certain Liberal ex-senator and his motley team. I think there needs to be a bit of exposure here. Who is really going to get the funds?Another unlikely use of the Federation Fund also surfaced during the election campaign. The funding of a private school for fine furniture in Launceston was announced during the election—and, by the way, while he was still in his previous employment as a journalist with a northern paper—by none other than Liberal Senate candidate Peter Collenette. Whose school is it? Fancy that—it is London College of Furniture graduate Peter Collenette's. Also, according to the Examiner on 6 November this year, the school will be funded initially by a $460,000 grant from the culture and heritage program of the Commonwealth's $70 million Federation Fund.I am happy to see funds being spent in Tasmania and a furniture school is a good idea and would survive on its own merits with a little bit of work from the suppliers of the resource, but these grants are hardly appropriate. The Labor Party was taken to task for trying to help communities in depressed areas which may have had some Labor members in some, but this is ridiculous. It is blatant, it is unfair and there should be in inquiry into the activities. That is not all; there is more. I am demanding an inquiry into these rorts—and that is what they are—and I will seek through every means at my disposal in our democracy to expose the scam. This will not be the last you hear of this.138517:41:001385Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—Tuesday this week was World AIDS Day. It was also a day on which 1,000 children died worldwide from a disease that claimed the lives of 1½ million people last year. Since 1981, 13 million people worldwide have died from AIDS: that is about two-thirds of the population of Australia. There are currently 35 million people living with HIV throughout the world and there are currently 16,000 people infected with the HIV virus every day. In fact, there are 11 people infected with the HIV virus every minute.The majority of newly acquired infections are in adults aged less than 25, and women of child-bearing years account for nearly half of new infections worldwide. In contrast, Australia, through prudent management, has confined the disease to a relatively small part of the population—homosexual men. This does not diminish the depth of the tragedy. In the developed world, AIDS is now often described as a manageable disease, the perception being that wonder drugs are a miraculous cure pulling sufferers back from the brink. The new danger we face in Australia is complacency, which, along with fear, intolerance and ignorance, can kill just as effectively as the virus itself.My mother lost one of her two sons to AIDS. She, along with my father, loved him despite the erratic and emotionally turbulent life that he had led. He had grown up in a family like any other that we might strive to emulate—church on Sunday, private school education and a family that might be typified by generational love. He lived with the HIV virus for six years before he summoned the courage to tell first his brother and then his parents. I have often wondered whether they would have felt a sense of hurtful shame when he shared it with them when he was given the positive result of his HIV test on his 23rd birthday in 1984. The answer at the time was probably yes.It was a time of fearful hysteria and accusatory vindictiveness by the majority to a marginalised minority. My brother endured much humiliation and embarrassment, the true extent of which he hid from those whom he loved. He pursued a fruitless campaign, as many people do with a disease from which they will not recover, to find something—I suppose anything—that might fuel his indefatigable hope that a cure was around the corner. He died 3½ years ago in the presence of parents as loving as they were forgiving, left to ask the unanswerable question: why?AIDS is a disease that can touch any family. It is for this reason that I would like to draw the House's attention to this. As we are all human beings, it is also one from which none of us are immune. There is no place for smugness, complacency and indifference. There is, however, a chasm to be filled with tolerant understanding.Australia has been relatively successful in containing the HIV-AIDS epidemic because we have been prepared to embrace things that all of us find quite difficult to accept and that I personally at times find quite distasteful. For example, last year there were just on 400 deaths from AIDS. We have at the moment 11,100 Australians who are living with the HIV virus. Whilst life expectancy from the time of acquisition of the virus has increased because of the better understanding and treatment of those who are HIV positive, at the moment those people will almost certainly die from AIDS in the absence of a cure.But there are some people in Australia—I understand why—who are questioning the need for needle exchange programs. Perhaps, like me, they find it personally distasteful that people who are abusing drugs can go in and get a new needle and syringe and hand in their old one, which is what I believe they ought to be doing. Similarly, they find it distasteful that we have rather explicit sexual education that begins at a relatively young age. As difficult as we find these things, they have contributed enormously to containing this virus. As I have just said to the House, all of us need to understand that this is a disease that can affect anybody and any family. I ask the House and parliaments throughout the country, and the community in particular, to understand that, in nations where there is not frank and open education about safe sex and there are not needle exchange programs, this disease spreads as quickly as the common cold. At the moment, in the absence of a cure, it is a disease from which people die.138617:46:001386Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I totally endorse those comments from the member for Bradfield. I look forward to taking part on Sunday in the Central West AIDS-HIV Task Force commemoration at the Orange botanic gardens. The sorts of sentiments he expressed I can only totally concur with.I wish to detail an aspect of the political process that further undermines the electorate's respect for politicians. I refer to the method of opening federally funded projects in electorates that do not happen to be represented by a member of the government of the day. In recent times in Calare, we have seen a couple of examples that demonstrate the petty politics employed in opening such facilities. The first was the opening of the Tabulam Cottage Hostel at Portland, funded partly by the previous Labor government. This government chose to send the then member for Parkes all the way to Portland to open it. There was no invitation from the government to me as the local member—the community did invite me—to take any role in that opening.A few weeks ago, the Orange Christian School opened its extensions, which had received federal funding. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs sent a message to be read by the state National Party member for Orange. He performed the opening on behalf of the federal minister, who said in his message that it was unfortunate there was no Commonwealth representative available. What am I other than the elected representative of the people of Calare in the Commonwealth parliament and the representative of the parliament in Calare?This same so-called protocol occurred recently, with the state National Party member again representing the federal minister in the opening of new multipurpose facilities at Orange High School. The local committee and communities are embarrassed and angered at this lack of respect for the local member. They recognise very well this cynical political one-upmanship, and they do not like it. Personally, I do not crave for a spattering of brass plaques around the electorate with my name on them—in fact, I actively discourage that. However, the lack of respect for local representatives is a matter of concern that adds to the cynicism about the party political process. I suggest that governments of either persuasion would gain much respect if they treated local members, be they of Labor, National, Liberal, Democrat, Green, Independent, or whatever affiliation in the future, as the legitimate representatives of their electorate in Canberra and the legitimate representative of the Commonwealth in their electorate.Let me move quickly to another issue, which is that of the Inland Marketing Corporation and its proposed Parkes inland freight airport. I was asked this week what I would like to see happen in this parliamentary term to benefit my area. I will continue to campaign for adequate telephone and data services and oppose any attempt to sell off any more of Telstra. I hope this government shows that it has learnt much in recent times about the expectations of regional Australia. We now have a Minister for Regional Ser vices, Territories and Local Government, which is one step better than the Clayton's regional development portfolio in the last parliament. We also have a very focused shadow minister in this area.I am heartened by signs that the Inland Marketing Corporation Scheme, backed by more than 40 councils and communities, has finally achieved credibility in the eyes of this government—or I hope that it has. I am heartened by the positive approach the new member for Parkes has taken to the project, in stark contrast to his predecessor. I am pleased to see that the project is being discussed at the highest levels of government. That is quite a contrast to the negativity that met the attempts of the IMC to obtain the promised feasibility funding alone from the first Howard government.The development application for the Parkes export airport has now been submitted to the Parkes council. There has been overwhelming support for this project throughout inland New South Wales, with my electorate among those to benefit when this visionary scheme gets up and flying. While it is important to recognise our history in federation funded projects—fudge factories aside—it is arguably far more important for government to take a proactive role in helping to facilitate and, where necessary, fund the infrastructure required to progress our export generation and rural job generation into the next century.The ball is now in the government's court. The member for Riverina pointed out in her first speech the impact of economic fundamentalism on her area. She rightly points out that the national competition policy is a blunt instrument of this fundamentalism, which has had a profound impact on rural communities. I say to the National Party, `Get tough now. Your numbers are needed by the Libs. Stand up for the bush and its opportunities.' I suggest that there would be no better project to start with than the Inland Marketing Corporation and its necessary fresh food export airport infrastructure.138817:51:001388Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Today is International Day of People with a Disability. The United Nations, six years ago, declared that 3 December would be a day to acknowledge and celebrate the achievements of people with a disability. It is an opportunity to celebrate the ability of people with a disability and to increase awareness of issues of disability within the community.The International Day of People with a Disability was celebrated today here in the Great Hall of Parliament House with the Prime Minister's Employer of the Year Awards. It was a very well attended presentation and quite inspiring to see so many employers and employees with a disability from every state and territory.The Prime Minister's annual awards recognise innovative Australian businesses, large and small, which provide employment opportunities for people with disabilities. I was privileged to be at the awards presentation today with representatives of the winners from Western Australia: Forest Grove Plants, who won the Western Australian state award in the small business section; and Darowa Corporation Ltd, the Western Australian winner in the large business section. Darowa Corporation is located in West Perth within my electorate of Curtin. I was delighted to meet with the representatives of the company who travelled from Perth to Canberra for the awards presentation: David Mellor and Lyn Curran, together with Paul Short from Edge Employment Solutions, the specialist employment agency which works with Darowa in its quest to employ people with disabilities. Darowa is a diverse transport, manufacturing, security and records management organisation, and it first employed a person with a disability 22 years ago. It currently employs nine people with disabilities and has made a commitment to employ a person with a disability in each of its 25 subsidiary companies.The company are committed to employing people with disabilities on the basis that they are committed to putting something back into the community. They believe that people with disabilities are part of the community that facilitates our existence and our success, and if they can help by providing jobs for people with disabilities then they willingly do so. The company have reported an increase in self-esteem and confidence in the people whom they employ and have noted that their employees with disabilities prove to be very loyal employees who provide long-term service to them. It makes sound business sense. As well as providing intensive on-the-job training for such employees, Darowa also encourages co-workers to complete a course entitled `Supporting co-workers with disabilities'. This course instructs participants on how to assist in bringing the employee with the disability to maximum independence in performing his or her job.Specifically, Darowa has accommodated and met the employment needs of its employees with disabilities by altering pay periods to assist with budgeting schedules and restructuring work hours to accommodate employees wishing to attend TAFE courses. It is reassuring to know that there are specialist employment agencies who are now partnering businesses that are committed to employing people with a disability. The Prime Minister's Employer of the Year Award to Darowa is a fitting recognition of their initiatives to help staff with disabilities. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, for the establishment and continuance of these national annual awards. I will certainly take steps to encourage other employers in my electorate to follow the example of the 1998 award winners.Of course, millions of people throughout the world have celebrated and will be celebrating this day. There is no doubt that every person in Australia deserves the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Our government is ensuring that we are creating an environment that gives equality of opportunity. We must remember that people with disabilities must also be given every opportunity to fulfil their poten tial. I applaud the commitment of the award winners today. So six years on from the first pronouncement of the United Nations International Day of People with a Disability, we in Australia are able to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that people with disabilities can lead productive, integrated lives and that we celebrate their achievements.138917:56:001389Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Over the last few weeks in this place, there has been a continuing debate about the government's proposal to have a 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance. As part of the debate there has been a questioning of the Labor Party and the Labor opposition's commitment to private health insurance. That has been an unfortunate and dishonest aspect of the debate, in which those opposite have deliberately misinterpreted the way we have approached this debate. We went to an election campaign with a policy document that said under the heading of `Private health insurance' that Labor recognises that private health insurance plays an important role in Australia's health system. Our document then went on to state that it was, in our view, a waste of scarce public resources to use the proposed 30 per cent rebate. What has also been instructive—beyond the fact that, simply put, we believe this is a bad policy item—is the fact that the government unashamedly indicates that the 30 per cent rebate will also cover private health insurance for ancillary cover.As the honourable member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister, has put to the House and has also put to the Minister for Health and Aged Care by way of question, there are a number of items that we are concerned about. One concern is that under ancillary cover dental service cover can be provided. It is estimated that, of the $1,500 million that will be received by people getting the rebate, some $200 million a year actually covers the dental aspect of that. For half that amount of money we could reinstate the Commonwealth dental health service, which was giving people on low incomes and people that were health card beneficiaries access to dental service. When asked about this by way of a question, the minister said:Unlike the opposition, we have actually worked out what is a Commonwealth responsibility and what is a state responsibility.I think that is just glossing over what is a real problem. We have to see that dental services play an important role in an individual's health. If we are really looking at a holistic approach to the way in which we endeavour to ensure that Australians, by way of our national policies, have access to proper health, then we need to include dental services.If honourable members look at the history of the constitution, it is interesting to see that the fourth successful referenda inserted social services provisions into the constitution in 1946 and included, amongst other things, `unemployment benefits, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services'. Whilst it does not compel the Commonwealth to have a dental service scheme, it indicates that way back then when that constitutional change was made there was a desire that we should be involved.The important aspect that we are trying to raise in the debate about this 30 per cent rebate is: why is it good enough to subsidise to the tune of $200 million dental service care for those that can have private health care when the Commonwealth has just withdrawn the scheme that gave that cover to people on low incomes?10000Jenkins, Harry, MPMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:001389House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Documents1389The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 3 December 1998:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument 1998 No. CASA 476.Health Insurance Act—Determination 1998 No. HS/4.Radiocommunications Act—Determination 1998 Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Maritime Coast Licence). Remuneration Tribunal Act—Remuneration Tribunal—Determination 1998 No. 24.1998-12-03Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members1391139109:40:001391Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—You may be aware that since Landcare was established by Labor it has grown to be one of the most successful community based environmental initiatives in the history of this country. We are proud of that fact and I am proud of the fact that so many people in my electorate have volunteered their time and energy to make Landcare the success it is in the state of Tasmania. Yet the goodwill this program has generated over the years is under threat as a result of this government's indifference.For the second year running, there have been delays in the sending of new project funding cheques to community groups who have been successful in their applications under the Natural Heritage Trust. In some instances, cheques are up to five months late. Five months is a considerable amount of time for volunteer groups. This is a gross administrative incompetence on the part of the government. Successful Landcare groups in my electorate of Lyons were expecting their cheques in October, but they may not now get their funding before Christmas—a disgrace. This will cause delays in project starts and throw planning schedules into chaos. These are people who volunteer their time to do good work in our communities and they should not be held up by total incompetence on the part of this present government.Community groups in my electorate are becoming fed up with the red tape and the delays associated with the Natural Heritage Trust funding. Some of the funding has been taken from the original projects, from the original pool of money which was Landcare designated, and it has been shifted to the Natural Heritage Trust funding. If the government does not smarten up its act, many of these groups will probably simply give up the great work they are doing. This would be a tragedy not only for the groups concerned but also for the environment.Work has been done right around my electorate of Lyons. In the south-east, there has been a very active group and great work has been done through to the Apt railway, which is going to be funded. Over the years, programs there have cut back and opened up the track and opened up opportunities. All this has been through the Landcare funding in the past. Now there is a tightening up on paperwork, increasing the paperwork, which is very difficult for volunteers. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage must do something to fix this problem. If he does not, he could well be responsible for the slow demise of one of the most successful government and community partnerships ever in the history of Australia.139109:43:001391Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—The Australian Taxation Office has formed the view that gaming income and the commission earned from gaming operations by community based licensed clubs in Victoria should be subject to income tax. The principle of mutuality exempts from tax income that clubs derive from services to its members. However, that principle now does not apply to gaming income or to the commissions earned from those who own and service vending machines. Furthermore, this ruling is to be retrospective.The problem stems from the way Victoria structures the gaming industry. In contrast to other jurisdictions where gaming outlets own their own machines, Victoria has two licensed organisations that own all of the machines—Tattersall's and Tabcorp—and pay commissions to those who house them. I raise this matter not from any great fondness for gambling or gaming but out of concern for the recreational, social and sporting clubs that pour many thousands of dollars from such enterprises back into our local communities.Earlier this year, the president and treasurer of the Ringwood based Maroondah Club, Mr Brian Coopersmith and Mr Gavin Harkin, alerted me to the consequences of this ruling on community based licensed clubs. It also affects clubs such as Ringwood and Mitcham RSL in the electorate of Deakin. Not surprisingly, the Maroondah Club and the Victorian umbrella body, the Licensed Clubs Association of Victoria, LCAV, are most concerned. At my initiation, officials from the Maroondah Club, the LCAV, officers from the ATO and Assistant Treasurer Senator Kemp have met a number of times to discuss the technicalities involved. I would like to thank the minister for his responsiveness to their pleas. I have been heartened by the progress made since the initial meeting.I am informed that a number of licensed clubs have recently agreed to hand over their books to the ATO for voluntary audit to ascertain the impact of the proposed ruling and to see if a compromise is possible. If there is no change to the current proposal, bodies like the Maroondah Club will soon be paying an unexpectedly high level of corporate income tax, meaning that less money is available for their sporting, recreational and social facilities. In some cases, it could be the difference between staying open for business or closing their doors.There is nothing that irritates law-abiding taxpayers more than a tax ruling that is applied retrospectively. The recent compromise by the ATO to make retrospectivity apply to the prior two years rather than four years is most welcome. It is in part due to my constituent club and the LCAV meeting with the ATO. The clubs are considering this option. But, in turn, the Victorian government should give serious consideration to making amendments to the Gaming Act. These community clubs should be treated in a fair and just manner, and I look to support from my state parliamentary colleagues and the Assistant Treasurer to pursue this issue as far as possible. The community based clubs stand defenceless against the might of the ATO—which would not be the case had Tabcorp and Tattersall's got behind them. Sadly, this has not happened. (Time expired)1392NaN:00:001392Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Last week I touched on some of the problems that constituents in Shortland electorate were having with Centrelink. This week I would like to develop that theme a little more because we have had quite a few more complaints over the past week, and I have been very disturbed about the impact that the reduction of staff at Centrelink will be having on single-parent families living in Shortland electorate.I want to share with members some of the details of the numbers of people who are in single-parent families in Shortland. There are 3,200 one-parent families with a total of 5,213 dependent children, an average of 1.6 children per single-parent family. This large number of families is relying on Centrelink to ensure that they get their money on a regular basis. Just as we depend on our wages, they depend on Centrelink—but to a greater extent, because they are so close to the borderline all the time. They need that money for their survival. If they do not have the money, they do not eat and the children cannot go on school excursions. Even with receiving that money, they struggle to make ends meet.One of the alarming things that has happened in recent times is the increase in overpayments. These overpayments exacerbate the problems that single-parent families are having. They are faced not only with having to survive on a very small amount of money but also with working out how they can repay money that has inadvertently been put into their accounts. Because they are so close to the breadline all the time, they spend all the money that they receive, and when they find out that maybe they have been receiving $20 too much over a long period of time they have then got to repay that money, which causes extreme problems for them.It is alarming that 47 per cent of these families have a weekly income of less than $360 per week, which puts them below the poverty line. This is obvious, because these families are heavily reliant upon their government entitlements, as I have already pointed out. This is in sharp contrast to two-parent families with dependent children, where only six per cent are in a similar situation. I really feel that the government has to face up to the fact that these changes to Centrelink are causing enormous hardship to families and, in particular, to single-parent families who need this money to ensure their very survival. As a matter of urgency, something needs to be done to address the problem of overpayments. (Time expired)139309:49:001393Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise today to discuss the four pillars banking policy and the stand that the Treasurer has taken. There can be no doubt that the major banks, the big four—National Australia Bank, Westpac, Commonwealth and ANZ—have lost considerable public respect. I am sure we can all remember when banks were revered and respected institutions that cared about their customers irrespective of how financially insignificant their accounts were. Unfortunately, the perception today is one of ruthless money grabbing and entirely profit driven organisations.The excesses of the banks during the 1980s, when they lent out millions of dollars to ambitious tycoons who were involved in spectacular failures, are still effectively being paid for by the millions of ordinary customers who are being hit with ever rising fees and charges. Not so long ago, when Collinsville was in my electorate of Dawson, the Commonwealth Bank branch there closed. This caused a great deal of ill feeling in the town and a good deal of inconvenience for business and all the employees from the power station there. So I know the effect on ordinary everyday citizens of a bank closure.Undoubtedly, the major banks are some of the most unpopular organisations in the country. I certainly have not heard any good words about them in the rural and regional areas in Northern Queensland. Customers feel helpless, despite all the urging from various sources to shop around for better deals and to consult alternative financial institutions.However, last Sunday the Treasurer, Mr Costello, drew a line in the sand. His remarks on national television to the effect that the government would not consider any merger proposals from any of the big four were very welcome. The Treasurer clearly told the banks they had to smarten up their act, improve service and win back public support before they even thought about any proposed mergers. To my mind, that effectively ruled out any mergers virtually forever, because we have already seen the face of banking in the 21st century. Soaring fees, massive branch closures, huge job losses and an attitude to ordinary customers varying somewhere between indifference and arrogance, contrast sharply with the quite extraordinary salary and benefits for very senior staff.We must remember that banks have a privileged position in the Australian economy and that responsibility comes with privilege. The government has clearly signalled in its policy that it intends to be on the side of the ordinary customers. That is extremely welcome news and has certainly been very well received in my electorate of Dawson.My concern is that, if two of the big four were allowed to merge, there would inevitably be pressure for the other two to merge and the smaller banks would come under even greater takeover pressure and competition. The stated goal of deregulation would be reduced even further. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has a critical responsibility in this area, and I certainly look forward to hearing from Professor Allan Fels when he finally makes a clear statement on this. (Time expired)139409:52:001394Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Seventeen years ago, when Father Ernie Smith set up the Sacred Heart Mission in Grey Street, St Kilda, in the St Kilda parish, I am sure he did not imagine how extensive their work would become. Last Tuesday, 607 people attended lunch at the Sacred Heart Mission in St Kilda, the largest meal program of its kind in Australia. It will serve that many or more on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.Their program operates seven days a week, 365 days a year. The meal of Tuesday, for instance, consisted of soup, meat loaf, vegetables, salad, fresh fruits and fresh fruit salad. The mission utilises over 300 volunteers each week in the delivery of its services. The volunteers who work on its program, particularly on the soup kitchen at lunchtime, consist in equal thirds of people doing community service, girls from local Catholic schools and women from the local parish. Having visited there recently, I was surprised that this organisation operates on a bank loan. They deliver a service to the community on borrowed money, feeding poor, homeless and isolated people who suffer from addictions, psychiatric illness and loneliness, because they are not prepared to walk away from these people.Mark Nicklin, their devoted executive officer, said to me—and he is one of only three people who are employed there—that they do not allow any of their regular people who attend the mission to be buried in a pauper's grave. Even though the mission exists on borrowed money, the people who die in those circumstances are buried by the mission. The people who attend the mission live in the local community and, by and large, rely on pensions for their income. The mission provides other services to the community, including aged care, hostel accommodation, community care packages for the frail aged, material relief, outreach services, and services approximately 1,000 people.In an era of deinstitutionalisation, Sacred Heart's work enables the easy government programs of encouraging independence to become a reality. Many people with gambling and drug addictions, often combined with disability, have Sacred Heart to fall back on. The mission is there not to judge them but to support them.I want to commend the individual shopkeepers in my electorate who assist the mission in its valuable work, including local restaurants Leos and Ciccios, Intaglio, the Chronicles Bookshop, and the George and Prince of Wales hotels. They all assist the mission in what is really a valuable local community effort. I realise the government has made certain changes to its GST legislation; I am not so sanguine about its effects on great organisations like Sacred Heart.I would like, before Christmas, to commend their work and the people who volunteer, the parish and Father Terry Ryan, who stands foursquare behind them, and the generous local businesses which work with them. I wish them well with their continuing selfless work. It is an odd thing for a politician to say but they do God's own work. (Time expired)139509:55:001395Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I would like to cover a couple of subjects briefly this morning. I note the comments of the member for Lyons on Landcare. I was a proud participant back in 1989 in those initial stages when, under the Hawke government, there was a very proud initiative of the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation, which had a pilot project on Eyre Peninsula.Looking back over that 10-year period, it has been a very significant effort on behalf of the various levels of government, and the benefits that have flowed through, not only to Landcare but in terms of a much more positive approach to the management of all resources in use within agriculture, have been great. So I welcome the opportunity to comment. Perhaps one area that the Commonwealth is becoming more aware of is the proper relationship with the states and, in the case of the Tasmanian government, we would hope for a cooperative working relationship with them. But it is one of the great benefits of the Howard government—further funding for Landcare from the Natural Heritage Trust.The issue of tax reform is one that is very dear to my heart, coming from a regional electorate, and I welcome the Treasurer's comments in the House of Representatives yesterday morning when he introduced, as the first bill, the abolition of wholesale sales tax. The Leader of the Opposition is prone to saying that the GST is a 10 per cent tax on almost everything, but he never quite gets around to talking about the abolition of a range of other taxes. I find this sort of gross hypocrisy most unfortunate when this country needs genuine leadership and genuine reform for our export industries. I look forward to a more positive approach in the Senate, as we must apparently go through the Senate reviews even though the people have spoken. I would look forward to a much more positive outcome in the Senate than we are currently seeing.I finish by remembering that we can only have the various government services like Centrelink and a whole range of other government services if we have a proper tax base. That is one of the great strengths of the new tax reform packages—that we are able to offer Australia a much sounder tax base from where we can fund the general revenue as in welfare. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members statements has concluded.Bills1395s177Consideration resumed from 2 December.139509:59:001395Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill represents the first time an Australian government has sought to set out the legislative framework necessary to facilitate commercial space launches from Australia.Since the mid 1980s a range of commercial space launch projects have been proposed for Australia. A clear legislative and regulatory framework is essential for any of these projects to proceed.Potential investors in such projects need to know what government requirements commercial space launch projects in Australia would need to meet.With the start of work on the Kistler spaceport project in South Australia, Australia's entry into the commercial space launch market is no longer hypothetical. The need to legislate for a regulatory regime is pressing.In the absence of a legislative regime, the government has entered into an agreement with Kistler detailing the regulatory requirements the project will need to address.This agreement will be preserved under the proposed legislation. While the terms of that agreement are confidential, we have sought in this bill to achieve a regulatory regime largely consistent with that applied to Kistler.In addition, key aspects of the legislation, for example those applying to penalty provisions, accident investigation and appeal rights, will also apply to Kistler. This is another reason why passage of the legislation is pressing.The bill will also give effect to our obligations under a range of international treaties.International space law is governed by five treaties to which Australia is a signatory. These are set out in the schedules to the bill.These require Australia to monitor and regulate space activities on its territory or under its control, and to register with the United Nations any space objects for which Australia is a launching state.They also place responsibility on Australia for any loss or damage caused outside of Australia by objects launched from Australian territory. Australia can also be liable in instances where Australians procure a launch from territory outside of Australia.This liability is shouldered by the Commonwealth of Australia regardless of who has actually launched the space object and the liability for damage on earth, or in the air, is strict. For example, fault does not have to be shown.This bill sets out processes for managing our responsibilities under these treaties and a regime to protect the Commonwealth's interests in the area of liability.Under the bill a space licence is required to operate a specified launch vehicle from a specified launch facility. In addition, each launch must be covered by a launch permit.The legislation is designed to operate in tandem with other relevant Commonwealth legislation such as that requiring environmental approval for relevant projects.Importantly from an industry standpoint, the bill specifies the third-party insurance requirement and limits that will apply.It requires space launch operators to take out third-party insurance cover based on an estimate of maximum probable damage as a result of any launch failure.This protects the interests of the Commonwealth and the public and ensures that the key financial risks associated with such activities are carried by the launch operators.The bill also requires that Australians procuring the launch of a space object—most commonly a satellite—from overseas obtain an overseas launch certificate. This gives the government the ability to manage any financial risk to the Commonwealth that may arise from such launches.While such certificates will be mandatory to authorise an overseas launch, the minister would point out that the minister does have the power under clause 35 to waive insurance requirements where that may be appropriate.The bill provides for the establishment of a register of space objects in line with our international registration responsibilities. It also sets out the powers and functions of the launch safety officer who would be required for each launch facility.The legislative framework will be implemented by a Space Licensing and Safety Office. The 1998-99 budget provided for an outlay of $1.3 million for the establishment of this office.Once it is operational, the ongoing cost of the office is intended to be met by space licence and launch permit fees. For example, it is intended to be operated on a full cost recovery basis.In many ways this is new and groundbreaking legislation. It has been formulated after careful examination of overseas models, particularly the framework operating in the United States. It represents, however, a unique model adapted to Australia's needs and circumstances.It has been put together on the basis of consultation with industry and I would like to thank the Australian Space Industry Chamber of Commerce for the constructive role it has played in this process. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.10:05:001397Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The opposition is pleased to support this particular bill. It helps us to regulate and define an industry which could potentially be quite important to Australia in the next century and which certainly could have very substantial and relevant industry policy connotations especially for South Australia—my own home state and, indeed, that of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources—given the proposed Kistler project at Woomera.Before turning to the detail of that, it is important to have a look at the history of Australian space activity. Australia has a very strong history of involvement in space activity. Indeed, much of that relates to work done in my own electorate by the Weapons Research Establishment, now known as the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, where a number of members of my own family have worked quite closely over many years.The WRE projects go back to involvement with the British through projects like Blue Streak and working up to the WRESAT which was the first genuine Australian satellite, if you like, back in 1967, as I remember the date.You might expect that, given that very strong early involvement in satellite technology and in rocket launching from Woomera, the strong involvement in the British and European space projects and indeed our very significant work with the United States through the Deep Space tracking network over many years, Australia would by now have developed a very significant space based industry. Unfortunately that is not the case and I acknowledge that governments of all political complexions have been to blame for this in previous years. It has not been easy to persuade the bureaucracy, or indeed members of parliament, as to the relevance of space based industry policy, the need for Australia to participate in this kind of industry or the benefits that might flow domestically from that to our own economy as well as the advantages to science in general.It is important that we understand just why the industry is so important to us. Over the years Australia has certainly developed that expertise. It has also entered into quite a number of contracts for the supply of space type services but almost all of them are with overseas based companies. The majority of our telecommunications satellite work with Telstra and Optus of course is with the international satellite consortia, although Optus have their own satellite which they inherited from the original government project. The majority of that funding of some $500 million to $600 million a year goes to the payment of overseas based corporations, whether they are the international telecommunications satellites or the French SPOT satellite for remote sensing, the American Landsat and Radarsat series. All of that data which we use quite extensively here, we also pay for quite expensively to overseas based sources. You would think that by now, with that kind of investment every year, year after year, we would have done better in developing a domestic industry. Indeed, successive governments have not, I think, paid close enough attention to the economic value of that information and to the domestic value of it. It is easy to overlook that ongoing payment to established industries overseas.To what kind of use do we put this information? Satellites have had a number of traditional uses which have now become firmly established in our society and in our very mature technologies. The one with which most people are probably familiar is the use of communications satellites. They have been in use for many years now and shoulder much of the broadband work. Many of the international telephone circuits travel between Australia and other countries by satellite. We have the use of television signals, cable TV, pay TV and indeed satellite feeds from overseas events. We all expect to see important overseas events now virtually as they happen or at least very soon thereafter and that demands usually a satellite feed. Who can forget the live television from Baghdad as the American Cruise missiles flew overhead and the CNN reporter pointed them out—with some degree of trepidation and considerable courage, I imagine—with CNN using their own individual satellite uplink from the roof of the hotel to beam those pictures to the world?We have come to accept that kind of satellite technology as a very casual thing, but it represents a significant capital investment, a significant ongoing cost to Australia and a substantial technological achievement. More recently we have seen the advertisements for the new hand-held phone satellite systems. Iridium, for example, is the one that went into operation in September-October with very expensive handsets at $3,000 or $4,000, and costing anything up to $12 per minute for the call. But you do get the opportunity to call from anywhere in the world and you do have the privilege to say that you are ringing from the jungles of Indonesia, the darkest depths of Africa or Antarctica, for example, and still hold the conversation that you could hold from the lawns of Parliament House.So it is expensive technology but, with some 60-odd satellites in orbit, a very significant space launch option for the countries who get that kind of business. Obviously, that system is already in orbit and, apart from maintenance satellites which may need to replace those that fail, there is not much more business in that outfit. There are many other proposals of a similar kind which will involve low earth orbiting satellites or even higher placed satellites. Australia is positioned to be part of that industry if we have the appropriate regulatory framework in place to share liability, to ensure the safety of those launches and to protect our domestic environment.One of the other major uses of satellite technology is remote sensing. Remote sensing is a little-known but very important technology. AGSO—the Australian Geographic Survey Organisation—and many farming organisations, the Bureau of Meteorology, universities and others make extensive use of remote sensing technology. Because Australia has a unique, very large landmass with some unique characteristics, it is essential that the data for use in Australia is properly detected by the satellite, and properly massaged and processed to be useful for Australia. We do get very good service from the American and French satellites at the moment in that area, but for Australia to be independent—or at least partially independent—in this area would give us much greater leverage in the future.People are now starting to understand the economic value of this data, for instance, if you know in advance the condition of crops such as wheat in other countries. It is very easy with remote sensing to detect some changes in wheat crops, including the quality and projected yield of those crops. That has very vital market-sensitive information contained within it which can tell you what the impact on demand and supply will be in future years and what the potential effect on prices will be. There is very significant economic value for that data as well as important environmental uses for it in terms of vegetation and farm management, moisture content of the water, potential for bushfires and the like. The myriad uses are so many that it is not possible to canvass them all here today.Australia has considerable expertise in the use of that data, but we do need an independent source of it so that we are not forced to rely on other countries for data, especially as people become aware of the strategic value of information in the information age of the 21st century. Australia needs to be part of that process to understand what is occurring.The government has made a number of changes to space policy in recent years. For example, they have abolished much of the limited effort which occurred previously and consolidated it in a practical effort through CSIRO to launch FedSat in about the year 2000. There is the residual national space policy unit within the department, but funding is now even tighter than it has ever been, and it has never been generous. The reality is that Australia's effort in space is very much a constrained one, but one which I think we should endeavour to improve in future years on a bipartisan basis.The legislation before us defines quite a useful regime of regulation and liability definition for the industry. Obviously, we hope and pray that every launch will be successful, but there is always a significant risk that that will not be the case. Therefore, it is essential that appropriate steps are taken in advance to protect public safety, to protect the local environment and to define liability in the unfortunate event that one of these launches goes awry.As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has said, Australia is a signatory to a number of international treaties in this regard. We have important international obligations, which this bill preserves and protects, to ensure that Australia is able to make an appropriate contribution.In the Senate, a number of amendments to the bill were accepted by the government on the suggestion of the opposition. These have improved the bill. The bill was quite appropriate beforehand, but some of the areas which the government intended to specify in regulation were more appropriately defined in the bill, and the government accepted that. It has also accepted a suggestion that no fissionable material should be included in any payload without the specific approval of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources.Weapons of mass destruction are particularly excluded from any payload by the legislation, but occasionally for scientific reasons and for reasons of satellite payload management, in the case of a deep space payload effort, it is necessary to have fissionable material. That is a matter for regret but it is a matter of scientific necessity on occasion and it is appropriate, with safeguards, if the minister gives his specific and informed consent.The regime of the bill has been adequately debated in the Senate. This is framework legislation. We will have to look to the specific terms of the regulations and of individual approvals for launch facilities which are already proposed for Woomera and possibly also Christmas Island. Other sites like Cape York and Gladstone are occasionally mentioned, but the Kistler proposal at Woomera is obviously the one which the government is proposing to get off the rank first. The agreement is already there and we certainly hope that that program will be up and running early next year, and that the organisation will be able to take advantage of this legislation to get that important industry in place.Let us look at this as an industry. One of the things which it is very important that we implement, and which the opposition would strongly support and stress the value of, is a space industry policy. It is critical that this country now begins at last to profit from the industry with which we have been so closely involved in the past and in which I hope we can be more involved in the future.Australia is a potentially good launching site but that should not mean that all of this equipment can simply be imported for overseas companies to make all of the profit from it, leaving us as just the launching pad. It is essential that an industry policy is developed in conjunction with this to ensure that local industry is able to participate in these programs to the maximum extent possible, and that there is a real and rational technology transfer to local industry.I look forward to seeing substantive proposals from the government as to how this industry policy can be developed in the future, to ensure that local industry does participate and profit and that there is real technology transfer to Australia in the future so that we not only benefit from the scientific and industrial and commercial applications of space technology but also profit from the activity itself. Also, Australians will then be able to showcase to the world their very real expertise in these areas and we will get the spin-off benefits in many of the other subsidiary industries.It is not simply the direct benefits which are important but also the spin-off technologies in robotics, in control systems, in the biological sciences. A whole range of those activities is possible, based on the outcome of space technology. While people often do not understand the spin-off benefits, those benefits can be far more substantial than the direct benefits of space technologies themselves. Industry policy is particularly vital in that regard.Yesterday we saw the introduction of a wide range of new taxation legislation. That is not particularly the topic today. However, it is worthy of note that the government did grant a wholesale sales tax exemption for imported launch material for Kistler in their Woomera venture. The government proposes to abolish wholesale sales tax and to impose a GST. I have not had a chance to peruse the full detail of the bills introduced yesterday, but they do not, so far as I am aware, contain an exemption for Kistler or any related activity.It could be said that space launches are the ultimate export industry. The material does, hopefully, leave Australia, and potentially it leaves the planet. In light of this being an export industry, if so defined, perhaps the government is implying that the usual GST rebate for export industries will be available.However, it is quite possible that some of these payloads will return to Australia, in which case can it be said to be an export industry? Indeed, some of the payloads may not leave the launch pad due to some unfortunate accident, in which case they would not be launched. In some cases it may be a test flight which does not include the launch of a payload, but simply a rocket flight and perhaps a return of the launch vehicle to Australia.In that context, I suggest that there is significant work for Treasury to do in respect of the GST, because we would not want a variable application of this taxation regime for different launches. We need consistency and certainty in this industry. The wholesale sales tax exemption which was previously granted gave that consistency and certainty. I suspect that the GST will cause confusion and uncertainty in this industry—as it will in so many other areas. I look forward to the government's explanation of how that will be overcome.The final matter I wish to raise before the Main Committee is the Spaceguard project. Just after the government came into office in 1996, one of its early decisions was to cancel Australian participation in the European Southern Observatory. They have since recovered from that somewhat by participating in the Chile telescope project. However, I still very much regret the early decision on the ESO.Another decision which has not been partially revoked was the decision to pull out of Spaceguard. Spaceguard, for those who do not know, is the international effort to monitor near-earth asteroids and like objects. Anyone who has seen the current movies, Armageddon and the like, will understand the potential for one of these rogue chunks of ice or rock in space to collide with earth.It has happened many times in the past. It will, undoubtedly, happen again, whether it is within our lifetime or within the lifetimes of the next five generations is a matter exclusively of luck and nothing else. If we do not know where these objects are, we will never know what is going to happen nor will we be able to take any mitigating action in defence of the planet.Other countries participate in this program. Australia, of course, was a good participant in this program, but the government has cancelled that effort. A full participation in Spaceguard would cost this country something like $600,000 a year. A minimal participation, which would still be acceptable, would cost much less, but we are not contributing at all. The problem for that is that Australia is one of the most obvious detection sites in the Southern Hemisphere and, without Southern Hemisphere detection sites, a very substantial chunk of space goes unwatched.I say to the government that we should be participating in this international effort, Spaceguard, not only for the sake of our international scientific reputation but also as a matter for the defence of Australia, if not the planet. A very modest contribution would see Australia's reputation restored. While the threat is not a high statistical probability, the very catastrophic nature of the outcome of the threat, even if it is a very low probability, is such as to make Spaceguard a worthwhile activity, given that we do now have, for the first time in human history, the appropriate technology to monitor these objects.The world is watching. Australia is a black spot in that area. I ask the government to reconsider the very modest funding which would put Australia back on the map in the Spaceguard terminology. This is not a matter of politics; it is a matter of a very simple determination for the planet. Although the probabilities are very low, such events have happened before. The event in 1916 in Siberia was very significant. It occurred in an uninhabited area but, of course, it is of recent origin and serves to remind us all of the impact which these things can have.On that very futuristic note, the opposition supports this legislation. We are pleased the government accepted the amendments. There are a couple of issues to be cleared up in further debate, if that is possible, but if not, then subsequently by a statement by the minister. I conclude with my plea to support the Spaceguard international effort.10:24:001402Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—There is clearly something about spacefaring, space travel, exploitation and so forth that does set the imagination on fire. We can all, I am sure, recall the thrill, as small children, of seeing—whether it was on television or at the cinema—some sort of drama or story concerning the exploration of space. Indeed, one could very well begin one's remarks in a debate such as this by saying, `A long, long time ago, in a country far, far away . . . 'The imaginations of many British people must have been set afire by the news of the voyages of people like James Cook and others who set off in vessels to cross the great oceans and, of course, in the course of those activities, discovered Australia. As time passed and it was settled, civil society took place, parliament was established—and here we are in 1998 debating perhaps another frontier of similar exploration.What is significant about it in 1998 is that it is vastly different from what it must have been, certainly when I was a child. In those days it was very much a case of exploring things that were completely unknown or supposed; whereas, these days, spacefaring and space exploitation are very much about practical applications. Again, 1998 perhaps has extra significance in the sense that we saw an American astronaut go into space for the second time, in the person of John Glenn, one individual who, like all of us here, has put aside much of his career to serve in public life.But the applications of space and the technology that comes with it are, as the member for Bonython said in the previous speech, really about the diffusion of knowledge that comes from this kind of activity: knowledge—scientific knowledge in particular—in areas such as bioengineering, robotics, optics, materials science and advanced manufacturing processes. As these technologies develop through the use or the exploitation of space, it is important that Australian citizens, corporations, institutions and universities have whatever access we can provide them to such state of the art applications.The Space Activities Bill 1998 that we are debating today establishes or codifies Australia's obligations under five United Nations space treaties. It deals broadly with three areas: with licensing of launches, safety issues and liability issues. I will return to the notion of applications before proceeding further and dealing with some of the interesting and more complex legal aspects of space exploration.The three main applications of space technology that I suppose have immediate interest to Australia are: the remote sensing of earth, given our large land mass and our national interest in exploiting our natural resources; communications systems—for a country whose population is as widely distributed as ours that is something that is very vital not only to the daily needs of some citizens who live in remote parts of Australia but likewise to the national prosperity; and, lastly, scientific exploration—all those areas of specialist knowledge that I enumerated before and that are important for Australia to have a part of.We already spend a lot of money every year on space systems applications—about $600 million. Much of this is spent, in effect, outside Australia. I understand that the Department of Industry, Science and Resources is to develop a specific space industry policy. This is a fine thing, especially given the enormous potential in returns on investment to Australian pension funds and the like, if we are to have part of this growing industry. But, of course, industry policy must be clear-headed; it must be imbued with limited, sensible ambition and not be the product of dreams that occur to ministers from time to time. It has to deal not with trying to build a new Jerusalem in a space industry here in Australia by the fiat of government, but with removing impediments to the private sector evolving within such commercial activity—reducing, if you like, the need for any excess or needless regulation.That said, we should not neglect the commercial potential for the exploitation of space. It is interesting to go into the notion of how we are to govern the activities that would occur in outer space. It is something that has been dealt with at an international multilateral level for a few decades. It goes back to the development of the technology in the 1950s and some discussions that took place in international fora, particularly the United Nations.It was interesting to learn that early on states gave up their right to sovereignty in outer space and on celestial bodies. This was done first in a formal resolution of the United Nations in 1962. Instead of the notion of sovereignty, where a physical piece of land or even sea can be defined and appropriated by occupation of a state, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 established clear rules regarding the jurisdiction and control of space objects.Likewise, outer space celestial bodies and, indeed, their natural resources are regarded as the common heritage of mankind. This 1967 treaty is really the basis of modern space law. It contains a set of fundamental principles that set up the basic framework of space exploration and exploitation. In an article in the Journal of Space Law, the 25th volume, a Chinese scholar, Mr He Qizhi, a member of the International Law Commission, sets out very clearly 12 basic principles that govern the exploitation of space. The first principle states:1) The exploration and the use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries—so you have that universal notion.2) Outer space shall be free for exploration and used by all states on a basis of equality;3) Outer space shall not be subject to appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation—the sort of thing I talked about before.4) Activities in the exploration and use of outer space must be carried out in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations in the interests of maintaining peace and security;5) No nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction shall be placed in orbits of the earth;6)The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all state parties to the treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes;Exploitation or exploration of the moon was later governed by a treaty signed in 1979.7) Astronauts shall be given every possible assistance—much like the Law of the Sea.8) State parties bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space;9) State parties keep jurisdiction control over launched objects—as opposed to having sovereignty over particular areas of space.10) State parties shall avoid harmful contamination of outer space—11) The UN Secretary-General must be informed about space activities and shall disseminate such information to the public—12) International cooperation and understanding are to be promoted. With that in mind as the basis of space law, there followed various other treaties to which Australia is a party. For example, in 1968, there was the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space. In 1972 we saw a formal Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. In 1976, there was the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, and in 1979 there was the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. There are other sets of principles formally agreed to, governing things like satellites, TV broadcasting, remote sensing of earth, nuclear power sources in outer space and the needs of developing countries.The question might arise: what would happen if a state decided to withdraw from all such agreements or, in effect, did not ever become a party to them? Those of you who were fans of the fiction of Ian Fleming might remember some of the stories—Dr No, for example. There you had an evil individual launching a rocket from a state—a third country, perhaps—completely out of the control of the forces of righteousness. How do the activities of such an individual fit with these international rules and laws? The answer is that the rules that are contained in the treaty and indeed embodied in the bill we debate today are actually customary international laws. They bind all members of the international community regardless of whether they ratify these agreements or not. So we are safe from the likes of Dr No in a legal sense.As for future developments in space law, there is no doubt that the protection of the earth's environment from damage or contamination from space is not perhaps yet as comprehensive as a legal regime could be. That is one aspect of the future development of space law.The other aspect is further types of space ventures, different sorts of exploration carried out. For example, only last year we saw both on television and via the Internet the Pathfinder vehicle there on the surface of Mars. It landed there on 4 July 1997. That, of course, gives rise to thoughts about where things will go from here. If there is an agreement to govern activities on the moon, what happens on Mars? The answer is that the provisions of that agreement about the moon, the 1979 agreement, can cover other celestial bodies unless there is a specific legal norm enacted to cover them in particular.Things dealt with in the bill such as the liability and the insurance requirements for private participation in space exploration and in launch vehicles will be increasingly important. These include things such as what rights apply and how you define the scope of the obligations of private participation in space. What happens, for example, if a corporation starts off in such a venture, launches a vehicle, and then goes bankrupt? What would happen if damage were to occur, a third party to suffer, and so forth? Likewise, what would the evidentiary rules be if a dispute arose about damage caused to a third party's object in space by the use of a robot? For example, how would the legal person who launched the vehicle that contained the robot prove that the damage was caused by the negligence of that person or of the party whose object suffered the damage? All these sorts of things remain to be defined in the future.There are also things such as the law of trespass. There is personal property in space objects. There are differences in the legal definition of objects used for space exploration as opposed to those for aircraft, those that travel within the earth's atmosphere. Differences or disputes could arise on the border, and we are going to need more specific rules in the future.I welcome this bill. I commend it to all my fellow members and I think that Australia has a lot to gain from an effort in participating in the exploration of space.10:38:001405Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The Space Activities Bill 1998 is a very important and groundbreaking bill about what we are going to face in the 21st century. The 21st century is going to be the century of space. It is going to be the century in which humanity will venture further and further into space. Much of what we achieve in the 21st century will be tied up either with the immediate space around the earth or with further explorations beyond.It is remarkable really that we have a situation where so much of the popular imagination is captured by the idea of space, the idea of space travel, the idea of what we can find in space and how we can benefit humanity through what may be activities carried out either in the immediate space around the earth or beyond—on the moon and even on the planets, and people even dream of the stars. Obviously, therefore, in these circumstances, it is important for the government to have a significant role as more and more people become involved in space activities.From the point of view of the general concept of this bill, it is welcome and I think the parliament ought to approve it in a bipartisan way. The bill really tries to do two things. It tries firstly to reaffirm our commitments to international treaties, especially UN treaties, in relation to space activities. I think it is very important that we do that. As other honourable members have mentioned, we have a number of treaties. Three of the most important are the Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. I think it is important that these treaties are there and that in fact the United Nations and the international community have at least cooperated in this area which potentially could have been an area of fundamental struggle.Issues such as the question of who can put up objects in space—satellites and the like—especially in the space around the earth and the question of conflict between the objects that are put up by different countries have all been significantly dealt with—not completely, but significantly dealt with—by the international treaties. I think that that bodes very well for at least beginning the 21st century on a positive note in this area of human activity.Of course, in addition to governments being involved, we have commercial activities. It is in this sense of the commercial activities that we have other aspects of this bill. The other significant part of this bill is the extent to which the government has a role in regulating the commercial activities of companies based in Australia that want to be involved in space activities and companies that are making launches from Australia or are involved in other activities associated with such launches. When we have that situation it is important that there be some controls.Indeed, the bill was brought in because, in a sense, activities got ahead of the government with the Kistler project in South Australia and its activities. We had a situation where in fact the government had to have a confidential understanding with the company in relation to the arrangements, but I am pleased to see that the minister says in the second reading speech:While the terms of that agreement are confidential, we have sought in this bill to achieve a regulatory regime largely consistent with that applied to Kistler.I think it is important that we are now in a position to put into place legislation to deal with these issues in time for other developments that are taking place very quickly in terms of commercial interests in the exploitation of space, in the use of space and indeed in the use of space launches.I think that all those factors are positive. There will be an insurance requirement to make sure that anyone who carries out commercial launches does not leave the responsibility to the Australian people and the Australian government if something goes wrong with their launch. That would be a bit serious from our point of view. If people want to become involved in commercial activities in relation to space, they have to make sure that they have adequate insurance cover in the event that something does go wrong with their launches and creates accidents or difficulties, either for people in Australia or indeed for people in other nations. We are still learning about space and space exploration and there are still things that can go wrong in these matters. Astronauts are always putting their lives at risk when they go up in space. Even when we are sending up unmanned satellites, they can sometimes go haywire in the process of getting up there or once they are up there.Having said that, one cannot underestimate the importance of these sorts of efforts in relation to space. The satellites that have been put up around the earth can be used for all sorts of very positive developments in relation to the future of our society and, indeed, the future of the planet. We can use satellites now to gain a much greater understanding of the earth's atmosphere, of the oceans, of ice and land and how all these things interact.We can use them for the prediction of the weather but also, hopefully, as time goes on, we will be in a position to predict natural catastrophes of various kinds before they occur, or at least give some idea of the direction in which these catastrophes are going to go. One is reminded of the recent catastrophe in Papua New Guinea. It would have been good if our technology had been able to foreshadow that in some way and to warn people and perhaps save lives in the process.Everyone knows about the importance of satellites in the communications systems of the world. The dramatic development of all of the communications systems has led to the new globalisation phenomenon. We are now becoming very much the global village as a result of the ability of satellites to connect people through telephones, television and all sorts of other modes of communication which are going to be further developed in the 21st century.The important thing about this, which I am sure you would be particularly interested in, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, is the way in which we can assist people in the most remote areas, through the uses of these technologies, to contact other human beings from all around the planet. This is very exciting. The fact that you can live in a relatively remote situation but be in contact with people from all over the globe through these satellites and communications systems obviously means that we are already seeing the great benefit of space and space exploration.That does not mean, however, that we have dealt with the issue of accessibility. It is all very well to have the right and the ability to provide these services to regional areas, but we also have to put in a bit of investment to make sure that it actually happens. In that regard, I believe that this is one of the most important areas for government activity: to ensure that our people who live in the regional and remote areas have access to the latest telecommunications and latest use of the satellite systems, so that they can be in communication and gain knowledge through television and radio services, mobile services, the Internet and a whole range of things. In so doing, we reduce the distance between people. Firstly, we reduce the distance between Australia and other nations and, secondly, we reduce the distance between the people who live in the remote areas and the people who live in the cities.I believe that this aspect of space exploration will become even more important in the future. Australia is going to be involved in satellite launches to further promote this. I think that is a very positive thing because we have in Australia some of the best scientists and innovators in this area. Often our scientific knowledge and innovation have been taken up by others and we have not benefited from the commercialisation of that scientific knowledge and innovation. I believe we can do that in the future. We need to concentrate more, not only on supporting pure research in this area—and I will come back to that—but also, equally importantly, on supporting the transformation of that pure research into practical products and specific areas of commercial activity that we can get into.I have mentioned ways in which space industries are going to be very important in the 21st century. Those industries are going to be an important source of employment as well. Australians need to have their skills and knowledge involved and to participate in the global network of space activities through a method which will ensure that our innovations are being produced and developed in Australia and that we are giving employment to Australians in relation to that.Another aspect of space exploration which captures the popular imagination is that as we get out into space we can discover more about the nature of our galaxy and the nature of the universe around us, and in some ways discover something more about the mystery of human life. From the beginning, human beings have always wanted to discover more about the nature of the physical universe and the role of human beings in that physical universe. We have developed in the last 20 or 30 years very interesting and dramatic theories about the nature of the physical universe; theories in which Australian universities and professors have played an important role. Through our important radio telescope activity we have been able to add very significantly to knowledge of the physical universe.One of the things that we in Australia are not sufficiently proud of is the work which we do to increase an understanding of the physical universe. Scientists come from all over the world to follow the radio astronomy and radio telescope work that we in Australia can do because we are in the Southern Hemisphere. The number of things that our telescopes have been able to discover or that were theoretically present but have been confirmed through this activity is quite dramatic. Our general contribution towards the total sum of human knowledge is one of the things that we can be proud of as a nation.In addition to that general idea of the contribution that we can make to the understanding of the universe, there is very important specific scientific work in space. Some of the work that can be done in space, where we can discover things about the reactions of the human body in different circumstances, can actually be used in the pharmaceutical industry, for example, in trying to discover how the body reacts in weightless conditions. There are some exciting studies that suggest that we might even be able to find a solution to the big problem of influenza and viruses by doing research in the weightlessness of space.There is also the question of how plants would operate in space and whether we can learn something about the development of plants in different environments, as well as many other applications to do with radiation and magnetism. All sorts of things that are potentially of great application to life on the earth can be studied in important experiments in space.Some people scoffed at the recent idea of the United States and Russia jointly building a space station. Some people think that some of these experiments are really not of great significance. That is not correct. Through the exploitation of space we can discover a lot about all sorts of sciences and all sorts of scientific knowledge. In general terms, therefore, this legislation and the framework which it sets are a very important and exciting development for us as a society, as we go towards the 21st century.There is one quibble that I have with the bill. Where the minister was able to give permits for launches and the like, I would have liked there to be some further emphasis on Australian industry development as part of the process. I think it is a bit unfair that the minister can virtually give authority for a process where Australians and Australian companies could have participated in the technological development but overseas companies have decided not to do that. It would have been important to say, `If you want to use Australia as a basis or a launching pad and you want to use Australian know-how and technology, how about we also use Australian high technology components. How about we also employ a certain number of Australians in these processes. How about some industry development requirements, which we have in other areas of industry development and which we require in other areas. Why not do this in relation to space activities and space exploration?'I would be interested in what the minister's response is to that, because we do not just want Australia to be used as some kind of launching pad and nothing more. We want Australia to be used in a more broad way, where there is a contribution from our scientists, our industry, our skills and our technology in these exciting developments into the 21st century.Besides the employment activity, there is an issue of ensuring that this technology is distributed and available, not just to rich individuals or to the big companies but to the average person. It is a social justice issue about access to the developments of space—a question of accessibility for all human beings and for all Australians. I hope that we will take that up in the future.10:57:001408Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I declare an interest in the Space Activities Bill 1998 because Woomera happens to be in the electorate of Grey. Woomera has seen many variations in its population over the last 20 or 30 years, which is generally a declining population. Everyone would understand the history of the range back through the 1950s and 1960s, when there were literally thousands of people employed in that activity.Subsequently, the United States Air Force had a base at Nurrungar, which brought its own economic activity and a new lease of life for Woomera through the 1970s. That period is drawing to a close. So to have the Kistler organisation participating in quite an exciting project in that part of the world now is another welcome respite. It will certainly bring an improvement in circumstances once the closure of the Nurrungar base is signalled. On top of that, Woomera is currently a temporary base for the Western Mining Corporation, with the $3 billion mining project up the road a little bit at Roxby Downs. My interest primarily is in the township and in the constituents who reside at Woomera.The bill has been well defined but it is nevertheless worth repeating that it provides a regulatory framework for space activities carried out from Australia or by Australian nationals outside Australia on the model provided by the US Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984. This framework will accord with international obligations in this area with regard to licensing, safety and liability.As many speakers have highlighted, but I would like nevertheless to put into the Hansard, the space activities include remote sensing: the remote studies of the atmosphere, the oceans and of the earth's surface generally to provide data on matters as diverse as vegetation patterns, seismology, geology, weather forecasting, mineral prospecting, fisheries mapping, urban planning and environmental monitoring.Secondly, as the member for Calwell touched on in his speech, there is the issue of communications: facilitating the use of mobile and remote computers and communications tools across broadcasting, transportation, logistics, personal communications, defence monitoring, and remote education and medicine. Satellite communications have helped bring about the communication revolution and will be part of future developments. Thirdly, there is scientific exploration: in the fields of astronomy, cosmology, physics and biology, space based research leads not only to an understanding of space but of the earth.Australia's space industry at present spends about $600 million annually on satellite communications, mostly overseas. This means there are not only industry but also strategic concerns over our reliance on overseas providers of space services and technology. This is despite the obvious attractions, reflected in commercial interest, of Australia as a site for significant launch and development facilities. I have already touched on the American Kistler Aerospace Corporation. Added to that, the International Resource Corporation Russian Soyuz program and the United Launch Russian Unity rocket program have expressed interest in sites as diverse as Woomera, Christmas Island and Gladstone.In order to facilitate development and give our operators a level standing in the global market for this industry, we require a regulatory framework that is flexible but secure. This legislation will be of benefit to potential investors in this industry as well as to those communities and firms in Australia that will be able to be part of that investment.At present, there are no regulatory arrangements for space launch activities in Australia. This legislation will remedy that oversight. The non-statutory Space Licensing and Safety Office has already been established and a wholesale sales tax exemption of 22 per cent has been granted for imported space launch vehicles and satellites, with a $1.3 million budget in 1998. That office will be funded through the issuing of licence and launch permit fees.While I am on the issue of the wholesale sales tax, on the point made by the member for Bonython, it would be my understanding that, apart from the fact that your average citizen does not go down the street every day and buy a space rocket, those would be part of business inputs. Therefore, I would expect no GST would apply to this project. I will have that checked; nevertheless, I think it shows some misunderstanding of the new tax system that this government is proposing.Under the bill, a space licence is required to operate a launch vehicle from a site. Each launch will require an individual licence. The bill also specifies third-party insurance arrangements for the industry. Australians intending to procure a launch from overseas will also be required to obtain an overseas launch certificate. The bill also establishes a register of space objects in line with international registration requirements. As has been touched on by my colleague previously, it will be in accordance with international law.I think it might be worth talking a little more about Kistler and Woomera. It is the development at Woomera at the instigation of the Kistler Aerospace Corporation that has heightened the need for this regulatory framework. No longer is an Australian space industry hypothetical; it is now a commercial reality. The agreement made between the federal government and Kistler will be preserved by this legislation. The legislation will also apply to penalty provisions, accident investigation and appeal rights with regard to the Kistler agreement. That agreement was signed in April and was announced by the Prime Minister during the visit by the federal cabinet to the city of Whyalla.The Kistler project was formally opened by the former industry and defence ministers, the South Australian Premier and Mr Robert Wang of Spaceport Woomera on 23 July at the Ashton Hill site. It is expected that 125 jobs will be created in Woomera during construction and test flights of the Kistler K1 are anticipated within months. The first commercial payload is expected to be launched next year. The launch vehicle will be reusable up to 100 times, with rocket engines replaced after 20 flights.The Kistler project is expected to generate $2.9 billion in income for Australia over the next 12 years. It is only the beginning of the possibilities offered by the space industry. Importantly, it offers opportunity for the revitalisation of Woomera, as I mentioned earlier.As far as comment from senators in the other place goes, I could perhaps reassure Senator Margetts who said on 21 November 1998 in the Senate:I understand that there is already agreement between the Commonwealth and a private company for the launch site at Woomera—the Kistler project.She went on:I wonder what environmental and Aboriginal issues have been addressed, and remain to be addressed, in relation to that project.I know the member for the Northern Territory would have some understanding of these issues as well, as he was involved in some of the negotiations in a previous life. It is my understanding that there has been significant negotiation with Aboriginal people, that there are potential employment prospects and that that negotiation has been very satisfactory and was, indeed, part of the initial agreement.Finally, in response to the point that the member for Calwell was making, I would like to say that access to telecommunications for rural and remote communities will be part of the next generation. It will be essential for all commercial, social and other aspects of our lives. For those of us who live in these parts of Australia, this is a very exciting development. In the few years I have been the federal member for Grey, one development I recall very well in the Woomera region was where a digital GSM phone was made available and was connected for the potential use of space industries.Then to see an international corporation choose to invest and be part of my electorate and of our economy is very exciting. It offers, as I understand it, the launch facility for low earth orbiting satellites, which will be the new generation satellite, allowing low earth orbiting mobile phone services. Whilst the cost is high relative to the old analog and digital systems, it is expected as the years go on that that cost will be significantly reduced. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill and I wish it well.11:08:001410Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—In speaking to the Space Activities Bill 1998 , I wish, firstly, to declare a direct interest in it. Following my loss in the 1996 election I set up a consulting company, Warren Snowdon and Associates Pty Ltd. Currently I remain a director of that company and a consultant to it. I am in the process of resigning as a director.This company has had a number of contracts. Earlier this year it was retained by Kistler Aerospace to provide advice and assistance on a range of matters. This relationship is an ongoing one. In these circumstances, and in order to ensure that there is no perceived or actual conflict of interests, should there be a division on this bill it is my intention to abstain from the vote. Having said that, I want to endorse this legislation because I think it is very important for Australia.The member for Grey spoke about the Kistler project in his electorate. I also have another interest that I ought to declare: Christmas Island, which is in my electorate, is a site of another space project—and I will come to that in a moment. I note that the member for Fairfax had a direct interest himself in terms of the policy development issues in relation to the Christmas Island project in the previous parliament.In talking about these matters it is important that we understand the import of them. There is a vague notion in the wider community about space and all that it entails. People watch sci-fi movies. They see the exploits of the American space program and the Russian space program and it is all quite alien. The reality is that in terms of space technology and Australia's involvement in space programs we are now in a position where we are actively involved. Whilst we have been involved before in terms of our scientific endeavours, we are now involved commercially.What has happened as a result of the initiative from Kistler Aerospace is that we have an agreement which has been reached between the Commonwealth and Kistler Aerospace—as has been identified by the previous speaker, the member for Grey—which was signed in April of this year and which is encapsulated in terms of this bill before the House.In that agreement the negotiations were quite lengthy and they have had to address a range of very sophisticated and quite new issues to Australian public policy. It is important that we do not underestimate the effort that has gone into that process by all those people involved—I include here not only the ministers but their staff and particularly those people who are responsible within the bureaucracy, as well as the negotiators for Kistler—because some of the issues have been indeed difficult.One of the issues which remains a point of contention is the question of indemnification. Kistler and other companies that want to come to Australia will only do so if they can be assured that the terms on which they arrive here are no less favourable than the terms they would otherwise get in other places. The issue of this indemnification is quite important because Kistler, as we are aware, is an American company and it has come to Australia because of the attractions which are provided by Woomera as a site—and very important attractions they are. But, commercially, it is very important also that we do not underestimate the impact of decisions which we might make about the impost of costs upon companies like Kistler and, indeed, those other companies that have expressed an interest in developing space technologies which might be launched from Australia.The question of technology is also of interest. I noted the contributions of various speakers about the need for us to develop our own space based industries. That is important, but we should not ignore the fact that, whilst these technologies are very sophisticated, as they properly are, and it is very clear that we have the scientific capacity to work with them, there are also security implications for other countries.It is very clear that the United States government, for example, places heavy restrictions on the export of technology. That is an issue which we have to come to terms with. We must develop a relationship with those countries so that they can be secure in the knowledge that technology which is used in this country as a result of commercial arrangements with organisations that want to launch satellites will not be used by and will not fall into the hands of those people who might have another interest for them.In terms of the Kistler project, we should bear in mind that the engineers behind this project are the engineers who have been at the forefront of space technology development in the United States. They were responsible primarily for the Apollo program and NASA. They have extensive experience and in terms of leadership in the engineering field are seen as leaders in aerospace technology.It is not my intention to run a sales pitch for Kistler but I think it is important that we contemplate the fact that, like other companies that come to Australia, they have had to deal with our own administrative structures, our own legal regimes, which are quite different. Many people who come to Australia are mildly surprised at the expedition with which matters can be dealt with. For example, the fact that our bureaucracy is professional, that it has a very good reputation for the way in which it does its business, is very important.The previous speaker referred to the question of negotiations with Aboriginal people. That is the part of the project that I have been involved in and it is true that Kistler have taken a very positive approach to the question of native title. What they have done in this particular instance is to go into a negotiation, recognising that native title exists, and negotiate as if native title did exist before any determination. That meant a very positive atmosphere, so we were not embroiled in a negotiation about whether or not there was the existence of native title; native title was assumed to exist and negotiations took place on that basis and they have been very positive.I want for a moment to address the issue of the possibility of other space developments in Australia. We know that Kistler proposes to start commercial flights next year. Certainly trials should start by the end of the first quarter, we hope, but also the International Resource Corporation, the IRC, is proposing to develop a project here in Australia. The Asia-Pacific Space Centre is behind a proposal to launch satellites from Christmas Island by the International Resource Corporation. For those of you who are not aware of Christmas Island, one of its significant aspects is that it is about 3½ hours flying time from Perth and 40 minutes from Jakarta and is a very isolated Australian community in the Indian Ocean. An advantage for a company like the Asia-Pacific Space Centre is the fact that it does not have any land around it; therefore the problem of retrieval which is very real for land based launches, other than the sort which are used by Kistler, does not exist, so the dangers which might emerge from the flight path of a launch vehicle from a place like Cape York—or Woomera for that matter—do not exist. So it has very great advantages.However, it is a very sensitive environment and one of the key issues which has got to be resolved is the question of the environmental impact of any possible launch site on Christmas Island. Having said that, it is important for the local economy that this development does proceed, because the nature of the local economy is such that it has been reliant, almost solely now for the last few months, on the successful phosphate mining program that exists on the island and which has received an Australian export award earlier this week.This has the potential, we are told, to create some hundreds of jobs on Christmas Island and that is very important. So we should not underestimate the importance of this project in particular in terms of the creation of jobs and its impact on the local community. That applies also to Kistler because we know, from the projections that Kistler has, that it would create quite a number of jobs in the local region and that there are technological and industrial spin- offs which will emerge very directly in the local community. That includes, clearly, the employment of Aboriginal people who are part of that community and indeed are the native title claimants.It is not my intention to speak at any great length on this particular bill, but I do think we should not underestimate its importance, and I fear that a lot of people have. This is an entirely new field for us and the development of public policy in terms of space is extremely important as we move into the next millennium. I believe that we will end up having a very successful aerospace industry based in Australia as a result of the interest which has been shown by investors from other countries who have indicated a desire to launch satellites from Australia.I might just make mention of the innovative technology which Kistler is using and which I think has a great attraction. It is quite new technology. The launch vehicle will be reusable and will come back to earth on parachutes, both the first and second stages, and land within some few kilometres of the launch site.This will substantially reduce the cost of launching satellites and improve the commercial viability of that operation immensely and make it extremely competitive. If their confidence is well placed, as they believe it is in terms of the commercial viability of the project, then one can only imagine the important economic spin-offs the operation will have for the local economy.I note that the member for Grey used a figure of $2.5 billion. That is an enormous amount of money. It will have an enormous impact on an economy which needs support, and that is the economy of South Australia. We should not underestimate the impact it will have on the broader Australian economy and industry generally in terms of advancing us into the next century, making sure that we are at the forefront of aerospace industry. I believe we should be there. I am sure we will be there as a result of this bill and as a result of the interest that has been shown in Australia by companies who want to use Australia as a launching pad for vehicles that will take us into that next century.11:20:001413Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—in reply—As set out in my second reading speech, the Space Activities Bill 1998 provides for a legislative and regulatory framework for space launch activities in Australia.In the debate in the Senate, the government accepted a number of amendments to the bill from the Labor opposition, the Democrats and the Greens. These amendments cover environmental safeguards, the launch of materials, reporting requirements and the registration of space objects. In the area of environmental protection, the bill has been amended to specify that the minister must be satisfied that all the environmental approvals necessary under the Australian law have been obtained and that an adequate environmental plan is in place for the construction and operation of a launch facility.An additional safeguard for the protection of public health and safety has been added by an amendment to provide that a space object launched from or returned to Australia must not contain fissionable material without a prior written approval from the minister. Public accountability provisions of the bill have been strengthened by amendments which provide for the tabling in parliament of any exemption certificate for approvals required under the act and for any instruction given by the minister to a launch safety officer.The amendments also require publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of any variation, revocation, suspension, transfer or reinstatement of a range of authorisations under the act relating to the launch or return. The government accepted these amendments to enhance transparency and public administration. The bill has also been amended to ensure that, under an authorisation provided under the act, every space object launched is entered into an Australian register of space objects established by the bill.I will now address the comments that have been made by speakers in today's debate. The member for Bonython made a point that the bill provides a good framework for space industry regulation but the opposition will monitor the regulations closely. The government has committed to very thorough consultation with the space industry in developing the regulations. We certainly would welcome any constructive input on the development of an efficient, safe and workable regulation system for the space industry.I encourage those on the other side to work with us in this because it is something in which we can work towards ensuring that in Australia we get the best possible system in place. Given that we have a lot of support right across the spectrum, this would be a good opportunity to work closely together to reap the end results of this legislation.The member for Bonython supported the development of an indigenous space industry in Australia. The government strongly supports the development of local capabilities so that Australia can capture the benefits of this industry. We believe that the technology transfer that will occur through projects such as the Kistler project will provide a good basis for the development of a local space industry.The member for Bonython noted that the government has introduced legislation to exempt imports of launch vehicles and payloads from wholesale sales tax. He questioned what the position would be under the GST regime. In general, the space launch industry is expected to benefit from the rebates for export that will be provided under the GST regime. However, this matter warrants further examination and the government will certainly take it up.My colleague the member for Wentworth drew attention to the United Nations treaties which underpin international space law and, indeed, this bill. There are, as he suggests, areas of space activities where further development of international law will certainly be required. The government acknowledges this and will closely monitor developments in international space law and, where necessary, participate in relevant international debates.The member for Calwell, in his contribution, emphasised the importance of ensuring adequate insurance cover for any third-party damage as a result of the space activities. That is a key requirement in this bill and one of the government's primary objectives in introducing it.The member for Calwell suggested also that the bill could have placed legislative requirements on commercial space operators to develop an Australian space industry. The development of an indigenous space industry is also a key concern for the government but we do not believe that the imposition of legislative requirements is the most effective way to advance this. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources will, however, be working very closely with commercial proponents of space technology to maximise the benefits for Australian industry of space projects in Australia.The points raised by the member for Grey included the importance of the Kistler project to his electorate and to that of the member for the Northern Territory, and more broadly to the development of the space industry in Australia. I should say to both members that the government sees the Kistler project as a very significant beginning for a viable commercial space industry in Australia and has very strongly supported that project.The member for the Northern Territory raised the issue of ensuring that Australia has a commercially competitive regime for space regulation. This again is an objective of the bill, and the regulations will also be developed with a view to ensuring an operating environment that is commercially competitive.Several participants in this debate have raised the issue of space science and research and they have urged the government to support Australia's participation in that. I acknowledge a strong record of achievement by Australia in this area. The government supports those scientific efforts primarily through the CSIRO and within the allowable budget parameters the government will, of course, continue to do so.This bill sets out a solid foundation for the safe, efficient and cost-effective regulation of space launch and recovery operations in Australia. It provides a stimulus for the growth of a new Australian industry, based on the rapid global expansion of space activities.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—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.Address in Reply14151415Debate 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.11:31:001415McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Madam Deputy Speaker, if I could have your indulgence for a moment to explain the opposition's participation in this debate, I would appreciate it.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly) —Indulgence is granted.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The opposition will participate in the address-in-reply debate in the Main Committee today under sufferance. We understand that the government intends to complete this debate by Wednesday of next week. This means this debate will go for an hour or so in the Main Committee today and a few hours on Wednesday. There are still 30 opposition speakers who wish to speak. We understand the government has the same number of speakers. We do not believe the address-in-reply debate should be truncated like this. It gives members coming back from an election the chance to comment both on the election process and the government's program for the rest of the term. It is ridiculous, we believe, for the government to suggest that members should take five or 10 minutes in this debate. That is not enough. It will not allow everybody to speak in the debate, even if people truncate their remarks.The government has not been full and frank with the opposition in this process. We were originally of the understanding that this may have gone over until next year, and that is now not so. We do not think the address-in-reply debate should be completed so quickly. There are no urgent government legislative matters relying upon the address being completed now or early in the next session.This is the first time the address-in-reply has been sent to the Main Committee; it has normally been conducted in the House. It was our intention initially to consider sending this back to the House today. I do not think that would assist members on either side. We will only agree to the normal sittings of the Main Committee this week and next week. We think the government's original proposal to allow the address to continue next year would have been far more sensible and would have allowed more members to participate.As I said, we are participating in this debate under sufferance. We think it should be allowed to go over until next year; we think members should have a right to comment on the government's program for the rest of this term.There are a number of other things that the government has debated and I imagine we will be discussing these things at a later date in the chamber. We will agree to the address-in-reply debate staying in the Main Committee today and we will agree to it being debated in the Main Committee next Wednesday. If the government had run it over until next year, we would probably have agreed to more debate here this week, next week and in the new year. The member for Canberra will participate from our side with other members. The government should be willing to give more consideration not only to the opposition but also to their own members. There are 30 of them and 30 of us. About six or seven people will get to participate. That is not good enough.11:35:001416Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—On indulgence, please?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Yes, indulgence is granted.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—To respond very briefly to the spirited defence of the Chief Opposition Whip in relation to this program, the government offered both the opposition and the government members an opportunity to participate in this debate next week. We put an offer to the opposition whereby the hours of the Main Committee would be extended. Had that been done, it was our belief that the great majority of members who wished to could speak on the address-in-reply, through the offers made for both Monday and Tuesday of next week.The government is obviously bitterly disappointed that the opposition, which has a large number of new members, has decided not to give its own members the opportunity to participate in the address-in-reply. If that is the view of the opposition, the government cannot, of course, do anything about that. We are pleased that there will be at least some debate on the address-in-reply.The opposition is acutely aware that the position was put that it was highly unlikely that we would be able to continue the address-in-reply in the new year. That was a possibility; but, with appropriations and other debate, it was believed that it was unlikely. It was `possible but unlikely' was, I think, the way it was put. The government is pleased that we will at least get some address-in-reply debate. We are disappointed that the opposition has not chosen to extend the sittings of the Main Committee. That offer was made, and I believe that, with a bit of commonsense, we would have been able to give most members the opportunity to speak on the address-in-reply. That will not be so; so be it. I am pleased the opposition at least is prepared to address the address-in-reply today and on Wednesday.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the member for Ballarat and the member for Watson for their cooperation. I now call the member for Canberra.11:37:001417Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I would like to take what has now become a very valuable opportunity to respond to the government's mean-spirited agenda for this parliament, as expressed in the Governor-General's speech late last month. The government claims to be committed to enhancing our national economic performance and providing a policy framework in which more jobs are created and the living standards of Australians are improved. That is an objective that I think we would all agree on. However, we have a fundamentally different series of ways of getting to that objective.Labor believes that good economic policy puts people first, matching competence and efficiency with compassion and care. We believe that the key to achieving both employment growth and rising incomes is strong, sustained and sustainable economic growth. It is bad economic policy to grow the economy faster than can be sustained, but even worse to grow it more slowly than its sustainable potential.Labor believes that the benefits that flow from economic growth should be available to everyone in the community. A fair and efficient distribution of the benefits of national economic success should be a priority of government. This government has, to date, failed on this score. Some sections of our community are clearly doing much better than the rest under Treasurer Costello. This is set to continue with the government's proposed tax changes. The government believes its new tax system will dramatically reduce the taxation burden on Australians. I say it will dramatically redistribute the taxation burden on Australians.At the heart of the government's tax reform is the GST—a regressive tax that is fundamentally unfair to low and middle income earners. The GST is being used to fund $13 billion in personal income tax cuts. These income tax cuts are also unfairly distributed. The biggest benefits go to those who are best off: the more you have, the more you get and the more you get to keep. More than half of the total benefit of the $13 billion tax cuts goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners, leaving less than half for the remaining 80 per cent. This is what I would call hardly a fair distribution.Looking now to the government's industrial relations agenda, the government intends to amend the Workplace Relations Act to maintain the injustice of junior wage rates. The government claims that moving from aged based to competency based wage rates will result in increased youth employment. The available evidence just does not support this argument. Wage rates are not the most significant factor in determining levels of employment. Relative to adults the wages of young full-time workers have been falling but that has not resulted in employers substituting young workers for the mature. On the other hand, wage costs for part-time teen workers have increased relative to adults but so has their part-time employment. Youth wages are lower in manufacturing than in retail, but youth employment has fallen faster in manufacturing. So wage rates are not a significant factor in youth unemployment, but they are a decisive factor in the poverty of young workers.Youth unemployment in Canberra has been very high for a very long time. It regularly bounces between 30 per cent and 50 per cent. Fortunately—and I am pleased to say this—it has not been up to 50 per cent in the most recent months, but it is still consistently around the 30 to 40 per cent rate. Many young Australians remember the statement from Mr Howard on the eve of the 1996 election regarding youth unemployment when he said:I will be a very disappointed man if I haven't made a very serious inroad into the level of youth unemployment in this country because I would like to see our performance in that area as being a mark of what we have been able to do as a government.The mark of this government's first term was increased youth unemployment and reduced opportunities for young Australians. It remains to be seen whether this second term will be any better. However, I fear that they are determined to continue their agenda of cutting youth wages and cutting funding to education and training even though it is not the solution to this problem.Not only is the government attacking young people in work, they have been equally tough on young people trying to study. The government claims to believe in education and training. They claim that they will work to ensure that all young people have access to a strong basic educational grounding and a quality pathway from school to further training and employment.But let us look at the record. The first two coalition budgets made education and training its number one target for cuts. University grants were cut by nearly $1 billion, resulting in the abolition of 21,000 student places. TAFE funding was cut by $240 million. $130 million was directly cut from government schools and a further $400 million was cut indirectly from government schools as a result of reduced state grants.While other nations are increasing their investment in education as a strategic investment in their future, the Howard government has moved, it seems, in the opposite direction. It is the first government in Australia's history to wind back the scale of public education, research and training to this extent. The Howard government has, I believe, failed young people by turning its back on education and training and on fixing the young unemployment problem.The government states that it is committed to increasing opportunities for families to build on and strengthen their own resources and networks of support. They have created a new Family and Community Services portfolio to assist this process. Yet the first act of the new minister is to cut 5,000 jobs from Centrelink. How does this help families to build on and strengthen their own resources and networks of support?There seems to have been a total disregard for the client base of Centrelink. The people who rely on Centrelink need those services because of particular circumstances in which they find themselves. I think it is pretty unfair that we expect people who may have difficulties in dealing with the bureaucracy or with legal matters or matters concerning their income and their future viability to patiently hang on a telephone line for hours attempting to get information. The government really should rethink this. This is not the way to deal with clients of Centrelink. You are disregarding them and I urge you to reconsider this process.Late last month we saw a piece of legislation rammed through this place to try to stem the flow of people leaving private health insurance. This legislation is nothing more than a $1.5 billion finger in the dike. It is all about a continuous subsidy of private health insurance funds. Australians actually want something done about the public health system. They want something done about waiting lists and about people queuing up in corridors of public hospitals on trolleys waiting for attention. Australians actually want more money directed to public hospitals, not a blank cheque for private health insurance companies.Labor actually believes in maintaining the Medicare system. We believe it is, in fact, the best way to improve the nation's health system overall. We remain committed to universal access to publicly funded health services through the Medicare system, and the Australian community believes that too.Our position on this issue is backed up by the fact that the Australian community votes for Medicare every time they have the opportunity. The goal of public policy in this area must surely be to make private health insurance better value for the consumer who chooses it. Nobody in this place except those on our side seems to be asking: what is wrong with the product these private insurance companies are selling? That is the question: what is wrong with it?The simple answer is that it is inequitable and it is not worth the money. Addressing the gap—the difference between what you get from Medicare and your health fund and the total fee—is the crucial issue. Yet government members have voted to oppose redrafting their flawed legislation to include measures to make health insurance more attractive by providing patients with a single hospital bill and insurance to cover the cost of hospital and medical services so that patients do not face large out-of-pocket costs.By pursuing this legislation, the government is compounding the inadequacies of its first incentive scheme. The government is throwing good money after bad with this 30 per cent rebate, a rebate that is not means tested and is expected to increase fund membership by a paltry 2.7 percentage points.I would like to refer to the subsidy of ancillary charges as well. As I have said in this place before on a couple of occasions—and I will keep saying it, and I will say it again today—what makes me the angriest is the amount of money that is going out of this $1.5 billion to prop up the costs of ancillary medical insurance.The general extension of the rebate to the ancillary service area means that privately insured people will get a 30 per cent rebate for, as an example, the dental premium. It means that nearly $200 million will go to subsidising the dental treatment of those who can, in a lot of cases, probably already afford dental care. This comes two years after this government scrapped the $100 million Commonwealth Dental Scheme that gave pensioners and others in need in our community access to dental treatment.The Minister for Health and Aged Care claims that the minister has no place in providing such a scheme, yet he is happy to sit back and let those in real need suffer while handing out $200 million in subsidies to, in many cases, higher income earners. This is the best example of the meanness and misplaced priorities of this government. It shows why 51 per cent of Australians actually voted against them in the last election.I would like to spend the time remaining to me looking at the provision of government and welfare services and the government's trend toward outsourcing. In the last parliament I was involved in the House of Representatives Committee on Family and Community Affairs inquiry into competitive tendering of welfare services. There is no doubt that there are some in government who believe there is little we cannot competitively tender out in the area of government service delivery. I do not subscribe to that view. In fact, I believe the time has come for us all to prescribe utmost caution.There is a great deal of fear and suspicion of competitive tendering amongst community organisations. We heard many examples of where an organisation had gone to the cost of entering more than one tender at a time and then having to wait many months for the outcome while carrying those costs. Also, the experience of the clients of welfare services must be considered to be as important as merely considering the economic arguments for competitive tendering. In fact, it is probably more important.The bottom line is really pretty simple. When considering the lives of the less advantaged in our society, do we allow consideration of competition to dominate, to let market forces start to take hold sometime in the future? We can set down these paths with the greatest faith and intent and with what we believe may be the highest level of standard and accountability settings applied. These things should be, and already are, in place in the current delivery systems. But they can always be improved and better developed, and evidence to our committee strongly urged that to continue.You do not have to go down the competitive tendering path to ensure higher standards, accountability, or value for the dollar. I worry that should we at some stage in the future adopt this approach, with profit being a major component in the delivery of these services, we will see an erosion of quality as workers are asked to do more and more with less and less.Some areas of government service have already adopted the competitive tendering approach. Of course, employment services is probably the most obvious that comes to mind. Nevertheless, I think it is important that government agencies remain accountable for efficient and effective delivery of services irrespective of whether welfare services are provided to clients by government agencies or through a contractor.Mr Deputy Speaker, what we are really talking about is the sort of society that I believe we want and how we see ourselves in the decades ahead, whether we are a society of community or a society of self. I passionately believe in the society of community, where those of us needing that hand-up receive it, not as an act of benevolence or charity, but as an active participant in that community, promoting self-worth and self-esteem. The Prime Minister has recently called for the corporate sector to be more involved in the welfare of our society. Obviously, none of us would not want to see those who can afford to do so assisting those needing help, but I say, `Please don't take us down the road where the only assistance you can get eventually is dependent upon the charity of others.' We must all be given the ability to feel that self-worth and to be given the chance to contribute on even ground. I know what sort of community I believe in and that Labor believes in. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and this House, that we will be continuing to question this government on all actions and decisions they take, now and in the future, affecting that very community I speak of.11:51:001420Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—In the address-in-reply I really regard it as a privilege this morning to rise the day after the Treasurer was able to introduce into the House the legislation for Australia's new tax system, on the same day that we have five per cent growth, a 0.25 per cent cut in interest rates by the Reserve Bank and an economy which must be unsurpassed in the Western world. The Governor-General, when he opened the parliament, reminded us that the Australian people re-elected the government on October 3 and gave us the renewed responsibility for managing the nation's affairs in the interests of all Australians. Above all, the government:. . . is committed to implementing the priorities for its second term on the basis of its unequivocal commitment to the Australian values of decency, openness, tolerance and a fair go for all.In those few words the Governor-General reminds us of what a fortunate place Australia is. Whilst we will differ, and appropriately so—the member for Canberra has just reminded us of some of those things we would differ on—nevertheless there are always those things which unite us. They should be much more strongly emphasised, I like to think, than those things that divide us.The economic challenges were very significant when we came into office after 13 years of our opponents being in charge of the Treasury benches. I came from one of the lowest income areas in Australia. We hear a lot about low incomes in Australia but I actually come from one of the lowest income areas of Australia and it has been that way for about two decades. Regional Australia is represented overwhelmingly by coalition members so I had a particular incentive when I came to this place to represent the reality of small business, the reality of inequitable access to education and the reality of interest rates at 20 per cent and ignorance of the real role of employment creation.One of the most remarkable things that I will always recall is the issue of uranium mining—a very emotive campaign of 20 years or more in this country. When there was an opportunity in my electorate for a place called Roxby Downs to have what has now turned out to be a $3 billion project, all my political opponents, including the Democrats and the Greens, could do was oppose it. Only those in the coalition were prepared to give support to this project.I remember well in the period in opposition when I was first a member, from 1993 to 1996, the member for Gippsland and I debating a matter of public importance about the abolition of the three mines policy. I think about the courage of one state Labor member, Norman Foster, who crossed the floor and allowed this great project to proceed.I mention those things in hindsight and because they are part of our history. Nevertheless, this highlights why I stand on this side of the parliament representing the government. The people of Australia have had enough of retraction, enough of negativity and enough of special interest groups. So when the Governor-General mentions that this government is committed on the basis of its unequivocal commitment to the Australian values of decency, openness, tolerance and a fair go for all, it really rings a very strong chord with me.To touch briefly on a new tax system, much has been said and will be said as each particular political grouping goes through its paces over the next three to six months. Regrettably, we are going to get from our opponents just a repeat of the self-justification with which they went to the election, basically a policy of negativity and no positive future for Australia and, as the Treasurer constantly reminds us and rightly so, one based on a tax system from the 1930s—based on something which really is destined for the ark or for no reasonable progress for an Australia based on a reasonable tax system.The thing that really gets me about the whole debate from our opponents on the tax system is: why won't they address the issue of the revenue that is needed to be provided for public services, for the health system? We heard about Centrelink this morning again—the reality is 5,000 jobs. I understand we were losing more jobs under Labor over the last decade than this current reform is providing.How do we pay for those services? How do we pay for Centrelink? How do we pay for the whole range of welfare services? Now 40 per cent of our GDP goes in welfare services. We have to pay for it from revenue, from the people who pay every week or every year or every quarter for it. I wish my opponents would talk about those people who pay the bills at least as much as about those who are here spending it. I include myself in that. I am helping with my salary in spending some of those taxpayers' benefits. But I have come from a background of small business farming, where too often a negative return was the order of the day, particularly with 20 per cent interest rates which drove me to this place to try and right some of those wrongs that Labor inflicted upon my region, which is still suffering some of those negatives from that era. That drove me to this place to try to do something like bring in the new tax system which the Treasurer brought into the House yesterday.In terms of the health system, I just remind the Main Committee—and I am sure all of us would be aware of it—what an absolute farce the private health insurance debate is. We had 70 per cent private health insurance some 25 years ago. Labor did all it could to destroy it. It took away the incentive. It added to the costs. It added, as I recall, a 12 per cent per annum increase in its time in government. It had the hide to stand up in the House of Representatives and ask whether it would remain tied, whether there would be an increase in the rate and whether it would be this or would it be that. After 20 years of negligence and absolutely solid attack on private health insurance, the Labor Party has the audacity to criticise. I understand the member for Paterson was brave enough to come out and criticise the government in his seat, but he was very quickly reminded by one of the senators that 52 per cent of his constituents have private health insurance, which is quite high by national standards.This whole issue around private health insurance includes the overall cost and the new Medicare agreement that gives $33 billion or $35 billion to the states, which is a 15 or 16 per cent real increase. Remember, it is public and private—it is not just a matter of private hospitals; it is a matter of the public sector, which is important. The whole idea of private health insurance is to get pressure off the public system. Remember also that the Medicare levy contributes about 15 per cent of the actual health costs of this country. Those who just rely on the Medicare levy, and do not pay private health insurance, are in effect dodging the real issue. For those who have made some genuine attempt to insure themselves, I think it is quite reasonable for a government to give them some incentive. Remembering Labor's record over the last 15 or 20 years, you could say that they blatantly went out to try to destroy that system.I could go on at great length, because I am enjoying the role on the Treasury bench with the government. I think the government has much to be proud of in its first term. I think the Governor-General's speech summed up what we inherited and what we tidied up in our first term. Now we have a very challenging task. Over the last couple of months the government has been quickly settling into government and getting into its stride, and I am really looking forward to the next three years of very strong government from John Howard and his executive.12:02:001422Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—First in the address-in-reply I want to express my gratitude to the people of the electorate of Wills for their support, which came in the shape of 71 per cent in the two-party preferred vote. It means that Labor has now doubled, in primary vote, what it had back in the more difficult days of 1992. Indeed, it is considerably higher than anything we have had since the boundaries for the electorate of Wills were shifted to the west. I am very appreciative of the level of support that I have received.I share the disappointment of a lot of my constituents that Labor was not successful in the election. We did poll over 51½ per cent in two-party preferred terms but we did not, of course, get them in some of the seats that mattered. I intend to devote some of my time and energy to securing that support where it counts. I hope the majority of my constituents will agree that, increasingly, this is an important task for me in what is, for them, a desperate anxiety and desire that we have a Labor government.We accept that the government has won the election and is entitled to govern. We do not accept however that it has a mandate for a goods and services tax. Indeed, if the previous election had been a referendum on the GST, they lost, pure and simple. Over 50 per cent on a two-party preferred basis voted for Labor. If you look at the parties in the Senate, the situation was even worse. I think more than 60 per cent of voters voted for parties which expressly stated that they would oppose a goods and service tax, so certainly this government has no mandate for a goods and services tax.It was a very cynical exercise where the government released the tax package, spent over $15 million of taxpayers' money to promote that package and then went to a cut and run election during the height of sporting finals fever.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—The Commonwealth Games.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Yes, and the AFL final—which, regrettably, once again went to the Adelaide Crows. That was a time when they anticipated that public scrutiny would be at its lowest possible ebb. That, I think, contributed to some of the disrepute in which politicians are held. I think the government has aggravated that problem of the disrepute in which we are held by saying that they are going to insist that the legislation gets put before the Senate, a Senate that was voted in at the time when this government was saying, `We would never, ever have a GST.' This is not the Senate that people voted for at the last election—which was a vote about the GST. This Senate was elected when the Liberal and National parties went to an election saying that they would never, ever introduce a GST.Indeed, so great is the government's desire to get this legislation through, and so great its contempt for parliamentary standards, that it is now prepared to accept the vote of Senator Colston in order to achieve passage of the GST legislation. The Prime Minister knows he has no right to that vote. That is precisely why, some time ago, he said that the government was not going to accept the vote of Senator Colston. Now he says, `Well, from here on in, we are prepared to accept the vote of Senator Colston, because we really want it.' All that can do is bring the political process generally into disrepute.The address-in-reply provides an opportunity for people to respond to things that are said in the Governor-General's speech. Speaking as the representative for Wills, I believe the address provides an opportunity for people to say something back to the government and, indeed, to the Governor-General about the issues that we see as important. I want to spend a few minutes talking about some of the issues that people in Wills have seen as important in the last year or two.One of our greatest problems has proven to be bank branch closures. We saw the Commonwealth Bank close its branch in Strathmore and there was a great public crusade against that, hundreds of people attending public meetings, thousands of people signing petitions, deputations to the Commonwealth Bank's regional managers and the like. Regrettably, not only was that branch closed but the bank followed up by closing—if I recall correctly—two branches in Brunswick, the Oak Park branch, in Snell Grove, and a branch in Glenroy.The Commonwealth Bank is not the only sinner in this regard. The National Bank is in the process of closing its branch in Pascoe Vale South, and other banks are closing branches as well. That comes in association with increases in fees and charges. So what the banks are giving us is lower service standards but higher costs in terms of fees and charges. Regrettably, the government has not seen fit to do anything whatsoever about that situation but has shown itself to be very much in cahoots with the banks.On the theme of closures, we have also had quite a lot of concern about the closure of some road crossings on the Upfield railway line, which passes through the eastern side of my electorate. It was the work of the state government, which decided that the Tinning Street, Brunswick, and Shorts Road, Coburg North, crossings ought to be closed. This was a cavalier action on that government's part, taken in contempt of views of local residents, shops, retailers and industry, who very much valued the access they had across the railway line. It is regretted that the Kennett government saw fit to proceed with these crossing closures notwithstanding community views about that.Another issue which has been important in the electorate relates to crime and personal security. I get along to as many Neighbourhood Watch groups as I can. They continue to be well supported in my electorate. The more I see of crime reports and the more I become aware that the vast majority of household burglaries, petty crimes and property crimes are drug related, the more it seems to me that we have not solved the problems of drugs in our community. They seem to be getting away from us. Police officers, who ought to know about these things, express to me the view that the situation is not under control. As a result I do think that it is time that we look for some more innovative solutions.I regret that the Prime Minister saw fit to quash the ACT heroin trial. Although I am far from sympathetic towards drugs, I think that we do need to look for some new solutions which, hopefully, would cut out the price incentive for crime that exists under the present arrangements. It is time that we looked to some changed approaches in that area.My constituents have expressed to me quite a lot of concern about the impending imposition of tolls on the Tullamarine Freeway, which will be renamed Citylink, after it is completed next year.Just in the last week, Transurban have released their proposed payment arrangements for paying the toll. They propose three options. Firstly, you can deposit $50 in a Citylink account which will convert to toll credits. If the amount falls below $10, you have got to top up the account by $25. The second option, referred to as a pay as you go option, involves a $20 deposit plus a $2.50 monthly account keeping fee, with monthly deductions from your credit card. Thirdly, you can purchase a day pass with a flat fee of $7 per car per day, but you are only allowed 12 of those a year and, if you travel without a pass, you have got to purchase one by noon the next day for $8.Accompanying this, Transurban executives have talked about motorists paying an average $1,000 a year. This is 10 of the dreaded state deficit levies for Victorians. It amounts to highway robbery and these account keeping fees, in my view, are quite outrageous. When the idea of tolls on Citylink was first announced, we were told that it would be better than other cities—we would not have to stop and throw $2 in the bucket; it would all be done using the latest in electronic technology. When we see what they are up to with the payment options, we would be much better off, for example, using a system like the toll road in Brisbane where you throw $2 in the bucket on your way through.It does occur to me that it will substantially disadvantage people from out of town, including the electorates west and north-west of Melbourne. These people might use those approaches into the city from the Calder Highway or the western highway and find themselves wanting to use the Tullamarine Freeway. If they do not have one of those cards, they will be in the most difficult situation of having to purchase a pass somewhere by noon the next day for $8 or be subject to a fine of anything up to $500 for this particular traffic offence. In my view, that may have the effect of deterring interstate and international visitors from using the Citylink and the Tullamarine Freeway, which I think is a great shame.People are also concerned about the noise walls that have accompanied Citylink. They are third-rate, ugly noise walls. The Berlin Wall has gone down, but the Transurban wall has gone up in its place. It is a depressing sight to travel along and see them. My wife said to me, `All they need is the razor ribbon on the top.' They look for all the world like prison walls.People in my electorate have also expressed concern about unemployment. With the government abandoning the Working Nation programs, we now find that unemployment in our area has risen. It had come down to the national average by the time of the change of government; it has now crept up beyond the national average. Adding to that, there has been chaos and mayhem in relation to Centrelink and the Job Network and, notwithstanding the protestations of the ministers who have been responsible for this, these have been a comprehensive disaster. A lot of constituents have not been eligible for Job Network assistance. Newly arrived migrants and husbands and wives of people who are working have not been eligible for assistance and they have come to the office with all sorts of problems. Those involved in the Job Network themselves have reported many problems.We have also seen concern about the introduction and impact of compulsory competitive tendering in the local government area, and that, in turn, has had some adverse impacts on both the quantity and quality of local services.The address-in-reply provides an opportunity for us to look at what the government is saying, through the Governor-General. To measure a government, I think it is worth while going back to the previous address-in-reply to see how the government has performed against that. I did that and I would like to bring to the attention of the House some of the things the government indicated in its previous address it was going to do and look at how it has performed against that yardstick.The government indicated that it had the intention to raise national savings. But if we look at what has happened with the household savings ratio in the light of their abandonment of the government co-contribution for superannuation, and even the abandonment now of the savings rebate and the superannuation surcharge and so on, it has fallen from 4.7 per cent in 1996-97 to 3.25 per cent in 1997-98 and now to 2.75 per cent for 1998-99, according to the budget papers. So we have household savings declining in this country, which clearly will have implications for the current account deficit and for our levels of foreign debt.They also talked about creating a more positive future for our children, and then proceeded to remove the operational subsidy for child care—a mean-spirited action. Although the justification at that stage was reference to the `budget black hole' and the budget deficit, now they have a projected budget surplus, but billions of dollars of that projected surplus are to be used to fund tax cuts. Indeed, the top 20 per cent of income earners in this country are going to get $6.6 billion in tax cuts. That shows—and it is always the Liberal Party's agenda—a redistribution of wealth away from those who have less towards those who are already well off. That is always what the Liberal Party is on about and that is what it is on about through its tax package.They also said in the Governor-General's previous speech that it was the government's intention to improve the standing of the national parliament. We saw the sad story of the bullying of a previous Speaker, Mr Halverson, and his early resignation. We saw what happened with the ministerial code of conduct: we had the resignations of Brian Gibson and Jim Short on 14 October 1996, the resignation of Bob Woods on 1 March 1997, the resignation of former Minister Prosser in July 1997, the resignations of John Sharp and David Jull on 24 September 1997, the resignation of Peter McGauran on 26 September 1997. They probably could not have afforded to lose any more, so they then decided they had to dig in there and support Senator Parer. As a result, the code of conduct became a joke.AK6GASHMrs Gash—What's this got to do with the address-in-reply?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Well, this government said it was `the government's intention to improve the standing of the national parliament'. I would suggest that there has been no parliament which had a lower public standing than the previous parliament.They also talked about industrial relations legislation which would `promote genuine cooperation between employees and employers'. In fact, their actions did nothing to promote cooperation. They did everything they possibly could to destroy cooperation between workers and employers, and the spectacle of the guard dogs and balaclavas on Australia's wharves was a most un-Australian spectacle which I certainly hope never to see again.They also talked, in the previous speech by the Governor-General, about reducing red tape, unnecessary paperwork and regulation for small business and about supporting small business. The acid test in relation to small business is bankruptcies. What we have seen since March 1996 is an increase in bankruptcies of the order of 50 per cent. In March 1996, they were 4,413; in the September quarter of this year, they had risen to 6,660. All I can say is: if this government are the friends of small business, they certainly do not need any enemies. And with the GST we will see the introduction of a whole swathe of new red tape for small business.They talked about, over time, reducing foreign debt. Again, foreign debt in March 1996 was $191 billion; the latest figure—$233 billion. Foreign debt has risen by $42 billion during the life of this government, so where is that debt truck now? The Prime Minister, when he was challenged about this, started talking about debt servicing ratios. We never had any difficulty servicing the foreign debt in the past. What this government said when they were in opposition was that they were going to reduce foreign debt, period.They also talked about reducing waiting lists, but in the health area they have slashed public hospital funding by $800 million. They said TAFE would be supported, yet they cut $240 million. They expected the TAFE colleges to increase their intake without any extra funds. The result was that 35,000 people were turned away in 1997.They talked about promoting reconciliation and improving the living standards of Aboriginals, but we had a Prime Minister who would not say sorry to the stolen generations. We had a Prime Minister who slashed ATSIC by $470 million, who cut Abstudy by $38 million and, of course, who sought to override the property rights of Aboriginal people with his Wik legislation.We had a government which said that they would govern in the interests of all, and not vested interests, and yet we have seen one of their close friends, the banks, allowed to enjoy a massive skyrocketing of fees and charges. We have seen bank branch closures while the government has just sat on their hands. In terms of vested interests, I think the government ought to be coming clean, or the Treasurer certainly ought to be coming clean, about any meetings he may have had with Michael Kroger—who is being paid a retainer by the National Bank—to try and demolish the four pillars and give us instead two pillars of banks, something like a two-airline policy.I think that the Governor-General ought to go back and have a look at what the government said it would do last time, compared with what it actually did. We certainly hope that the government has a better record during the course of this parliament, in implementing its program in the way it outlined in the previous address, than it had on the occasion of the last parliament when its program of implementation was dismal.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! Before calling the next member, I remind the member for Wills of standing order 80 and I ask that in future he refers to members by their electorate.12:22:001427Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I cannot believe the member for Wills: a perfect example of what Labor will say and do in order to get a vote. May I remind the member for Wills that his community did not vote the Labor Party into government; in fact, they have voted the coalition into government. And may I remind the member for Wills that the things that you have said are absolutely untrue.I rise, honoured and very humble, in being returned to represent the people of the electorate of Gilmore and in doing so I would like to thank all those who assisted in making our campaign the success it was. In particular, I thank the volunteers, my staff and, most of all, the people of Gilmore for their confidence and faith in me and this government in returning us to office.In 2½ years the people of Gilmore through their sheer determination and community spirit and with the support of this government have together achieved a great deal—for example, the Work for the Dole pilot. Now there are large programs throughout the region with more than 375 places for local people in Nowra, Ulladulla, Moss Vale and Kiama—even though Kiama Council are philosophically opposed because it is a Labor held council.There is support for our elderly through community aged care packages. This fantastic measure was enhanced by the Prime Minister's stay at home policy to help older people retain their independence at home. This is a very necessary program in the electorate of Gilmore where so many people want to stay in their homes yet need that special care.Contrary to what my opponents may have said, we were successful in obtaining the mobile dental health van in the Bay and Basin region, funded by this federal government and staffed by the state government. This government gave $100,000 to our much needed dialysis machines program. It just goes to show what can be achieved when we work together. In addition, there is more than $750,000 in Natural Heritage Trust funding for volunteers working to protect and conserve our environment. These are just a few projects that I need to mention.As well as those, a number of major developments and infrastructure commitments have been undertaken, providing employment opportunities for many hundreds of local residents with much more to come. We have achieved the University of Wollongong campus and Illawarra TAFE at the West Nowra campus. We have achieved expansion of HMAS Albatross, the Main Road 92, a business incubator, the Albatross Aviation Technology Park, a $2 million ethanol fuel trial plant, and a new Centrelink building worth over $1 million. All in all some $90 million of government funding has come to the electorate of Gilmore.What is more important about these achievements is the high level of community support received for each, which is essential in ensuring their success. It has always been a case of the community helping themselves, with myself and the government acting as facilitators. For example, 12 months ago Jobs Drive 98 and Jobs Drive 2, a total community and Job Network members' initiative with the local radio identity Barry Mac and Radio 2ST, raised $1.3 million worth of jobs for local people. A second jobs drive held just last month raised $3 million worth of jobs for local people.Following on from that, the success rate of our local Job Network providers has been enormous. The national statistics comparing the Job Network with the old CES show the network is an overwhelming success for both employers and job seekers. The evidence provided to me by local Job Network members is that the same situation is being repeated in Gilmore. The Job Network is placing more people and more jobs throughout the region including Ulladulla, Kiama, Moss Vale, Huskisson, Sanctuary Point and Nowra.The Job Network members of Gilmore are to be commended for their initiative and professional approach to helping local people find employment. Keeping wages in the community and building confidence for job seekers shows that there are jobs available. This is of the utmost importance for me in Gilmore. This will all be demolished if the opposition proceeds with its plans to abolish junior wages. This would force more than 5,000 to 6,000 young people in Gilmore out of work and back onto social security. It is Labor, the party which presided over national youth unemployment levels of more than 36 per cent, that now wants to revert to the bad old days by abolishing youth wages.In Gilmore, many of our young people rely on a retail part-time or full-time job to give them the experience they need to follow their career. Local employers rely on youth wages to enable them to provide such positions for local young people. Labor, once again, wants to deny these young people in Gilmore their opportunity. Too often it is easier to criticise. Frankly, our community is sick and tired of hearing Labor Party members carping on about this issue. They have no real solutions and no policies and the community has called on them to belt up and let us get on with the job of assisting unemployed people.Let me repeat, we are aiming for our education precinct to be the best in New South Wales. The University of West Nowra campus is a $14 million investment. Add to that the education precinct which includes TAFE and possible tertiary facilities worth a further $10 million to $12 million. We all know that young people study better when they are at home. It is our aim to keep our young people in rural and regional areas, especially in Gilmore.Another example is the proposed University of Southern Highlands where the federal government has funded a feasibility study into the establishment of such a facility. We are hoping to have another campus of the University of Wollongong in the Southern Highlands area of Moss Vale in my electorate of Gilmore for students to study a range of relevant subjects, and so far suggestions have been as diverse as music, archaeology and bushfire fighting.I must also express my thanks to the Minister for Finance and Administration, John Fahey, the member for Macarthur, to Peta Seaton, the local state member for Southern Highlands, and to Mayor Sara Murray of Wingecarribee Shire Council, for their continued support in this visionary project. The success of this project so far proves once again that through a three-tier government approach and a supportive community we can help ourselves.A lot has been said about the Natural Heritage Trust and so far Gilmore has benefited by more than $750,000, an amount which has been spent locally to assist volunteers in projects. Mr Deputy Speaker, colleagues, you would be aware that we have one of the most pristine environments in Australia, a national icon, and the fine line between development and environment is ever present. And yet, from the mountains to the sea, with many places to visit and stay, our local national park, Booderee, attracts more visitors per year than Uluru and Kakadu put together.It is gratifying to see that this government has actually put its money where its mouth is. The people of Gilmore, neglected by the previous government, have welcomed the much needed attention of the Commonwealth through vital projects such as the Natural Heritage Trust program. As I said, Work for the Dole, or Shoalhaven Earning a Living, has been a resounding success. Many have gone onto other full-time or part-time work or further education with lots stating that it provided the greatest incentive to get out of bed in the morning. In fact, it was so popular that many participants have already received full-time or part-time work.One local young participant, when he came to Canberra earlier this year, was able to tell the Prime Minister in person that Work for the Dole was one of the most important measures to help our young people become motivated towards work. He said it was the best things that had happened to him since he had left school.We have a number of very successful Green Corps projects—three projects locally. Again it was a wonderful opportunity for young people to work for the environment and for the community. It was another example of mutual obligation. Many have gone on to further education after 85 per cent graduated from the first program at Bundanon. Their teamwork has been one of their greatest attributes and it is a skill which will stand them in good stead for the rest of their careers. Not only is Green Corps a success for the participants, but also it helps promote a positive image of young people in the community.Adjournment142910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 12.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.142912:30:001429Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to speak in this adjournment today about the township of Mount Morgan, which has joined my electorate of Hinkler as at the last election. It is 679 kilometres north of Brisbane and 38 kilometres west of Rockhampton and 240 metres above sea level, with a population of approximately 3,200. Mount Morgan lays claim to being Australia's most charming mining town. Perching on the hills and nestling in the valleys, Mount Morgan is full of wooden Queenslander houses which echo a rich and vibrant history reaching back to the late 19th century. It is generally a very friendly place and has the feeling of a country town from another era.Mining began in Mount Morgan in 1882 and has continued over 100 years. The town was named after Frederick, Ned and Thomas Morgan, who on 22 July 1882 pegged out a goldmine lease. Mount Morgan formed a six-man partnership with Rockhampton businessmen to mine the mountain. One of the partners in the syndicate was Thomas Skarrat Hall, whose brother's widow donated some of the Mount Morgan fortune to a fund which established the famous Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne. Another partner was William Knox D'Arcy who, having made an incredible $6 million from his share of the mine, in 1889 went to London and later made another fortune where he financed oil drilling in what was then Persia and now Iran. This venture was later to go on and help the formation of BP. The Mount Morgan syndicate lasted until 1886 when the Mount Morgan Goldmining Company was formed as a public company.By 1902, gold, silver and copper were being mined. It steadily grew, becoming the largest open-cut mine in the Southern Hemisphere. It is even said that the mine helped prevent the Australian federation breaking up into individual states again by allowing its proceeds from the world's purest gold, 99.8 per cent, to be used to pay off the national debt of 1902. Production peaked before World War I but was in decline after the war, and by 1927 the company was in liquidation. Mount Morgan Ltd bought the mine in 1929 and started open-cut excavation. Peko Wallsend purchased the mine in 1968 and by the 1970s the mine's production of copper was second only to Mount Isa. When it closed in 1981, the mine had produced 225,000 kilograms of gold, 50,000 kilograms of silver and 360,000 tonnes of copper in its 99-year history. Gold today is still extracted from the tailings.Mr Deputy Speaker, what I wanted very much to speak about was the fact that Mount Morgan, which is a beautiful town, has suffered unemployment as a result of the closure of the mine and the failure of governments of both political colours to find a new focus for the community. The unemployment rate is three times the national average, and services under 13 years of federal Labor and 6½ years of state Labor government wound down considerably. The town has now been further denuded by the loss of banking services. The ANZ Bank pulled out four years ago and the Commonwealth Bank in October. One cannot help thinking that had the Labor Party put community service obligations to the Commonwealth Bank at the time that it put it up for sale, a lot of this might not have happened.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—That is against your philosophy.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—It is against my philosophy but—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The honourable member will pay no attention to the interjections.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Being an agrarian socialist, Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept the gibe. The community is understandably angry—especially the business community, which was left without a cash depositing facility, and pensioners who lost the security of a basic banking service. To its credit, the community rallied and channelled its frustration in a positive way through a series of public meetings. I congratulate Kelvin Pill, who chaired two public meetings, after which the Mount Morgan Shire Council recognised the wishes of the community and went on contacting various banking, building society and credit union managements.I subsequently explored various avenues through contacts with financial institutions. If a full facility does not occupy the current bank building, one bank is prepared to examine a new style of agency. The government's rural transaction centres are another option for the community. (Time expired)143012:35:001430Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Much has been made by the Prime Minister and others about raising the standards of parliament. These comments were made at the commencement of the 38th Parliament and again at the beginning of this parliament. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, that you are committed to this as well.As I am sure members would agree, raising the standards of parliament goes much beyond combating too much noise, too many interjections or too many points of order during question time, or whether visiting school groups are shocked and dismayed. Part of this raising of standards goes to the integrity of correspondence between members of parliament, officers and relevant ministers. There has been a tendency for ministers to quote from letters of MPs concerning various constituents' concerns.I have no difficulty with the rough and tumble of politics. If a member is making speeches promoting a view on one topic and writing to various ministers promoting another view, that hypocrisy deserves to be exposed. I have one of the safest Labor seats in Australia, but my office works in a totally bipartisan manner. Constituents raise with me a complex range of issues, not all of which I agree with, but I always follow through by making representations on their behalf. Such was the case in June of this year when I received a two-page letter from a constituent dealing with an investment in a research and development program with business and research management, commonly known as BARM. I read my constituent's letter and, as it was a very detailed and complex matter, I did what any member of parliament would have done. I forwarded the letter to the Treasurer seeking his comment. In fact, my letter to the Treasurer was bland in the extreme. I said:Dear TreasurerPlease find enclosed a letter I have received from—and I put the constituent's name and address—concerning the Australian Taxation Office withdrawing his variation of tax instalment deductions.Your response to—and I put the constituent's name—concerns would be greatly appreciated.Yours sincerelyColin HollisMember for Throsby.I informed the constituent that I had made representation to the Treasurer and would be in contact with him when I had received a response. A month or so later I received a letter not from the Treasurer but from the Assistant Treasurer which I forwarded to the constituent. As far as I was concerned that was end of story. That was until Wednesday, 25 November 1998, when listening to the Treasurer's reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition concerning tax minimisation, I found myself named, along with several other members, as being in support of tax minimisation. In fact, the Treasurer said in reply to the question:I have had numbers of complaints from members of parliament that he—the Tax Commissioner—is taking too aggressive action . . . I have a complaint from the member for Throsby on 22 June about the activity.I did not complain about any action. The Treasurer is exaggerating and putting a totally false interpretation on my letter. I made no comment, supporting or otherwise, of my constituent's concern. My constituent had a real or perceived problem and raised it with me. I did what the taxpayers of Throsby pay me to do and raised it with the Treasurer. I suggest that members will be reluctant to raise any matter, especially a matter of a controversial nature or a matter on which they may express a view, if they feel the contents of their letter will be divulged in the parliament or if interpretations—in this case utterly false—are put on their actions. I will never write to this Treasurer on any other matter again.One interesting sideline to this is that, in the years that I have been a member of parliament, I have found Treasurers of all political persuasions very slow in responding to members' letters. It is usually when the Treasurer is overseas and there is an acting Treasurer that our letters are answered. I must say in all honesty that it was the same when there was a Labor Treasurer as it is with the current one, but the current Treasurer is worse than most. As I search my files, I cannot find that he has ever responded to any representations I have made to him in the years that he has been the Treasurer. To add insult to injury, the letter to him which he misquoted was replied to by the Assistant Treasurer. If we are really serious about raising standards, perhaps the way correspondence to a minister's office is quoted can be improved—and not, as in this case, misquoted for cheap political points. (Time expired)143212:40:001432Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to speak about a particularly disturbing trend in the field of criminal activity. We are all aware of the activities of paedophiles—people who prey on children to satisfy their own perversion. What is particularly distressing to note is the extent to which such criminals have taken to new technology—in particular, information technology—to further their criminal ends. The Internet and the World Wide Web that has grown out of it are a wonderful tool for education, communication and information sharing. Unfortunately, in the wrong hands they are also a powerful tool that can be used to exploit the vulnerable.The Australian Institute of Criminology has recently reported that paedophiles are using the Internet to gather and exchange pornographic and sometimes violent material involving young children. Taking advantage of the difficulties that the authorities often encounter in identifying perpetrators who use the Internet for criminal purposes, these predators ply their sick trade under the cloak of anonymity.The AIC reports that paedophiles have been found to be using the Internet to distribute child pornography through web pages, electronic mail, file transfer protocol, news groups and Internet relay chat. The sites on the Internet are often changed as Internet service providers become intolerant of this kind of activity. Revoltingly, some of these paedophile rings attempt to justify their behaviour on the basis of the principle of freedom of speech. Some even claim to be opposed to child pornography. However, these same sites are often linked to other sites containing highly explicit and exploitative material, even, in some cases, depicting child abuse and violence against children.One of the most difficult aspects of the challenge of policing these activities is the methods used by these criminals to avoid identification. While the creation of a web page provides an opportunity for the perpetrator to be identified, most web pages of this kind only provide links to other sites. Almost as disturbing as the material itself is the opportunity that this form of technology gives for the paedophiles to communicate with each other and thereby persuade each other, and reinforce, that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. Indeed, some are even seen to be bragging about their activities.It is essential that we do all we can to close off this avenue of opportunity to these criminals. To that end, the AIC offer a number of suggestions, most of which would necessitate the cooperation of Internet service providers. They point firstly to one of the recommendations of the Wood Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service to the effect that the Internet industry should make provision for Internet service providers to disclose information—the identity of account holders, dates and times of access to online services, and the sites accessed—to a law enforcement agency when an authorised officer certifies that the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of criminal law.The AIC further suggests that the Internet service providers could insist upon adequate user identification, that is, credit cards and/or third party verification processes; insist that users agree that certain activities are not tolerated, with specific reference to paedophilia; and require users to accept responsibility for their activities while on line. The AIC states that the Internet community needs to consider the value of the untraceable email if self-regulation is to be effective. I would go further and say that there is no reason why any law-abiding person should be concerned about their email being traceable. A protocol should be established with the Internet service providers to outlaw this activity.It is possible that some Internet service providers might raise concerns about privacy and even freedom of speech in relation to these matters. However, it should be noted that the only restriction on freedom of speech that I have mentioned as being contemplated is to curb activities which are already, and quite rightly, illegal.As for privacy, our laws already require people to identify themselves when opening bank accounts and engaging in financial transactions. The AIC says that the Internet service providers could protect customer confidentiality by declaring that they would not release customer information unless instructed to do so in accordance with our laws. To ensure that privacy is adequately protected, such a provision could even be made a part of any protocol established between Internet service providers and law enforcement agencies—namely, that the ISPs were not permitted to release information about clients except when required to do so in accordance with the law.The information age presents us with enormous opportunities and some challenges. It is important that the government continues to stay ahead of the emerging technology to ensure that it is used for the good purposes for which it was constructed. I commend the government for the work it is already doing.(Time expired)143312:45:001433Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I have been an anti-nuclear campaigner for as long as I can remember. When I was a state member of parliament, I visited French Polynesia to protest against the nuclear testing with members of parliament from all over Australia and from all political persuasions. I have a long record of opposition to the mining of uranium. My opposition to nuclear testing, uranium mining and all forms of nuclear power and weapons is based purely and simply on safety grounds. The nuclear industry is an industry that is fraught with problems, from the initial mining to the disposal of the waste products. Every stage of the process and every use of nuclear products are accompanied by potential danger, a life threatening danger, a danger that needs to be guarded against.That is why I was so disturbed by reports that surfaced on Tuesday, identifying Australia as a potential site to bury nuclear waste. If this proposal became a reality, Australia would become the nuclear waste dump for nuclear utilities all around the world. The initial proposal is to bury spent fuel waste in Australia. The second stage of the proposal is to bury material from nuclear warheads that Russia and the US are dismantling and will dismantle in the future. These countries refuse to store their waste in their own countries, and now they are seeking to solve their problems by dumping their waste in Australia.It is interesting to note that the storage and reprocessing of nuclear waste provides a greater financial return than the actual mining of uranium. Last year, Australia exported 6,415 tonnes of uranium which earned $288 million, whereas the storage of 850 tonnes of spent fuel waste created in the use of uranium would earn Australia a massive $1.25 billion. The only reason Australia would receive such an enormous return is that the risk of storing this waste is so high. Nuclear waste is hazardous and extremely dangerous. That is the reason countries like the US and Russia refuse to store the waste in their own countries.There is no technology available that can ensure the safe storage or disposal of nuclear waste. Current technology can only provide a temporary measure to deal with the problem and the long- and short-term security of the waste cannot be assured. Nuclear power generators worldwide produce in the vicinity of 14,000 tonnes of spent fuel waste and only 5,000 tonnes of that waste can be reprocessed and reused. This leaves more than 9,000 tonnes of waste that needs to be securely stored for a long period because the waste is dangerous and life threatening for tens of thousands of years.I strongly believe that it is totally unacceptable for nations that generate hazardous waste to ship that waste to another country. It is their problem; they should deal with it. It is morally wrong to transfer your problems to someone else. In the case of nuclear waste, it is morally wrong to ship your waste and your problems to another country.The only responsible action for the nuclear industry and for countries involved in that industry is for them to take responsibility for the storage and disposal of their own waste. It is time for the nuclear industry to take responsibility for developing a long-term answer to the problems associated with nuclear waste. The short-term options that are currently available do not work. The industry has been abrogating its responsibility for a long time, and still it is looking for ways of getting around the problem that it has created.I do not support the nuclear industry because of the environmental and health dangers associated with it. Yet I accept that it exists world wide. If it is to continue existing, then it must solve the problems of its waste. I am pleased to learn that the government is not supporting the proposal, and I can assure it that I will be watching to make sure that it maintains its opposition to this proposal.143412:50:001434O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I rise to speak on an issue that has been aired a number of times over the past few years, but those people it affects certainly do not feel that it has had a satisfactory resolution. I refer to the recognition of the status of Australian Navy personnel who were involved in the Malayan Emergency of 1955 to 1960. It is a matter of great concern to those veterans who were involved and who still seek recognition of their active service. For the benefit of those members who may not be familiar with this issue, I will very briefly provide an outline.In July 1955, the Royal Australian Navy was allotted to form a component to the Far East Strategic Reserve. These naval personnel were involved in patrolling the coast, and some ships were involved in night operational gunfire encounter exercises with the Royal Navy. Those naval personnel have not been deemed to have been on active service and are therefore not eligible for the General Service Medal, Clasp Malaya.Naval personnel were killed during this emergency but their dead are not listed on the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial. This is because, in 1956, the Royal Australian Navy were excluded under the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act. The health minister of the time told the parliament that this was because they were not regarded as being subjected to any additional operational risk. I contend, as do many people who participated, that they were in fact subjected to additional operational risk. In fact, on 22 June this year, the Naval Association of Australia passed a unanimous agreement that the relevant naval personnel had not been fairly treated. It is obvious that this matter is not, as many may say, closed.I recently received a letter from a veteran who was offered a certificate under the recent program for certificates of recognition in a particular conflict, and the particular conflict in this case was the Malayan Emergency. This constituent, who served in the Royal Australian Navy during the emergency, declined the award for the reasons that I shall now read. He writes:As this government has not recognised our service in the Royal Australian Navy during the 1955-60 Malayan Emergency, I find it inappropriate to accept the `A Grateful Nation Expresses its thanks' certificate which was to be presented to me at the National Malaya and Borneo Veterans Association state lunch last Sunday the 29th November.I feel very disappointed and rejected in knowing that my country does not recognise equity for me and those of the RAN who fought with the army and air force in the Malayan Emergency and have been denied honour.Our country sent us to war and then refused to acknowledge our service.This is a matter that is causing extensive grief to those people who have been involved.They put their lives on the line, some of them watched their colleagues die, and they do not see any recognition for what they have done. These people are not only interested in the entitlements that veterans can have; they are interested in the recognition of the dangers that they went through. They want the names of their colleagues who died listed on the roll of honour and they want the Clasp Malaya to be awarded to them—things that have been awarded to their colleagues in both the Army and the Air Force.It is obvious that this matter is far from closed for those people who are involved, and that the only sensible and responsible action for any government to take is to review this matter. And it is important that, when we do review this matter, justice and equity are the principles in the forefront of our minds, and not the economic implications. These servicemen risked their lives and saw their comrades die. We owe them recognition. We owe them a proper hearing of their concerns and we owe it to them now.143512:55:001435Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—You would have to say that, when it comes to employment policy in the developed world, it has failed miserably—and the disease is spreading to the undeveloped world. Orthodox economics, particularly in developed countries like Australia, have certainly not provided satisfactory outcomes. In the past 50 years capital investment in the developed world has quadrupled, productivity has trebled, yet employment has grown only by one-third. This endemic problem is creating great divisions within our society.Over the last 20 years hours worked by employed people, whether paid or not, have risen dramatically. In fact, it is assumed that there are perhaps some 20 million hours—maybe even 25 million hours—of overtime worked in this country. On a simple equation—and of course this is a far too simplistic equation—that would equate to about 500,000 jobs. Even if only half of that were realistic—250,000 jobs—it would make a dramatic difference to the employment situation in this country.For the last 150 years, if you looked carefully at the hours worked per week by employees, you would note that the graph continued to fall. Even through world wars and depressions the hours per week continued to fall. In the last 20 years that has changed quite dramatically. What has gone wrong? I suspect that this is a result of a phenomenon which I call `dumbing down'. In terms of modern technology we think that we have improved dramatically.What has happened? In the last 20 years we have had endemic unemployment in this country of 14 or 15 per cent. And even in the United States where the figures look dramatic at, say, four per cent or five per cent, if you add the four per cent that engage in petty crime for their occupation, and the four per cent in gaol, and the four per cent that have pulled out of employment totally, you actually note that their employment rate is no different from anyone else's.In about 1922 Thomas Edison argued that the moving picture film would change the whole concept of education in the world; it would replace teachers, he predicted. In the 1940s we had American philosophers arguing that radio programs would replace teachers in schools. In the 1950s we had the psychologist Skinner arguing that individual programs would be the way in which children would learn in the future. Of course that was just snake oil. They forgot that the basic parameter of teaching and learning is that it is the impact of mind on mind. In the last 20 years the thinking powers of the great advisers to government, whether they be economists or whatever, have themselves been subjected to a dumbing down process. They cannot and do not know what the solutions are.Many people think that computers are the answer to many of our prayers. I think that again—as with Edison, radio programs and individual programs—that will prove to be a misnomer. Knowledge, the lowest intellectual skill, is regarded as the prime intellectual skill when in any taxonomy of educational objectives you would find quite clearly that insight, interpretation, analysis and synthesis are the real intellectual skills. It is a grave pity to just apply knowledge as a skill. When you look at the narrowing of information and of the thinking that has gone into a lot of computer programs, the ability of people to think through, in a creative way, solutions to modern problems is lacking quite dramatically.143612:59:001436Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—In the very short time that has been left, let me express my disappointment at the pathetic tactics of the opposition in deliberately preventing the member for Makin from giving an additional speech on the adjournment debate. We cooperated at the start and they cooperated to allow the member for Hinkler to start the adjournment debate. We allowed for the catch-up in numbers on that side, for an even number of adjournment debate speeches. The member for Port Adelaide deliberately jumped up to prevent the member for Makin from making a speech. I think that is a bit poor. It is typical of the sorts of tactics they used yesterday to prevent me from giving my speech.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allowed for debate has expired.Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 p.m.