1998-12-073911REPS143701998-12-07Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports1437143712:31:001437Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Republic of Korea and Malaysia, 4 July to 19 July 1998, and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.Leave granted.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—The delegation came at a time of some turmoil in the Asian region. It came at a time when there was uncertainty about an election date here in Australia. If I could just dwell on that in the first instance, the delegation had a slightly chequered preparation because of changes to the membership of the delegation, but it was not until we arrived in the two host countries that we understood the degree of uncertainty there had been about the delegation even occurring. Can I say that it is the delegation's earnest desire that in future all arrangements should continue in the belief that a delegation will in fact occur.As I said, in both the Republic of Korea and Malaysia the effect of the Asian economic downturn has been felt most severely. In the Republic of Korea, through the international financial institutions, a degree of certainty has been returning to the economy. But, as noted in the delegation's report, in the nearly five months now since the delegation, much has happened.I believe that when Australian parliamentary delegations visit countries they should endeavour to meet with the widest range of people from the host nation. Therefore, especially from where I come in the political spectrum, I have always felt that amongst those we should meet are members of trade unions. In the case of Korea, the public images that come across in the media are of great industrial disruption occurring from time to time. But we must, importantly, put that in context, because even I have to admit that the coverage of organised labour organisations in Korea is only of a minority of workers—but they hold coverage in key areas. I believe it was important that we met not only with people from the business sector but also with elected officials and people from organised labour.Importantly, the Republic of Korea set up a tripartite commission to see its way through its economic difficulties. We were confronted with headlines such as `Hyundai Motors to lay off 4,830 workers', `Hyundai workers protest lay-offs' and `R&D expenditure to drop 10 per cent this year'. They are examples of some of the headlines we saw in Korean papers, so you can understand the types of decisions and discussions that were needed.Another aspect of our visit to the Republic of Korea that we did not appreciate fully until we arrived was the fact that the National Assembly was having a dispute over the election of its speaker and vice-speaker. Their appointment was required under the constitution but had yet to occur. There had been the election and the installation in January of this year of President Kim Dae-Jung, but the Koreans had been going through a degree of political uncertainty since then. I would have to say that the former vice-speaker who hosted us, and members of the National Assembly, did so with great grace. They were able to give us an understanding of the difficulties confronting our fellow members of parliament in the Republic of Korea.Since our return, we have seen in the Australian media the occupation, for a couple of weeks, of a Hyundai Motor assembly plant by protesting unionists. Through our visit to the plant, we gained an appreciation of the background leading to such events. Whilst we will never fully understand from such a short visit to a country, it is important that Australian parliamentarians be given the opportunity to get the type of background we were able to gain to ensure that in some way we are able to interpret events that occur.When we moved on to Malaysia, we found that Malaysia was going through the same economic uncertainty but that it was handling it in, perhaps, a different manner. But we could not have imagined the type of political uncertainty there at that time which has been exemplified by the events that have unfolded since we left.We had the opportunity to visit the Commonwealth Games site. There were some 55 days to go before the games commenced. I think the delegation was quietly pleased that work obviously continued for those 55 days at a pace. I think the Commonwealth Games were a showcase for what Malaysia can achieve.At the time we were there, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Anwar Ibrahim, spoke on the first day of the parliamentary sittings. In fact, he gave revised forecasts for the economy. Of course, over the last few months his fortunes have definitely changed, first with his dismissal as Deputy Prime Minister and then with the charges that he now confronts. We hope that the type of unrest that this has caused will lead to some positive outcomes. We hope that through the processes of the Malaysian judicial system he gets a fair and proper hearing because we believe it is important that Malaysia comes out of its present difficulties with the greatest degree of strength and stability possible.The background that we have with both nations is very strong but it comes from a different base. Presently we are strong trading partners with Korea. We have historic links through Australia's involvement with United Nations forces. The demilitarised zone is one of those last bastions of a divide between a nation. We hope that the difficulties that South Korea and North Korea have faced for some 40 or 50 years can proceed to a conclusion. Whilst there is no great sign that that is just over the horizon, we understand that the Republic of Korea desires to see that and we hope it can be completed.In the case of Malaysia, our background—through Australia and Malaysia being Commonwealth nations, our involvement as colleagues in defence forces and our important involvement as trading partners—gives us hope that the types of traditions we share will enable Malaysia to come out of its difficulties in the best possible way.As has often been said, whilst we gather intelligence through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—it can give good advice to government—there is great importance in parliamentarians being able not only to gather information but to make lasting contacts. This delegation had within it various degrees of experience with the two countries and we would have to acknowledge that that experience can only be enhanced by the continual contact, friendships and networking which are made possible by such visits. That is able to make us, as Australian parliamentarians, better equipped to be able to interpret events and ensure that where possible Australia can not only benefit from its relationships with countries but also assist without being seen to be assisting in a patronising way.I would like to thank the members of the delegation for their assistance. One of the things that is perhaps not a criterion for putting together delegations is any sort of compatibility, and this was quite a diverse delegation. I acknowledge the honourable member for Aston, the honourable member for Bonython and Senator McKiernan from Western Australia, all members of the delegation. Three members of the delegation are no longer members of parliament—two voluntary and one involuntary—and I acknowledge the former member for Bendigo, Bruce Reid; the former member for Moore, Paul Filing; and the former member for Parkes, Michael Cobb. Each of those members I have mentioned made a valuable contribution on the basis of their experience and interest. I would especially like to thank Mr Reid, the deputy leader, who gave me a great deal of support.Mr Speaker, you would realise that a successful delegation also relies on a very diligent and hardworking secretary. I would like to thank Gillian Gould not only for her efforts whilst we were away but for her efforts in the preparation for the delegation and for her great efforts in putting together the report of the delegation. We also thank those in the Parliamentary Library and the Parliamentary Relations Office for their assistance. We thank the Department of Foreign Affairs, not only here but at the two missions. From time to time, the performance of those people who assist us is patchy, but we acknowledge that we have had the ability to comment about those things and are satisfied that they are aware of our desires in that regard. We would, in the majority, thank them for their assistance. (Time expired)12:41:001439Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I agree with the comments by the honourable gentleman from Scullin. Particularly, I add my thanks to the Parliamentary Relations Office, DFAT, the library and to the delegation secretary who indeed worked very hard. Often people do not understand how hard delegation secretaries have to work both pre and post and also during the visit. It is probably the most difficult job on the whole delegation, and Gillian Gould is to be commended.I would also like to thank our hosts in both countries. Clearly, we arrived at a time when things were not easy for either of the parliaments. In Korea, as we have heard, they were still trying to elect a speaker, and in Malaysia attention was focused on matters other than visiting delegations. Nevertheless, we were made very welcome and, particularly in Korea, we had a wide-ranging and interesting set of appointments. I would like to thank the Korean Ambassador, his wife and all their staff and the high commission staff in Malaysia, who have a lot to do with making such visits successful.I was fortunate that I had had a visit on a delegation to Korea about six years prior to this visit and therefore I was able to make some comparisons over that period of time. I suppose the most striking thing to me was that when I went there six years ago it was at a time when many of those Asian economies, including Korea, were really revving up, and there was a feeling of confidence and pretty near full employment. They were really on the go. If you questioned or perhaps doubted some of the things that might have been going on you got a polite hearing but not a lot of response because they knew how it was all done and they were very successful; and who were we to question them, as that little country—quite important as we might have been to them, and little in the sense of population—stuck down in the bottom of the Pacific? We could get on with our business, but they knew what they were doing.It was very interesting on this occasion to find that both Korea and Malaysia were very much in the grip of the Asian economic crisis and confidence was largely gone in many of the people we met. The fact that we had been able to assist in a whole variety of ways—in Korea we had been one of the countries that had contributed to the IMF bailout—meant that we were much better received. We were acknowledged as having our economy in good order and as being able to provide not only money but expertise in a whole range of areas that would enable both Korea and Malaysia to get out of some of those difficulties.It seemed to me in Korea, as we talked to ministers and various others, that they really were in some shell shock and were not equipped, because of lack of experience, to deal with some of the difficulties they were in in an economic sense. I remember specifically the Minister for Labour talking about their unemployment rate having gone from about two per cent to about seven per cent in fairly short order. He thought that in another six or nine months it would be back down to about two per cent. Of course, from everything we saw, that was unlikely to happen, and subsequent events have proved that it is going to get a lot worse for a lot longer before it actually gets better.I think we have things to do in terms of not only providing some financial assistance but also providing some expertise. When we were there, I know there were some officials from our social security department helping them to actually put in place some procedures to help measure the rate of unemployment and to look at how they might be able to create some basic social security mechanisms. Large numbers of people had become unemployed in short order and there really is not the social security backup. The economy and the reaction to the economy obviously were major issues. A lot of our conversations were dominated by talk about the chaebols, the five large industrial conglomerates that had ruled the roost economically in Korea for so many years, which were finding that they were having to adjust how they went about things somewhat.We had a very interesting visit to the demilitarised zone, the border between North and South Korea. I had been there before, but I noticed that there were now a lot more physical and electronic devices in place than the previous time I had been there. Generally, the tensions on the border were perhaps not quite as great. As ever, the United States people and the Koreans there were in a very high state of readiness, but there were the first indications that maybe things were changing. As we know, the economy in North Korea is in a terrible state. There had been an instance where a donation of, I think, 500 cattle had gone into the North just a few weeks before. I understand a similar thing is to happen again. There was talk about a very attractive tourist area in the North being opened up for visitors or tourists from the South to go and have a look. So there were just the first cracks showing some rapprochement between the two sides.We had a visit, as the previous speaker mentioned, to Hyundai in the south. I think it is important during these delegation visits that we get out of the capitals and do not just meet the officials but try and see some of the country, because I think you learn a lot more about the culture, attitudes and motivations of countries in that way. What has happened in Korea has had a negative impact on us, because it is one of our very largest export destinations, particularly for raw materials, and that is going to impact on us for some time to come.I add in passing that in transit from Korea to Malaysia we stopped over very briefly in Hong Kong, purely as a logistical exercise. We flew into Hong Kong airport one week after it was opened and suffered the inevitable delays. We flew on to KL airport over the same weekend. That airport had been open for two weeks and we suffered its inevitable delays. But I have to say that, apart from those teething troubles, Hong Kong's new airport is just vast and the infrastructure is very impressive. KL's airport is also very impressive, and I would have to say that architecturally it is probably somewhat more pleasing. It was interesting that in Hong Kong, which I had also previously visited, the economy clearly was in dire straits.I have had a number of visits over the years to Malaysia and I have to say that, in comparison with a previous delegation I was on, I was disappointed at the level of access. We did not get access to as many ministers and senior ministers as in my previous experience, and I think that was a pity. As I say, it was probably that they were distracted doing other things. There are major problems in Malaysia with the economy, as we have heard regularly in our news. Most of the banks appear to be just about bankrupt, and they are putting in place a debt management structure for a central agency to take half the bad debts from the banks to try and manage their way out of it for many years to come. That is going to be a very difficult exercise.Unemployment has become a major problem. Again, the mechanisms for measuring the impact of unemployment and the impact on social welfare are not strong and therefore they are difficult to measure, particularly as many of those who are unemployed are either official or unofficial migrant workers. We have read many stories about migrant workers being forcibly required to go back to the countries from which they came. That has become a major problem. We had a 24-hour visit to Penang and visited a number of industries there. Most of those industries, particularly the high-tech industries, were feeling the impact of the general recession.We had briefly the opportunity to call on some Australian Defence Force personnel who are posted to Butterworth, and that was a very worthwhile exchange. I think it is important that parliamentary delegations overseas go out of their way to make sure that, if they are in an area where there are Australian Defence Force personnel, they make that contact. I know it helps the morale there, and I think it is important for us to get those briefings.As has already been mentioned by the previous speaker, a lot has happened in the human rights area in Malaysia since we were there, particularly with the arrest and trial of Anwar Ibrahim—but more of that on another day. The problems in both Korea and Malay sia are impacting on us. The Malaysian case is impacting on ASEAN and both cases are impacting on APEC. There is no question in my mind that such visits are very valuable because we learn a great deal—we make contacts and we get a lot more knowledge; such contacts and networks are very important. I commend the report to the House.12:51:001441Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—by leave—I acknowledge the generosity of the Selection Committee in terms of the amount of time it gave to discussion of this delegation report. I also indicate that, as the honourable member for Aston and the delegation secretary would know, sometimes time management is not my greatest forte: hence I ran out of time and did not make a couple of the comments I wished to make. Firstly, I would like to thank the two spouses who accompanied the delegation—Mrs Carol Nugent and Ms Jackie McKiernan. They helped make sure that the delegation was as good-humoured as possible, despite the trials and tribulations that we had to confront. I hate, by admission, to indicate that I was against spouses travelling on delegations, but they did make a valuable contribution.Finally, the delegation was unusual in that it was led by a member of the House of Representatives from the opposition party. I put on the record my thanks to former Speaker Halverson, who made the offer of that appointment in the first instance, and to former Speaker Sinclair for confirming the appointment. It was an attempt, in their eyes, to emphasise that these are parliamentary delegations and that, by virtue of my position as the second deputy speaker, I should be leader of the delegation. It might be seen as self-interest if I were to say positive things about that arrangement. Suffice it to say, I believe that, in the context of some countries, it is an appropriate gesture.AE4NEHLMr Nehl—Hear, hear!HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—As I said, despite the diversity of the views contained in the wide-ranging backgrounds of the members of the delegation, I believe the delegation operated in Australia's national interest at all times. I believe the delegation shares my desire that both Korea and Malaysia come out of their present domestic challenges strongly and positively, and that their relations with Australia endure and strengthen.Bills1441r6561441Bill presented by Mr Albanese.12:55:001441Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Bill 1998 into the House. Members of the 38th Parliament may recall that I first introduced this private members bill into the House in June of this year.Both the ALP and the coalition in government have endeavoured to ensure that all individual workers and employers now contribute to superannuation schemes. Superannuation is becoming an increasingly important part of many employees' salary packages. Not only is this good retirement incomes policy but it is good policy for Australia's national savings as well.Currently, however, gay and lesbian workers and their families are not receiving the same benefits from their superannuation contributions as other workers. Couples of the same sex in a relationship—and one that would be considered a de facto relationship if the partners were of opposite sexes—currently do not enjoy the same superannuation benefits as heterosexual couples, while making identical superannuation contributions.The discrimination against these couples occurs in the following areas:. on retirement of the contributor, refusal to pay a joint pension for the contributor and his or her same sex partner;. on retirement of the contributor, refusal to pay a lump sum benefit in respect of a same sex partner;. on the death of the contributor, refusal to pay death benefits to a same sex partner, either by reversionary pension or lump sum benefit;. on the death of the contributor, failure to investigate or acknowledge the claim to dependency of a child of a same sex couple when the contributor is not the biological parent of the child; and. on the death of the contributor, payment of death benefits to the estate of the contributor rather than to the same sex partner as a dependant.This discrimination is inconsistent with other Commonwealth and state legislation and international undertakings, and needs to be addressed as an issue of equity for Australian workers.Allow me to put a human face to this problem. While in Melbourne meeting with the Victorian gay and lesbian rights lobby recently, I spoke with a gentleman by the name of Greg Brown. Greg and his partner, Robert Corva, had been in a relationship for over 10 years when Robert died in 1993. At that time, Robert had been employed by the Department of Defence for 17 years and was a contributor to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme.After Robert's death, Greg was unable to gain access to his partner's superannuation entitlements. The case went to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1995, which found that although amendments to the Superannuation Act in 1992 had removed discrimination on the grounds of marital status, this did not apply to same sex couples.Greg pursued the case to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which last month handed down its decision. The commissioner, Chris Sidoti, in declining Greg's complaint found that, while Greg had been treated unequally, the discrimination was legal under current legislation.However, to his credit, Commissioner Sidoti has undertaken to examine the Superannuation Act in relation to its effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity in employment or occupation. I look forward to such an inquiry being carried out and urge HREOC to undertake it as soon as practicable.Unfortunately, any inquiry will come too late for Mr Brown who has now pursued action as far as he is able to under the current law. It is tragic that people still grieving for their loved ones are having to take on battles such as this in order just to achieve equal treatment.I originally introduced this legislation after two years of unsuccessfully lobbying the government to introduce amendments to the act. On 25 May 1998, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Chris Miles—the former member for Braddon—wrote to me and stated that the government is not inclined to amend the superannuation legislation at this time. The former member for Braddon has gone but the discrimination stays. This case once again highlights the urgent need for reform and why the government must take action.In closing, I would like to emphasise to members that this is not an issue about special rights for any particular group of workers; it is about equal rights for all. I am pleased that it will be seconded by the member for Melbourne Ports, who is committed to achieving results on this issue.I urge all members of this House to support this bill in the strongest possible terms because it is about equity and justice for all, and the current discrimination should not be tolerated in Australian society in 1998. I seek leave to present the explanatory memorandum.Leave granted.Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business1442144213:00:001442Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I move:That this House:(1) regrets that the action of the NSW Government in progressing the regional forest agreements for north-east and lower north-east New South Wales has forced the Commonwealth Government to withdraw funding of $40 million; and(2) calls on the NSW Government to act with responsibility to protect the future of the forest industry. The forest industry of Australia in general, and New South Wales in particular, is very important. There has been a great number of problems over the last three years with the way the New South Wales government has proceeded with the handling and management of forestry and the other areas that are part of that. One area that has received no justice at all in what the New South Wales government has done is the group of people who have grazing interests in some limited areas of state forests. The apiarists who depend on putting their bees into state forests are now in trouble as well.Unfortunately, in revoking this very large area of country, which is currently going to be taken out of the forest industry—and it has been recently announced that there may be another 380,000 hectares—the impact on many grazing families was totally ignored. Those who have no concern for the impact on those people say that they are only OPs—occupational permits—or permissive occupancies or annual leases and it is not recognised that many of the leases were purchased as special leases with a term attached. The grazier had the right to assume that, when that term expired—and a term could have been up to 20 or 40 years—if conditions had not been breached the lease would be renewed. That has always been the case. That was the expectation. As evidence of that, some leases have been in the one family for three or four generations and they form an important part of property management.Even though the legislation has passed through the New South Wales parliament, clear mapping is still not available to identify all the affected leases in any accurate manner. This is just one example of how the New South Wales government has rushed ahead to try to lock up the forests to placate the Green environmentalists in advance of the election on 27 March next year. This is totally inexcusable and demonstrates a very clear contempt towards rural communities by the New South Wales government. The New South Wales government has proceeded unilaterally, knowing that the scientific data was not complete. That is absolutely inexcusable. Ground verification of area of mapping has not occur red effectively to substantiate the accuracy of interpretation.One of the major problems in this whole process, which has been going on now, as I said, for about three years, is that the socioeconomic data has not been completed and is only in draft form. How can you go ahead and make decisions without considering all of the impacts on people and communities? To do that you have to have all the socioeconomic data available in a form that is effective. At this point, the New South Wales government will probably not cooperate with the FRAMES data. It will be impossible to produce an impact statement on the effect on rural communities of people reliant on forest industries—beekeepers, graziers and so on.The New South Wales government has been determined to lock up vast areas. And it is recorded that they will proceed with or without the Commonwealth. This is a typical display of the way rural New South Wales is treated arrogantly by the Carr Labor government. It has nothing to do with forests or the environment. It is a purely political decision made in an attempt to fulfil Bob Carr's dream of being re-elected in March.Since 1996, 850,000 hectares have been locked away in wilderness in national parks—not based on any scientific assessment. As a result of the last round in 1996, graziers and farmers who had leases on forest areas actually lost paddocks which were used for growing turnips and potatoes. It is hardly as though those areas were forest areas.It is widely believed that the remaining timber yield has been grossly overestimated. Meeting existing agreements will be impossible. This is where, of course, the $40 million that the Commonwealth has had to withdraw will be missed. Our remaining forest areas will be logged and flogged. Evidence of overcutting is already very clear in the area. This will give the Green movement every opportunity to once again attack the industry and sustainability. And that is the key word—we need to have sustainability in our forest areas. Australia is a very large land mass. It is a very large country. We have a situation where, instead of expanding our forestry and putting more and more land under forests and making them available in the future for logging and sustainable and viable forest industries, we are just reducing our forestry. I find it very difficult to understand that attitude of mind and philosophy. Unlike iron ore, aluminium or coal, finite products which will eventually run out, forestry is the resource which is renewable. Forestry is the resource which you can farm and get your crop year after year after year.The Department of Primary Industries and Energy contracted a consultancy group from Sydney called Rush, whose independent study found that 58 per cent of those who lost their jobs as a result of the forest decisions made by the New South Wales government have not found further employment. Thousands of workers have been put out of work by the New South Wales government's decisions. Rush also determined that only $4,000 on average was paid in redundancy payments—not the $20,000 average as continually suggested by the New South Wales government. The Commonwealth was left with little or no choice other than to withdraw the remainder of the FISAP funding. The Commonwealth contributed more than $19 million to ensure the outcome of the regional forests agreements was scientifically based and that the socioeconomic side was given fair weight in the decision making process.But of course that has not happened. The New South Wales government has proceeded on its merry way, without consultation, and has decided to go ahead and reduce the quotas. I have two tables, one of which shows the current land tenures in forestry in the upper north-east region, the lower north-east region and the Eden region. I see the member for Eden-Monaro, who will be interested to see these tables. The other table shows the changes in wood supply.I make the point that, in the upper north-east region, out of a total area of forested land of 3,910,000 hectares, 160,000 hectares of leasehold forested land are going to be wiped and those people will not be allowed to continue with the practices of grazing or beekeeping which they have carried out for generations. In the lower north-east region there are 5,790,000 hectares of forested area and the leased forested land is only 150,000 hectares. Out of all of those tenures, there would not be a great deal that the New South Wales government would lose from forestry if they allowed those who had the leases to continue with what they were doing. I seek leave to have the two tables incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The tables read as follows—Table 1. Current Land TenuresTenureUNE Region Approx Area (ha)LNE Region Approx Area (ha)Eden Region Approx Area (ha)State Forest550,000810,000205,000Private Forested Land1,000,0001,200,000130,000Vacant Crown Land (forested)60,000170,00018,000Leasehold Forested Land160,000150,000Reserves* (forested)390,000900,000195,000Total Forested Land*2,200,0003,210,000530,000Total Area of Region3,910,0005,790,000800,000*Reserves include National Park Nature Reserves and declared Wilderness *Some tenures are not included, and others may overlapTable 2. Changes in Wood SuppliesResource LevelUNE and LNE (m3/annum)Eden (m3/annum)1995/96 quota allocation510,00059,000Current supply300,00026,000Long term sustainable yieldNot known26,000NSW RFA proposal270,000 reducing after 20 years23,000—2,000 from Southern reducing to a total 24,000 after 5 yearsAE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—It is worth while noting that the New South Wales government and the Commonwealth government signed a scoping agreement to undertake the regional forest area process back in January 1996. An interim forest assessment process was concluded and announced in September of that year. Immediately on that announcement, the New South Wales government unilaterally reduced the level of timber quotas in that state by 35 to 40 per cent and declared extensive new national parks and wilderness areas. New South Wales also committed itself to future extensive areas of reserves in the RFA forest. I told the House, in a speech on 18 November 1996, that the New South Wales government had unilaterally declared 12 new wilderness areas then, totalling 153,430 hectares, and 10 new national parks, totalling 168,078 hectares. They also reserved an additional 671,000 hectares—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the motion seconded?4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:10:001445Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—If anything is `purely political' it is this resolution. This latest series of antics by the federal government is not the first time they have attempted to impede the processes in New South Wales and Queensland. If we go back to early September, there was a bit of exhibitionism from the then minister, John Anderson, in a press release entitled `Federal coalition does not support Beattie government's bid to close down native forest industry in south-east Queensland' and in another entitled `Anderson says Carr government should be fair dinkum on regional forest agreements in northern New South Wales'. These press releases continued ad nauseam. So we have seen, over a period of time, an attempt for purely political purposes to essentially undermine and politicise this process.It was interesting that the previous speaker spent very little time on the employment aspects, something those opposite tend to focus on. The Australian people would not have too much time for the rhetoric of those opposite, who have sat there like stunned mullets over the last three years while tens of thousands of Australian people have been thrown out of the Commonwealth Public Service.In a reasonable, objective, middle-ground comment on the performance of this government, Mr Dorber from the NSW Forest Products Association said of that first attempt to scuttle the process:Given the resources (both financial and human) possessed by the Federal Government, we cannot accept the explanations now being offered for this serious failure to provide useable data within the negotiation process.The person who represents the vast majority of the sawmillers and the industry—regardless of how often people shake their heads over there on the other side—is on the public record essentially saying that the attempts to scuttle this process in New South Wales and the lack of data which is now complained about has come from those opposite.One would think, from the contributions today, that nothing has been done by the state government with regard to the question of the long-term viability of the industry. For some reason, they do not talk about the $10 million under the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program to upgrade operations at four North Coast timber firms: Kempsey Timbers, Hurford Hardwood, J. Notaras & Sons and Machin's. They do not talk about the $18 million over the next five years for the purchase of timber from private property to maintain adequate supply during the transition stage of the agreement. They do not speak of the 61 new jobs in the thinning of hardwood plantations and regrowth forests. There is no comment on the 25 new jobs to expand eucalypt plantations in the region by 2,000 hectares a year. There is no discussion of the 10 new jobs to undertake detailed timber resource inventory operations. No-one speaks of the $2 million to develop a biomass energy plant at Walcha based on pine plantation thinnings and timber waste.What we are seeing over here is essentially a politically orchestrated campaign to make sure this issue hangs around until the next state election. If the broad mass of reasonable people in this country—the people who want a sensible outcome in forestry policy—were hearing the rhetoric of both sides of this debate, and if they wanted any confirmation that this is a reasonable outcome, they would be interested in the comments here today about how dreadful this is for the forestry industry and how dreadful this is for the sawmillers.It is interesting to note what those on the other side of the debate are saying about this supposedly dreadful outcome for the North Coast sawmillers. A newspaper that is very dear to a few North Coast members, the Northern Daily Leader, on 14 November carried a headline entitled `Greens claim 20-year plan ignores science'. In that, the North East Forest Alliance attacks the New South Wales state government, saying it:. . . did another dirty deal with timber industry groups to sell out oldgrowth forest, wilderness and numerous endangered species.That is what the Greens and the environment movement are saying about the outcome. Yet here today we have people on the other side saying how lamentably pro-conservationist and how green this outcome is.Similarly with the Australian of 13 November: `Greens declare war on Carr'. A few moments ago we had a speaker alleging that this process was designed to buy off the green movement—that it is part of a nefarious plot designed to get green preferences at the next state election. It does not seem to be working too well, does it? I quote from the article:. . . conservationists claim the Government abandoned plans to lock up hundreds more hectares following pressure from unionists and timber groups.So they do not seem to have got the message too clearly that this is all for them. I refer again to the Forest Products Association's comment about the federal minister's performance:Wilson Tuckey Playing Political FootballWhile it is heart-breaking for workers who go through the process, at least the state government is offering a support base, unlike the federal government, which appears to be trying to score political points.We are seeing these political points here today. The association also noted:The federal government has not helped by walking away from the negotiation process. Minister Tuckey has also conveniently forgotten that he was the one to unilaterally suspend business exit assistance—which, as we all know, is essentially hitting the employers, the owners and the industry. The Mayor of Walcha, Len Woods, in the same edition of the Northern Daily Leader of 14 November, said about one aspect of this outcome, this RFA:It's great news for jobs in Walcha.. . . . . . . . .This decision will help bring some certainty back into people's lives.The second way in which the package protects the future of the forest industry is that it provides them with resource security for a period of 20 years. This is a key outcome made possible only by compromises on all sides of the debate. In return, the New South Wales government is guaranteeing the industry a minimum of 269,000 cubic metres of high quality, large sawlogs a year—140,000 from the lower north-east and 129,000 from the upper north-east. As well, timber volumes will not begin to reduce to these agreed levels until January 2000, and then in two stages. The motion we are debating also claims that the New South Wales government's actions have `forced the Commonwealth Government to withdraw funding of $40 million'. This is a ridiculous claim.The federal minister, Mr Tuckey, has suspended, not withdrawn, structural adjustment funding to New South Wales as a negotiating tactic with the Carr government, and nothing else. This action exposes the contradiction of the minister's position in this sensitive and complex debate. He claims to be about protecting the timber industry, virtually to the exclusion of all other legitimate considerations, yet he capriciously suspends Commonwealth funding that goes to that very same industry. No wonder the Forest Products Association is starting to mutter `with friends like these' about Minister Tuckey and those opposite who support him.All the ministerial press releases, dorothy dixers in question time and private members' motions in the world will not alter the fact that the Commonwealth has to negotiate a series of regional forest agreements with the New South Wales government. Negotiations with New South Wales were well under way in the lead-up to the federal election when Commonwealth officials were ordered to halt discussions with their New South Wales counterparts.As shadow minister, I have been trying to make some sense of the federal minister's conduct. I readily confess to being completely baffled by his performance. He claims, when he first comes in, that his door is always open to everyone, but he tells Commonwealth officials not to talk to their New South Wales counterparts. He is given the title of Minister for Forestry and Conservation, but he acts as if conservation and heritage values are anathema to him and expresses total opposition to further world heritage listings.He pledges his commitment to the Commonwealth-state regional forest agreements process and then suggests he might develop a strange, unexplained backdoor agreement process. Through the media he calls on the New South Wales coalition to vote against the Carr government's forestry legislation, only to see them help secure the passage of the legislation through the state's upper house.He professes to be acting within the framework of the national forest policy statement agreed with the states and the territories, and then tells the Sydney Morning Herald he supports a move towards a `whole-of-forest' approach to logging. Whilst this term is as imprecise as his other outbursts, it clearly implies that he wants to reduce the size of national parks in New South Wales and that he wants to allow logging to occur in national parks. Even the New South Wales coalition's spokesperson on forestry, National Party MP Don Page, has ruled out logging in national parks, so the minister is clearly out on a limb on this.He has been out on a limb for quite a while. We have heard in here of the attempt to persuade the New South Wales opposition to get on its high horse about this legislation. The fact of life is that the New South Wales opposition has seen what most people in this country understand. That is, whilst we have a few National Party MPs and Liberals in here today criticising this initiative and criticising these agreements, the fact of life is that the broad middle-ground of Australia in this debate understands that, when the green movement is so critical of this process, when it is so unhappy with the outcome—and these people today are unhappy with the outcome—then quite frankly it is a sensible outcome.13:20:001447Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I have listened with some interest to the member for Reid trying to justify the indefensible in the forestry decision. The member for Reid has been with me in politics for quite a long time. He knows that I do not worry about elections on this particular issue, that I have been fighting the cause for forestry for 15 years.I have to say that we have continued to get decisions such as this, which are purely political decisions and not based on the science of forestry. They are designed entirely for votes—it has nothing to do with anything else—in the cities, Sydney and Melbourne, where 60 per cent of Australia lives, and `Damn the people who live in the country; we couldn't care less about them'.These particular decisions are even more serious when you consider some statements that were made by Bob Carr when he was the minister for planning and national parks in 1987. I remember very clearly sitting in the New South Wales house one night after he had given a national park to the green movement and, like they do today, they had gone out and condemned him high and low about the fact that he had not given them more.I remember clearly his statement when he came down to the house and said, `These people are like a pack of timber wolves. You throw them a national park and they gulp it down and look up with languid eyes and ask for more.' That is exactly right. It is a pity he did not remember what he said. That is exactly what he said, and there is no doubt in my mind that this decision will not satisfy them either, because they want the lot.The New South Wales government—particularly the minister for decentralisation, or regional development, in New South Wales—has sold out the timber industry on the North Coast because they did not stand up. The government looks at the ambit claims put forward by the green movement—and this time it was a million hectares—and they say to the timber industry, `Think yourself lucky because we have only given them about 300-odd thousand hectares.' This continues to go on and on.I am interested that the member for Paterson is going to speak in this debate. I will be listening very carefully to see how he is going to protect the forest industries in his electorate, because obviously some of their representatives have been fairly outspoken in recent times about this decision.Look very closely at the decision. The honourable member for Reid quoted the FPA and Mr Col Dorber, but Mr Dorber does not represent the majority of the timber industry. Boral alone have 60 per cent of the sawn logging quota in New South Wales. He tries to manipulate these figures, just like a lot of politicians. He tries to bring Daishowa into it to say, `Yes, we represent the majority of the timber industry.' There is a big difference between the chip industry and the logging industry.Col Dorber's history probably explains a lot about this debate. After the 1993 election, when the coalition lost government, he was locked out of negotiations with the government of the day—for at least three or four months. It was a typical union tactic. They locked him out until he had to find his way back through the door again. The only way he found his way back was to get an agreement with the government that he would not criticise them and he would not campaign against them again. So any statements he makes in this debate have no credibility at all.The electorates of Clarence and Page are based not just on the big mills but also on a lot of small mills, and they are being ignored in this process. They are not members of—they do not belong to—any organisation. They certainly do not belong to the FPA. They have to represent themselves, and I go into bat for them because they employ more people than the big mills in the electorate.You talk about this money that has been set aside to buy private resources, but private resources do not want to sell it to the government. This is another method of this New South Wales government—confiscating property. They have done that with the graziers—graziers who had long-term leases. When the leases came up for renewal, the graziers were given an occupational permit, which is at minister's will. Their property has been confiscated by the government. That in itself is having a big effect around Grafton in my electorate, where the grazing industry depends on the high country in the winter time to carry their stock, because if they do not do that they cannot continue to carry the numbers of stock in that North Coast area.So this decision has been an absolute disaster. Do not talk to me about this plantation policy. That is another pie in the sky thing that has been put forward by the Labor Party to try to induce the city into believing that we can somehow grow the timber that is necessary to supply this industry. It cannot be done. Anyone who wants to go up in an aeroplane will see that. (Time expired)13:25:001448Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Firstly, let me say how disappointed I am that an important segment of parliamentary business such as private member's business has given over to what I see as a very party political argument. That is what this is. This decision was made in a state parliament with the support of your coalition colleagues, and you brought it into this chamber to debate it on party political lines at a time when we get so little time to debate issues with bipartisan participation. But I will be very interested to see what the member for Page has to say later today when the taxation bill comes before this House for debate, because you will not have to go back to 1987 to find a leader who said, `Never, ever'; you only have to go back a couple of years. I wonder whether you would support him today and point out that he has changed his stance.But let us get on to forestry and find out why the decisions in New South Wales have been made. For in excess of three years the Carr government has been working with this federal government to come to a decision. But what do we find? We find that only in the last couple of months the goalposts have been changed. The federal minister, who has also been changed, said, `We don't agree with the reserve process that you have put aside. We don't agree with the time frame.' Obviously it was important for the state government, with the agreement of the federal government, to bring the matter to completion by the end of 1998. But suddenly, as we approached that date, all the red herrings were drawn out and there was disagreement.I would think that the coalition would realise that there are a number of major issues here. The member for Page, who claims to represent major sawmilling interests in his electorate, knows that one of the important factors that make a sawmill economically viable or not is woodchip. Whether you like it or not, we do. I know that you guys changed it from 500,000 tonnes to one million tonnes but the point is that still only 300,000-odd tonnes go out from northern New South Wales. It makes a difference as to whether those sawmills run at a profit or loss. And I support them for doing what they do.The interesting thing is that if you do not support the RFA process and New South Wales does not have an agreement with the federal government, then the export licences for woodchip in New South Wales will run out at the end of next year. That will be your concern, because you will be entirely responsible as a party for not issuing new export licences. And that will be the single most telling factor as to whether those small sawmills that you claim to support so vigorously run at a profit. They will go under purely because of that decision. If RFAs are not agreed to in New South Wales and that process is not determined by the end of next year, then the woodchip from New South Wales will have no place on the export market, and in the coming 12 months you will start to see a movement against New South Wales woodchip by buyers from offshore, because they know that until that agreement is in place they will not have a guarantee of supply. When I was here between 1993 and 1996 we saw exactly the effect that that had on the sawmilling industry in New South Wales. There is not as much chip going out from Newcastle now as there was between 1993 and 1996. Even though you have increased the quota to one million tonnes, the point is that the market is not there.The other important thing is the FISAP process. That is something that you completely ignore. The $40 million that has been withdrawn is vitally important for the timber industry in New South Wales at this time. The FISAP process is now starting to take effect. In my electorate alone, one sawmiller in one country town is prepared to invest $1.4 million with the associated grant. That is the sort of thing that you people are placing in jeopardy, and that is the sort of action that I abhor. For the first time the forestry industry in New South Wales has certainty and, by the actions of the coalition in this House, you are denying that. It will be remembered. (Time expired)13:30:001449Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I am very pleased to support this motion as I sympathise greatly with you, as the honourable member for Cowper, the honourable member for Page and other members in the north- east of New South Wales. I sympathise because exactly the same thing happened in my electorate of Eden-Monaro with the Eden management area.The member for Paterson over there, with a lot of huff and puff, talked about RFA processes. It is the Carr government which walked away from the RFA process in the first place. If we go back to the interim assessment process, he walked away from the RFA process when they automatically cut the wood supply to half. In fact, in my electorate of Eden-Monaro, they cut it to less than half. They went out and unilaterally declared national parks all over the place in direct opposition to the RFA process.I said to Rex Bowen, who was running the process for the New South Wales government, at the time, `How can you declare a national park when you have not even got back any sorts of studies from the socioeconomic surveys that were being done well before the environmental studies were completed?' Before those reports were even finished they declared the national parks. I said to him, `What happens when you get to the end of this RFA process and you find you've made a mistake and that you've declared far more national park than you should have?' He looked at me and said, `Well, I guess we'll have to undeclare some of those parks.' I said, `Oh, look, there are pigs flying.' Pigs might fly! That is exactly what occurred.There is an area of national park down in my electorate. If you talk to the Greens, if you talk to the environment people at the federal level and if you talk to the New South Wales people privately, every single one of them will admit that the national park was placed over the wrong piece of land. Nobody has got the guts to turn around and change it. I sympathise very much because exactly the same thing has occurred as is now happening in the north-east.We have seen a total unilateral agreement. To this day I cannot work out who the agreement is with. An RFA process is an agreement between the New South Wales government and the federal government. But it seems to be an agreement between a couple of ministers in New South Wales who sat around the faction table and said, `Well, we need some extra votes here and there. Okay, let's come up with this wonderful agreement.' Then they went ahead and started producing ads. You saw the ads in the papers, Mr Deputy Speaker, saying: `It's all warm and fuzzy. We'll protect the owls and we'll protect the potoroos.' But they did not protect the timber workers.We have lost more than 200 jobs in the last few years through this process. We have ended up with a wood supply agreement well below 50 per cent. The New South Wales government promised the people in my area that they would `never go below 50 per cent' of what they were getting at the time. That would have given them 29,500 cubic metres. They are now throwing us 23,000. It would have taken so little to get to 26,000, which would have maintained the jobs. What is it with Carr? So little extra and we could have had 26,000 cubic metres and not one job would have been lost.I was in Eden on Saturday night for the South-East Timber Association Christmas party. They were trying to make the best of it because they went through the lottery last week that I spoke about in the House. I challenge the shadow minister for forestry and conservation: come down and talk to Marie and Bob Slater who went into the hat with two contracts. Their numbers came out first and second—all finished. Come down and front them and have a discussion, and then you might learn something about the RFA process and the despicable process that Carr went through. No science at all; all politics—a totally political process. Absolutely no science whatsoever.I would be happy to see the member for Reid, who comes from the nice leafy suburbs of Western Sydney, visit my electorate. I am sure they have grown a few trees there in somebody's backyard occasionally. Come down and see the real world and see what has happened to the people in those communities who were first affected by the cancellation of the woodchip licences by the former Labor government and are now affected by this process which has locked them out. It would have taken so little and they all could have had a job. (Time expired)13:35:001450Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—It simply does not make sense for this House to `regret' the Carr government's regional forest agreements for the north-eastern parts of New South Wales. To demand that the Carr government act responsibly on the forestry issue is a bit like telling a timber worker to be careful on the job. It is fitting, though, that the National Party should express its regret. After all, it has been noticeably absent from any policy debate on this complex issue.Our generation holds in trust our nation's valuable timber resources. While we wish to make use of this resource, we also wish future generations to be able to use it, and we might expect those future generations to hold that same trust for those generations which will succeed them. We need to find a way in which we can ensure that these objectives can be met and secured. How much of our timber resources can we use? How much should we hold in trust? What is the balance between pilfering the future of our timber resources and securing their long-term viability? But this debate is not about those issues; this debate is about the New South Wales election and it is about the seat of Clarence.Let us be clear about one thing. The Carr government is not withholding funds for restructuring the timber industry. It is the Commonwealth government which is withholding funds: funds which might be used to assist the timber industry in north-east New South Wales. This government is trying to blackmail the people of New South Wales for blatant political purposes.The Carr government has done its job. Faced with a difficult decision, it has made a sensible compromise. It is now up to this government to stop playing petty politics and get on with the job of ensuring the future of the timber industry in New South Wales. The Carr government's responsible approach to establishing common ground is in stark contrast to the irresponsible attitude of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation in this government.In the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 November, the minister was reported to have threatened to cancel woodchip export licences if there was no federal and state consensus by the end of 1999. That is the attitude of the minister: `Turn on a blue! Who cares about the long term future of the industry!' The minister obviously follows the National Party creed: if it moves, shoot it; if it doesn't, cut it down. That is hardly responsible, especially after the Carr government has sat down with all the stakeholders and drawn up a compromise agreement on the best use of timber resources in north-east New South Wales.The Premier has `progressed' the agreements, as the member for Cowper observes. That is, after all, what the people of New South Wales expect their Premier to do. A clear statement—an agreement—is what the industry expects as well, if they are to make informed decisions about long-term investment in the industry, decisions that affect people's livelihoods. The Sydney Morning Herald of 13 November says the Carr government's plan:. . . represents an intelligent compromise which makes sense of the concerns of all the competing interest groups. The amount of forest left aside for present and future logging ensures a viable industry can be maintained in an area where jobs are scarce.The member for Cowper should be more concerned with his minister, who seems incapable of compromise, rather than regretting the positive and effective actions of the New South Wales government. You cannot progress anything in public policy without a bit of reconciling and you certainly do not progress the interests of a sustainable forest industry by withdrawing from negotiations.The processing of similar agreements has been going on in other states and the government has not remarked on them at all. It certainly has not done the classic dummy spit we have seen from the minister in this case.Jobs and conservation are two conflicting demands that are never easy to reconcile. For the Carr government to have produced a compromise agreement and have it passed into law with the support of all major parties is an achievement worthy of the commendation of this House rather than regret. Regret is when you cannot attend. So it is fitting for the National Party to be proposing regret. It has been conspicuously absent from any policy contribution to the question of sustaining employment in this critical natural resource industry.13:40:001452Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I am very pleased to be associated with the motion by the member for Cowper. I support him in trying to achieve a balance between the needs of the timber industry on one hand and our very precious natural environment on the other. This debate and the RFA process is all about achieving that balance based on scientific grounds, not on emotional or political grounds as the Carr government is doing. The whole process of the RFA is to conduct wide consultation with industry and environment groups and, most importantly, to examine the social and economic impact on regional communities. Exactly that process has been conducted in both Tasmania and in my own state of Victoria. Far from the cries of members opposite today, I can tell them that in the central highlands within my own electorate we have a balanced RFA that has been based on scientific evidence after consultation with all those groups I mentioned.This debate is really about the Premier of New South Wales and his political decision that he can win more votes in his vulnerable metropolitan areas by pre-empting the scientifically based RFA process, by making decisions in an emotive manner, to lock native forest areas into expanded national parks designed to pander to the ill-informed residents of Sydney, decisions that are not based on any accurate or scientific information.To give just one example, on 15 July the member for Cowper gave details in this place of an area in the Murwillumbah district which was claimed to be rainforest but in fact was an area of eucalypt trees. This type of decision making follows an established pattern by the Carr government. In fact, it would be fair to say that during the past two years when other state governments have been following the RFA process by assiduously abiding by the criteria of scientific assessment, together with those consultation processes as I described, the Carr government has obviously made the decision that they will not abide by the rules. They will do whatever they think is politically expedient.It must be emphasised that the New South Wales Premier only sees the RFA process as a way of adding more native forest to national parks—increasing the size of national parks come what may. National parks are very important to our nation but they should not be determined by arbitrary decisions, decisions that do not take effective management of those parks into consideration, decisions that do not take into consideration the Australian timber industry and those people who work in it, decisions that do not take into account that we import $2½ billion worth of timber and timber products and decisions that do not take into consideration rural communities who rely on the timber industry to maintain those communities.It is not just the families who have members in the harvesting, transport and milling of timber industries. It is all those other people—all those small business people in those small rural towns who depend on the timber industry. I want to know why the shadow minister at the table, and indeed the shadow minister for regional services, is not in here standing up for all those small business people in those rural towns who depend on people like the Premier of New South Wales to stick by the RFA process and use that process—(Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members145214521452Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Yesterday the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin, announced a $40 million federal government incentive package for the Visy pulp mill in Tumut in southern New South Wales. Whilst I congratulate this community on securing the project, I am disappointed for my own electorate of Braddon, not because a pulp mill was or is to go ahead in preference to Burnie on the north-west coast of Tasmania—or anywhere else in Tasmania—but because it was this very same Howard government that did nothing to assist the workers of the Burnie pulp mill to rescue their jobs and the pulping operations at Australian Paper's Burnie site.No incentive package accompanied the combined union and local community plan to keep the pulp mill operational. Instead, Amcor went about its business of closing the mill, sacking 200 workers, converting the plant to process imported pulp and importing this pulp. The so-called package Burnie received from the Howard government has failed to materialise in any coherent or organised form, and my community is frustrated by this tardiness and lack of direct federal government response.Likewise, Tasmania is in the process of securing a billion dollar magnesite production and processing plant, which we were promised by the former member for Braddon would be monitored by the Prime Minister's department and the government's major projects facilitator, Bob Mansfield. It seems, however, that no-one is in fact aware of the project. It is not listed amongst the government's five major projects and appears to have been ignored. (Time expired)14531453Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise to quickly address two issues: the first is to associate myself in principle, if not in detail, with support for the Superannuation (Entitlements of same sex couples) Bill 1998 that was introduced by the member for Grayndler earlier today. Whilst some may see it as a wedge issue for sexual politics and as a part of the advocacy program for same sex marriages—something that I do not support—I do believe, nonetheless, that this bill is a question of economic, administrative and human justice.The second issue, which is not unrelated, is to record my highest regard for the Salvation Army and Ms Diana Sands, who run the Families Bereaved by Suicide Program in Chatswood, in the lower end of my electorate. They provide comfort and support and give meaning to hundreds of families across the North Shore of Sydney who have lost loved ones and their families from suicide.14531453Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I wish to draw the attention of members to an exciting cultural project in my electorate of Bendigo in the form of an art exhibition that is to be exhibited at the Museum of Chinese Art in Beijing, commencing on 19 January. The exhibition is entitled Through the Eyes of Two Cultures . The work has been created by Chinese artist Zhou Xiaoping and Aboriginal artist Jimmy Pike.I understand that this is the first time that such work has been invited to be exhibited at the Beijing museum and is therefore a world first. The theme is to promote Australia's unique indigenous and multicultural heritage and identity through art and to encourage future dialogue and exchanges. The Chinese community has been at the forefront of cultural and community activities in Bendigo and has made a wonderful contribution to the city since first settlement in the 1850s. The Golden Dragon Museum in Bendigo is a world-class facility exhibiting artworks and displays of the rich history of the Chinese people in the Bendigo district since the 1850s, and it is proudly presenting this exhibition for Beijing.I recommend that all honourable members visit this outstanding museum in Bendigo whenever they can, and I am sure they will be delighted with this great display of Bendigo's heritage. Through the Eyes of Two Cultures presents a unique opportunity to promote indigenous, multicultural, social and cultural development. This complements the Golden Dragon's mission statement, which promotes goodwill and understanding between Chinese, Australians and people from other ethnic and national backgrounds. This fine exhibition is just another example of the rich cultural history that is typical of Bendigo, Victoria's pre-eminent city. (Time expired)14531453Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I stand today to express my gratitude to our sometimes hostile Senate for passing quickly amendments to the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 to enable the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to arbitrate in superannuation complaints.A February Federal Court decision in Wilkinson v. Clerical Administrative and Related Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd (1998) and Brekler v. Leshem (1998) impaired the ability of the tribunal to meet its objectives, and in the case of a constituent of mine it could have had her thrown out of her home by the banks on Christmas Eve, with no resolution in sight.The interim solution, which I cannot help comparing to another solution to a court decision—albeit a 10-point solution—shows that the government is committed to ensuring that superannuation fund members have access to effective dispute resolution. My constituent still faces a harrowing time, having already had the trustees of her deceased husband's superannuation fund rule twice in her favour against her challenger. Yet again the challenger has shown her head, but this legislation should now bring equity and justice.14541454Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am extremely proud to extend my sincere congratulations to the owners and staff of the Maryland Soul Pattinson chemist in my electorate of Charlton. It is the first pharmacy in Australia to be accredited under the Quality Care Pharmacy Program. Steve Mihulka and Helen Campbell are the two pharmacists at the Maryland Soul Pattinson chemist. Ann Milhulka is the joint owner with Steve. Their pharmacist's assistants are Julie Knight, Stacey Garnett, Dani Graczyk, Lara-Jane Cash and Kate Mihulka. They can be justifiably proud of their achievement, as I am advised that there are currently 2,700 pharmacies trying to achieve accreditation. It is good to see that pharmacies are becoming more customer focused and are aiming to improve health care in their communities.The Quality Care Pharmacy Program was launched by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia last March with support from the Minister for Health and Aged Care to enhance the provision of pharmacy services to customers. I will be proud and honoured to attend with my constituents the presentation tomorrow by the minister. Six months of hard work by all has resulted in this award, after a very rigorous assessment. Another accolade for the skills and dedication of workers in the Hunter.14541454Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I want to bring to the House's attention the government's commitment to ensuring that businesses take advantage of telecommunication advances and the opportunities that they provide. To highlight that commitment, I am pleased to announce that the federal government has announced a $50,000 grant to the Central Coast State Economic Development Board. This grant, coming from the Networking the Nation fund, will fund specific projects for the Central Coast region. It will allow a detailed assessment of the telecommunications needs of businesses and communities and of the capacity and capabilities of the current telecommunications infrastructure on the Central Coast.This comes on top of the recent very successful Online Regional Summit which was held by the Central Coast Regional Development Corporation. I had the honour of launching that summit recently, and I am pleased to see that two of their representatives, Vanessa Steer and Eve Robinson, are in the gallery today. They are very strong supporters of the Central Coast who are down in Canberra highlighting the needs of industry on the Central Coast and ensuring that the government is fully aware of those needs. These are just two of the initiatives which show that the government is committed to supporting Central Coast businesses and businesses around Australia. (Time expired)14541454Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Yesterday I visited Trinder Park Rest Home for the dedication of a new special care unit. A service in the chapel was followed by a morning tea and I took the opportunity of taking a tour around the rest home. I was very impressed with the dedication of the staff and the effort and funding the Lutheran Church has provided to establish, operate and expand the rest home.Sadly, as soon as new facilities are created, they are filled and new waiting lists emerge. I indicated at the morning tea that I believe older Australians such as those at the Trinder Park Rest Home deserve dignity, respect and peace of mind. I will work with the management and staff of Trinder Park Rest Home to secure a fair share of any government funding that becomes available. The general manager, Maria Mulheran, is taking leave to have a baby. I wish Maria all the best and I wish all the residents and staff a merry Christmas and a happy new year.14551455Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I wish to raise an issue of the deliberate misleading of the electorate—in fact, going almost to fraud—from the Minister for Forests in New South Wales, the Hon. Kim Yeadon. He has deliberately made statements in the press that his forest plan in New South Wales is for a sustainable forest and with value adding.Sustainability, I suppose, is one of those magic words—it means all things to all people. It gets down to the fact that if you have a smaller area, then obviously the produce you can get from that small area is much smaller as well. Instead of looking at the world's best practice in value adding, in New South Wales we are duplicating what we have got at present—in floor boards and in architraves and things such as that. We are encouraging everyone else in the industry to go into those same products and that practice is destroying the market.That is deliberately misleading the electorate as to the benefits that are coming from a policy which is flawed. On the issue of assessment of the forest resource, I have expert evidence which shows that the maps that were used in this particular process are 17 per cent correct; yet the minister says that he is doing it scientifically. It is obviously a fraud. When we look opposite, we can count the ones who are not union apparatchiks; that is the problem that you have with this whole process. (Time expired)14551455Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Speaker, Babe: Pig in the City has just been released worldwide. Like its predecessor, Babe , the movie is a credit to the Australian director, George Miller, and the Australian film industry.It seems that Babe: Pig in the City has not been an instant commercial success in the United States. Like many people here, I am a strong supporter of the Australian film industry. Nonetheless, I would not be so provincial as to defend any commercial film that was not successful in terms of aesthetics or popular appeal, but I do not believe this to be the case with regard to Babe: Pig in the City. Firstly, the new Babe seems to have been systematically assassinated by its commercial rivals, the Disney Corporation. How else does one explain the orchestrated claims that the movie is `too dark'? For instance, one critic in the Los Angeles Times criticised the movie as `too dark, I have heard' before he had even seen the movie. Having seen the movie, it is not, as some American critics described it, `a horror movie for four-year-olds.' No animal or human is killed in the movie.I would hope that Australian critics and audiences give the movie their support. I wish to associate myself with the analysis of Australia's pre-eminent film critic, Peter Thompson, and the Herald-Sun's associate editor, Andrew Bolt, in giving their clear support for this fine Australian film, Babe: Pig in the City.14551455Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—On Saturday it was my pleasure to attend the 25th anniversary celebrations of the Mount Gravatt Little Athletics Club. It is the second oldest such club in Queensland and, as a member of Queensland Little Athletics, an organisation capably led by its president, Marjorie McNamara. It is responsible for 360 young people across the southern suburbs of Brisbane and provides a series of training and competitive opportunities for them.Some of us in this place often despair about the decline of volunteerism in our community. This organisation demonstrates that volunteerism is alive and well. This has been the product of the efforts of many participants in the executive of this organisation—going back some 25 years. Previous presidents have included Bob Wilson, Derry Beavis, Barry Flowers, Greg Monaghan and Wayne Lake. Its current executive of Wayne Lake, Wendy Wilson and Lyndal Hemmings have kept up this fine tradition.Little Athletics in Queensland and in the Mount Gravatt district provide an opportunity for young people to learn the skills of participation, team sport, sharing, personal striving and, above all, physical fitness and participation of families. Their activities and those of other organisations like Little Athletics deserve to be commended.14561456Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—On Saturday I was very pleased to be in Delegate—in the very south of my electorate, almost on the Victorian border—for the opening of the multipurpose service centre there, which is a great facility for the community. I congratulate the community for it because it was the work of the community committee—headed by Jock Mitchell—which really made sure the centre eventuated.During the course of the planning of the multipurpose service centre there was a change in government at both the federal and state levels. I think the local community were a bit worried for a while that, because both governments changed, it may not go ahead. Fortunately that was not the case and there was continued great cooperation between the federal government and the state government to ensure that that service centre was provided.It is one of the best examples of hospital and other services that I have seen in rural New South Wales. It is something that many small communities should have a look at, if they are looking at improving their health services in the near future.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice145614561456Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Has the minister seen the submission from the Australian Private Hospitals Association that estimates the impact of the 30 per cent rebate on health insurance premiums as a 15 per cent increase in health fund membership—far greater than the government's original estimate of an increase of less than three per cent? Has any adjustment been made to the statement of risks prepared by your department to cover this possibility? If the APHA estimate is correct, how much more will this add to the $1.7 billion your private health insurance rebate will cost taxpayers every year?1456Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for his question. I am aware of certain statements by the Australian Private Hospitals Association which have been made in recent times. I can indicate very clearly this government is committed to having a dual system in health which allows a viable health system, that is, supported by both the private health funds and the public system. The government made a decision on that and put it to the Australian people. We were given the right to implement that by virtue of the decision on 3 October.The government will continue to press for that legislation and implement it, and it will be on Labor's head if they refuse to look after those people, many of whom of course have very little in the way of funds themselves and who are very careful in how they spend their money. If they choose to have private health cover, this government believes they should have that right in an affordable manner, and that is the reason behind the policy. On the question of changing the statement of risk, the answer is that no steps have been taken in that regard.14561456Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade. Minister, could you inform the House what steps the government is taking to build an internationally competitive manufacturing environment in regional Australia?1457Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—This is a very good news day for a large section of southern New South Wales and north-eastern Victoria. It is a positive breakthrough—the first ever project approved under Investing for Growth is going to inland Australia, to Tumut in the electorate of Hume, on a magnificent regional site with good environmental considerations taken into account which will provide an economic boost not just to the Riverina but also to the Monaro. It is Australia's first major coordinated pulp mill project for many years, something Labor could never get going in their years in office.It is about harnessing the five per cent economic growth rate to ensure the creation of jobs and a spread of jobs right across Australia. I am delighted to point to the fact that this new mill, which Minister Nick Minchin has provided details in respect of, will produce some 170,000 pulp production tonnes with an additional 100,000 tonnes for export.849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—They are still waiting in Burnie. When are we going to hear anything?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—It will replace the 110,000 tonnes of softwood pulp and paper product annually imported into Australia. That is one bonus aspect—849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—It's going to destroy the Burnie pulp mill. That is what it's going to do. When are we going to hear something?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Braddon will show some restraint. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—You don't like good news. This is about import replacement as much as it is about export generation. It is a $40 million facilitation, $25 million of which is pursuant to existing programs and $15 million of which is additional—to make the difference, to make this huge project proceed and proceed at the strategic location of Tumut, adjoining, as it does, the electorates of Eden-Monaro, Riverina and Farrer and located, as it is, in the electorate of Hume.This is a Christmas bonus present that has come early. It will inject confidence into the region, and it will allow members of the next generation, the Tristans and others, to prepare for the jobs which will be created by this magnificent project.14571457Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that the Private Health Insurance ombudsman has identified a range of unacceptable practices by health funds, including changing rules governing members' entitlements without properly advising them and misusing the test of pre-existing conditions to deny consumers coverage, which are contrary to their registration conditions in the National Health Act? Is the minister aware that complaints about unfair practices by private health funds have increased by more than 60 per cent in the last 12 months? As this government is about to give $1.7 billion to the private health insurance funds, what action have you taken and what action are you going to take to ensure that they deal honestly and fairly with their customers?1457Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I do understand that there are some difficulties, and that is exactly the reason we have sought to introduce legislation to strengthen the role of the Private Health Insurance Complaints Commissioner. It is why, when we reappoint a new commissioner in the coming months, we will be appointing someone with substantial experience in the area who is able to deal with the funds and ensure that these unacceptable practices do not happen.It is somewhat hypocritical, coming from the Leader of the Opposition, who had 13 years in government to do something about this and did absolutely nothing about it whatsoever. It is somewhat hypocritical coming from the opposition who, at the last election, put out a health policy that had a total of 4½ lines only of effective policy on the private health insurance sector, and all that said is that we have to work together. It is hypocritical coming from an opposition that is negative, opportunistic, carping and offers no solutions whatsoever themselves.14581458Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Could the minister inform the House of the benefits which will flow to the people of my electorate of Eden-Monaro and the broader community as a result of yesterday's announcement of the Howard government's incentive package for the Visy pulp and paper project. How does this announcement fit with the government's overall plan for jobs and development of the forest and forest products industry in regional Australia?1458Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Let me state, firstly, how proud I am to be a minister of a government that is actually doing something in the forest and forest products area. This project, under the Prime Minister's Investing for Growth strategy, is the first major value adding project that has come to Australia since 1981 when the newsprint mills were created in Albury. I have been here long enough to remember another opportunity for Australia when this parliament debated the Wesley Vale mill.Mr Sidebottom interjecting—SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I have heard the bleatings from the new member for Braddon and I heard him in his 90-second statement; and he is crying crocodile tears when it was his colleague that killed off a $1,000 million project and committed the workers of Burnie to unemployment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask the member for Braddon to exercise a little more restraint. I know he is a new member, but he is straining the tolerance of the Speaker.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I take a point of order, Mr Speaker, and it goes to relevance. The reason why the member for Braddon was behaving as he was was that he was being directly attacked in a portion of the answer which could not remotely be said to be relevant to the question that was asked of him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have shown the Leader of the Opposition and one of his members more tolerance than is expected of the chair.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I have mentioned in this parliament before the fact that Australia, with very high forestry resources, still has a net deficit of $1.5 billion per annum in forest products. That includes paying for 110,000 tonnes of softwood pulp each year. This proposal is going to reverse that into some 300,000 tonnes of production, some of which, hopefully, will go to fill the 3.5 million tonnes of softwood pulp orders that come out of the Asian region—3.5 million tonnes, 90 per cent of which is imported. This is extremely important and it is the right sort of project. It is value adding existing timber coming from plantations, it is creating the opportunity for a further 30,000 hectares of plantation and the jobs that will grow from that are estimated at over 1,000—new real jobs. Everybody should be very proud that the Investing for Growth concept has delivered this as its first project. Furthermore, it has been my decision, in addressing these same issues, to have an action agenda to eliminate that $1.5 billion deficit.DT4CREANMr Crean—That is our policy—an action agenda.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—If you have got an agenda. Ours will be implemented, and that is the big difference. We know all about your agendas and your inquiries. There is another aspect of this minimill concept, and that is that for the first time in Australia many millions of dollars have been invested in researching to get a mill that is of a better size to be accommodated in the Australian forest environment. We have not got those very huge forest areas that necessarily support the usual sort of two million tonnes of timber type pulp mill. But if this is successful it will also be built in many other parts of Australia because it is an Australian mill for Australia. That has to be recognised. The Visy company have put in about $40 million in proving their technology.Let me give another reason why this mill is going to succeed. It is going to start operations under the government's new tax policy, which the Treasury tells us will benefit the forest industries by $530 million a year. Sir, you are aware of my business activities in years gone by in the trucking industry, and in that industry we knew very well the cost of the sales tax/fuel tax regime. I have been informed by the Road Transport Forum of the types of trucks that will be serving this mill and carting in the timber that is needed—and, by the way, it is all the waste timber that is being used. There will be about 56 of those trucks a day working continuously and I am advised that the running cost attributable to tax for those trucks is $1,700 a week—and that gives you $88,000 of savings if those costs are all removed under our tax plan. So we are not only supporting this industry, giving it the financial incentive to create new, real jobs, but giving that company the opportunity under a new tax regime to be successful and expand in Australia's interest.14591459Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you agree with the conclusions of the Victorian Minister for Health, Rob Knowles, whose submission to the Senate community affairs inquiry into the private health insurance rebate states that `the rebate would be of most value if it were targeted at hospital insurance rather than to ancillary cover'? It goes on to state that `the provision of a 30 per cent rebate for these ancillary services will do little to relieve the pressure on public hospitals'. Why is the government prepared to subsidise tennis rackets and all the other extras when the priority should be public hospitals?1459Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I do not agree with those comments. It is just more carping from the opposition. The comments I do agree with are the following comments:We're actually offering families choice, whereas the Opposition has consistently said you'd only get relief if you had private health insurance. We're saying it's up to families how they purchase their dentistry, their physiotherapy, psychology, whatever it may be, and we will simply ensure that you have some assistance, quite substantial assistance every year—to take out extras. That was the member for Fremantle on 6 February 1996 extolling exactly what we are doing now. There is a word for people who say one thing and do another—and it is `hypocrite'.14591459Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House if he is aware of any independent private sector surveys on the Australian economy? Are these surveys consistent with the data recently published by the ABS?1459Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. Last week I paid tribute to Australia's exporters for the great work that they had done in diverting exports of Australia away from the troubled Asian economies and into markets in Europe and North America. The Australian exporters have been minimising the impact of the Asian financial crisis in a way which has given Australia such strong growth through the Asian financial crisis—growth which I think all members of the House welcomed last week—of five per cent in the year to the end of the September quarter.Today the Colonial State Bank and the Australian Business Chamber survey of manufacturing reports that there are more manufacturers in New South Wales exporting than ever before. The survey shows that the number of New South Wales manufacturing firms involved in exporting rose from 52 per cent in the September quarter to 62 per cent in the December quarter. The Colonial State Bank chief economist, Craig James, said that the survey results `further highlighted the degree of resilience of the Australian economy'. He said:Manufacturers are responding to a volatile environment in a positive fashion. New age manufacturers recognise the challenges but also identify the opportunities. The reduction in interest rates, together with a competitive Australian dollar, provide a firm foundation for growth.The government's policy of ensuring that interest rates are kept low has been a very big part of the adjustment process.Today the ANZ released figures on job vacancies, which rose by 3.4 per cent in November. The ANZ notes that, based on the historical relationship between job ads and employment, the trend is consistent with net new jobs growing at an average of around 18,000 per month as a result of these vacancies. In an economy where you have low inflation, where you have strong monetary policy put in place by this government, where you have low interest rates, where you have five per cent growth, where you have 90,000 jobs in the last three months, where you have strong job vacancies and where you have a magnificent effort from Australia's exporters, we are riding out what is possibly the most difficult external environment since the Second World War in good shape.Australia's exporters will be helped further by the passing of the government's tax plan. The government's tax plan is going to take $4.5 billion off Australian export costs just at a time when the external markets are turning down. What could be better news for Australian exporters than a new tax plan to take input taxes off exports and give them a fair go in the international arena? That is why this government stands behind exports and jobs, and we call on those oppositionist parties who cannot cope with change and reform to support Australia's exporters and agree to our tax reform.14601460Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of the concerns raised by, amongst others, the Council on the Ageing that the subsidy to the private health insurance industry has not been matched by a requirement that the industry reform itself? In the context of the Prime Minister's promotion of the concept of mutual obligation for parties receiving government assistance, what commitments have you sought and what commitments have you received from the private health sector about measures to address long-term problems such as rising premium costs and gap payments in return for their $1.7 billion subsidy?1460Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—It is strange the opposition should talk about rising premiums. This is the group who removed the Commonwealth contribution to the reinsurance pool. This is the group who abolished the Commonwealth bed day subsidy. This is the group who reduced the Medicare rebate for in-hospital services from 85 per cent to 75 per cent. Those three actions alone, according to Access Economics, increased premiums by 39 per cent higher than they would be otherwise, or around $30 a month or $360 a year for the average family. Further, this is the opposition that when in government in 1993 signed a health care agreement that gave the states every encouragement to get private patients out of public hospitals, thereby pushing up the cost structure of the private hospital system and further increasing premiums. This is also the opposition, on the issue of gaps, that in 1995—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. None of these have been reversed by the government. The question was specifically about what he had done dealing with that problem for that $1.7 billion he is going to hand out. That is what would be relevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That has nothing to do with relevance. In fact, I am waiting for the minister. The minister's answer has been entirely relevant to the whole question of private health insurance and he had not concluded his answer. I call the minister.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just setting the scene, but I will certainly give the opposition some joy in just a moment. If you have to compare and contrast, which I intend to, this opposition in government in 1995 passed legislation on gaps. The then health minister got up at the National Press Club and predicted that there would be a range of no-gap products. When I came into government, one of the first things I did as health minister was to ask my department what the predictions were for the number of people who would take up these new products. I was told 20 per cent within two years. On the legislation the previous government passed, in fact you had got less than 0.1 per cent of people taking up no-gap products in two years. It was a complete failure.The shadow minister asked what we have done while we are in government. First of all, we have introduced a private health insurance incentive scheme. Secondly, we have introduced legislation to change the prudential requirements of funds to encourage mergers and encourage funds that are not solvent to keep going.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is again on relevance. The question specifically related to the commitments this government has got from the industry in return for the $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In response to the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition—and, for that matter, by the member for Jagajaga—I indicated that the minister's answer was relevant to the question on private health insurance and, in fact, that he had indicated that he was moving to answer the question.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I am telling them what we have done with the funds, and the opposition does not like to hear it. I would like to keep going.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We'd just like an answer.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Thank you very much. It is an answer. The third thing we have done is to work with the funds to promote simplified billing—something that did not exist at all 2½ years ago. The fourth thing is that a substantial range of no-gap products has been introduced, none of which was in operation even 12 months ago. That includes roughly 30 per cent of all services in South Australia and 10 per cent of all services in Victoria.The fifth point is that there has been no health fund premium increase since March this year—something on which we have worked together with the funds. The sixth thing we have done is that the funds have agreed to new arrangements for the reinsurance pool, whereby it will encourage funds to be far more cost effective than they are at the moment. The seventh thing we have done is to introduce legislation that will remove some of the disincentives for in-hospital treatment rather than out-hospital treatment.The eighth thing we have done is that we have got agreement with the funds to delay the premium increase. If this is defeated in the Senate, the premium increase will come through earlier and at a higher level. They are eight things I can think of off the top of my head—which is more than you did in 13 years of government.14611461Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I address my question to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister advise the House of any recent research that indicates public support for the government's 30 per cent rebate on the cost of private health insurance?1461Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for the question. I am aware that on the weekend the MBF health watch survey was released—a survey which, I might say, in the past the Labor Party have been happy to use when it suited them. This was a survey of 512 people done by the Roy Morgan research group over the weekend of 6 to 8 November. It covered a wide variety of issues in health, one of which was whether the Senate should pass the government's legislation. Some 68 per cent of people supported that; only 17 per cent said no. That is a four to one approval in favour of what the government is doing.But that is only part of the story. We are not doing this simply to be popular; we are doing it because we believe it will work and because we have a sound basis for what we are doing. In contrast, the opposition, which continues to carp and be negative, has no plan.14611461McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you stand by the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to the taxing of weddings that civil celebrants:. . . sponge on their magnificent taxpayer maintained vistas, of a clean Bronte Beach—right as from this morning or alternatively, national parks, the edge of, so they don't have to actually pay the entry fee for their marriages.Do you agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that they should pay a 20 per cent levy on top of the GST for park access and another 20 per cent to level the playing field with `the poor old religions, maintaining those horrific old buildings'?1461Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—May I say in reply to the member that I really enjoyed Tim's interview on Sunday. I really did. I think Tim Fischer is a magnificent Deputy Prime Minister. I think he is a very fine Australian, and I totally support the policy thrust of the coalition on this issue.14621462Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister outline to the House what proposals the government has with the states for reducing driver fatigue among holiday motorists on Australia's main highways?1462Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I know that she and all other members of this House have a real interest in road safety, particularly with the Christmas season just about upon us. I am delighted to be able to say something about an initiative which the Commonwealth has led the charge on and on which the states have now, to their great credit, joined us. In this country, we can take a lot of comfort from the fact that since the 1970s we have overseen a dramatic reduction in the number of fatalities on Australian roads from around 3,700 a year to less than 2,000 a year today. That is even more dramatic when you realise that we have doubled the amount that we travel by motor car in this country.Significant inroads have been made with such things as the taking up of the compulsory wearing of seatbelts. The crackdown on drink driving has had a real impact. So too has better vehicle design, including airbags and increased bus rollover strengths. All of these things have contributed towards the continuing trend.If I may make another observation on the way through: one thing we can all take great pride in in this country is that, commensurate with a rapidly rising standard of quality and reliability in Australian made vehicles—to the point where they are now truly world class—safety has also seen a dramatic rise, to the point where it is world class and, in many cases, well above world class.However, driver fatigue remains a real problem on our national highways. It is one of the things we need to tackle as a nation. Up to 20 per cent of fatal road crashes involve fatigue. So it is that, with the Commonwealth again taking the lead, we are going to address this problem—a problem which stems largely from people taking long trips without taking adequate rest. They tend to stop only for toileting or eating purposes. They do not plan to break their journeys and rest.Last Friday, in conjunction with my state counterparts in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, I endorsed the route 39 fatigue management strategy, an action plan for the Melbourne-Brisbane national highway corridor. It brings together the functions of police, coordinators of driver reviver sites, road safety educators, tourism bodies and state road authorities to influence driver behaviour. We think we can significantly reduce the level of accidents and driver fatalities on that vitally important section of road through a mix of surveillance, radio advertisements, billboards, better signposting of rest areas, information in maps and tourist brochures, and other measures.Assuming it is a success—and we will certainly monitor it closely—we will seek to extend the strategy right across Australia's highways. I know that all members join with me in expressing the hope that motorists will take care and will look after their safety and the safety of their families over the Christmas break.14621462Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Aged Care. Will the minister visit the war veterans' complex at Murrumba Downs in Brisbane, an institution which has independent living units, hostel accommodation and nursing home beds? Will the minister seek the opinions of its residents about the situation under which some veterans will be paying the GST on shared facilities and others will not? In particular, will the minister visit Murrumba Downs during meal times to observe residents eating together in those shared facilities? Will the minister act forthwith to remove this anomaly that will affect so many people, particularly in war veterans' homes throughout this country?1462Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I will be delighted to visit that facility, or indeed any other facility in Australia, as I am doing on a regular basis.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—You will be well received, too.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Indeed I will. Thank you, Prime Minister. I will be very pleased to tell the people who live in those facilities, as I do on a regular basis, that there is a two-pronged attack from the government to deal with the provision of proper care for aged people and for people who want independent living arrangements. It will be a simple matter to tell them that, by increasing the number of home care packages, as we are doing, those people who live in independent living arrangements will be able to do so for longer and that where they are in need of health related services that will be GST free in accordance with the rest of our package.I will also be pleased to tell people that we are planning to have a greater degree of accountability in the way taxpayers' dollars are spent in residential care and that the policy we have put in place is one that is fair and is designed to ensure that the Australian people can continue to see our welfare system delivered because we have a new tax reform which will enable them to afford it.14631463Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of media reports regarding the ability of the Job Network to assist the long-term unemployed? What is the minister's response to such reports?1463Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question and for his involvement in the Hills Hawkesbury initiative for excellence, which does fine work with job seekers and employers in his electorate.Opposition members interjecting—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You didn't pay for that haircut, did you?EZ5Mr ABBOTT—You're just jealous, Martin.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Minister for Employment Services will resume his seat. When members on my left come to order, I will call the minister.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am aware of an article in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning entitled `Long-term jobless are being dudded', in which the distinguished commentator Ross Gittins criticises the practice but not the theory of the Job Network. In theory, he says, it is a great scheme, but he does make some criticisms about the practice. They are serious criticisms and they deserve a serious response.The first criticism is that the government has replaced labour market programs with Work for the Dole. The problem with the labour market programs under Working Nation is that they were hugely expensive and largely ineffective in getting the long-term unemployed into work. It has been estimated that the New Work Opportunities program, for instance, cost $143,000 per extra job created. Don Harding of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research said:The valuations clearly suggest that labour market programs were in general not cost effective in getting the unemployed into jobs. Thus, the cutting of expenditure on labour market programs represents a major reduction in wastage of public funds and is therefore to be welcomed.No-one says that work for the dole is a miracle cure for the long-term unemployed, but the fact is that results of the pilot program suggest that 30 per cent of participants are going into employment or training, and that is comparable to the results obtained by the much more expensive Working Nation program.The second criticism of Mr Gittins is what he calls the `obvious danger' that Job Network members will take the up-front money attaching to the long-term unemployed but not invest the performance component of intensive assistance in reskilling the unemployed. This criticism is quite misconceived because the organisations which provide the heart of the Job Network—such as Mission Australia, the Salvation Army, Centrecare and the Brotherhood of St Laurence—are completely dedicated to the welfare of the unemployed. The idea that those organisations would rip anyone off is simply wrong.It is too early to be dogmatic about exactly what the intensive assistance money will be spent on, but I have a model of what it might be spent on by a for-profit provider. It includes provision of work tools, boots and clothing, usually up to $200; provision of fares assistance, vouchers, et cetera, up to $500; validation of overseas professional qualifications, up to $1,000; English language training, up to $800; training subsidies, up to $1,200; and up-front training and reskilling and industry based courses, around $500 per trainee. Finally, Mr Gittins says:. . . "outcomes" are all the go.This government is happy to be judged on outcomes. As the House knows, in November last year the old CES got just 15,000 unemployed people on benefit into work. As I told the House last week, in November this year the Job Network got 22,400 unemployed people into work. Unfortunately, that figure did not include the last day of the month, and the correct figure is 23,700 unemployed people on benefit into work. That is 50 per cent higher than the old CES.Not only is the Job Network putting more people into work, it is putting more long-term unemployed into jobs. In the period July to October last year, 30 per cent of those placed in work by the CES were long-term unemployed. In the same period this year, 42 per cent of those placed in work were long-term unemployed. On every score, the Job Network is doing better. The Job Network is not perfect but it is doing well and it will do even better with the changes the government has in mind.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I ask that the minister table the document from which he was quoting. He said he was quoting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the Minister for Employment Services quoting from a document?EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I did quote from one document.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the document confidential?EZ5Mr ABBOTT—It is, as a matter of fact, Mr Speaker.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it your practice in ascertaining the confidentiality of the paper quoted from to require a sighting of the `confidential' stamp, as Speaker Sinclair laid down in the previous parliament?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I intend to take the minister's word for the fact that he was quoting from a document and about its confidentiality.14641464Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and seeks clarification of an aspect of the government's goods and services tax bill. Is it a fact that ancillary services included in school fees at expensive private schools, such as for remedial tutoring, sport coaching and music lessons, will be GST free? Is it also the case that parents who cannot afford to send their children to these schools will be forced to pay a GST on remedial tutoring at home, as well as on sport coaching and music lessons? Minister, how can you claim that education will be GST free when battling families will be forced to pay the GST on their children's education?1464Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The government's tax reforms will be of enormous benefit to families with school-age children. They will be of great benefit to schools, both government and non-government. They will reduce the overall cost of schooling in Australia, according to Treasury estimates, by some $240 million a year. They will leave the average family some $40 to $50 per week better off. You would think that everybody would be delighted with the effects of these tax reforms.The specific question of the shadow minister is based on a complete misapprehension. There is no distinction whatsoever drawn in the tax legislation between government and non-government schools. Any suggestion that there is discrimination in this legislation between government and non-government schools is false.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister is confused. it is about parents who do not send their kids to expensive private schools. They are the ones who will pay the GST.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. That is not a valid point of order.BT4Dr KEMP—As I said, parents will be much better off as a result of this tax reform—all parents, whether they send their children to a government or to a non-government school. It ill behoves the opposition to continue trying to draw distinctions between parents who exercise their choice and choose a non-government school and parents who choose a government school. Tutoring connected with any school will be GST free. Parents will benefit from this legislation, because if a tutor is associated with a school in the provision of tutoring and that tutoring is for the curriculum then that tutoring will be GST free. No distinction is drawn between a school, whether it is government or non-government.14651465Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Could the minister please advise the House on the activities being undertaken by Investment 2000 to support the trade and investment opportunities offered by the Sydney Olympics?1465Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—To ensure the Olympic Games translate into long-term economic benefits for Australians, the Australian government has established a number of initiatives to maximise the business spin-offs from the games. Investment 2000 is one of those key initiatives, which we are undertaking in conjunction with the New South Wales government. Whilst I am wary of the need not to go over the top with regard to the Olympics, there is certainly a job generating gain to be had from the momentum associated with the Investment 2000 program.The potential benefits from this initiative will include some $250 million in net foreign exchange earnings for Australian companies, between $500 million and $1 billion in new investment for Australian industry, and some 2,000 new jobs. Australia has a unique opportunity at the start of a new century and a new millennium to use the event of the Olympics—a magnificent sporting occasion—to translate that into enduring business benefit and enduring jobs, not just for Sydney but for investment projects beyond Sydney.I very much thank the member for his long interest in this particular subject. Bruce Baird, before entering federal parliament, put his shoulder to the wheel to help Australia and Sydney capture the Olympic nomination.Investment 2000 is being facilitated by the Austrade agency of the federal government. The momentum associated with Investment 2000 continues to build. It will mean that Australia and Australians get a lasting benefit from the Olympics at the start of a new millennium.14651465Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I seek clarification of an aspect of your government's goods and services tax bill. Is the minister aware that a 24-pack of Panadeine tablets can be supplied by a shop assistant in a pharmacy but a 48-pack can be sold only by the pharmacist? Doesn't this mean that, under the government's GST legislation, a 24-pack of Panadeine in a pharmacy will attract the GST but a 48-pack in the same shop will not? Minister, doesn't this show how unnecessarily complex your GST is?CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Oh! Ha, ha!PG6Ms MACKLIN—How do you expect—no sales tax on Panadeine—Mr Costello interjecting—PG6Ms MACKLIN—No sales tax on Panadeine—absolutely none. How do you expect—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will exercise a little more restraint. The member for Jagajaga's question seeks clarification of the bill, which does pose a certain problem with anticipation, but I will allow it thus far.PG6Ms MACKLIN—How do you expect Australian chemists to cope with the red-tape nightmare that this will create?1465Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I would have thought the Vos report has made it substantially easier for chemists. That is why we expanded it to allow S3s. As far as I know, they are pretty happy.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Have you asked them lately?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect!14661466Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Given the very widespread incidence of otitis media—commonly called glue ear—among young children, particularly in Aboriginal communities, is the minister aware of a newly developed process in the United States using laser surgery, which is to be introduced into three British hospitals before Christmas? Will the minister get his department to undertake an evaluation of the effectiveness of this new treatment, particularly as it might refer to our Aboriginal children?1466Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not aware of the specific treatment that he raises with me but, if it is true, it is a very exciting prospect. I would be a little cautious though. Having been involved for many years with health and science, there are often very grand claims made by practitioners that do not always bear out in clinical practice.That said, one of the big reforms we have made has been to introduce the Medicare Services Advisory Committee, MSAC, which is now operating under the chairmanship of Professor David Weedon from Queensland. This has taken away the political element in trying to determine what goes on to or comes off the Medicare benefits schedule. It looks at—in a cool, calm, scientific manner—new procedures coming onto the Medicare benefits schedule. This sounds like a perfect type of procedure for MSAC to look at, because they have the scientific and technical capability. As soon as the appropriate colleges alert my department that this is something for us to look at, I would be happy to refer it to MSAC. If the potential claims are true, I think it could be a very exciting procedure.14661466Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister confirm reports over the weekend that the New South Wales Air Ambulance Service intend to restrict operations in the new class G airspace trial to emergency flights only unless their safety concerns are addressed? Can the minister confirm that the RAAF have restricted their operations in the class G airspace to only essential military flights because of safety concerns? Does the minister share the ongoing concerns of the RAAF, the New South Wales Air Ambulance Service and pilots and air traffic controllers about safety in class G airspace, or is the minister satisfied that these new arrangements do not jeopardise air safety?1466Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. It is a very important one, and I would like to say a few things about this matter. At the outset, I would like to say that I have been keeping in very close contact indeed with the Director of Aviation Safety on these matters and have been since the moment I became the minister responsible for this portfolio.The demonstration in the Canberra-Ballina region of class G airspace introduces new operating rules. That class G airspace, which is the airspace between the ground and 8½ thousand feet, is now seeing a process of international standardisation. The key feature of the demonstration is that it introduces radar based traffic information in that airspace for the first time, subject to availability. The use of that radar is aimed at improving air safety.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—Is it?4K4Mr ANDERSON—The person who asked the question now asks me for my professional advice on air safety. It needs to be recognised that the model set up by the member for Kingsford-Smith, when he was the minister for aviation, clearly set up CASA as the body responsible for air safety in this country.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—So you're in charge now?4K4Mr ANDERSON—I suggest that the member for Dickson should go and have a look at how the model was set up. It makes CASA responsible for air safety. I am responsible for matters of governance, and that is an appropriate model. The only problem with the Labor Party's model was that they claimed they put a board with appropriate expertise in place, and we had to fix that aspect of it—and you will remember how difficult it was for the then minister to achieve that objective. We sorted that problem out. The Leader of the Opposition talks about accountability. We made certain that the Australian people have a set of arrangements which work and which they can have confidence in.Let us come back to the very real issues. I am surprised that the member for Dickson wants to interrupt. I have indicated that this is a serious matter, and there are a couple of things I would like to say to the House that I think ought to go onto the public record. In view of the seriousness of these concerns expressed by, in part, the Air Force and, more recently, by Pearl Aviation over the weekend, I point out that Pearl Aviation are in discussions today. All services are operating, and that particularly applies to the air ambulance in New South Wales. In relation to the broader issues raised by people like the RAAF, I specifically sought advice from the director of aviation, the man who has had 27 years of experience in aviation with Cathay Pacific. I want to read a couple of excerpts from his advice to me and then table that full advice, because I think it is in the public interest that it be tabled. Mr Toller stated:I believe that the criticism of the Class `G' demonstration is not soundly based on legitimate safety issues and reflects, to some degree, an understandable resistance to change in airspace arrangements that have existed for decades.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—I would have thought this was an important matter for the Australian community to be advised about. I think it is therefore appropriate that we have on the public record what the director of civil aviation in this country has to say. He continued by saying:I do not believe that the removal of DTI—that is, directed traffic information—is a genuine safety concern for any operations in this area, including those of the RAAF. I have been informed that the RAAF operate frequently in this airspace using a `no com' procedure where no radio contact is maintained with either Flight Service or other aircraft. I accept the advice of the director of air safety in this country. He was put there for very sound reasons under a structure put in place by the then Minister for Transport after the tragic Monarch and Seaview air crashes. Mr Toller concludes his letter by saying:I am convinced that, overall, the Class `G' airspace demonstration is safer than the previous DTI system, and is nowhere less safe. To revert to the old system would be a retrograde step.As I advised in a number of personal briefings on the `G' airspace demonstration, I will immediately announce the cancellation of this demonstration in the event that any genuine safety concerns are identified by CASA or BASI.Mr Speaker, I table the letter.14671467Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Has the minister seen reports of plans for a major new container terminal in the port of Newcastle? What does this mean for competition on the waterfront and for businesses in my electorate of Robertson and elsewhere?1467Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that the last part of his question was: what does it mean for businesses in his area and elsewhere? The answer is that it means a significant amount. The plans recently covered in the press—and I have some of it here—are for a $200 million international container terminal proposal with an eventual capacity of up to 500,000 TEUs per annum for the port of Newcastle. I think that more than anything else this demonstrates quite clearly that our reforms on the waterfront are attracting serious investment in major new infrastructures, which can only be to the benefit of the entire nation and particularly those people who depend upon the facilitation of our trade, which is nearly everyone in regional Australia. It is the sort of question that seems to be avoided by the opposite number that I have here—perhaps for good reason.The announcement of a $6 million feasibility study, to be undertaken by BHP, Leighton Contractors and P&O Ports and completed by the end of the first quarter 1999, is very good news. It demonstrates their confidence in the reforms that we have put in place—greater efficiency, greater reliability, better service to customers—at the same time as it means more opportunities for regional development.UU5HORNEMr Horne—How are you supporting it?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Which is much needed in your region but also much needed in areas like Western Sydney where, as a result of the sort of transport infrastructure that is now in place, industrial development can also be considerably enhanced by the prospect of this sort of development. This is very welcome but, above all else, it is testimony to the fact that the private sector believes that our reforms are lasting, substantial and provide the impetus needed for further investment in jobs and economic development in regional areas.14681468Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, you gave us an answer on class G. Can you also confirm that temporary changes had to be made to the new class E airspace arrangements that commenced last week after air traffic controllers refused to participate in the new arrangements, again because of safety fears? Do you consider this process to be airspace management of an acceptably high standard? Can you confirm that these last-minute changes expire on Thursday this week? And do you intend to satisfy yourself, as the minister responsible for air safety, that any new class E airspace arrangements after Thursday are properly managed and do not jeopardise air safety?1468Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Again, I thank the honourable member for her question. I think that the question of aviation safety in general and of airspace management in particular is one on which we all acknowledge that safety is paramount. In relation to class E in general, I can tell the House that there was the successful introduction of class E airspace in what is known as the Canberra-Ballina corridor earlier this year.Mr Crean interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—If members opposite are interested in the answer to the question, I will give it to them in a moment. There was a problem last week in relation to a further rolling out of class E, which has been successfully trialled, is now bedded down and supported for its enhanced procedural and safety aspects in that corridor between Canberra and Ballina. There was an industrial disputation essentially over the width of the corridor last week, and an agreement was made to triple the width of the corridor. That is to be reviewed at the end of the period which, as you indicated, is in a few days time.DT4CREANMr Crean—A scientific corridor.4K4Mr ANDERSON—As I say, if you are interested in the answer, the fact of the matter is—DT4CREANMr Crean—How can it be classed an industrial dispute if it was a disagreement about the width of a traffic corridor?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham!4K4Mr ANDERSON—I would expect you to say that. The fact of the matter is that this class E airspace has been successfully introduced in that corridor of Canberra-Ballina, as it is known. It is now being wound out. There was a disagreement about how wide the corridor should be—five kilometres either side of centre or not. It was agreed initially to try 15 each side of centre, and that will be reviewed in due course in the normal way.14681468Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Is it true that a study has been released in recent days highlighting the risk of premature hearing loss in the extended use of personal stereos? Is the technique used to determine this an Australian innovation?1468Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. I know he is particularly interested in preventing hearing loss in Australians, which is both a question of quality of life for Australians and also a question of cost to the community as a whole. It is quite true that there has been a new, innovative test applied for early detection of potential for hearing loss.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Prospect. The minister has the call.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is true that this new test has been developed. Australia is at the forefront of research into hearing disability. Indeed, it is the Australian Acoustics Laboratory which has developed this test which tests how many hair cells are lost from the cochlear, which determines whether or not there is to be hearing loss in the future. What we are able to detect is that, with a diminishing number of cells, the potential for hearing loss increases and a critical mass can be reached whereby the ability to hear is lessened. The warning is this: if you, as a young person, are listening to stereos for six hours a week—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—You're Aged Care.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—No more rock concerts for you!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—and the person sitting next to you can also hear what is coming from those headphones, then it is too loud.RH4KERRMr Kerr—All those grannies listening to Triple J!Opposition members interjecting—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—This is a great joke!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume her seat. I appreciate that much of the banter has been good-natured, but in fact this is a serious question that justifies being heard in silence. I call the minister.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Part and parcel of my portfolio responsibilities is Australian Hearing Services. It may come as news to those on the opposite side, because they never do listen anyway, that very simply the question of loss of hearing—8I4MARTINMr Martin—We can't hear you above the ghetto-blaster!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I know you can't hear.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—She can't hear you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question. The member for Banks will remain silent.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Thank you, Mr Speaker. It would perhaps be an advantage for the chamber as a whole if they did listen not only to me but to you as well.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It would be an advantage if the minister proceeded to answer the question.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Returning to the question per se, there is a strong warning to young people that listening to their personal stereo too loud and too long will give them an impaired hearing loss in their early 20s.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Of course, by the time they get to their 60s, that will be of great disadvantage to them.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Stick to aged care.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Stick to Burl Ives.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—What was that you just said?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat. It seems to me to be an extraordinary reflection on members of this parliament that, having been asked not to engage in good-natured banter, they cannot restrain themselves. I issue a general warning to those on my left, and I issue it with reluctance.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I want to make—and perhaps those of you in the chamber can take the message out to your electorates—is to young people to look after their hearing. In Australia we are at the leading edge of research. We have developed a test which will give early warning to people and, if they pay heed, their hearing can be saved.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker146914691469Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 27 November 1998, the honourable member for Cunningham asked me to ascertain when the portrait of former Prime Minister Keating would be placed in the public areas of the building. I inform the House that, consistent with normal practice, the portrait has been completed and accepted by the Historic Memorials Committee. Acceptance of the portrait entails a number of steps in an established procedure, including seeking the recommendation of the Visual Arts/Craft Board of the Australia Council and the views of all members of the Historic Memorials Committee. This process takes time to complete. Some additional delay has occurred in the public exhibition of this portrait because the artist and Mr Keating requested that it be submitted to the Archibald Prize competition at the Art Gallery of New South Wales earlier this year. The calling of the federal election inevitably resulted in further delay. I am advised that the hanging of the portrait will take place as soon as a date can be determined that is suitable to all concerned.Personal Explanations147015:07:001470Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—In the Herald Sun on 3 December, in an article by Andrew Bolt headed `Labor Left Pleads for a Killer', a number of statements are made to the effect that I and various other members have written to the Italian President seeking asylum for Abdullah Ocalan of the Kurdistan Workers Party, who is described in the article as `perhaps the world's worst terrorist'. The article suggests that I and the other signatories support Ocalan, that we support him because he is a killer, and it makes similar statements elsewhere in the article. These statements are totally outrageous and absolutely false.Along with 27 other Labor parliamentarians, I signed a letter to the Italian President which merely urged the Italian government to make use of the current circumstances to pursue a peace initiative regarding the terrible conflict in south-east Turkey. Our letter did not in any way express support for Abdullah Ocalan or the Kurdistan Workers Party, nor indeed for Ocalan's application for political asylum.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—Will you table the letter?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I am happy to table the letter. I do not have it with me. I will table it later, Mr Speaker.15:08:001470Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I am the other member named in the article referred to by the member for Melbourne. I was misrepresented in exactly the same way as he has described.147010001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:14701182VD4Evans Gareth MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Legislative Assembly of our rising concerns about political parties whose ideologies are based on the politics of racial and cultural division.We believe that candidates and political parties who do not place One Nation, and the like, last on their preferences are placing political expediency ahead of the best interests of this nation and as such are harming Australia's social, cultural and economic interests both at the domestic and international levels.Your petitioners therefore ask the House of Representatives to support our call for all candidates and political parties to rise above short term political expediency at the next Federal election and place any party which is based on the politics of racial and cultural division last on their how-to-vote cards.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Gareth EvansVD4Mr Gareth Evans(from 1,182 citizens)1471154HQ5Fahey John MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Australian Parliament:This petition of citizens of Australia, and Cambodian people residing in Australia, requests the House to:Ask the Australian Government to do all in its power to stop the Hun Sen, communist army, and the police to immediately cease the killing, bashing, shooting and violation of the lives of innocent Khmer people.Respect the lives and freedom of expression of Buddhist Monks as they go about their daily human right duties.Give Khmer citizens freedom to demonstrate their wish for truly democratic government in Cambodia.Institution that Hun Sen immediately desist from the murder and torture of innocent Khmer citizens.Insist that Hun Sen immediately stands down from government.Ask the Australian Government to publicly condemn all extra judicial, killing, torture or other acts of violence following the election of the 26th July 1998.Request the United Nations to call and supervise a truly free and fair election, following the stand down from office of Hun Sen.Mr FaheyHQ5Mr Fahey(from 154 citizens)14714618K6Fitzgibbon Joel MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House of Representatives that we regard the Family Court of Australia as being negligent and irresponsible in its dealings with our children. We believe that the Family Court serves lawyers' greed before our children's needs. We believe that justice is for sale in this court. We call upon our government to either reform this court system as the Australian Law Reform Commission recommends or to close it down. We want a system of solving what should be simple family disputes where merit decides the matter not who can acquire the best legal representation. It is hardly in the best interests of our children for parents to squander so much of our hard won family assets on useless legal fees.Your petitioners therefore request that the House call an immediate end to this crazy adversarial method of solving our disputes where only the lawyers truly win.Mr Fitzgibbon8K6Mr Fitzgibbon(from 461 citizens)14713148K6Fitzgibbon Joel MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the unfair and inadequate system of assessing and collecting child support by the Child Support Agency.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House completely overhaul the Child Support system and the Child Support Agency with the establishment of a fair and just procedure that is based on the needs of the child and the capacity to pay of both parents.Mr Fitzgibbon8K6Mr Fitzgibbon(from 314 citizens)1471218K6Fitzgibbon Joel MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors in the division of Hunter draws to the attention of the House the threat posed by the potential impact on postal services in rural and regional Australia of the Australian Competition Council's recommendations stemming from its review of the Australian Postal Corporation Act.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House commits itself to ensuring a role for Australia Post in rural regional Australia and the retention of existing postal services.Mr Fitzgibbon8K6Mr Fitzgibbon(from 21 citizens)147113CU4Gallus Christine MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Sexuality Discrimination Bill (SBD) which is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the near future. In particular, the petitioners wish to alert the House to concerns that this legislation will: Whilst granting special rights to homosexuals, take away significant rights from the majority of Australians. Force citizens to employ/tolerate homosexuals and their activities—where this is contrary to their beliefs. Further validate homosexual partnerships and pave the way for same-sex marriage and adoption rights. Burden proof on employers, churches, schools, etc, as to why they should be exempt from this legislation. Not exempt groups receiving government funding and thus force compliance under threat of loss of funds. Override States' rights, invalidate existing laws and put Australia at the mercy of international treaties. Curtail freedom of speech in churches when proclaiming scriptural truth on issue of family, sexuality, etc.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House reject the Sexuality Discrimination Bill in its entirety and thereby protect the status and rights of the vast majority of Australians.Mrs GallusCU4Mrs Gallus(from 13 citizens)147217983NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We, the undersigned petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas, are deeply concerned at the prospect of the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST).A GST is unfair since everyone pays the same tax on goods and services, regardless of their ability to pay. A GST would also tax essential everyday items such as bread, fruit and vegetables, milk and eggs, making life more difficult for struggling Australians.Under a GST, big business benefits and will pay less tax because the full tax burden is passed to consumers, particularly people on lower incomes. Such a tax would be detrimental to Australian families, small business operators and people on lower incomes.We therefore call on the House to reject any plans to introduce an expensive, inefficient and unfair system of taxation such as a Goods and Services Tax, and to ensure that our tax system is just, fair and enforceable with everyone—big business, small business, high income earners and low income earners alike—paying their fair share of tax.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 179 citizens)147212883NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plans to further privatise Telstra.Further privatisation of Telstra will result in the loss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worsening services to regional and rural Australia, and the loss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australians earned from Telstra profits. We believe these profits, both now and in the future, should be set aside to secure improved educational opportunities for our children, increased research and development funds for our scientists and doctors, and more money for rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House reject any further sale of the Commonwealth's shares in Telstra and that the annual profits from Telstra be used for the benefit of all Australians.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 128 citizens)14728083NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are opposed to the National Competition Council (NCC) Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal services. We are gravely concerned that this would drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post and result in adverse impacts on most Australians (including increased postal charges and reduced frequency of services), especially for those in rural and remote areas.Your petitioners respectfully request that the House call on the Government to reject the NCC Report proposals in their entirety and to support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, and the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service.Further, we ask that the existing community service obligation of Australia Post be extended to encompass a minimum level of service for financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels service and access to counter services, through either corporate or licensed post offices.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 80 citizens)1472127XS4Lawrence Carmen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia points out to the House:That we, the undersigned, object to the mining of uranium at Jabiluka, in World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park. Uranium mining and nuclear energy are damaging to the environment for hundreds of thousands of years, and we believe that these industries are unethical and not in the national interest, nor in the interest of the global community.The Jabiluka site is being developed against the wishes of the Mirrar people, the traditional owners of the land. We support them in their opposition to the Jabiluka Mine.Our petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives to call on the Federal Government to:Act responsibly. Stop Jabiluka Uranium Mine. Save Kakadu.Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 127 citizens)147315XS4Lawrence Carmen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that:There is a growing concern among the people of Australia that native forests, including areas that should be protected under National Estate or World Heritage classification, continue to be logged and woodchipped.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament will: Implement an immediate and permanent moratorium on the logging of all native old growth and wilderness forests in Australia, and legislate for changes to existing forest management practices to: Permanently protect all remaining old growth, wilderness and other high conservation value forests throughout Australia, in a secure reserve system adequate to protect in perpetuity biodiversity, water catchments, natural and cultural heritage; Utilise existing extensive plantation timber for industry needs, and accelerate programs for tree-farm timber and fibre plantations on existing cleared lands; Create economic incentives for farm forestry, thereby generating employment for timber industry workers, youth and others in the propagation, establishment and management of sustainable permaculture style mixed-species timber plantations, inter-grown with a variety of annual crops for fibre and food production; Encourage investment in the growing and marketing of indigenous, plantation based tree products such as wattle seed, eucalyptus and tea tree oils, and other medicinal and nutritional resources; Develop educational eco-tourism as a sensitively managed major industry in appropriate forest areas;and further support the above initiatives by providing Commonwealth funding, including the progressive transfer of military spending to assist rural communities to implement sustainable plantation forestry practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 15 citizens)14732954RW5Nelson Dr Brendan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the crisis in general practice. The government is undermining the ability of GPs to provide high quality care by reducing, in real terms, the value of Medicare GP rebates.Your petitioners therefore request the House to instruct the Federal Minister for Health and Family Services to negotiate a fair deal for GPs and their patients.Dr NelsonRW5Dr Nelson(from 2,954 citizens)147330RW5Nelson Dr Brendan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the deleterious effects of legalised gambling on the fabric of society, especially the adverse impact of unrestrained gambling on stable family life, and draws to the attention of the House the potential for serious family disruption once facilities for both banking and gambling become available in an increasing number of Australian homes.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will enact appropriate banking and communications legislation that will have the effect of limiting the harm that citizens can bring to themselves and to their families in the event that gambling within the home setting is not only legalised but promoted.Dr NelsonRW5Dr Nelson(from 30 citizens)14731852GT4Truss Warren MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the facts that:(a) One in two women and one in three men over the age of sixty years in Australia will sustain a fracture due to osteoporosis(b) More women die of hip fractures than cancer of the breast, cervix and uterus combined(c) In Australia, hospital costs alone for osteoporosis are currently estimated at $800 million yearly(d) By the year 2000, one in three hospital beds are likely to be occupied by elderly women with osteoporotic fractures. Your petitioners therefore request the House to(a) Increase funds for research into the causes and treatment of osteoporosis(b) Increase funds to raise public awareness of the adverse health effects of osteoporosis(c) Provide greater access to free bone densiometry testing to enable the early detection and treatment of osteoporosis.Mr TrussGT4Mr Truss(from 1,852 citizens)1474257V5Williams Daryl MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain pensioners, superannuants and retirees points out to the House that Government funding for the Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants' Federation's national secretariat will cease on 30 September 1997. The Federation provides advice to the Government on older people's needs and concerns, publishes independent information for older people and works to ensure that older people have a say in decisions that affect their lives.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to direct the Government to provide funding to ensure that the Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants' Federation can continue its valuable work for and with older Australians.Mr Williams7V5Mr Williams(from 25 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business1474147415:12:001474Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I move:That this House notes:(1) the special relationship between Australia and Turkey, which developed out of mutual respect engendered by the horrific experiences of the First World War;(2) that Turkey is a modern, secular state with which Australia should further enhance relations;(3) the importance of Turkey as a trade and investment partner in its own right and as a base for Australian trade efforts in the Middle East and Central Asia;(4) the significant contribution of Turkish migration to Australia's economic, social and cultural development; and(5) that Turkish speaking residents of Australia have contributed significantly to the Australian community by their approach to potentially divisive issues that could undermine harmony in our multicultural society.It is appropriate, for a number of reasons, for a motion such as this to come before the House at this stage. One of the most important reasons is that this year is the 30th anniversary of the arrival of the first Turkish migrants to Australia following on from the signing of the bilateral immigration arrangement between Australia and Turkey in 1967.Relations between our two countries could not be said to have got off to a promising start earlier this century. According to census material at the turn of the century, there were only 20 Turkish born residents in Australia at that stage. Earlier this century, the first substantial contact between Australia and Turkey occurred during the horrific experiences of the First World War. I think all Australians understand the importance of the Gallipoli campaign in the formation of our national sense of identity but, in addition to that campaign, there were prolonged periods of conflict involving Turkish and Australian forces in opposition to each other in Palestine and Syria. That, of course, meant that the commencement of our relationship was scarcely promising.Somewhat surprisingly, given the horror, the Gallipoli conflict produced a high degree of mutual respect between the two peoples. That mutual respect is most movingly reflected in the words of the commander of the Turkish forces at Gallipoli, one Mustafa Kemal, who went on to become Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey. Those words are reflected in the commemorative stone in the Ataturk Memorial Garden near the Australian War Memorial in the following terms:Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives . . . you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours . . . You the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears: your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.Those are moving words indeed. The same Ataturk went on to become the father of modern secular Turkey. The concept of Turkey as a secular nation needs to be underlined. While in excess of 90 per cent of the community there are Muslims, the secular institutions of Turkey are fundamental. Ataturk's judicial and cultural reforms, including the introduction of Roman script, very much underpin the modern Turkish state.Turkey is a nation of some 65 million inhabitants with a GDP of $US167 billion. A country of that size obviously promises great opportunities for a trading nation such as Australia and, whilst there has been some growth in recent times, there is certainly quite a way to go. In 1997 Australia sold $514 million worth of products to Turkey, compared with imports of only $98 million. The great bulk of that trade from Australia was in commodities—coal, iron ore, wheat, skins and hides. There are some interesting new developments, including the awarding of a $120 million contract to an Australian company to supply two, 86-metre, high speed, aluminium, vehicle-passenger ferries to Turkey. That is also indicative of the capacity for growing and more diverse trade. It is pleasing to see that Australian craft will be plying the Bosporus at the end of the 20th century, but fortunately not as they were plying it earlier this century!Turkey is important not only in its own right but also because of its strategic position for trade and investment activities. Its position not only in relation to the Balkans and the Middle East is worth commenting on; it is also very much closely linked to the Caspian Sea base and to the rapidly emerging Central Asian republics with very strong language and cultural ties to Turkey. Those are very substantial reasons for Australia to be paying particularly close attention to the opportunities that arise there.In international forums we find a great deal in common as well. In the context of United Nations peacekeeping, for example, Australia and Turkey have both been traditionally strong supporters of and suppliers of forces for those purposes. I understand that the most recent occasion where our forces cooperated was in Somalia.As I commented at the start of this speech, in 1967 Australia and Turkey entered into a bilateral arrangement in respect of immigration. By the 1996 census some 28,800 Turkish residents of Australia were recorded, with more than 46,000 people speaking Turkish at home. These people have made a very substantial economic, social and cultural contribution to our society.One of the areas that is well worth commenting on, in terms of that contribution, concerns the matters referred to in clause 5 of the motion; that is, the contribution to the Australian community by the approach that Turkish speaking residents have taken `to potentially divisive issues that could undermine harmony' in our multicultural community. Australia has drawn immense strength over the past 50 years from its immigration program and that program's diversity.One of the very great achievements of our nation involves the great steps we have taken to build a tolerant, multicultural community where people can contribute towards, have respect for, and continue to enjoy pride in, the cultural heritage of their former homeland. They also have the opportunity to present the heritage of their former homeland to, and share that heritage with, the rest of the Australian community.But the rights and sensitivities of other Australian citizens of other backgrounds need to be recognised. Whilst one group of Australians can always promote a view strongly and vigorously, that should never be done in a way that stigmatises or seeks to isolate other groups of Australians. I believe that Turkish Australians have generally distinguished themselves by the way they have reacted to debate.While they could be divisive and could undermine harmony in our multicultural community, Turks have generally acted with great maturity and understanding of the rights of all Australians when issues that they often feel deeply about have been aired in Australia. They have not sought to stigmatise or isolate those who wish the right to present their point of view. Turks have presented their views whilst respecting the rights of other Australians to present theirs. This is as it should be, and we ought to be encouraging the development of a tolerant, cohesive Australian multicultural society. I commend the motion to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:20:001476Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—It is a pleasure to be able to offer a few words in respect of the motion put forward by the member for Maribyrnong and to pay tribute to the contribution which citizens of Turkish origin have made and are making to Australia. The basis of this very substantial community in Australia with origins from Turkey stems from the agreement on residence and employment signed with Turkey some 30 years ago in 1967. It has provided a sound foundation for Australian people of Turkish origin to build harmonious relations and to continue to develop those relations together as part of Australia and, of course, with their original homeland, Turkey.In fact, I understand there are some 100,000 people in Australia who came originally from Turkey or were born of parents of Turkish origin in the last 30 years. They have contributed to creating our harmonious and multicultural society and they cover a wide aspect of society, from academics to entrepreneurs, to artists and to hard-working artisans and tradespeople. Together they provide a very real human bond with Australians of other nationalities and of other origins, Australian born people, and with those in their home country of Turkey.We do know that there have been some very difficult problems within Turkey. We condemn acts of terrorism against Turkish people, Turkish citizens and people of Kurd origin as well. Australia condemns terrorist activity, whoever is responsible for it. We offer our hand in friendship to Turkey. Without in any way attempting to dictate to them how they should handle affairs within their country, we do as a friend offer our support to combat terrorism and to ensure that humanitarian approaches are always maintained in respect of those sorts of problems.As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, our strong links with Turkey arose because of our shared experience in Gallipoli. This was, I suppose, the origin of the Australian-Turkish relationship, because there was not much before Gallipoli. This incredible experience between our two countries created bonds of respect unique amongst former enemies. These bonds are built on today and are mentioned constantly at modern ceremonies celebrating Anzac Day in Australia. I was very moved, as I am sure most Australians have been, by the words of the former Turkish commander Ataturk in 1934 when he was writing to an Australian mother about the experience. I will quote some of his words, because I think they can be recorded today in the Hansard appropriately. He wrote:Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives . . . you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours . . . You the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears: your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.That is an incredible set of words and a tribute that lives on. It is good to see how our relationship with Turkey in respect of trade is growing dramatically; it was commented on by the member for Maribyrnong. Australian exports to Turkey in 1997-98 were $636 million, which is an increase of 66 per cent when compared with the previous decade. Imports from Turkey were $112 million, so we have a trade advantage with Turkey. The trade from Turkey to Australia has in fact increased by 51 per cent in that same period of time.Turkey is now our 25th largest export market. They are good trading partners, and we enjoy harmonious relations in the business sector with Turkish people. Very often within Turkey we form joint ventures with Turkish citizens and businesses. Our exports are greater to Turkey than to other countries in the surrounding region, and in fact greater than to many European and Asian countries. Our exports have also diversified each year as we find new markets and opportunities, mainly commodity based. Our most exciting recent export is the sale to Istanbul of fast ferries by a company in Western Australia. We wish all of those people every success in that exciting trade agreement involving Australian technology. No doubt other countries will see our products and wish to buy. There is no question about that; there is great scope for further expansion of our trade.It is good to see that Turkey is also becoming a country where the very large number of poor people are able to improve their lot each year. Turkey has a rapidly growing middle class, as it is described, due to that enterprise. In fact, Turkey's GNP growth in 1997 was 8.3 per cent. Unfortunately, they have very high inflation. I understand it is in excess of 50 per cent, but they have brought it down from 80 per cent and are working hard on it. We wish them well in the struggle to manage their economy efficiently and to fight the scourge of inflation.In summary, Turkey is a modern, dynamic and secular state. We are pleased to see the emerging strengthening of their democratic parliament. Although they have had many difficulties over the years, we see that they are struggling with, and making good progress, ensuring that on the domestic front the people of Turkey of all backgrounds are being given an increasing role in the every day life of that democratic place. It is with pleasure that we also acknowledge at this time, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, the continuing contribution of people of Turkish origin in Australia.15:28:001477Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The motion and the earlier speakers have noted that the initiation of the contact between Turkey and Australia was not all that auspicious—many of us have family members who fought the Turks in the First World War not only at Gallipoli, where most of this is focused, but also in the wider Middle East.Symptomatic of that tie today is one of the schools in my own electorate, Granville Boys High School, which has a very significant Turkish population. Every year their ceremonies of remembrance for Gallipoli entail a number of Turkish aspects: the Turkish band in the school, the recitation of their poem Cannakale, speeches that stress the mutual loss and, as other speakers alluded to, Ataturk's comments in regard to Australian troops who died at Gallipoli having another home there. From that, very strong relationships have grown. They have been shown in our mutual UN activity in conflicts such as Korea, our trade connections and our various cultural exchanges—most recently in Sydney at the Turkish Film Festival.I think many people have an interest in Turkey because it is a secular state in its region. This year the Turkish community in Australia, and those within Turkey, have been celebrating the 75th anniversary of the declaration of the republic. The declaration of the republic involved a number of political trends that are of some importance even today: the abolition of the caliphate in 1924; Ataturk's pressure for Westernisation of dress; most emphatically, the declaration that Turkey would be a secular state; the introduction of the Latin alphabet; and the abolition of polygamy. All of those are aspects of Turkish society which most of us in Australia would overwhelmingly support and endorse. It is important in 1998 that we do stand with the Turkish government in attempting to ensure the preservation of those aspects.The motion also deals with Turkish migration to this country. As has been noted, that has been in practice for about 30 years. Remittances are actually very important to the Turkish economy. In 1997, $4,229 million went from Turkish overseas workers and residents back to the Turkish economy. It is an economy that has been growing fairly strongly for most of the last 10 to 15 years, but it has, unfortunately, been characterised by heavy inflation and a relatively high government debt.Turkish migration in this country was not assisted because it actually was fairly simultaneous with the onset of the boat people. A number of government analyses of migration assistance and settlement help in this country have put forward the proposition that the Turks were to some degree disadvantaged in comparison with a number of other recent arrival groups because our focus in that period of their ascendant migration was perhaps not as strongly helped because of our emphasis on the boat people. Yet, despite that, the Turks in Australia have a real presence increasingly in the professions, in more recent years not only through greater migration by people with those skills but also through second generation Turks going through our university system. I see in my own electorate the increasing number of Turkish lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, psychiatrists, et cetera. That is another part of the motion that is very accurate.Finally, the motion notes the way in which the Turkish community has played a very constructive role in a number of controversial matters. Although not specifically mentioned, one of those was the decision by the two major parties in the New South Wales parliament to erect a monument there commemorating the Armenian massacres of the postwar period. The question is not the argument over what occurred then but whether we should single out one nationality for a monument for this type of thing and basically increase ethnic tensions in this country. I think it was a very unfortunate decision and I again urge the state government of New South Wales and the opposition to look at the constructive way in which the Turkish community has dealt with this very controversial decision.15:33:001478Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to support this motion about a nation friend on the world stage—a nation which is an ancient land, just like Australia, but a nation which has enjoyed the concept of civilisation, as we know it these days, for a great deal of time. Indeed, it is an area which encompasses the cradle of civilisation, an area I was able to visit about 14½ years ago as a journalist with Channel 7. I was totally impressed by the way in which the Turkish people rightly hold their history—very proudly.In fact, Turkey struck me as a nation of great contrast and conflict. One of the great ironies for Turkey is that, when God created earth, it was made to straddle two of the great tectonic plates on this planet—where Europe meets Asia in both the physical, ground sense and in a cultural sense. So that in itself really personifies what Turkey, the nation we know today, has been like throughout the ages.These days, as has been noted, it is a secular state where different cultures and beliefs are living side by side; where modern buildings along the beachfronts are the places where German, French and European tourists go—to Kusadasi, a modern port town, near the ancient city of Ephesus, which is just a few miles up the road. It is a place that I believe all Australians aspire to visit because of the conflict at Gallipoli in the early part of this century. That names such as Suleiman the magnificent, the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk sit very strongly in Australia's collective memory really does say something about Turkey the modern nation and its role in the modern world. The city of Istanbul—once known as Constantinople, once known as Byzantium, once known as the new Rome—throughout the ages has produced great civilisations and great centres of activity and commerce, and these days it is a city where Byzantine mosques are amazing remnants of the past. Some started as Christian cathedrals built during the great crusades.Australia and Turkey enjoy a very special relationship, which I guess is at the heart of why I am happy to support this motion today recognising the importance of that relationship so far as our trade relationship with Turkey is concerned these days. I know in lots of ways it is a very Australian and also a very Turkish relationship that two nations who were on either side of horrendous warfare in the early part of the century should complete this century as very close friends. It is a relationship built on a great deal of respect that the leader of modern Turkey, General Ataturk, encapsulated in his comments, paraphrased by those opposite: `A message to Australian mothers: that you, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosoms and are in peace. Having lost their lives on this land they become our sons as well.' Those words did a lot to unify the great tensions that once existed between Australia and Johnny Turk.The landings at Gallipoli hold a special place in the hearts and minds of all people in Australia. I have only to look at the street to the north and the street to the south of my electorate office in Ipswich Road, Moorooka to see Gaba Tepe Street to the north and Helles Street to the south and to know that in so many ways places in Turkey—and those two streets are named after key locations; in fact, the location of the second landing in the case of Gaba Tepe at Anzac Cove—link two very important parts of Australian history and our conflict in Turkey. Australians rightly pride themselves on building a strong friendship with Turkey, and I believe the Turks rightly pride themselves on building a strong friendship with Australia.When I was in Turkey in 1984 the people there were talking about the television program East of Eden and were amazed to find out that crocodiles were not taking Australians on a constant and regular basis. They are seeing a little bit of Australian culture just as Australians are being blessed to see Turkish culture. This is a nation that beat us in war, yet a nation that has extended us great courtesy and respect. Likewise, we hold a great deal of respect for the fighting spirit of the Turks. That landing at Gallipoli has forged a strong friendship between our two countries and this motion today, I think, emphasises the importance of building on that relationship now and into the future.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.147915:38:001479Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes the increasing number of closures of bank branches within the Australian community;(2) agrees to refer the issue of bank closures to the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs to take evidence as appropriate and consider appropriate recommendations to place before the House; and(3) determines that, as well as the general reference, the standing committee also inquire into and report on the increasing number of service reductions within communities and the increas ing difficulties with which remaining services are able to be contacted by local residents where services are reduced or removed.The closure of bank branches is a major concern of residents all over Australia. Communities both in the city and the country have been deprived of vital community services, particularly banks but also employment services, Medibank offices and many others. In particular I will refer, firstly, to the closure of the Lalor Park branch of the Commonwealth Bank within my electorate of Greenway. While there have been over 200 Commonwealth Bank closures across Australia, the closure of the Lalor Park branch was the straw that broke the camel's back. The expression of anger by the Lalor Park community at the bank's decision has hit the media headlines right across Australia. It has resulted in an unprecedented advertising campaign by the Commonwealth Bank to try to defend itself by painting a very rosy picture of its operations.Bank closures have become an issue of national importance. The Federal Treasurer, the member for Higgins, in an interview on ABC Radio just prior to the re-opening of this parliament was asked whether the federal government would legislate to prevent bank closures. He replied that, no, the government would not legislate to prevent bank closures any more than they would legislate to prevent milk bars closing—or words to that effect. This statement shows that the federal Treasurer, and I suggest the government, do not understand the particular economic and social significance that a bank has for a local community or a country town.The Lalor Park branch of the Commonwealth Bank was situated in a busy strip shopping centre adjacent to a council car park. In most cases residents could walk or, if they travelled by car, could get out and walk straight to their bank, their local newsagent, fruit shop, butcher and Jewel food store. The shopping centre also contains a post office and a TAB. The viability of this shopping centre is seriously threatened by this bank closure. Local small business people will suffer financial loss just to increase the bank's profits. The people who settled in Lalor Park were generally working-class people, labour ers, trades people, public servants, clerks and building workers. Many of the people who moved into this area in the early 1960s are now nearing retirement, or have retired.There are also a number of departmental housing units that house many pensioners. The pensioners, both aged and invalid, rely on the Commonwealth Bank to collect their pension. Under these new arrangements, pensioners will have to travel to other locations at considerable cost to themselves to do their banking or shopping. With the increased bank fees recently imposed by the bank, plus the additional cost in travelling to other locations, pensioners are going to be considerably worse off even before the GST comes into operation. But, to balance the area's ageing community, there are also two large primary schools. Their enrolment of some 700 children indicates a substantial young population which the Commonwealth Bank appears to ignore as potential bank customers.It came as a shock to the Lalor Park branch customers when they were advised that the bank would close. They were advised on 11 September that the bank would close on 23 October. The bank's letter stated that the decision to close the bank was taken only after a thorough investigation of all factors affecting the bank's business. It was very interesting to note that at this point the customers had not been advised or consulted about the bank's closure. Two protest meetings were held in the local shopping centre and were attended by several hundred residents. An action committee was formed to oppose the bank closure. Mr John McConnell, the local newsagent, was elected as president of that committee, a local resident who was actually the holder of Commonwealth Bank shares. A local Catholic priest was involved and several residents representing pensioners and other groups formed part of this committee.A protest meeting which was also held outside the Commonwealth Bank building in Martin Place resulted in several members of the action committee obtaining a meeting with Mr David Murray, the managing director of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Mr Murray accused members of the action com mittee of developing a politically inspired campaign. This was very untrue because all the local political representatives provided was support for a local community shocked that it was to lose a vital community asset. The local political representatives, Mr Leo Kelly, a councillor on Blacktown Council, John Aquilina, the state member for Riverstone and the state minister for education and I all felt we had a clear responsibility to support the local residents in their fight against the closure of this particular bank.I got the impression—I was not present during the meeting with Mr Murray but I was present during other meetings—that the bank management were very uncomfortable about explaining their position to the committee. They were not prepared to give detailed reasons for the closure other than to say in their letter to customers that `business levels had not met our expectations to the extent that continued operation of the bank is no longer viable.' This is a very ambiguous statement, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you can appreciate. The statement does not even suggest that there had been a reduction in business at this particular branch but only that business levels had `not met our expectations'.Clearly it is possible for any bank to either promote or reduce their business in a particular location to meet their commercial targets without consideration of their public service responsibilities. In the case of the Lalor Park branch, the alternative arrangements suggested by the bank, such as the use of the banking facilities in a small post office, travelling to other locations or the use of autobank facilities, all fell short of the face-to-face banking services that previously applied at the Lalor Park branch.My colleague the member for Barton, who is seconding this motion, has also seen his constituents suffering bank closures at Penshurst and Carlton. I had the pleasure of attending a public meeting of councils in that area and saw the concern that they all felt about these closures and the effect upon the local people. Local government in New South Wales is exploring the possibility of countering bank closures by establishing community banks, as is occurring in Victoria. I have been informed by Councillor Leo Kelly, Vice-President of the New South Wales Local Government Association, that his organisation has set up a task force to examine a proposal to establish a community bank using the facilities and financial backing of local government. Nationally, local government has about $10 billion invested with the big four banks, and the Australian Local Government Association will be monitoring the New South Wales move into the banking sector. The New South Wales local government task force will be chaired by Councillor Woods, President of the New South Wales Local Government Association, who is a very experienced administrator. The Woods task force is expected to make recommendations by April next year.What seems to be recognised by all but the banks is that banks are somewhat more vital to a local community than, say, a milk bar. Some regulations need to be introduced to ensure that banks are responsive to community needs. In Canada, for example, banks are required to meet strict community service requirements before they can retain their banking licences. The Secretary of the NSW and ACT branch of the Financial Sector Union, Mr Geoff Derrick, has suggested that a small levy on profits, probably set at less than 1 per cent of total profits, could be established and a rebate offered, depending on the strength of the community services offered.Ms Maree Bun of the Australian Consumers Association has suggested that a tax based on the American Community Reinvestment Act should be explored. The American reinvestment act rates American banks' commitment to community services in areas such as lending, deposits and transactions. Statutory deposits are used to fund gaps in services created by low ranking banks, while aiming to ensure that disadvantaged areas have access to finance and services. Likewise, essential service conditions similar to those attached to, say, Telstra and Australia Post should be applied to banks.All of these and many other ideas could be the subject of a very thorough examination by our relevant House committee, as suggested in this motion. In my view, we would be doing something very positive for all of our people. There have been many fine inquiries that have delivered good suggestions for governments to take up, and the referral suggested in this motion has the potential to excite the many people who have been so poorly treated as a result of bank closures. I am hopeful that, since this issue is of such a major concern across party and electorate lines, we can get approval for a referral of this matter for proper and careful inquiry.I am aware that I have been speaking in the main about bank closures in the city, but I am also very much aware that the issue is probably even more serious in the country areas. Since my time is up, I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Is the motion seconded?JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:48:001481Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—In listening to the member for Greenway, I must admit that I do share the concerns he has for the residents of Lalor Park. I know that when a bank branch is closed it always causes great concerns in the local community. But, as I continued to listen to his speech, it did strike me as rather strange that he was talking about the Commonwealth Bank. I thought about it a bit further and thought, `Hang on a minute. The Commonwealth Bank used to be owned by the government.' And, when he made reference to community service obligations such as with Australia Post or with Telstra, which are owned, or majority owned, by the government, I thought, `Who sold the Commonwealth Bank?' I could not help but think there was something missing here. He really should have been making those views known some time ago when the Labor Party was in power, because it was the Labor Party, of course, that made the decision to sell down the Commonwealth Bank. I listened to his solution when he was talking about levies and I could not help thinking, `Is this some new form of services tax that he is proposing to solve the problems as he sees them?'I do want to talk about a couple of issues, one of which the member did allude to at the end of his speech: what is happening in country areas. In the last parliament I was chair of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, which was looking at the whole question of banking services and alternatives to banking services in rural and regional Australia. While that report has not yet been tabled, I can assure all honourable members that there was a considerable amount of very constructive work done, in a bipartisan way, looking at the whole issue of banking services in regional and rural Australia and in remote areas as well. I anticipate that when the report is tabled in the parliament there will be some quite positive recommendations to be put to the government.I also want to talk a little about the third part of the motion of the member for Greenway regarding the increasing number of service reductions. I could not help thinking, when I was looking at that, about my own experience yesterday—which I remind honourable members was a Sunday—when I paid my Bankcard bill. I did not have to walk down to the local branch. I did not have to go in there while the branch was open, which is only limited hours, and I did not have to walk through the rain or anything else. I was sitting at my desk. I picked up my telephone and I rang the bank and paid the bill on a Sunday afternoon. I thought, `This is actually an improved service. It is not a reduction, it is actually an improving service.'When we come to debate these issues in the chamber, we should recognise that change is here and in many cases there are a lot of changes for the better. When we look at some of the changes in availability of services and the growing use of service centres for all sorts of services for which in the past it was necessary to have a face-to-face interaction, we find that through service centres—those run by government agencies and also those run by businesses—we have better services. We have access generally over longer hours, and we certainly have much quicker access. While there may have been some teething problems in some areas, mostly they are being worked out.This means that people, whether they are busy people or the elderly, can often get access to a greater range of services at very low cost and certainly, in most cases, much more quickly. For example, it is now possible, as I mentioned, to pay bills 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We can use a telephone to do business with most of the major banks. Most major banks now have customer service officers available via the telephone for at least 12 hours a day, which is far more than if you had to go into the bank itself.Other agencies, insurance companies, utilities and other government services with call centres are often available now where there was none in the past—so nothing has been lost because there was never anything there. We ought to put this motion into perspective and try to keep some balance. It concerns me that this motion concentrates very much on the negative aspects and overlooks some of the positive aspects of the changes that are occurring in the community, many of which are for the better.We have seen a lot of changes in banking services, many for the better but not all, I admit. For example, by the end of 1997 there were 7,800 automatic teller machines throughout Australia. These provide access to a service with extended hours which is often in places where there was limited service access. I know that some people have difficulty with ATMs, but we have also seen a massive growth in the use of EFTPOS. There is no doubt that this has made basic withdrawal services very easy for many bank customers. At the end of 1997, there were 75,000 EFTPOS terminals throughout Australia—far more than there are bank branches. Again, for most people an EFTPOS system is quicker when it comes to getting hold of cash. It is also much more accessible and is available for extended hours. A bank branch does not have that.Members who were on the Financial Institutions and Public Administration References Committee know that a number of alternative ways of providing banking are becoming more prevalent. The member for Greenway mentioned community banks. In my state, the Bank of Bendigo has started community bank branches in the Wimmera and is looking to set up at least one in suburban Melbourne. There is no doubt that, where communities choose to go down this path, it offers some very exciting alternatives to a traditional bank branch. The odds are that they are going to get a greater range of services than they probably had in the past, and they are certainly going to get some other community benefits from going down that path.There are others, too. For example, Bank SA has set up an agency system—initially throughout South Australia, but it is now moving into Victoria. There are now at least two such agencies in my electorate: at Penshurst—and I jumped when you mentioned Penshurst, because Penshurst is in my electorate—and also Macarthur. These agencies allow a local business to put in a basic transaction service for people, generally in a local store.Bank SA has nearly 200 of those in place. Again, they allow people face-to-face basic transaction services, almost always with much greater accessibility from the point of view of hours of the day during which they can access it than they have with an ordinary bank branch. Again, that is a positive development. It is something that also overcomes the problem of the face-to-face service that some of the pensioners and elderly people have difficulty with because it means that they are probably dealing with a person they have great confidence in and have known for many years.The major banks are also realising—to quite a large extent as a result of the work the standing committee has done—that this policy of continuing to close bank branches is not good business and is not helping their image in the community. The ANZ has announced a freeze on bank closures. Westpac is putting agencies into places where there is no longer a bank branch. Likewise, a number of the other banks are exploring the question of setting up bank agencies and expanding that process. This shows that, while there are changes, nonetheless a lot of these changes are providing an equivalent service and, in some cases, a better service.The credit care process has been put in place, whereby credit unions are set up where there is no bank branch. Australia Post has expanded giroPost, and we hope to see more happening there. This often means that people have an alternative. Just last weekend, pharmacists announced that 3,000 pharmacists are likely to be used as agents for one of the banks. That is an extended service by people whom the community generally have a high regard for. As the honourable member mentioned, local government is also looking to do something. While I understand the sentiments behind this motion, I think it is a bit narrow and overlooks some of the positive developments that are occurring throughout our community.15:58:001483McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I wish to reply to a couple of points made by the previous speaker, the member for Wannon. It is interesting that he noted that the community service obligation was removed after the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank. We will be interested to hear the views of the member for Wannon in respect of the legislation to privatise Telstra and what effect that will have on its service obligations to the community—in particular, the rural community.It is difficult to ascertain where the member for Wannon stands on this issue of bank closures. It is an issue which has chronically affected my electorate. A suburb in my electorate called Penshurst has lost its bank branch—and the member for Wannon also has a town called Penshurst—and so has the suburb of Carlton. We have lost Commonwealth Bank branches in those two suburbs.That has had a dramatic effect on customers of the Commonwealth Bank. Some customers have not had the opportunity to learn how to use new technology. Senior citizens, in particular, are a little timid of those sorts of advances, as are people from non-English speaking backgrounds, who are tentative about that sort of equipment. Generally, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do not have the economic pull that wealthier areas have and so they have suffered more from these bank closures.From the local business community's point of view—and the member for Wannon did not address these concerns adequately in his reply—it means that the drawcard that a bank has to the local community is removed. There is no doubt about it: banks themselves draw people into the area and that flows onto other shops in the vicinity. So those two shopping centres at Penshurst and Carlton are significantly under threat as a result of the closure of the banks.In addition, those businesses require cash for their day-to-day operations. They need to obtain till money and deposit it at the end of the day. Those facilities have been removed from them. In a reply to my concerns, the Commonwealth Bank pointed out alternative banking options within a radius of seven miles, I think it was. But it is unsatisfactory for these small business owners, many of whom have one or two people working in the business, to travel that distance to another banking area. There is also a security issue involved there.There is a community service obligation imposed on the banks. In the case of the Commonwealth Bank, the chief executive, David Murray, indicated disdain, if you like, for the views of the community when he said that people should be writing letters of congratulation to the banks for closing branches. That is in the context of the Commonwealth Bank having a profit, I think, of $1.09 billion—not million—last year and being responsible for increasing a whole range of charges. His heartless comment in the context of those bank closures has really backfired because with a lot of impetus from local governments in my area, as the member for Greenway indicated, there is now a real push on by the Local Government Association to remove their banking from the Commonwealth Bank, and that is worth about $4 billion—not million. There is also a push on to establish a local government bank. If banks continue to demonstrate this heartless attitude to not only their customers but also local communities there is no doubt that there is going to be a push for these sorts of develop ments to flow on, as the member for Wannon indicated in an example in Bendigo.The banks should not think that we in this parliament or indeed the population are helpless to meet what they are doing. Clearly, if the marketplace, which is under their control, is not satisfying the community's expectations, the government have an obligation to step in. If they do not look at what they are doing they may well see a resolution from this parliament introducing obligations similar to the Community Reinvestment Act in the United States whereby banks, unless they meet a certain minimum criteria, have to contribute to a fund to subsidise the provision of those services by other institutions. So banks are firmly put on notice—not only by this parliament but also by the parliament of New South Wales, which passed a unanimous resolution condemning their closures—that the community has really come to the end of tolerating these closures. (Time expired)16:03:001484St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I had the pleasure of returning to my electorate on Friday evening to open the branch of a bank in one of the little rural towns in New England, right up on top—a little village by the name of Guyra. That epitomises, I think, a lot of the changes that are taking place in regional and rural Australia. The story of it is quite interesting.A number of years ago the Commonwealth bank actually left town, as they had in a lot of places in regional Australia. The premises in due time came up for purchase. Amongst the businesses that operated in the little village of Guyra were some insurance people—in fact, the second generation coming through—who were looking to expand their business. They were looking to move out of rented premises and into their own premises. Being the enterprising people they are, they put in a reasonable bid for the purchase of the old Commonwealth Bank building in the town of Guyra. They were successful and duly moved their business into that particular building.As towns go through changes they start to embrace their own futures. The people who took over that building, David and Lisa Harris, were determined to be able to provide more than simply insurance services from the building. They looked to see whether they could provide banking services for the people of the village and the surrounding district. After a fairly long period of negotiation they were successful and, as I say, on Friday evening I had the great pleasure and honour of opening a branch of the Colonial State Bank in our town and seeing a new bank come to a regional area. It was done because people decided to create their own future and to start to embrace those opportunities that are there in regional Australia. Coming from a country and rural area, I think some very exciting opportunities and developments in the provision of services generally to people who live in regional Australia are going to come.In searching around for some information further afield on the question of services, I looked to Tasmania where a small town by the name of Triabunna on Tasmania's east coast was also suffering a downturn. However, the town's future and fortunes appear to have changed again because Westpac has returned to Triabunna. The branch itself and the tellers have gone, perhaps for good, as you have seen before, but in their place is something very new in government—the private sector with service delivery.The massive reform began slipping quietly into place earlier this year down there. Its network spreads across the state, with a new shop opening almost every week. The first Service Tasmania shop opened in Hobart in January this year, offering locals access to more than 150 government services. That was followed by Smithton, on the north-west coast, and then the Queenstown shop, which is providing access to state government services and Centrelink in the one location. Queenstown is a pilot project, demonstrating how state and federal governments can work together to eliminate duplication and to make life easier for those doing business with government. Rural Campbelltown's new Service Tasmania shop will also offer local government services when it opens later this month as the two-year project evolves to provide more shared service facilities.Technology driven change in the wider community is having an immeasurable and positive impact in terms of both general public and public sector acceptance. Impressed by the Service Tasmania model and its flexibility to absorb other services, the federal coalition recently announced its $70 million pre-election policy to establish 500 one-stop shops across rural Australia. In implementing its promise, the government is likely to draw heavily on that wonderful experience in Tasmania. For the people of rural and remote communities around Australia, information technology and one-stop shopping are an economic reality in the age of rationalism. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate1485Question proposed:That grievances be noted.148516:09:001485Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My grievance relates to the failure of the Howard government to recognise that Australian working people expect their government to see job creation as a priority. I contend that the Howard government has avoided its key responsibility to create new jobs and to defend existing jobs. Senator Nick Minchin has only been in his new industry portfolio for a couple of weeks, yet he has quickly dropped an old Howard government promise. It was a very important promise: to create 200,000 additional jobs in the manufacturing industry by the year 2000.I, like many in the Australian community, was amazed at the arrogant and dismissive manner in which he walked away from the government's commitment to create additional manufacturing jobs in an interview on the Channel 9 Sunday program yesterday. In response to a question relating to that target of 200,000 jobs in manufacturing by 2000, he said, in a very dismissive way:Yeah, well, that's not a target we're pursuing in this term. What confidence can we have in this government's commitment to job creation with comments such as that, when such a key ally of the Prime Minister is prepared to drop a core Howard government promise? That is what it was; it was one of the real commitments to a target on the issue of jobs at the commencement of the Howard government's reign in March 1996.I also refer to Senator Minchin's fellow minister, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, who knows that he has failed to produce the goods with regard to job creation. He promised Australians wonderful new jobs once his first workplace relations laws came into operation in December 1996. Now Minister Reith hopes to create jobs by further slashing away at the basic job rights and job security of working Australians.This government has given up on creating better jobs by building on a good, decent employment system. They want to create jobs by destroying our employment system and by cutting into basic rights. They want to further undermine the security of those already in work by amending further workplace laws to cut unfair dismissal rights and to cut the pay and conditions of our young people.A government with vision about jobs would be looking at what has happened in regional Australia. Jobs are gone thanks to their anti Public Service and anti community sector policies, as well as populations in decline. On that note, I need only refer to the level of unemployment in some of those regional seats. Let us take Hinkler, in regional Queensland, where there is currently a level of unemployment of 13.2 per cent. Richmond, in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales, which is again a seat held by the National Party, has a level of unemployment of 14.8 per cent. Adelaide, in South Australia, a seat held by the Liberal Party, has an unemployment level of 10.3 per cent. There are many other seats but I will finish with Longman, in Queensland, where unemployment as of June 1998 has stood at 11.8 per cent.Clearly, unemployment is of crisis proportions in Australia, especially in regional Australia. That is borne out by further reports in the media today, which show a concentration of job growth in metropolitan Australia in areas such as Sydney and Melbourne, while regional Australia not only continues to lose out but also represents areas of huge job losses over recent years.I suggest to the House that a decent government which understands it has a role in creating jobs, especially in regional Australia, would, firstly, put more resources into infrastructure development; secondly, provide support for government services to regional Australia so that they were available equally to all Australians; thirdly, support local export driven job initiatives with innovative programs backed by government resources; and, fourthly, provide incentives for migrants to settle in regional Australia rather than metropolitan Australia, especially those migrants who can help kick-start the local economy. I think that view is reinforced by a report in the Age today entitled `It's the city or bust for jobs'.The suggestions I put forward today are about rebuilding regional Australia. They are about effectively saying that this government has the responsibility to not only ensure additional jobs are created in suburban areas in cities like Melbourne and Sydney but also to ensure support in areas such as Mackay, in Queensland, or Gippsland, in Victoria, aimed at trying to create jobs in regional Australia. That is especially important because, in a lot of those areas, restructuring has wiped out thousands of jobs in industries that were previously exceptionally important to the creation of jobs as well as for the training of our future skills base. They were areas of employment that encouraged apprenticeship training.I refer, for example, to industries such as electricity generation and steel—industries which the member for Paterson, who is in the House, understands the importance of for the Hunter region—and commercial and government services which are, unfortunately, becoming more and more concentrated in the cities to the detriment of regional Australia. If there are any doubts about that, I will refer to what has occurred in Gippsland in Victoria in recent times. I note from the figures that in Gippsland alone we have seen 18,900 jobs lost since 1995, or 20 per cent of its employment. Other regions of Australia have also suffered huge job losses along the lines of those which occurred in the Gippsland area.To return to the failure of the government to actually honour its commitment to do something about the issue of manufacturing jobs and its target of 200,000 additional jobs by the year 2000, the minister himself dismissed this with a rather arrogant statement on the Channel 9 Sunday program yesterday. He was asked a fairly relevant question about the need for additional job growth in Australia, especially in industries aimed at maintaining Australia's importance in manufacturing industry. All the minister could say in response was:Yeah, well, that's not a target we're pursuing in this term.It seems to me that the new minister for industry—someone who is supposed to be about broadening Australia's manufacturing base, supporting innovation and seeking to attract investment in manufacturing industry in Australia—has merely admitted failure and given up the fight before even trying to do something about manufacturing jobs—especially in regional Australia. I would have thought that a new minister for industry policy would have been about decisive statements that he was going to fight for additional manufacturing jobs in Australia rather than admitting at the outset of his term of office as minister for industry that he is not prepared to stand up for manufacturing industry and that, if anything, he is going to admit failure on the jobs front.I suppose that represents a continuing trend when it comes to the performance of ministers for industry since the Howard government was elected in March 1996. For example, I refer to the performance of the previous minister for industry, the member for Ryan, Mr Moore. The fall in the figures for manufacturing job growth in the quarter of May, on a seasonally adjusted basis, was 2,300 manufacturing jobs. It worries me even more that in the last year 32,900 manufacturing jobs have been lost, with falls in each of the last three quarters.If the government actually had a heart and a determination to do something about committing itself to achieving job growth in manufacturing industry, then, after 32 or 33 months in government, we could have expected some job growth in manufacturing industry. If the figures as of June this year were on course, the Prime Minister's government should have created an additional 112,500 new manufacturing jobs by now.These current figures represent the fact that this government, which has just got back by the skin of its teeth, cannot demonstrate any type of vision for creating jobs for all Australians—especially in manufacturing industry and especially in regional Australia. Instead the key minister, Senator Minchin, who could actually do something about jobs, went on television yesterday and said that they have given up on the promise to create jobs.All I can say is: what a shameful admission. At a time when it is going to get more competitive and more difficult, the new minister for industry has basically thrown in the towel and said that he is not prepared to commit himself to doing something about this government's promise, prior to the 1996 election, that it was going to achieve 200,000 additional manufacturing jobs by the turn of the century. That is its gift to the nation: yet another failure. (Time expired)148716:19:001487Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise to voice my concerns—and that of many of my constituents—about the domestic violence that takes place in many Aboriginal communities.Like all Australians, I was appalled and horrified by the cases outlined in recent Courier Mail articles by Tony Koch, their chief reporter, and later canvassed by others. It is a very sad fact that these are by no means isolated cases. Women and children in these remote communities face brutality each day of their lives—the kind which no human being should have to endure. That it takes place in this wonderful country, the `lucky country', makes it all the more horrific and intolerable. There has been much discussion and debate in recent weeks on how this problem should be fixed. I do not pretend to have an easy solution, but two things are very clear. Something must be done to protect these women and children; and just about everyone agrees that alcoholism is the root cause of these violent attacks. One quick and very simple solution that many local residents have raised with me is to remove these women and children from the communities in which they face such danger. As a mother, when I read about these atrocities, that was also one of my immediate reactions. But, of course, to do so would cause an enormous outcry from Aboriginal leaders themselves—with inevitable comparisons to the stolen generation debate.I do not deny that there are spiritual and cultural issues that need to be considered but, surely, the most important issue is the physical and emotional wellbeing of these women. That is my primary concern. This is not just a matter of lifestyle; it is a matter of life and death. These women and children are being repeatedly beaten and raped. Some are murdered. Police department statistics show that someone living in Doomadgee or Mornington Island is 30 times more likely to be murdered than someone living in any other part of Queensland, and a woman living at Kowanyama is 25 times more likely to be raped. But to take immediate and effective action to prevent this—by removing these people from the dangerous situations—will be seen as an insensitive, thoughtless, `white fella's' solution by those in the Aboriginal industry and the politically correct elites.In my view, that is a big part of the difficulty we face in trying to improve the situation—any real attempt by the government to improve matters will be described by ATSIC and other privileged Aboriginal leaders as paternalistic—and even racist. Such was the reaction when the Howard government directed ATSIC to spend a greater proportion of their funding on improving health, housing and education, and such was the reaction when we sent in the army to improve housing and sanitary conditions in remote Aboriginal communities. Yet, on the ground, where it really matters, local communities really welcomed these practical measures.These are some of the basics which commonsense dictates must be priorities. But over the years they have been buried under issues such as political and legal campaigns for land rights and more symbolic issues like reconciliation and formal apologies—and things like the disgraceful issue of Hindmarsh Island where so-called secret women's business was fabricated for cynical political reasons. These political issues must pale in comparison to the personal safety and individual quality of life of innocent children and their mothers.Part of the problem is that funding for programs to combat family violence is jointly the responsibility of the federal, state and local governments, as well as Aboriginal community groups. For example, in North Queensland, the drafting and enforcement of by-laws to control alcohol consumption are matters for which the Aboriginal communities have responsibility. With alcohol being identified as the root cause of domestic violence problems, it would seem that the ability to improve or at least control the problem in Queensland's remote communities rests with the Aboriginal councils themselves.That is not to say that the government cannot do more. Since coming to office the Howard government has taken positive steps to get back to the basics and ensure funding is directed where it is needed most—improving health, housing and living standards in Aboriginal communities. No-one wants to see Aboriginal Australians living in Third World conditions. No-one wants to see young Aboriginal children miss out on a decent education. No-one wants to see any Australian suffer disadvantage, which is why so many Australians are still so angry that the previous Labor government wasted billions of dollars without making any real difference to those living in remote Aboriginal communities—because they did not focus on the basics.There are a number of Howard government programs operating which provide almost $5 million each year just for indigenous family violence programs. Recently, the federal minister also announced that indigenous women would be encouraged to use the resources of the Community Development Employment Project to equip and run women's shelters and run night patrols. The federal Attorney-General's office also run programs to combat violence in indigenous communities as part of their national campaign against violence and crime.In addition, the Indigenous Family Relationships Support Services will receive $500,000 over the next two years as part of the Partnerships Against Domestic Violence Strategy implemented by the Howard government. This funding will help deliver training on dealing with the victims of domestic violence. Also, under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, $29 million is provided each year for indigenous clients, with about $18 million of it for family violence situations. These are just a few of the federal programs in place to assist women and children in these remote communities.Of course, while situations like those outlined in the Courier-Mail persist, it is obvious that we all have to do more, especially the Aboriginal community leaders themselves. I call upon them to make this matter their number one priority. It is a difficult situation. Australians can, however, be assured that the Howard government takes a very different approach from the previous Labor government. We are prepared to do things like send in the Army to provide essential services and assist in improving health conditions in remote communities. We are prepared to challenge ATSIC and make sure that their funding priorities are directed where they are needed most. We have provided increased funding to assist with domestic violence problems. And we do not apologise for this more practical and sensible approach.But the power to change the situation depends greatly on the will of the Aboriginal leaders who control where the funds are directed. Having visited remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. I can clearly see that many communities have a distrust of both ATSIC and the white government. The suspicion of government has built up over time, and it limits the ability of the government to offer real solutions—other than the failed way of handing even more money to ATSIC, which was the policy of the previous government and provided no improved outcomes.Michael Duffy, in an article in the Courier-Mail last month, summed up the approach. He said:The Hawke and Keating governments tried to solve the political problem by acclaiming small group of pro-ALP, largely male Aboriginal leaders who, in return for money and power, generally approved of the government's actions. These are the leaders who have promoted a form of black pride based on welfare dependency and an overwhelming obsession with land rights, which has helped destroy the self-respect of so many Aboriginal men, leading to alcoholism and brutality . . . the violence to women was largely ignored.It simply cannot be ignored any longer. The government is taking positive steps, and will continue to do more, but it will take the will of the Aboriginal leaders to really make a difference.Many of my local constituents have been surprised to learn that we inherited a situation where the minister for Aboriginal affairs does not even have a department; he is advised by ATSIC—which supposedly does the work of a department. But it is, as Michael Duffy described, `committed to the present system and hostile to any criticism or proposals for change', even though Labor's system has clearly created so many problems. And any criticism of ATSIC by the government or individuals is met by calls of racism and the right to self-determination is held aloft as the most important political achievement, not to be questioned or doubted.In fact, Laurie Kavanaugh, writing in the Courier-Mail, recently made the following point:The irony is that the community compassion [about this issue] is exactly the same as that which drove past governments to save the lives of mixed-race children, the so-called `stolen generation'. I find that ironic and hope any action taken to stop the bashing of innocent Aboriginal women and children today will be seen by future generations for what it is . . . community action to protect the innocent.It is a sad fact that, while self-determination might be a personal achievement for those Aboriginal leaders in power, it has done nothing for people like the little three-year-old girl from Kowanyama who has had to wear a colostomy bag for the past two years because she was brutally raped when she was only 17 months old, or for Jacqueline Murray, who has had to endure a lifetime of violent beatings and rapes.On behalf of the many concerned local residents in Forde, I will continue to work with the Howard government to find ways to protect Aboriginal women and children—in the same way I do for any victim of domestic violence. Most importantly, I call on Aboriginal leaders to make the day-to-day welfare of their people their most pressing concern. All Australians will be more than willing to join them in this endeavour.149016:29:001490Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I want to raise this afternoon the most disgraceful abuse of taxpayers' money for partisan political advantage in the history of our federation. I refer, of course, to the $17 million advertising campaign, paid for with taxpayers' dollars, which promoted the Liberal and National parties' proposal for a goods and services tax. I call this a `disgraceful abuse' for the following reason. The Liberal Party, rather than spend its own money on this promotion, was prepared to put its hand directly into the pockets of taxpayers to fund this massive advertising campaign.I and all other Australians are perfectly well aware that this is not the first time that governments have used taxpayers' dollars in advertising campaigns. But this is both quantitatively and qualitatively quite different from anything we have ever seen from a government before: quantitatively, in that the sheer volume of money spent in a two- to three-week period on an advertising blitz far exceeded any previous examples of taxpayer funded government largesse or indulgence; qualitatively, because the advertising blitz concerned an issue which was not merely political but was the subject of intense partisan dispute. Indeed, it was the main issue on which the federal election in October was fought. Most government advertising campaigns of the past have been to promote government programs which were not in themselves controversial. The advertising campaign in question might not have enjoyed the opposition's support, but generally the program did. Invariably, in the past the advertising promoted or provided information about a program which was actually being put into effect or about action which the government was in the process of taking. Never before have we seen taxpayers' funds used to promote a matter which was to come before the next parliament after a federal election.By what moral authority did Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello presume to spend money to promote a tax package which would, had the Liberal Party lost the election, never have seen the light of day? They had no more right to spend that money than did Labor or, for that matter, One Nation or anyone else who felt they might be the next government. They had no right whatsoever to spend taxpayers' dollars on behalf of the next parliament. But was there any attempt at political propriety by allowing Labor or other political parties to also put their case using taxpayer funds? No. This was the exclusive preserve of the Liberal and National parties.Even though Prime Minister Howard effectively turned the last election into a referendum on the government's tax package—both by calling an election immediately the taxpayer funded blitz was over and by telling the electorate that, if they did not like the GST, they should vote against the government—there was no attempt whatsoever to have a publicly funded no case against the tax package. Instead, $17 million of our money was spent promoting the yes case, trying to tell us that the GST was good for us. It is worth remembering that, despite this, Labor polled better than 51.5 per cent two-party preferred; that is to say, if the election had been a referendum on the GST, the Liberal and National parties would have lost it.The second matter is how this advertising campaign was used to mislead Australians and, in particular, pensioners and self-funded retirees. I have with me a booklet which rejoices in the name: Tax reform—not a new tax a new tax system. Many Australians will have seen it. I understand that it was distributed to every Australian household, at their expense, by the government.Opposition members interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—That is true—not through Australia Post. On pages 11 and 12 are examples of how the GST was to impact on age pensioners, part-pensioners and self-funded retirees. On page 11 we have a picture of a smiling Marge and Dave, senior Australians who will, according to this, be $23 a week better off after GST. On the next page we have Doug and Betty, also smiling self-funded retirees, who will, according to the booklet, be $18 a week better off after GST.Obviously, during the campaign people did not have the opportunity to go through and find out—certainly ordinary Australians did not have the opportunity to find out—on what assumptions these rosy outcomes were based. But, having had the opportunity to do that and, in particular, having had my attention drawn to some of the assumptions in the calculations by the ARPA Over Fifties Association Ltd—and, in particular, by Mr Bill Dow, who has done quite a lot of work going through these assumptions—I was able to draw the attention of the parliament and the Australian people to a number of things that you did not read about if you made your way conscientiously through this booklet.Firstly, there was no allowance made for the abolition of the savings rebate. The savings rebate was a measure which the Howard government promoted after it abandoned—in my view, wrongly—Labor's proposal for government co-contributions to superannuation. The savings rebate was no small matter, indeed, it was of the order of a $2 billion cost in the year 2000-01: $2 billion to be spent on the savings rebate—a rebate of up to $450 for people who were entitled to it. But the fact that the government was proposing to abolish the savings rebate and that therefore people would be worse off under the tax package than they would be without it, was not included in the tables which we see on page 11 and page 12. Perhaps Marge and Dave and Doug and Betty would not be smiling if they were aware of the fact that abolition of the savings rebate is not included in there and that they therefore would not have the sums that they thought they might get.Secondly, there is no reference in these tables to the possible implications of the assets test. It is very interesting to look at what they are proposing for age pensioner couples. They talk about an increase in social security payments of the order of $50 a week, $60 a week or $70 a week as against $25,000, $30,000 or $35,000 in private income. You do not need to be Einstein to realise that, if you are generating $25,000, $30,000 or $35,000 in private income, there is a fair chance that there is a significant asset backing behind that and a significant risk that you will be caught through the assets test and therefore will not be eligible for the age pension and will not get the benefits that you are told here you will get. Nevertheless, the government chose to make no allowance in its calculations—not in the larger tax package and certainly not in the shorter form which was provided to all Australian households—for the fact that the assets test was not included in these calculations.Thirdly, they included in their calculations the aged persons savings bonus of up to $1,000 for pensioners and up to $3,000 for self-funded retirees, a one-off bonus. Yet on this basis they are prepared to say that Marge and Dave will be $23 a week better off after paying the GST. The fact is: after year one Marge and Dave will not have access to that bonus and their circumstances will change substantially. If we were able to redo these calculations—I believe the government owes it to the electorate to redo them—taking into account the impact of the abolition of the savings rebate, the impact of assets testing and the fact that the aged persons savings bonus is a one-off, I believe we would find a very different picture indeed concerning the impact of the GST on over two million retired Australians, both pensioners and self-funded retirees. It is quite disgraceful that the government saw fit to spend so much taxpayers' money to provide such a misleading picture as to how the GST would impact upon retired Australians. (Time expired).149216:39:001492Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—With Christmas almost upon us, I thought I would take the opportunity today in the grievance debate to acknowledge the work done by charities towards Christmas for people who are in need and are not as fortunate as we are in this place. I had an interesting time following through this line of thought today as I rang the charities. I really wanted to acknowledge the work they were doing and to speak to them about that work. I found a common thread in what they were saying; that is, that demand for their services has gone up. The Glenelg Uniting Church community aid program in my electorate of Hindmarsh said demand was up 30 per cent—that was the only centre which actually gave a figure. The other charitable organisation said that they had noticed a similar increase.I asked what was the cause of this. There were various suggestions, none of which really held up. Perhaps I could look at one because it shows how easy it is to pick on one problem or on what one hears and assume it is the answer.The Adelaide Day Care Centre suggested that there is an increased number of people whose phones were being disconnected, whose electricity was being cut off and who could no longer meet their electricity payments. I thought, if this is indeed happening, it is a serious problem which we would have to address. So I contacted the utilities in South Australia and found that, according to the statistics, things are not getting worse. For instance, the figure for non-payment of electricity bills in 1995-96 was 9,800. In 1997-98, that had decreased to 7,785. Similarly, extensions of payments were down this year compared with last year, although not hugely—in 1996-97, it was 266,000 persons and, in 1997-98, 263,000 persons.Telstra told me a similar story. As far as they could work out, without pulling out actual figures, there had been no increase in defaults. Similarly, the gas company which was named by the charities, in 1995, had had 11,675 disconnections. In 1997, disconnections had dropped to 11,394. Although it seemed to be a general theme that part of the problem had been an increase in utilities bills—I know these organisations meet and discuss these issues—when you look at disconnections and extended payments, this does not seem to be the problem. I do not question that, for all these organisations, demand on their time and money is going up.I was interested to talk to another organisation in my electorate, the Church of Christ community care at Torrensville. I spoke there to Lynda Baird who had worked in Ireland. She had a somewhat different idea of what might be happening. In this sense, she brought my speech in the grievance debate round full circle because I had intended to acknowledge those who are isolated in the community, who do not have the ability to share Christmas with family and do not have money to expend on Christmas the way advertising exhorts us to. Talking to Lynda, we came full circle because she put isolation as one of the root causes for the financial problems that people are experiencing. This drew together a whole lot of suggestions from other charities.They had mentioned alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, poor budgeting, drugs and use of the 0055 and the 1900 telephone numbers. Lynda acknowledged all these as problems but took them all back to the problem of isolation. She said there are a lot more people in the community now who, through divorce, family breakdown and retrenchment, are living alone or are living in fairly isolated circumstances of just one or two—a husband and a wife, a mother and child, a father and a child. She pointed out that in these circumstances there is a greater tendency to turn for relief to alcohol or to cigarettes. When I was smoking many years ago, in tense situations you were very much aware that, if you had no friends in the world, at least there was a cigarette in your hand to hold on to. I am sure that still applies.Gambling, for people who live alone, who go into the hotels in an atmosphere where there are people around them, to sit there and have something to do, relieves that sense of isolation. Drugs are also an escape from bad situations and from situations where people feel isolated. I was told stories of young girls and young men who, faced with isolation, took to drugs and found that that was not an answer to their problem. Unfortunately, some of them ended up committing suicide, just from the sheer isolation of living alone, from the sense of being alone.Another issue, which I had not thought of, was bad budgeting or inappropriate purchases. It was drawn to my attention that a man had come to the church looking for help with monetary and other problems, but outside he had a flashy car. The woman I was talking about earlier had asked the chap where he had got his car. He said, `I just bought it.' She looked at that car and realised how much it meant to him but realised that he would own it for a month, if he was lucky. He did not have the income to buy that car. His purchase of the car was, again, an offset for his own misery; it was something to do. For some small amount of joy to come into his life, he bought the car on hire purchase because it would give him immediate pleasure. But, of course, the money was never going to be there to pay for it, and it was inevitable that the hire purchase company would reclaim that car within the month.This extends to other purchases, for instance, brand new colour television sets or cable television from Foxtel—anything that will make the isolated life seem just that little bit better and give the feeling that some of that loneliness will abate if there is an opportunity to watch a whole range of different programs; and that is not the situation.I am reminded of some words of Melina Mercouri, the Greek actress who became a great Greek stateswoman. When asked why in Greece they had no psychiatrists, she said, `In Greece we do not need psychiatrists, we have friends.' I think that probably provides some comment on the degree of dysfunction you see in some of these people who have been isolated and for whom the community is not giving anything back.I also have some comments on the reaction of people in Australia to requests from charities for both physical assistance—as in volun teers—and donations. It was observed that the people who donate tend to be the older people who have less to donate. The experience of many of the collectors is that, when they go to homes where two people work, such as the husband and the wife, those people are less likely to give than the one-person household, and certainly less likely to give than the one-person household where the person is older. I have had a similar experience when I have collected for charities: the absolute frustration you feel when you are turned back by somebody with a Jaguar parked in the driveway while somebody in a small house goes through her purse to try and find $1, when she is having trouble meeting her rent payments.Finally, let me note that in Australia we give $38 a head to charity every year. That compares with $642 per head in Canada and a massive $2,455 per person in the US. At this stage, there is only time to wonder if that is because our very wealthy people and our wealthy corporations do not match those in other countries with their giving. (Time expired)149316:49:001493Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I raise again the issue of disruption to people's lives caused by the often insensitive way the child support system works. Over the last few months a number of media articles have been very critical of non-custodial parents and their claim for a fairer deal in regard to child support. Because I have received many representations on this matter—as, no doubt, all of my colleagues have—I encouraged the establishment of a fairness in child support group in the Illawarra. Despite what some critics in the Illawarra say, this group is not a `men only' group. Both men and women established this group following a public meeting that I convened.People involved in FICS are making a few reasonable demands of the child support system. One of the most important is the way child support contributions are assessed. Contributions should be assessed on a parent's net yearly wage or salary, not on their gross earnings. Many argue that there must be greater accountability for the money. Many people have to work overtime to make their commitments—that is, when overtime is available—to make up for the shortfall in their pay at the end of each fortnight, but this increases their assessable income. For many people it is a catch-22 situation: what is the point of working overtime when your payments will go up? People come and say to me all the time, `I would be better off going away somewhere on the dole.' This is happening time and time again.It is true that few people I see in my office are satisfied with the current child support legislation. The child support issue is the final straw for many people following a difficult relationship breakdown, property settlement and access battle. The people who come to see me—and I am sure my colleagues will agree—are angry, frustrated and bitter.What concerns me is that bureaucracy causes the bitterness generated by so many cases. I have great sympathy for the workers in the Child Support Agency. Managing the system is not an easy position to be in. They are also the focal point for much anger and bitterness. People feel as if they are constantly bashing their heads against a brick wall, that nobody listens and no-one understands their problems. It is very rare for me to hear from any parent who does not want to contribute to the upbringing of his or her child or children, but contributions must be assessed in a fair and reasonable way.The other issue is that, in many cases, children are being used to hurt former partners in a relationship. Crudely put, children are being used as pawns. In no way do I want to see a return to the days when women were abandoned by male partners, leaving them with no financial support to raise the children. This was the reason why the child support legislation was originally introduced.I never want to see a return to the days when the custodial parent was left in the financial lurch. But we must come up with a better, fairer and reasonable way to assess contributions. The bitterness and anger that stains the child support debate will be removed by just resolving this issue.Many of the people who see me are men, and their second partner usually accompanies them. Too many non-custodial parents are unable to establish new relationships because they feel they are unable to offer their new partner security. Non-custodial parents, after paying their taxes and child support contributions, are left with very little to live on. Many cannot afford rent and return to live with their parents. Many times I have seen people who have had their own homes having to return to live with their parents after their relationships have gone wrong.I believe the legislation as it stands today discriminates against the non-custodial parent. This covers both men and women, but it is a fact that the majority of non-custodial parents are men. Non-custodial parents from broken relationships are finding it too difficult to move on with their lives. They find it difficult to establish a second relationship. In many cases, when they succeed in establishing a second relationship, the children from this relationship are disadvantaged compared with the children of the first relationship.I am aware of cases where the second wife or partner has had to find employment to assist her partner in meeting child support liabilities from the first relationship. Surely, this is not what the current child support legislation intended when it was introduced. In another recent case, a woman contacted me because her former husband was not paying child support at all. He happens to be a successful businessman in the Illawarra—he has four businesses in different suburbs of Wollongong. The children receive Austudy payments because of his low income but his former wife's pension entitlement has been reduced because her pension is less the income that he receives from the four businesses. It is usually men who have such relationships and often they can so arrange their financial dealings that they do not have to meet their rightful requirements.I was surprised to read an article in the Sun-Herald of 27 September 1998 entitled `Suffer the Little Children: Tug of Love'. The article claims that non-custodial parents tend to spoil their children while on contact visits, causing problems for the child and the custodial parent. The article quotes an example:When they're together, it's junk food and late nights and it takes days to calm Jessica down when she comes home . . . He's always buying her expensive gifts, things I just can't afford. He looks like the fun parent and I look miserable and mean.From my experience, by the time the non-custodial parent pays out child support, there is very little left over for the parent to be able to buy expensive gifts for their child.Many non-custodial parents have expressed distress to me at not being able to afford to have their children on weekends, or the fact that they do not have a swimming pool like mum does, or decent furniture, or a car in which to take the children out for the day. Some tell me that they are embarrassed that they are unable to offer their children the same level of lifestyle as before.It is true that many parents are using their children as psychological weapons but, again from my experience, this is often because the custodial parent refuses contact with the non-custodial parent. I believe it is important to link child support payments to access rights, not only for the non-custodial parent but also for grandparents. In a particular act of spite, some custodial parents deny access to grandparents. Often grandparents are the innocent party in this. When a relationship goes wrong, the grandparents, or the parents of the two people involved, often do not want to get involved but do want to see the grandchildren. Often, in an act of pure spite, the grandparents are denied this. Indeed, in the Illawarra there is an organisation in Dapto—not that I set it up—for grandparents just seeking access. They can do it now, but it usually results in a very lengthy and costly court battle. Again, the grandparents are being punished for the relationship between their offspring that went wrong.Non-custodial parents, in many cases, cannot access their children simply because they do not have the funds to go to the Family Court. Some are granted access by court decision, then the custodial parent denies this, and so the matter must return to court again. It is a merry-go-round of court appearances. The article also quotes Kathleen Swinbourne, spokesperson on family issues for the Women's Electoral Lobby and also President of the Sole Parents Union. She has described non-custodial men as `vocal, active, disaffected and disgruntled'. Who would wonder that they would be like that? Of course they are! I invite Kathleen Swinbourne to sit in on some interviews in my office, and then she might understand the emotions of some of these men.Furthermore, Ms Swinbourne is quoted as watching the rise of the `disgruntled dads' movement' with dismay. This issue is complex enough already without having it turned into a battle of the sexes. It is well beyond the time to take the cocktail of emotions out of this debate and look for fair and reasonable outcomes in child support. We are in danger of creating a generation of children who will have their loyalties tested between their parents. They deserve much better.The thing that concerns me most about this is the tremendous bitterness that is in people when they come to my office. One of the things that is wrong with the child support system is that we have tried to find a legal solution to an emotional matter. I do not have the answer to it, but I do not think the answer is in the very legalistic nature of the way in which we deal with child support. We are dealing with an emotional matter—a matter between two individuals—and too often the children are used as pawns to score points off the particular parties in the bitterness that is caused by the break-up. I must say that the bitterness is continuing. Unless we do something about the child support system, we are going to have a lot of very confused children and a lot of very disgruntled non-custodial parents, who are often men.149516:59:001495Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I rise to speak in this debate today because I am concerned that there is a wealth of colourful and penetratingly honest examples of our early history being lost. There are, of course, well known and well respected historians who have recorded, catalogued, analysed and interpreted what we might call the main events that have shaped our development as a nation.Such events, like the discovery of gold and our participation in the Great War, have proved to be the catalyst for not just our economic, social and political development but have also been responsible for etching national characteristics such as mateship, sympathy for the underdog, the right to a fair go and a derisive attitude towards authority—to name just a few. These have been etched deep into our national psyche.As I have acknowledged, these events and characteristics have been published in many erudite books, but the one ingredient most lacking is actual examples of real people living and working in their own environment.I am raising this topic for members' consideration today because I was reminded of the importance of ordinary men and women's lives in developing our nation when I launched a book last Saturday evening titled A Gallant Life—The Story of an Old Soldier, by Dr Brian Lloyd. This book is in fact about the life and times of Ben Lloyd, Dr Brian Lloyd's father, from 1888 through to 1951. Throughout, the reader becomes enmeshed in not just the development and maturation of Ben Lloyd but also the development and maturation of Australia from a colony to a nation and the development of a town called Jamieson.Each year, we as a nation gather to honour and remember those brave young men who volunteered to fight at Gallipoli and to pay tribute to that indomitable spirit that Australian soldiers have become renowned for, the spirit of Anzac. Their names are inscribed on monuments throughout the country. Ben Lloyd was one such person, one of the lucky ones because he returned. But as he says in this book:We were a volunteer army such as the world had never seen. With mateship our byword and democracy our heritage, social class divisions were foreign to us. Independence and initiative were the characteristics that later made us famous as soldiers.These young men approached going to war as an adventure. However, life for these soldiers on returning home was not what they expected. Ben Lloyd tells the reader:The Australia to which we returned had been shocked and depleted by the loss of life in the remote war but in most other respects there had been little change in values and attitudes. There had been no cathartic experience in Australia to make it otherwise.For the returning soldiers the euphoria of enlisting had been transformed into the brutal truth of Gallipoli and the death and mud of Flanders. Ben Lloyd says:We were older, serious faced, many of us enfeebled and we did not have the bearing of conquering heroes. Many people saw us as a disappointment to the Australian manhood they had imagined. Some of the people who had cheered us off with such enthusiasm now were too embarrassed to face us, especially those of us who had lost a limb or received a facial disfigurement. We were expected to forget our soldiering as quickly as possible and to get on with our lives as though the war had been a minor interruption.Like so many others, he too could not make a life for himself in the city and went back to areas of the bush like Jamieson, the area of his youth.We are indeed fortunate that his son, Brian, has taken such a keen interest in his father's life because this book provides the reader with an insight into the development of the mining industry throughout this region, how small communities developed and what day-to-day life was like. Brian Lloyd describes the development of both alluvial and reef mining in the Jamieson region and the characters who carved out a living, the people who settled and who became shopkeepers, pub owners, schoolteachers, postmistresses, et cetera. In doing so, he gives us an insight into how rural communities were formed.Today, tourists can visit a town like Jamieson but, unless they take the trouble to stop at the old courthouse, restored by local residents, they would be unaware of the history of the area and how once it was part of a thriving mining community where mines like Champion, Blue Ribbon, Gleesons, Sailor Bells, Star of the West, Eldorado and Belle of Venetia, to name just a few, supported a community. They would also be unaware that during the Great Depression many people, unable to find work, were put on to what became known as `susso', a government sustenance payment of 15 shillings a week, to go prospecting for gold.Another book, Big River Days by John Pilkington, described life in the towns of Enoch's Point and Darlingford—towns that no longer exist. We are fortunate that Dr Brian Lloyd wanted to write a book about his father because in so doing we learn about the area and how it contributed to our development as a nation. In the case of John Pilkington, he visited the area regularly as a young man with his family. As he describes in the introduction to his book:I first came to the Big River Valley on the handlebars of a bicycle wheeled by my father in the summer of 1954. It was the beginning of something very special and irreversible. I have had difficulty staying away for any length of time ever since.Thank goodness he did, because I doubt if we would have had such a detailed account of towns that developed and sustained a bustling community but that no longer exist if John Pilkington had not maintained that interest.The town of Darlingford, named after the then Governor of Victoria, Sir Charles Darling, Pilkington tells us from a description in the local paper of the time, was a town of:. . . nine or ten stores and 4 hotels, a school house, a post office and a number of private dwellings occupied by people engaged in packing goods into the Big River, Raspberry Creek and Matlock ranges. These streets are situated on opposite sides of the river and are connected by a footbridge put up by private subscription.Private investment, in fact, was the only way isolated communities like Darlingford could develop. In fact, the people who lived in Darlingford in those early times, we are told, were not even included on the electoral roll. Darlingford was not included in any known electorate. Consequently, the people had to fend for themselves.Undaunted, they built their own bridge and began road construction themselves in 1867. As the town grew and a school was needed, they built that too. I must add that, just as the need for soundly constructed and well-maintained roads was important to the lives of people last century, so too is it today.This characteristic of private investment by individual entrepreneurs and small businesses developing areas was a constant feature of early Australian life and underpins the strongly individualistic nature of contemporary Australia. It was not just the mining industry that spawned the tough individuals prepared to risk their capital and their lives in developing an industry. In the same region the timber industry was also developed this way. The mountain ash was developed out of the Rubicon Forest because two men built the timber tramway from Alexandra up to Rubicon. Enoch's Point developed into a town but suffered the same problems as Darlingford in regard to roads.Pilkington has painstakingly researched this to accurately describe the problems local residents had to overcome. He quotes from an editorial in the local Alexandra Times of the day where the editor said:There was a clear case for making a special grant for making a road to this mountain district which promised one day to become one of the richest in the colony and where amongst the numerous creeks and watersheds and mountain slopes at the head of the Big River there was sufficient good land for the settlement of thousands of families.He further went on to say:The present system of packing everything on horseback was a great drawback to the locality.However, the future of both Darlingford and Enoch's Point was limited. After years of drought throughout the region, the flood of 1912 that swept through Darlingford highlighted the need to store water to service the farming communities further down the Goulburn River. This resulted in the building of the Sugarloaf Dam. We are fortunate to have a description of how people felt at the time. They described the water slowly creeping up the Goulburn Valley and into the lower Big River Valley, inch by inch as it rose, buildings and trees subsiding until the town was gone.The point I want to make today is that we are indeed indebted to people like John Pilkington and Brian Lloyd for their tenacity and their love of the area. We indeed owe them a debt. I would like to pay tribute to their work by quoting the final words of John Pilkington: Visitors to the valley can now come and go in the ease and comfort of 4-wheel drive vehicles where once the pioneers struggled on foot, often carrying their only belongings on their backs.Far too much of that local history is indeed lost. (Time expired)149817:09:001498Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I stand here today to speak in the grievance debate in relation to stolen speeches. Forty minutes of my time as the member for Blaxland are to be stolen from me in this House by the Leader of the House due to the impending guillotining of the debate on the tax bills and the impending guillotining of the address-in-reply. As I understand it, the 72.6 per cent of electors in Blaxland who, on a two-party preferred basis, brought me back to the House after the election on 3 October could have expected that, in a parliamentary democracy in Australia, the person they elected to represent them in this House would have an opportunity to address this House on the government's plans as outlined by the Governor-General at the beginning of this parliament. We understand that, for the first time in the history of the parliament, the address-in-reply is to be effectively guillotined in the next few days. I will not get a chance to speak on the address-in-reply.Every speaker from the opposition and every member from the government who will have no chance to speak on the address-in-reply will be, for the first time, in a situation where the government, having outlined its plan after winning the election, will guillotine the address-in-reply. In all the previous terms of parliaments of this Commonwealth since 1901, members have been able to give their response—either positive or negative, whether from the government or the opposition. But here I understand that, for no good reason, it is the intention of the Leader of the House to forestall that; not merely to move it to the Main Committee, but to forestall debate on that completely.Once in the life of a parliament—therefore, once in the life of this 39th Parliament—individual members of parliament should be able to address an answer to the government's program. It is not enough to be told that there will be appropriation bills to be dealt with next year and that that is therefore an opportunity to speak broadly about the government's budget bills. Debate on the appropriations may be broad, but it is also specific. It deals directly with the appropriation bills which are part of the budget. Only once can an individual member of this House elected to represent their constituency absolutely and broadly deal with the whole of the government's program. So instead of 20 minutes of this parliament's time, whether here or in the Main Committee, to address that broad program I have to deal with this matter as briefly as possible in 10 minutes in the grievance debate that should be given to other matters.Guillotining of bills is not new to any parliament in the Commonwealth. We have seen it before; we will see it again. But to bring in 20 bills dealing with the goods and services tax for debate within a period of about 20 hours—and, taking out all of the excess, it falls much below that—and to then say that, on this most crucial set of bills being debated cognately, the chance of individual members of parliament who were elected in part either for or against that government program of so-called tax reform should be denied the opportunity to speak on this GST bill is a devastation to the people that they represent.In the electorate of Blaxland I can quite readily say that the result was resoundingly against a goods and services tax. I campaigned very strongly against that tax, as did my Labor colleagues. In Blaxland I achieved a 10.01 per cent swing to Labor, the third highest in Australia. In Villawood, my primary vote was 86 per cent. Running through a series of others, it was in the high 70s, down through the 70s, down to the 60s and then lower. The answer from most of the electorate was that they were resoundingly against a GST. Every individual constituent in Blaxland who voted for me on that basis or on the other program I put forward should rightly expect that I, as their representative, should be allowed to speak on these bills in depth. Every member of the government should be in that position as well. This should not be taken away from them.This is an indication of the entrenchment of prime ministerial and executive government. At the whim of this executive, which the member for North Sydney is now a part of, the right to speak in this parliament on behalf of our electors has been swept away, and will be swept away in the next few days by the guillotine being applied on these major bills. We can understand that happening at the end of a session. When the government has a pile-up of material and they want to get that material through, and quickly, they might stop and they might have to ram that through. In every parliament of the Commonwealth that has happened. But we are at the start of this 39th Parliament.In relation to the GST bills, the government has finally been dragged kicking and screaming to a review in the Senate. That set of Senate committees has to report by 19 April 1999. It is 1998. We have—or should have—until 19 April 1999 the capacity to deal with those bills and debate them in the House of Representatives, the people's house. By the end of this week that will disappear. It will disappear because of the attitude taken by the Leader of the House, the attitude taken by this Prime Minister and the attitude taken by this executive. There is not one single cogent reason for the members of the House of Representatives to have their ability to speak on these bills taken away, given that they are so central and so important.Similarly, the address-in-reply could run for the length of the parliament. Why do they wish to scuttle to Government House by the end of the week with an address-in-reply which is not complete? It will not have the response of the member for Blaxland, it will not have the response of all of those other people on the opposition side who do not have a chance to speak and it will not have the response of all of the members of the government who will be denied their chance to comment on the government's program for this 39th Parliament. I think this is an utter outrage. It is a very stupid approach for this government to take. And it is at the start of this parliament, not at the end.I was elected, in the first instance, on 15 June 1996 at a by-election in Blaxland. The 3 October election was my first full election competing with all the other members of the House of Representatives at once. As I indicated before, the result was an extremely substantial win. I want to thank my wife, Shirley Hatton, for her great forbearance and courage during that whole period of time.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—She is a great lady.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—As Paul Neville indicates, she is. I thank her for her forbearance and courage and for putting up with me during that period of the election, which was so difficult. I have had other difficult periods of time that she has had to put up with, and so I want to personally thank her for going through the hardest time we have had, because this campaign was so hard.I would also like to thank my electorate officer, Veronica Webb, for all of the outstanding work that she has done for me since I was elected and during the campaign period. I thank my campaign team at large and all of the branch members in Blaxland who worked so hard to achieve the magnificent result in Blaxland. I also thank every one of those individual electors who cast a primary vote for the Labor Party in Blaxland or who cast a preferred vote to give us the third highest swing to Labor in Australia.I want to dedicate this win to the memory of my grandmother, Mrs Edith Dooner, who died a few months short of that election. She came to Bankstown in 1924 from the country, from West Wyalong. She came to a Bankstown that was effectively still rural. With her husband, Tom Dooner, she raised nine children during the harshness of the Depression and the second world war. After my grandfather's death in 1952 at an early age, she raised the family on her own. She had great skill, great courage, enormous tenacity and enormous faith in me. So I dedicate this win, which was so good, to my grandmother, and I pledge this, as I pledged to the electors in Blaxland: given the opportunity by this government, I will speak on their behalf in the House of Representatives and outside and put their concerns, their troubles and their difficulties, and take to task the savaging of them by this government in this House. (Time expired)150017:19:001500Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My grievance tonight is based on three premises: that reforms are needed to the Family Court; that the attitudes of people involved in contact enforcement and child welfare monitoring may need to be finetuned; and that the criteria for access to legal aid must ensure that both sides are treated fairly and equally.We have just seen in the last week the passing of reforms to the Child Support Act. But, as I said during that debate, I still do not think they have gone far enough, nor have the various clauses in that act addressed one of the main areas of concern, the Family Court. I welcome initiatives in this legislation which allow non-custodial parents to buy clothing and the like and to have that recognised as part of the non-custodial parent's contribution to the welfare of his or her children. I think that when a non-custodial parent is paying school fees or health insurance or for uniforms they should be recognised, because these things are an integral part of a child's overall quality of life. They also ensure that the non-custodial parent develops a pattern of commitment or, put simply, that they have a say in their child's upbringing and the direction of their children's lives.Returning to the Family Court, I see many instances where one or other party has a case but for a variety of reasons they cannot have access to the court. This is one of the great concerns to me, because it adds to the level of anxiety and frustration with the system which often fuels senseless violence. I see many cases where one parent flagrantly defies court orders in the knowledge that the other parent does not have the means to drag them before the Family Court. Those who do have the means are generally frustrated by the inordinate length of time in having a matter heard. I ask what reasonable chance a non-custodial parent has of establishing and maintaining a healthy ongoing relationship with a young child over a period of time if the period of court wrangling and parent manipu lation deprives that other parent of contact for two or three years.The Attorney-General has raised the proposition of a federal magistracy, established as part of the systemic reform to assist in reducing delays, lack of access and inefficiencies in the Family Court. Magistrates would ideally be located not only in the capital cities but also in the major provincial cities, and they could perhaps go on circuit in country areas. A magistracy would reduce solicitors' expenses, barristers would be less likely to be required, and reduced waiting times would lessen legal costs and would reduce the lost time and wages of litigants.Access to magistrates in regional areas would reduce the litigants' travel and associated expenses. The deliberate frustration of access could be curbed quickly if a federal magistracy were available for prompt and easy recourse. I repeatedly come across cases in my electorate of custodial parents frustrating court appointed access with relative impunity. In such a situation, a federal magistracy would provide the aggrieved parent with a much quicker and more accessible way of taking action than by referral to the full Family Court.I will take this further, as I see far too much manipulation by unprincipled custodial parents who concoct a litany of deceits and provocations to deprive non-custodial parents of receiving full court-appointed custody. This includes things like ringing up the night before the access period and saying, `Oh, the children have the flu,' or `I can't afford the airfare or the bus fare—you'll have to pay for it.' Other such deceits include, during the winter holidays, saying, `I can't afford warm clothing for where you live—you'll have to buy it,' or the psychological pressure of saying, `Well, we were taking the kids to the Gold Coast at that time, but if you want to spoil their holidays you can have them.' Still worse is the outright defiance of a court order by simply refusing to send the children and knowing full well that the mechanism by which some form of discipline is exercised is too remote for the non-custodial parent to access. Those who abide slavishly by the various international declarations and conventions will not like what I am about to say, but I believe that where a custodial parent deprives a non-custodial parent of court appointed custody or access without good reason then for the number of weeks that custody is denied the custodial parent should be deprived of Child Support Agency payments. I feel certain that when some of those manipulative parents realise that a penalty attaches to thumbing their nose at the decisions of the courts, and that their manipulative high jinks might cost them money, many of them would simply comply with the original court decision.The Bundaberg Men's Support Service is a group of non-custodial parents who feel disaffected with the present system and, in particular, are concerned with the perceived focus of the agencies involved—including legal aid, the Child Support Agency, state family services departments and others. I get similar vibes from Gladstone, which is the other major centre in my electorate. I realise that things are sometimes very difficult for the state and federal family services departments to monitor, but I have witnessed a number of cases where the fine line between caution and inaction is blurred.When a non-custodial parent is concerned about the treatment of children by the custodial parent, it seems to take a long time to convince the authorities that the children are in danger. I feel at times that I have almost to suggest some portent of imminent doom before action is taken. I firmly believe that the law should be changed to allow state family services departments a more active role in situations where there is the least suggestion of any sort of physical or emotional abuse or neglect.I have a case which perfectly illustrates the problem with legal aid. Whenever this non-custodial parent seeks legal aid to pull the custodial parent into line and to observe the Family Court's directives, he is frustrated because legal aid is not available to him. But when, after a period of strong suspicion, he identified what appeared to be a prima facie case of abuse against his children and retained them after a visit—having consulted, I might add, the family services department—his former wife had no trouble in getting legal aid and an order which allowed her to pick up the children in a matter of days. For justice to not only be done but be seen to be done, I believe that legal aid must be demonstrated to have an element of equity about it.Another matter of concern to me is that of DNA testing. Clearly, a lot of parents are deprived of contact with their children because the manipulative custodial parent denies the paternity of the father. Many non-custodial parents cannot afford the $600 or $700 required for a test; therefore, they have to languish in the uncertain knowledge that their child is being kept from them. I firmly believe that there should be a simple mechanism whereby a DNA test could be ordered and, if necessary, means tested.Whether the actual funding of these tests should be through a special fund administered by Legal Aid—which is what I would prefer—or through the health system is another consideration for the relevant ministers. Equally, it makes sense that non-custodial parents who are escaping their responsibilities by avoiding DNA testing should be brought to book and made to accept their responsibilities. The uncertainty leads to anxiety, unnecessary confrontation and, by children not being kept by the appropriate parent, economic loss to the Commonwealth.In conclusion, I would like to leave a sobering statistic with the House: in my electorate, 10,146 people are on the books of the Child Support Agency. These people represent about 12 per cent of my constituents, but they make up a staggering 40 per cent to 50 per cent of inquiries to my office. I am not being critical of governments past or present, but it is high time we looked at addressing this issue to provide more equity in people's dealings with the Family Court, Legal Aid and the Child Support Agency, as well as the various family services departments of the states.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations150217:29:001502Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the letter that I made reference to in a personal explanation to the House earlier today.Leave granted.Special Adjournment1502Motion (by Mr Hockey) agreed:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.Cognate bills:Bills1502r703Billsr658Billsr667Billsr666Billsr702Billsr699Billsr698Billsr657Billsr697Billsr665Billsr701Billsr663Billsr659Billsr700Billsr664Billsr6601502Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos 3 to 17.17:30:001502McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a comment briefly on that before we proceed to the cognate debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence extended.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The government and the opposition are still in, shall we say, strenuous negotiations about the arrangements to debate A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and the related bills. One of the matters under discussion is this cognate debate arrangement. It is obviously appropriate that backbench members who speak before this matter is resolved are allowed to participate in a cognate debate because they will not get two chances.The member for Hotham will be opening on behalf of the opposition in this debate. He will be speaking in this instance just about the GST bill. So we will not be regarding his contribution as part of the cognate debate. But, of course, we have no objection to subsequent backbench and other speakers being given licence to range over a cognate debate because that will facilitate their opportunity to contribute to the debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—For the purposes of the debate, the chair needs to determine whether or not there is an objection to the cognate debate. Bearing in mind the comments of the member for Fraser, I rule that there is no objection. The chair will allow the course of a cognate debate to be followed.I should indicate to the House that the member for Hotham has circulated a lengthy amendment that he proposes to move to the legislation. I have determined that it is reasonable for this amendment to be moved. It does not create a precedent in that there have been similar lengthy amendments in the past. It is what I would regard as an action that is not welcomed by the chair but, recognising that there are 16 bills to be dealt with, the chair will allow the amendment circulated by the member for Hotham to be moved. Also, I would want the reading of the amendment, in spite of its length, to be incorporated in the normal time frame allowed for the speech.17:33:001503Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—On indulgence, Mr Speaker, that is a problem. You know that we would prefer there to be much more time for the debate on these bills. I proposed last Friday to the Treasurer a way of dealing with the cognate nature of the bills in groupings. I have not had the courtesy of a response from him, but the Manager of Opposition Business in the House has had negotiations with the Leader of the House. We are placed in a very difficult position because we have had to truncate what should have been an opportunity to address every bill.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am wondering whether the member for Hotham misunderstood my comment. I have no control over the length of time for the total debate, but the 30 minutes allocated to him as leading the opposition's response should include the amendment that he has circulated.17:34:001503Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I simply want to move that it be taken as circulated. I will do that, but I do not want to take up my allocated time reading the full text. In other circumstances I would have been prepared to do that, but not on this occasion. I seek your approval for that course of action.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The reason I indicated this course of action to the member for Hotham was that, far from being obstructive, as I think he will agree, the chair has endeavoured to accommodate a lengthy amendment and felt that the three minutes or so needed to read that amendment would be a reasonable compromise in terms of the total length of the debate, that it would not be unreasonable for him to read that amendment as part of the total length of the debate.17:34:001503Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—If I could get indulgence from the other side of the House to add three minutes, I would happily do it, Mr Speaker. If we are looking for flexibility, to meet your request I would do it, but I do not want to take up three minutes of my speech reading this amendment in. I will be speaking to the contents of it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not want to enter into a debate now. I indicate to the member for Hotham that the chair was extending the accommodation of an amendment larger than would normally be accommodated and did not want lengthy amendments to become the norm. That was the reason for my ruling.17:35:001503Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—On indulgence, Mr Speaker: under the circumstances, I will agree to extend the time allocated to the member for Hotham sufficiently for him to read in the full amendment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the minister for his accommodation, and I expect the member for Hotham does too.17:36:001503Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. The simple impact of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1998 and the related bills that are being debated before this House is that they introduce a new 10 per cent tax on almost everything everyone buys. From children's clothes to the books we read, to the wedding ceremony, to the pain-killers, to the holidays, to the food we eat and to the house that remains the Australian dream—a new 10 per cent tax on all of it.Every minute of every day for the rest of their lives, Peter Costello will have his hand in the pocket of every Australian. If this legislation is rejected by the parliament, the GST will truly become never ever for Australia. But, if we pass it, make no mistake: Australia is stuck with the GST for ever; it will never ever go away. And every time Australians find that hand in their pocket they will know whose it is. Every time small businessmen and women—1.4 million of them—work late at night as government tax collectors, they will know who is keeping them from their families. This will always be Peter Costello's GST. If this bill is passed, the GST will hang around his neck like an albatross every minute of every day for the rest of his political career. No wonder Peter Reith is laughing.The government has no mandate for this GST. It has a mandate to form a government and to present its program to the parliament for debate and decision. That is all. I have a mandate, as does every Labor member in this House and the other chamber, to do everything in my power to stop the GST. That was my promise to the voters of Hotham, and I have no intention of letting them down.The Prime Minister demands a larger mandate. He demands that the Senate has no right to reject the program, even though more than half of all Australians voted against the GST. That was not always his view. In the parliament on 15 September 1987 he spoke of:. . . the simple proposition that when people vote at an election they do not vote on only one issue. The mandate theory of politics from the point of view of proper analysis has always been absolutely phoney.But the role of the Senate was most cogently set out and defended by the member for Flinders on 17 May 1988, when he told the parliament:The fact is that the system of rotation for terms of members of the upper House is a good idea. The mandate is the same but is given at a different point in time . . . This is a fundamental aspect of our system, and it is a sensible system. It has worked well. If senators are bound by any mandate, it is the mandate on which they were elected. In the current Senate that means that 56 of the 76 senators were elected on a mandate to oppose the GST. Twenty-eight ALP senators, seven Democrats, two Greens, Senator Colston and 18 coalition senators were elected in 1996 on John Howard's `never ever' promise. Seventeen of the remaining coalition senators were elected in 1993 to support a GST, but not on food. If the Prime Minister insists on claiming a mandate, he should insist that all senators vote according to theirs.The Senate is an important house of review and the inquiry that the government was forced to accept is the clearest demonstration of that. But we will not be using the inquiry simply to attack the GST; we want to look at the alternatives. The government says a GST is necessary to take the economy forward. We want to show that you can have tax reform without a GST, because Labor supports tax reform. An effective tax system is one which is constantly under review and reform.Labor, in government, has a strong record on both economic management and tax reform. The total composition of Labor governments of 1983 to 1996 could walk onto any international stage and take a collective bow for reconstructing the Australian economy and making it the strongest in the world. Labor, through the accords, cooperatively and comprehensively produced the wage restraint and the sustained lift in productivity that laid the basis for the low inflation underpinning the falling interest rates. It was Labor that broke the back of inflation. When we came to power we inherited a 10.5 per cent underlying rate of inflation, and it was Labor that set the Reserve Bank target to get it down into the two to three per cent range. It was Labor that got the underlying inflation rate within that range in the March quarter of 1992 and kept it there for most of the next four years.Labor produced the huge fiscal consolidation in this nation in the 1980s, and Labor developed a competitive and outward looking economy. We floated the dollar, and that is what has buttressed the economy this time around. We created two million jobs. In short, we left the coalition an economy that even they could not mess up in hurry. And now they want to claim all the credit for interest rates, inflation and economic growth.The recent IMF report that the Treasurer was crowing about dealt with Australia's record over the last seven years. Labor was in government for two-thirds of that time, and our tax system underpinned the totality of it. Labor also, when in office, did restructure the tax system in the mid-1980s—and we did it without a GST. We eschewed a broad based consumption tax but broadened the direct tax base. We also received a mandate from the tax summit of the time, in 1985, to increase the wholesale sales tax, but not on the necessities of life—on food, on clothing or on shelter.The simple truth is that the tax system that we now have is not broken. Revenue is actually increasing, not leaking. In the first four months of this year, revenue was $5.2 billion higher than for the same period last year. This is on a system that is supposed to be broken.As shadow Treasurer I have inherited the tradition of the great economic reforms and sound economic management of the Labor government of 1983 to 1996. It is a tradition that I am proud to continue and one that I will not step back from. I repeat that Labor supports tax reform. We must be constantly reforming, but we have to identify the purpose of that reform. We must identify the constraints to our growth and the market failures. There is no point pretending that market forces work in cases where they do not. We need a tax system that encourages innovation; and that encourages investment in infrastructure, in venture capital and in skills formation. That is where the job opportunities are and where competitive advantage lies. But the tax package of this government does not address any of those. The tax package that Labor took to the last election did.We need a tax system that complements policies and creates jobs. We need a system that encourages welfare to work, building on the tax credits proposals that Labor went to the last election with. We want a fair system and one that discourages tax avoidance. That is what we will be looking to develop in the course of the coming months. The GST is not a fair tax. Try as you might, you cannot make it fair. We found that when we looked at it in 1985. The more you subject this tax package to scrutiny, the more it unravels. That is why the government has not allowed for the proper debate that is necessary in this chamber.We will oppose the GST, but we will use the Senate inquiry and other opportunities to develop and promote alternative tax reform—reform without a GST. Just as Labor got it right in the mid-1980s, so we will lay down the basis for the next round of serious tax reform. We will be looking at issues such as those raised by the five economists. They recognised the importance of tax credits, and I believe they underestimate the flexibility in the existing wage structures for new starters—flexibility through the training wage introduced by Labor, through wage subsidies that Labor was prepared to promote and this government cut, and through the fact that there are significant regional differentials around the award rates that are struck.I have welcomed the five economists' intervention because I think that looking at tax credits to compensate low income earners makes sense. We need to reward people for work—that makes sense, too. That is why we will be continuing to pursue that dimension of our policy. If we can find the means through tax credits to lift real disposable income for low income earners and take pressure off money wage increases, that too is worth investigating.These bills, apart from imposing a 10 per cent tax on almost anything, do not constitute serious tax reform. The GST is inherently unfair. That is why we are committed to totally opposing it. It is a regressive tax. The GST means a massive shift in the tax burden from business to the individual and from the rich to the poor. It is unfair because it disproportionately hurts low and middle income households, especially those with children. These households spend a higher proportion of their income on items that are currently untaxed. These items are not luxuries; they are not discretionary expenditures that families may choose to discontinue if a new tax is put on them. They are the necessities of life. They are the basic services that people need for a decent standard of living.According to the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, less well-off people spend more of their income on housing. Consequently, if housing costs are subject to a new tax, this will impact the most on lower and middle income families. Rent is currently tax free under the wholesale sales tax system; so are basic building materials—bricks, concrete, stone, timber and roofing; and so are basic housing services costs such as electrical services, plumbing services, and home handyman and gardening services. There is a similar pattern of expenditure on the other necessities of life. Fuel and power account for 5½ per cent of the expenditure of the bottom 20 per cent of income earners but only 1.6 per cent of the top 20 per cent. Food takes up 24.6 per cent of the lowest income families' budgets but only 12½ per cent of the best-off families' spending.The Prime Minister does not believe it, though. He told Neil Mitchell on 1 October that `it is the wealthy who buy food'. How out of touch is this man? But not only is the compensation inadequate; there is no guarantee that once this tax is in place, it will stay in place. It did not in New Zealand. The fact is that there will be losers out of this tax package. The compensation package put in is not guaranteed to stay and, as I will point out later, neither is the rate of tax itself. As we saw in New Zealand, it was the compensation package that went quickly out the back door. There will be losers under this tax package. David Vos, tasked by the government to assess it, admitted that `this will be a winners and losers issue'.But the tax is also bad for the economy and jobs. It will slow economic growth and cause job losses. Tony Abbott admitted that the GST is not about generating new jobs. The VECCI chief—the employers' chief—David Edwards, was quoted in the Australian as saying that the GST will not create jobs. A number of economists have cast real doubt as to the job impacts of the GST. Transitional arrangements will cause real problems for the building and motor vehicle industries. Accord ing to one of the studies by a modeller whom the Prime Minister is fond of quoting:Housing investment is likely to be higher initially and then sharply lower. Further out, . . . housing investment will be 2% lower than it would otherwise be for the indefinite future.Motor vehicle industry leaders, too, have predicted a plunge of up to 10 per cent in the level of vehicle sales in the first half of the year 2000.The next point is this: no-one believes the GST rate will not rise. They do not believe it because that is what has happened all round the world. As consumers in countries with a GST know, the rate invariably goes up. In the OECD, 21 out of 23 countries have increased the general rate of their GST, and Switzerland is reportedly about to become the 22nd. Mr Howard pretends that setting the rate at 10 per cent will mean that the rate will not rise. On the contrary, just three examples of other OECD countries show that this proposition is absurd: the United Kingdom introduced their GST at 10 per cent; it is now 17½ per cent. Denmark introduced its GST at 10 per cent; it is now 25 per cent. New Zealand introduced its GST at 10 per cent; it is now 12½ per cent.Even John Hewson does not believe the rate will not rise. He told Glen Milne that it was impossible to give that guarantee. The GST, if passed, will be a Commonwealth tax imposed by ordinary legislation of the Commonwealth parliament. This legislation will be amendable by any future Commonwealth parliament, just like any other piece of legislation. There is only one way to stop the GST rising—stop the GST itself; don't vote it in now.On the question of the 1.9 per cent inflation rate and the compensation package that flows from it, and the assertion of this government that there will be a 100 per cent pass-on of the taxes that are being abolished, the integrity of the entire package depends on 100 per cent of business savings being passed on to consumers, otherwise the 1.9 per cent inflation rate simply does not hold up and the compensation cost will blow out. But no-one believes that the 100 per cent will be passed on. The truth is that it is a fantasy. I offer three simple examples. Mr Sturrock from the car manufacturers said:With all factors equal, a motor vehicle now carrying a recommended retail price of $30,000 will fall to $28,200 with the new tax system.That is a six per cent fall. But the Treasury figures and the government's package are predicated on an 8.3 per cent fall. If they can be so far out in cars, how far out are they in the other aspects of the package? Mark Vaile, another of the government ministers, on fuel tax reductions stated simply that `the majority of savings will be passed on to consumers'. He is not guaranteeing the full 100 per cent pass on. And just last week the banks did not pass on last week's cut in official interest rates immediately and completely. It was a similar circumstance but there was nothing like a 100 per cent pass through.There is further evidence that the 1.9 per cent inflation figure is ridiculously low. For example, the recent GST Premiers Conference agreed that the states will not abolish the stamp duty on some business conveyances for some years to cover the billion dollar-plus blow-out—the mistake that Mr Costello made in estimating the tax package impact on the state budgets. If they underestimated with the states to that extent, what have they underestimated in terms of other aspects of the package? The retention of a state tax will increase the estimated inflation impact.In addition, the effect of the substantial tobacco tax rises in their own package had been deliberately excluded from the figuring by the government. It is as if it has been wished away. This will add around 0.2 per cent to 0.3 per cent to the inflation rate, with prices estimated to rise by over 13 per cent across the industry, according to page 170 of the government's own tax package.The government has fiddled the inflation figures and it has underestimated completely the compensation necessary. In addition to this, consumers are already starting to pay for the GST, even before the GST legislation is passed. The most important example there is car lease costs and the advertisements in newspapers already saying that the prices are going up.One of the most hypocritical aspects of this debate is the transparency of our indirect tax system. The coalition and business community both ran campaigns about the unfairness of hidden taxes but, according to the Treasurer on radio station 6PR, his GST will be `embedded in the price . . . just as goods tax is embedded in the price'. So a $15 billion sales tax is unfair because it is said to be hidden, but a $30 billion GST that is hidden is fair. What hypocrisy by the government! The double standard is obvious and it is unacceptable. But it is much worse because, unlike the wholesale sales tax, it is very simple for the GST to be separately itemised in prices and checkout documents.The Treasurer has taken a policy decision to keep his GST hidden from consumers. This is consistent with his behaviour all along in the tax debate: disclose nothing, hide everything. He would rather retailers cop the blame. At the appropriate time we will be moving an amendment to require on all receipts full disclosure of the GST impact.In ridiculing the wholesale sales tax for its anomalies, as the Treasurer and others do from time to time, they have led us to believe that we were getting an anomaly-free tax package. But we have been producing a litany of examples over the last two weeks demonstrating just where the anomalies are. For example, a pack of 48 Panadeine capsules sold in a pharmacy will be GST free, but a pack of 24 Panadeine capsules sold in the same shop will attract a GST. And that is not an anomaly? I would like to hear what is an anomaly, if that is not supposed to be one. How does this result in a simpler tax system?The government wants us to follow what everyone else is doing on tax, but how are they performing? I quote the Treasurer:In a region where practically every country is in recession. Go through them:Remember this day?Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand.`They are all in recession' he said. But go through them again, Treasurer. Japan—GST; Korea—GST; Thailand—GST; Indonesia—GST; Hong Kong—GST; Singapore—GST; New Zealand—GST. All of them are in recession and all of them have a GST. So who in the region is doing well? To quote Mr Costello again:We would still be . . . outside of China anyway, the strongest growing economy in Asia.Together with the US, the best performing countries in APEC are Australia and China. And they do not have a GST. So where is your argument? Why do it?And what of the other countries the Treasurer seeks to sneer at? Botswana was growing at 4.9 per cent last year. Ghana and Swaziland had growth of three per cent last year. And Pakistan's growth was 1.3 per cent last year, coming off 5.2 per cent in the year before. To be fair to the Treasurer, Ghana did try to introduce a GST in 1995 but, after prices doubled, fierce popular resistance forced the resignation of the finance minister and they gave it away.Now they are actually trying to introduce it again, urged on by the IMF. But, according to the business briefing of the Financial Times, economists fear it will lead to `lower revenues for the state and a one-off inflationary shock'. This is the brave new world of this government—the great new direction into tax reform.The legislation, if you believe the Prime Minister, is the greatest piece of tax reform this century. Yet, for a great piece of reform, its introduction has been marked by secrecy, lies and deception. First, the promise `never ever' from the Prime Minister, and `snake oil' from the Treasurer—their quotes. Then there was the announcement 18 months ago of a great tax adventure, but never any detail—and, by the way, we could not mention the GST in all of that time.Only two weeks before the election, in an announcement timed to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, backed by the lie that everyone would be better off and a refusal to make public the modelling, did we see it. Backed by a massive advertising campaign, funded first by the business community and then by the public, Australians paid millions of dollars for what the Prime Minister described as a referendum on the GST. But it was a referendum without a no case because taxpayers were only allowed to fund one side of the argument. Even then, more than half the population voted no.Even now the government is refusing to release all of the information—the information necessary to make an informed judgment on this package. They were dragged kicking and screaming to a Senate inquiry. We said we needed one committee; the government said none, and now, with their miraculous negotiating, have ended up with four. The Treasurer falsely claims that Labor chairs all four of these committees. We do not. In any event, the chairs of the committees were negotiated by the coalition when in opposition. They were forced to release some of their modelling, but only some. Only last week, the government refused to release the material despite initially losing the vote in the Senate on a return to order.If this is such a good package, why are they trying to hide it and what more have they got to hide? We will demonstrate that through the processes of the Senate because we are being allowed scant time in this place: something less than 18 hours of debate to debate what they have taken 18 months to compile and then only released before the election. If it takes 18 months to compose it, why shouldn't there be more debate allowed in this chamber, particularly when the Senate cannot even consider the legislation—by their own agreement with the government—until 19 April? Why the rush to get this through the House? We see them avoiding the questions in question time and now we see them avoiding the scrutiny of the bills. They want to group them together as a totality in a cognate debate, they want to limit the time on the detail and they want to restrict the opportunity for the opposition to expose this tax for the unfairness that it is.And that is not all: the truth is they said they were going to release the totality of their tax package, but there are huge items missing from what they went to the last election promising to do. We cannot find the detail for the proposition that locks the rate in at 10 per cent. When they are questioned on that, they say, `Oh, that'll be in the next piece of legislation.' Why not now? That is what has got to be scrutinised in the Senate. The more you try and delay this, the more we will squeeze it out of you. We will persist in this regard because the public has a right to know. Where is the detail on the ACCC amendment giving it greater price monitoring powers?Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Oh, that is coming too—so is Christmas, my friend. It is just not appropriate for you to laugh this away when you said that the full details would be before us.Where is the repeal of the provisional tax which they made a great hoo-ha about? Where is the crackdown on trusts? Where are the excise cuts for petrol and diesel? None of this appears, and they are just a few of the examples. The amendment that I will move identifies the totality of those things that we say are missing from this tax package and for which we are calling on the government to produce legislation. Labor will move a series of second reading amendments to the bills in this package and, at the end of my allocated time, I will read in the full amendment I am moving. We will also be taking the opportunity to move a number of detailed amendments to bills in the consideration in detail stage of the bill.The process of debate in this chamber by this government on this package of legislation is totally unsatisfactory. They are doing everything to avoid scrutiny of their legislation, and we will use every opportunity to ensure they get that scrutiny. We will ensure that the processes of the Senate and this House are used to the fullest to ensure that they fess up and to ensure that they demonstrate the full impact of their tax package and the flawed basis upon which it is constructed. (Extension of time granted) This is a very open-ended invitation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will not abuse the process. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) condemns the Government for seeking to introduce a GST which is an unnecessary, unfair, job destroying tax which discriminates against low and middle income earners, the aged and families;(2) condemns the Government for putting at risk the low inflation environment delivered by Labor by proposing to introduce an inflationary GST which will put at risk the low interest rates made possible by low inflation;(3) condemns the Government for placing a higher priority on imposing a GST on Australian families that will make the tax system less equitable, rather than addressing tax avoidance loopholes, which would improve the equity of the tax system;(4) condemns the Government for the hypocrisy of claiming that hidden indirect taxes are unfair merely because they are not separately disclosed to consumers and then proposing a massive new GST which will also be hidden from consumers even though a retail tax can simply be made transparent to consumers; and(5) condemns the Government for granting the GST a higher legislative priority than all of the following related matters which have not as yet been introduced into the Parliament including:(a) those matters listed below which are contingent on the GST package which the Government is hiding from the Australian people and from the Senate Inquiry process such as: (i) the mechanism by which the rate of GST is supposed to be locked in; (ii) the amendments to the Trade Practices Act which will grant the ACCC greater power to police the changeover to the GST regime which the Government claims will result in all of the reductions in Commonwealth and state taxes being passed on to consumers; (iii) excise arrangements for petrol and diesel, involving supposedly retail price neutral shifts in petrol prices and a 25 cent reduction in diesel; (iv) the repeal of the so-called safety net excise arrangements which were implemented after the High Court ruled state business franchise fees to be unconstitutional; (v) the luxury car tax; (vi) the wine equalisation tax; (vii) repeal/Amendment to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme; (viii)the First Home Buyers Scheme; (ix) the guaranteed distribution of GST Revenue to the states; and (x) the $500 million GST start-up package for small business.(b) Those related taxation/equity matters which are not contingent on the GST but which should be made available to the Australian people for their consideration including: (i) providing a Fringe Benefits Tax Exemption for remote area housing provided to employees in the mining industry; (ii) the repeal of Commonwealth Local Government Funding Legislation; (iii) changes to childcare assistance; (iv) excise arrangements for tobacco; (v) the entity taxation regime involving taxing companies, trusts, life insurance etc under one common set of arrangements; (vi) the business taxation measures involving the deferred company tax (ie full franking of all dividends) and the possible changes to the corporate rate and business concessions arrangements; (vii) the new employer withholding arrangements which will replace the PAYE, PPS and RPS systems; (viii) share buy-backs and liquidations; (ix) extending capital gains tax relief and the retirement exemption for small business; (x) limiting the existing Fringe Benefits Tax Exemption for non-profit organisations to $17,000 gross-up value for each employee; (xi) the anti-avoidance legislation addressing complex chains of trusts; (xii) the repeal of provisional tax and the introduction of the new Pay As You Go tax payment arrangements; (xiii) the changes to the timing of company tax arrangements; and (xiv) refundable imputation credits".5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.18:10:001510Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—The 16 goods and services tax bills we are debating today will usher in a new tax system for Australia, a tax system which is well and truly overdue, a tax system for the new century. Australia's current tax system is complex, confusing, inefficient, inconsistent and unfair. It is in need of fundamental reform. This government is committed to bringing about such reform.The problems of Australia's tax system are multiple and well known. Average income earners face high marginal tax rates, with a person on average weekly earnings paying 43 cents tax on every additional dollar they earn. The interaction of the tax and social security systems creates unfair anomalies and disincentives to work. Indirect taxes are complex, hidden and counterproductive. Business taxation arrangements are overly complex and also give rise to avoidance opportunities.Before the last election, the government announced a detailed and comprehensive plan to address these problems and shortcomings. The government took its plan to the electorate and won a majority of seats in this House. The government's plan, which is embodied in these bills, touches most parts of the tax system. It involves income tax cuts, better integration between income tax and social security, business tax reform, changes in tax administration and an overhaul of Commonwealth-state financial relations.Unsurprisingly, however, given the history of tax reform in Australia and the position of the Australian Labor Party, considerable attention has been given to the reform of indirect taxes. The rationale behind the reform of Australia's indirect tax system—if indeed it is possible to classify the maze of Commonwealth and state indirect taxes as a system at all—is a substantial one. The current system involves multiple indirect taxes, many of which are themselves levied at multiple rates creating unnecessary complexity and distorting economic activity. The existing indirect tax base is limited and diminishing as a portion of overall economic activity, placing increasing pressure on government revenues and other revenue sources.Various indirect taxes levied by the states and territories are not only inefficient, but in many cases are also regressive. Reform in these areas is vital. There are of course other important advantages of indirect tax reform. Today I want to touch briefly on the importance of indirect tax reform for Australia's balance of trade and its current account.Under Australia's existing arrangements, indirect taxes—wholesale sales tax, fuel excises, taxes on financial transactions and various state stamp duties—impact on the cost of production for Australian industries. While it is generally the case that exporters do not directly charge WST on their sales and can get limited exemptions from WST on their immediate business inputs, some part of Australia's indirect tax burden inevitably creeps into their production costs. This occurs through the application of wholesale sales tax to indirect business inputs—for example, office furniture and transportation costs—through the so-called `cascading' of WST down the supply chain, and through the incidence of other indirect taxes.The Institute of Chartered Accountants has estimated that the export price of Australian made goods is prejudiced by as much as nine per cent, with an average in the area of five per cent, because of indirect taxes imposed on business costs. The Commonwealth Treasury has estimated that the indirect tax changes outlined in the government's tax reform plan will reduce costs on Australia's exporters by $4.5 billion, or by about 3.5 per cent. This change will make a positive contribution to the position of Australian exporters in highly competitive international markets. In simple terms, Australian products will become cheaper and, as a result, we will be able to sell more of them.But it is not only our exporters who are disadvantaged by Australia's indirect tax regime. Our import competing industries are also affected. Most of Australia's trading partners opted long ago to ditch their wholesale sales tax systems and now operate some version of a goods and services or value added tax. In most cases, these regimes allow for the rebating of all sales taxes levied on business inputs and do not levy tax on exports. Such foreign goods compete in Australia against goods which not infrequently carry a substantial hidden sales tax burden.The net effect of these rather perverse tax arrangements is to reduce the competitiveness of Australian exports and increase the competitiveness of foreign exports into Australia. These arrangements work as a kind of `negative tariff' on both imports and exports. The government's plan addresses this competitive barrier facing Australian industry.Under the plan, GST levied on the cost of business inputs will be fully rebateable. No GST will be levied on exports. GST will be charged at 10 per cent on imports to Australia, the same rate of tax as will apply to domestically produced goods. This will put Australia's exporters and import competing industries on a level footing with their international competitors and make a positive contribution to the balance of trade and the current account.It is sometimes argued by economists that such improvements in international competitiveness and the balance of trade will be short lived and that the improvement in our trade position will lead to an appreciation in the currency which will offset improvements in our competitiveness in export markets.I was very interested to read such an argument recently, on an Internet site prepared by the Australian Labor Party. It is a worthwhile effort and it is very important that they should put some stuff on their Internet sites rather than vandalising the Liberal Party's. The relevant article, imaginatively titled `Economic Snake Oil: The Oversold Advantages of a GST', puts the argument in the following terms:In fact, the competitive advantage from the introduction of a GST or VAT will be offset over time by a rise in the exchange rate. What exporters might gain from a GST, they lose over time from an increase in the price of the Australian dollar.I must confess that sometimes I treat the economic arguments advanced by the Labor Party a little bit lightly, and I am afraid I was also tempted to treat the shadow treasurer's description of the enormous achievements that Labor made over 13 years even more lightly. But this particular argument did catch my attention.In fact, it is a mirror image of Paul Keating's famous J-curve—an inverted J-curve. We all remember that Mr Keating had a fantastic way with words and, for a little while, the J-curve did catch the public imagination and entered into the lexicon. No sooner did that happen, than Mr Keating decided he would be better off not speaking about it again and it vanished from the lexicon. But the simple fact is that the exchange rate is a much more complex creature than economic purists would have us believe. Nonetheless, even if we take economists at their word and accept that any improvement in competitiveness would be offset—in that lovely economists' phrase—`over time' by an appreciation in the exchange rate, Australia would still be better off.The current account is about a lot more than just imports and exports. It also reflects significant financial flows, particularly the servicing of accumulated debt. An appreciated exchange rate makes this task much easier. It also lowers the cost of imported capital goods or intellectual property. This is important, not just from an abstract economic perspective, but in terms of Australia's economic and employment growth and long-term economic prospects.The Leader of the Opposition has often criticised the government's tax plan on the basis of a partial, incomplete and partisan analysis. Not only does he treat the GST as though it was being introduced in isolation—rather than as part of a comprehensive plan for the reform of Australia's tax system—but he also overlooks its capacity to contribute to reducing a major barrier to economic growth and job creation—a barrier he knows about quite well.On 31 August 1995, the Leader of the Opposition, in his former role as the Minister for Finance, delivered a speech to the Economist Intelligence Unit, titled `Managing the Long Upswing'. In that speech, the Leader of the Opposition said:What we want as a nation, and what we are working steadily towards is sustained high jobs growth and low interest rates for Australia . . . There are challenges in this process . . . Historically, Australia has found it difficult to put together the low interest rates/high growth equation in a sustained way. Deficits on the current account have at different times been a serious constraint and are again today . . . A current account deficit is no bad thing in itself. Australia has almost always had one . . . The problem is when the current account deficit gets too high . . . In the past, Australia's current account deficit has tended to shoot up when growth did. This was usually followed by increased interest rates to stop demand spilling over into too many imports. In other words, the current account imposes a speed limit which prevents the economy from growing as quickly as it otherwise might. Given that economic growth is the major generator of employment, anything that contributes to easing the current account speed limit would be highly beneficial. The government's reforms will make such a contribution.The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are, however, proposing to block them for reasons which seem to have more to do with politics than with jobs. But then Labor has always played politics with the GST since it abandoned option C in 1985. In 1993 and 1998 Labor adopted a policy of blanket opposition to the coalition's tax reforms. Nonetheless, Mr Keating said that, if defeated, the Labor Party would not oppose the passage of the reforms through the Senate. The current Leader of the Opposition, on the other hand, said that if Labor were defeated, it would continue to oppose the passage of the GST.Mr Keating wanted to put up maximum barriers against losing government. His successor wanted to lay the groundwork for a populist second-term agenda in opposition.The outcomes of the elections were different. In 1993 Labor won and was faced with the reality that it could not sustain its promises. Labor increased taxes and, from the 1993 budget on, the Keating government's credibility and standing were terminally damaged. In 1998 Labor lost the election, so it does not have to face Mr Keating's dilemmas but it does have to confront quite substantial problems of a different sort—the problems flowing from the political consequences of obstructionism.There has been much discussion about the notion of a mandate since the election, and the shadow treasurer continued that discussion today. I personally gave up political philosophy some time ago when I was asked, `Is that wall really there?' but it seems to me that the ultimate mandate in Australian politics is bestowed by winning a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. This gives a party the authority of government and the capacity to pass legislation through the House. This authority is diminished when, as in the case of the Keating government, it is used to overturn the government's fundamental campaign commitments.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—You used to work for Malcolm Fraser. How can you say that?HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—Well, listen very carefully in that case. It is enhanced when used to implement such commitments. This is what this government is doing in the case of the tax reform package. The government made its intentions clear to the electorate during the campaign and won a majority of seats in this House. It now has the unambiguous responsibility to implement the platform on which it stood and on which it was elected. It is doing so.The problem for Labor is that its response, day by day, falls into the trap of political negativism and obstructionism. The simple meaning of that is opposition for its own sake. I believe that the Australian people concede a wide role for oppositions, but they will not wear obstructionism.The fact is that Labor is not just opposing the GST but also opposing broader tax reform which is seen as important in itself and long overdue. Labor is opposing income tax cuts, worth $13 billion, which will see over 80 per cent of Australians having a marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less. Labor is opposing family tax measures which provide real benefits to families with children. Labor is opposing the abolition of wholesale sales tax.Beyond this, Labor's ability to play politics with the tax reform package has been fundamentally undermined by its obstruction of the government's 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance. This obstruction is not justified by policy good sense nor by political imperatives nor by campaign declarations. The private health insurance rebate will put cash in people's pockets where it is needed. The good sense of the rebate is there in terms of taking the burden off public hospitals, and it is widely appreciated.Overall, as a consequence of Labor's actions, I believe that the public is rapidly being persuaded that not only does Labor not have any policies but its only mission is obstructionism—obstructionism designed to destroy popular and effective measures proposed by this government. I believe the Australian people will punish Labor for this. I commend the bills to the House.Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:001513Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and cognate bills before the House tonight are amongst the most pernicious pieces of taxation legislation this House has ever considered. They are harshly regressive in impact. They are very bad for most small businesses. They tackle yesterday's tax problems to the extent that they will ameliorate problems in the taxation system. They are addressed to problems that used to exist or problems that are increasingly going to be irrelevant to the real issues that we face in dealing with systemic taxation problems. They do not deal with tomorrow's problems—the problems that are coming down the track. They are designed to ensure that a fiscal straitjacket encumbers all future national governments—prevents them from being able to pursue national agendas in areas such as health, education and transport in order that these areas are left up to the states. Indeed, they also place something of a uniformity straitjacket around the states at the same time.This should come as no surprise to students of history. This is the traditional role of the Liberal Party and the National Party in Australian politics. If we look back through the past, we will see numerous examples of taxation legislation, particularly in the early stages of a new government, that have been introduced specifically for the purpose of inducing a redistribution of the tax burden away from the better off to the worse off in our community.For example, in 1950 the Menzies government introduced steps into the income tax scales rather than the continuous progression that had prevailed before. They also replaced the previous system of rebates with tax deductions. Both of these initiatives designed to favour the better off. In 1977 the then relatively new Fraser government introduced substantial changes to the income tax system by cutting the top marginal rate and reducing the number of steps from seven to four. The net effect of these changes was substantially regressive. They diminished the income tax burden on better off taxpayers and increased the burden, in effect, on lower income earners. So the Liberal Party and the National Party have a lot of form in this area. They are playing true to form in the legislation before the House tonight.This is all about rewarding the better off in the community, the people who predominantly vote for them, and it is all about hitting the lower income sections of the community, the people who predominantly do not vote for them. That is precisely what this legislation is doing. If you look at their own figures, you will see that they estimate that a person on $20,000 a year or thereabouts will be roughly $1.20 per week better off as a result of this legislation, as a result of the shift in the tax mix from direct to indirect taxes. They also say that people on salaries of around $80,000 a year will be better off by about $75 per week—people such as members of this House.Even if you accept their figures—and we do not; we say that people at the lower end of the scale will actually be substantially worse off as a result of the changes that they are introducing—at face value, that in itself demonstrates the extreme regressivity of this tax package. A GST by itself is regressive but, when you use the proceeds to give massive income tax cuts to people at the higher end of the scale, then you compound that regressivity.Their proposals mean that 52 per cent of the net value of their tax cuts are going to go to the top 20 per cent of income earners in this community. The only defence they can offer to this is wrapped up in the word `incentive'. They say that, if you reduce the tax burden on higher income earners, people will have more incentive to work, to save and the like. There are many studies on this issue and they produce conflicting results. There is no clear proof that increasing the returns to higher income earners through less taxation will produce more incentives for people to work. It is amusing to note Tim Fischer's defence of this particular position when, during the election campaign, he told his no doubt bemused audience that the reason the bulk of the tax cuts were going to higher income earners was that `we're not communists'. We are all very pleased that Tim has cleared up that confusion. Anybody out there who was actually worried that he was a communist can now feel safe that he is actually not a communist. But the implication in his statement is that any form of substantial redistribution from wealthy people, from well-off people and from higher income earners to those people who are battling, to those people who do not have lots of money, is, by definition, communism according to his term.Under Labor, as in the rest of the Western world over the 1980s and early 1990s, market incomes did grow more unequal because of market pressures. But, under Labor, as research by people like Ann Harding has found, the effect of that was counterbalanced by the action of government over that time. What this government is doing in contrast is throwing petrol on the raging flames of the fire of inequality, which is already substantially growing, rather than putting in place the social wage measures to effectively restrain that growing inequality.The GST is also going to be a nightmare for many small businesses. Many will have a very complex stocktake process they will have to go through in order for the changeover to occur so they know which of their particular goods already in stock will not have a GST applying to them. There is a built-in bias in favour of large businesses who will get the bulk of the benefit from their ability to hold the cash that is given to them courtesy of the GST and earn interest off that cash, even though there is a provision for differential times.Because the GST is effectively a tax on a margin, there is a bias built in for big businesses like Coles-Myer as against your small local milk bar, as was very ably demonstrated by the honourable member for Kingston in an MPI debate on this issue late last week. Because those businesses, by definition, have to run higher margins because they are much smaller—they are usually family businesses—they are going to see their competitiveness vis-a-vis the big businesses who are engaged in selling the same products eroded because of the effect of the GST.I note with some amusement that the $500 million package that is supposedly going to be provided as start-up assistance for small businesses to implement the GST is not dealt with in this legislation. We look forward to it appearing at some stage. There is no question that, for many businesses, this will be inadequate. When you add the problems they will have with respect to the introduction of the GST to the problems such as the year 2000 difficulty, you will see that many small businesses are going to have a prolonged nightmare with the introduction of this legislation.It is also claimed by the government that this change to the tax system will produce $3 billion worth of revenue courtesy of the fact that the so-called black economy is captured. It is worth noting that experience elsewhere suggests that this is a fanciful claim. Avoidance of GST equivalents in Europe—in countries like Spain, Italy and Germany—is rampant. What this legislation ignores is that the problems that are emerging, such as with Internet commerce and such as with the proliferation of personal services—an increasingly substantial component of our economy—are not addressed by a GST; they are in fact exacerbated by it. We have got substantial difficulties on the taxation front as a result of the changing structure of our economy. The GST is an answer to yesterday's problems. It is not an answer to the problems that are coming down the track; it is not an answer to the issues that we have to deal with—it is an answer to yesterday's problems.Avoidance, which will proliferate with the GST, is also going to make the GST more regressive. In terms of the different types of goods and services that people buy, consider the typical household budget of a low income family. What it does not include is things like Internet commerce. What it does not include is things like personal services: nannies and gardeners and all those sorts of things. All those are things which it will be easy to avoid a GST on. But what it does include is rent, what it does include is supermarket purchases and what it does include is school books and all of these basic things where the GST will not be avoidable. So the problem of avoidance, which will be substantial, is going to further compound the regressivity that is already inherent to this proposal.The overall structure and architecture of this taxation scheme are designed to create a fiscal straitjacket for future national governments, in particular future Labor governments. It proposes to guarantee all of the GST revenue to the states in lieu of a basket of state taxes. It is notable that this guarantee is not legislated. In fact, apparently it is referable indirectly to the 13 November agreement which the Commonwealth concluded with the states. If it is ever challenged in court, that agreement should raise some very interesting and peculiar issues of statutory interpretation, especially when you have got some states which have recorded their disagreement with particular issues in the agreement itself.It also raises questions about what will occur if changes are subsequently made to the horizontal fiscal equalisation principle. Changes have in fact been mooted in this context. It may well then render this commitment to the states completely invalid. The government estimates that the replacement of the financial assistance grants by the GST revenue will produce a net positive flow to the states of $370 million in the year 2003-04, $1.25 billion net positive to the states in 2004-05 and ultimately an additional $7 billion to the states. The states quibble with these figures. New South Wales thinks there will be two years, between 2002-03 and 2004-05, when they will be left in the lurch. Clearly the Commonwealth has failed to deal with that issue. Nonetheless, in the longer term, if the government's figures are correct or even vaguely correct, there will be a substantial net increase in money going to the states.This will mean that there will be ongoing and mounting pressure on other Commonwealth payments to the states, particularly specific purpose payments. Forty-six per cent of current payments by the Commonwealth to the states consist of specific purpose pay ments. It is about $15 billion at the moment. These cover things like health, schools and local government—a whole range of particular specific purpose payments. If there is legislation guaranteeing that to the states, as the GST revenue rises the Commonwealth, particularly as it is facing an ageing population and an increased burden on social security payments, is going to get squeezed. Where is that squeeze going to be manifested? I will tell you where it will be manifested: it will affect specific purpose payments to the states. If there is still a conservative government—which we hope there will not be—the Commonwealth will turn around and say, `We are now letting you have all this GST revenue, so we're going to cut back on the specific purpose payments.'It is designed to produce this outcome. That is precisely the objective. It is designed to ensure that future governments will be forced to retreat from national agendas in areas like health, education and transport. In an era when even conservatives, even employer organisations, are seeing the need for things like a national agenda in areas such as curriculum, it is just an absurdity that we should be creating a fiscal straitjacket that is designed specifically to preclude that and to force these issues back to the states—back to the bad old days when six different things happened on one front and where you had all the problems associated with differential approaches being taken when what was really needed was a national approach.The regressive effect that is inherent to this package is compounded by the inadequacy of the compensation and the arrangements being made with respect to price monitoring. The four per cent increase being offered for pensioners is in fact a half a per cent increase. It has been double counted with the 3½ per cent increase that was automatically going to be theirs because of the nexus with average weekly earnings—25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The GST compensation, so-called, will automatically be gobbled up to a significant extent by increases in rent for public tenants.Mr Hockey interjecting—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—That is the absolute literal truth, because their rental rates are related to their incomes, so the rent rates will automatically go up.Self-funded retirees, people in some cases in their late fifties, are being given $3,000 to compensate them for the impact of the GST. These people, who have paid income tax for many years and have had their tax based on their earnings for many years, suddenly face, at the time when they are shifting from a period when they are earning a lot to a period when they are actually spending a lot, the fact that suddenly the tax regime is shifting to spending. They are getting $3,000 for what could be 30 years or more of expenditure. That $3,000 is not going to compensate them for very much.On the question of the government's assumptions, if you actually look at some of the detail here and at some of the figures that were published in the election, you will see that they assume that for certain levels of income, certainly ordinary income earning categories, an extra child in the family will increase their GST burden at the rate of 30c a week—30c a week. That is a very cheap child. That is a child that presumably is locked away in a cupboard with no clothes and no food. That is an absurdity. The government's assessments about the compensation and about the net outcomes for people in this whole new arrangement for taxation are based on absurd calculations that defy commonsense, defy reality and defy the experience of the ordinary individual.This GST package is inherently regressive and inherently unfair, and it is made doubly so by some of its specific features. It has massive tax cuts for the wealthy. It is a huge burden for many small businesses. It will not tackle the problem of avoidance and, in fact, the avoidance problem will exacerbate the regressivity that is inherent to the package. It is designed to preclude future federal governments from being able to pursue national agendas on issues like health and education which, in themselves, are a very important means of contributing to reducing inequality and disadvantage in our community.Many journalists criticised Labor for not supporting tax reform. We do not support what people opposite call tax reform. We do not see that as tax reform; we see that as tax regression. We do not see it as addressing the key issues that are problems in our tax system at the moment—the interplay between the social security system and the tax system, insufficient incentives to work, problems with people going into the higher marginal rates, and those sorts of things. We sought to address those issues in the election, and a majority of the Australian community voted against the GST. A very substantial majority of the Australian community voted for parties in the Senate which explicitly opposed the GST.We are going to fight to the end on this issue. We support tax reform, but this is not tax reform—this is tax regression; this is going back to the bad old days. This is precisely what the conservative parties in this country have always stood for. It is throwing more fuel on the flames of inequality in our community. Inequality is a very serious problem which is growing despite the best efforts of the previous government. It will continue to grow and it will ultimately overwhelm this country, which has traditionally prided itself on being decent, civilised, egalitarian and compassionate. We cannot afford this legislation in Australia. It will set us back decades.20:16:001517Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—It is interesting to listen to those opposite huff and puff and claim that the tax system which this government inherited is in some way fair and equitable for Australia as we approach the next millennium. Everyone knows that the taxation system in this country is in dire need of fundamental reform. Everyone accepts that it is entirely inappropriate that, in a couple of years time, people on close to average weekly earnings will find themselves in the top marginal tax rate. It is also entirely inappropriate that the 1930s tax system which we have in Australia, and which has been abandoned by virtually every other country in the world, should continue to be the tax system we have. It is now an impediment to Australia's ability to compete internationally for job creating investment.Let us get back to the facts. Our government is introducing a tax system for which it has a mandate. Before the election, we announced to the Australian people that we believed it was necessary to have real, meaningful, fundamental and equitable tax reform in Australia. The Prime Minister outlined a number of benchmarks against which tax reform would be judged. When the tax plan was announced prior to the election, there was national debate over the various matters included in it. We all know—and the opposition has criticised the fact—that there are substantial income tax cuts to benefit Australians.We believe that lower tax rates create incentive. They create the opportunity for businesses to grow and invest and, most importantly, they assist in the creation of real long-term jobs. We abolish 10 taxes, including the unfair, inequitable and arbitrary wholesale sales tax. We have a compensation package for people in receipt of pensions and benefits. Prior to the introduction of the goods and services tax, there will be a four per cent boost in pensions and benefits. There is a guarantee that the rate of pensions and benefits will stay at least 1½ per cent above the price impact of inflation.It is also interesting to note that independent Treasury calculations said that the price impact of our tax plan will merely be a 1.9 per cent increase in inflation. When one looks at the four per cent boost in pensions and benefits and the guarantee that pensions and benefits will stay 1½ per cent above the cost of any rate of inflation, it is very clear that the government has kept its pledge to make sure that people who are in need of compensation receive it.The Sunshine Coast, like many other areas throughout the nation, strongly supported the government's plan for tax reform. Over the years, politics has not been well served by the way in which one party opposes reform plans of the other. In the 1980s, the Labor Party knew there was a need for a broad based consumption tax. We all remember option C. We all recall how then Treasurer Keating and the people who are currently in very senior positions in the ALP supported the principle of what was effectively a GST.In 1993, we brought forward a tax plan and sought the backing of the people at that time. The Labor Party was entirely hypocritical in that, while in the 1980s it had supported the principle of a GST, it opposed our proposals in 1993. In 1998, this government, led by this Prime Minister, had the courage to stand before the Australian people, bringing forward a very broad based raft of meaningful reforms and seeking the support of the Australian people for it. When we got that support, the Labor Party said, in effect, `We know you won the election. We know the people of Australia voted for you to have this mandate, but we are seeking to thwart the will of the people.'The Labor Party reform plans were merely to fiddle at the edges. However, they wanted to grab the assets of senior Australians retrospectively. They wanted to bring in a retrospective capital gains tax, despite the fact that in 1985, when the capital gains tax was introduced by the Labor Party, they said that all assets owned at the time of the introduction of the capital gains tax would not be brought within its reach. But in 1998, the Labor Party paid very heavily because the people of Australia decided that that was not the appropriate way to go. The Labor Party also considers that the wholesale sales tax, which is levied at seven rates from zero up to 45 per cent, is somehow fair. It is completely arbitrary, outdated and unfair and it is destroying our future in many areas.The Labor Party's approach to tax reform was to bring in a few tax credits. Most people believe that those tax credits were poorly targeted, unfair and inequitable. Labor said that they wanted to tax jets and caviar, and yet they believe it is in some way appropriate that items which are currently taxed should remain taxed and items which are free of the wholesale sales tax net should remain free.Let us look at some of the exemptions to the wholesale sales tax. Recently the Australian Taxation Office was involved in a ruling that frozen yoghurt was exempt from whole sale sales tax as long as it was above a certain temperature or pH level. This kind of nonsense is outdated and not accepted by the Australian people. On 3 October when the election was held the people of Australia voted against the system we have at the moment and they voted for our tax plan, which will see 10 taxes abolished, including the wholesale sales tax, substantial income tax cuts and compensation for those people in the Australian community deserving of compensation.The new tax system will deliver income tax cuts worth $13 billion. Marginal income tax rates for ordinary workers will be reduced dramatically. It was interesting to listen to the honourable member for Melbourne when he tried to maintain that it is somehow in the interests of Aussie battlers for the current tax rates to remain in place.Mr Martin interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The shadow minister ought not to interject; he ought to stand up and apologise for being part of a party which sought to retrospectively tax with a capital gains tax the assets owned by Australians.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Vulnerable old Australians.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—As the minister at the table says, they were striking at vulnerable old people, and those people reacted very dramatically when the Labor Party was not elected on 3 October.It should be noted that, following the introduction of the tax plan, the top marginal tax rate for 81 per cent of taxpayers will be 30 per cent or less. That is a very major step forward. The minister at the table is one of the very strong supporters in the government of this tax plan.It is important to recognise that our tax system ought to clamp down on tax cheats and those people who do not pay their fair share, and that will indeed happen under our tax plan. I am particularly disappointed that the Labor Party has sought to frustrate the decision of the Australian people. This is a very good plan. It is a very substantial plan. It is a plan which was overwhelmingly supported by the people of Australia. Yet, regrettably, we find that the Labor Party is prepared to do absolutely anything to prevent the implementation of this real and meaningful tax reform. If we are not successful in bringing our plan into legislative effect it will be many years before another government is again prepared to grasp the nettle, to stand up and be counted, and seek the support of the Australian people.One aspect of our plan that I do want to mention in particular is the very many benefits for small business. On the Sunshine Coast, which I am privileged to represent in this parliament, small business is very important. Small business is the engine room of the Australian economy and it is responsible for the creation of an enormous percentage of jobs in this country. The Labor Party will be interested in this: small business costs will be reduced by three per cent after our income tax reforms. Other benefits will also flow to small business. Payment arrangements for the GST will deliver a cash flow benefit to most businesses. For businesses with sales less than $50,000, registration as a GST payer will be optional. Tax payments will be streamlined to a simple pay-as-you-go system of regular instalments. Most businesses will make only one payment each quarter on one form for all their taxes. Paperwork involved in registration and reporting will be cut.Up to $500 million in financial assistance for small and medium sized businesses will reduce the start-up costs of a GST. Cost to exporters will fall 3.5 per cent and Australian exporters will gain some $4½ billion a year. Most importantly, provisional tax and the provisional tax uplift factor will be abolished. The government will consult with business on the taxation treatment of business investment with the prospect of further capital gains tax relief and movement towards a company tax rate of 30 per cent.The Labor Party has spent some time in this debate seeking to criticise the regime that will be in place to ensure that price reductions are passed on. The minister at the table will be responsible for legislation which will ensure that the people of this country will receive the flow on benefits from our tax reform. This government is absolutely determined to ensure that there is no profiteering and that the benefits that will flow right through the community are in fact received by consumers.The principal manner of this occurring will be through the impact of competition, but we will, through certain amendments to be introduced into the parliament, have provisions in place which will ensure that profiteering, should it occur, will be met with the full force of the law. Independent retirees will receive benefits, as will aged people. Families will be given new opportunities as a result of this legislation.Part of our tax plan included the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, a policy strongly supported by my constituents. I want to place on the record my very strong urging of the opposition to accept that people in all electorates, both those held by the coalition and those held by Labor, believe in the private health insurance rebate. When one looks at the percentages of the community in various electorates who are covered by private health insurance, it is clear that many Labor electorates have a very high proportion of private health insurance coverage. Indeed, the battlers of Australia are the people who are scrimping and saving and struggling to pay their private health insurance, but regrettably they are the people whom the Labor Party wants to kick in the teeth through its refusal to accept our mandate to bring in the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.This rebate would make it possible to put a platform under the decline in the percentage of the Australian community covered by private health insurance. It would make sure that many people who were currently finding it extremely difficult to stay in a private health insurance system would be able to do so. It ought to be noted also that a healthy private health system ensures a healthy public health system.The legislation before the chamber is a broad change to Australia's tax system. The Prime Minister and the government have displayed great courage in being prepared to stand up prior to the election and say that we believe that Australia deserves better as we approach the next century. Our tax plan contains the scrapping of 10 Labor taxes, including the wholesale sales tax. It includes dramatic reductions in personal income tax. It includes a reduction in fuel tax. It includes fair compensation packages for those people who are deserving of compensation, including recipients of pensions and other beneficiaries, as well as retirees. This is a fair package. It is a package for which the Australian people voted and I would urge the Labor Party to respect the mandate of the government to bring in this new tax system as we approach the next millennium.20:32:001520Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—A bit over three years ago, John Howard told all Australians there was no way he would introduce a goods and services tax. He said, on 2 May 1995:A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.Yet here we are debating the tax that we were never ever going to have, with the government proposing to put it through the Senate using the vote of a senator it was never ever going to accept. It is precisely this kind of conduct that causes present day cynicism about politics and politicians, where a government promises no GST and then says, `Yes, let us have a GST.' It says it is not going to use the vote of Senator Colston and then says, `We need the vote of Senator Colston, therefore we are prepared to accept it.'It ought to be noted that the Senate was elected back in 1996 and that half of the senators elected then continue to serve. This government is intent on getting this legislation to a Senate that at least in half measure was elected on the basis of both government and opposition senators saying they would never ever support a GST. Those are the kinds of political standards being shown by this government, bringing this House into disrepute as a result.The GST is one of the most regressive, unfair pieces of legislation ever to be introduced into this House. It is a tax from the big end of town to slug the small end of town, a tax that will forever change financial relations between our three levels of government for the worse, a tax that will rise and rise, a tax that will do nothing for employment creation and a tax that involves in part some $13 billion in tax cuts, of which 52 per cent will go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. We see here the Liberal Party agenda exposed for what it has always been—an attempt to transfer money away from those who are not well off, away from battlers and the disadvantaged, towards those who are already well off.When this government came in they said, `We have this terrible black hole—a $10 billion black hole—and as a result we are going to have to slug ordinary Australians.' They did that in abandoning the Dental Health Care program, increasing the HECS charges and taking the money out of nursing home capital upgrades and the like. Now, when there is a projected $5 billion to $7 billion surplus, what do they say? They do not say, `Let us put the money back into those programs.' Instead we see some $6.6 billion of income tax cuts going to the top 20 per cent of income earners in this country. So we see this government and this Liberal party doing what it has always done—transferring wealth away from those who have less towards those who already have more.This piece of legislation has come to this House through fraud. Amongst other things, we saw some $17 million worth of taxpayers' funds used to advertise the government's program, with no allowance for a `no' case. If this election were a referendum on the GST, then the government would have lost it with over 51 per cent of the voters on a two-party preferred basis preferring Labor. Equally significant was that only one side of the argument was funded by taxpayers. Some $17 million was used to promote the government's case. As part of that production, they put out this booklet called Tax reform—Not a new tax, a new tax system, and this was distributed to every Australian household—at their expense.If you go and have a look at the figures in it, you will find, for example, at page 11 reference made to senior Australians, and in particular a happy and smiling Marj and Dave, said to be $23 a week better off after the GST. If you turn over to page 12, you will find Doug and Betty, the self-funded retirees, who are said to be $18 a week better off after the GST. And they too are smiling.Perhaps they would not be smiling so much if they were aware that, in the calculations that the Treasury used to arrive at these figures, firstly no allowance was made for the abolition of the savings rebate. That is to say, the $2 billion which had been earmarked for savings rebates of up to $450 per annum for those who were eligible for them. These would have been potentially of benefit to pensioners and self-funded retires. The government proposed as part of its tax package to abolish the savings rebate and is proceeding to do so. But no allowance for that has been made in the calculations on pages 11 and 12, and there is no reference anywhere in this booklet to the fact that the savings rebate was going to disappear.Secondly, the government made no allowance for the application of the assets test. If you look at their assumptions, they have simply assumed that neither Marge nor Dave, neither Doug nor Betty, nor any other aged pensioner or self-funded retiree, will be subject to the assets test. That is a pretty far-fetched assumption in my view and it is one which, once again, was not presented in this booklet. So nobody looking at this booklet would have understood, on the face of it, that the assets test was not being taken into consideration.Thirdly, the government talked about the aged persons savings bonus and included that in the calculations. So, when they said you would be $20 a week or $18 a week better off, as the case may be, they included that aged persons savings bonus. Yet that is a one-off bonus. It applies for 12 months only. It will not be there after its first year. So on those three counts we find this a most misleading document produced at taxpayers' expense and circulated to all Australian households. There are many flaws in the government's modelling of the tax package and they will become increasingly apparent as this bill makes its way through both the House of Representatives and the Senate.The other matter I want to say something about is the extraordinary claim that every cent of tax reduction is going to be passed on to consumers, an assumption that 100 per cent of reduced costs or charges will be passed on to consumers. This is completely unrealistic. Indeed, Minister Vaile, when he referred to transport costs, said that, because of the high level of competition within the road transport industry, the `majority' of savings would be passed on to consumers as end users of the transport chain. `Majority' is not good enough. The modelling assumes 100 per cent. When the government claims 1.9 per cent in terms of price rises, they are assuming 100 per cent, and we all know that is certainly not going to happen. That figure is simply not credible.There are a whole series of reasons why I and other Labor members are not prepared to support a GST. Firstly, we will not support it because it transfers the burden to the less well-off. Because it introduces a 10 per cent tax on presently untaxed necessities like food, electricity, gas, books, public transport and all those sorts of things, it transfers the burden to the less well-off.Secondly, in particular it transfers the burden towards pensioners and retirees. There is simply no effective way of compensating people who have left the work force after a lifetime of work under relatively higher income taxes and relatively lower sales taxes. As for this idea of the one-off compensation package, as my father says to me, `Do you think we're going to stop eating after 12 months?'Another reason why we are not prepared to support a GST is its impact on small business. It will force small business to become unpaid tax collectors. Presently, something like 80,000 small businesses are involved in the wholesale sales tax collection arrangements. The GST, on the other hand, will involve in the order of a million small businesses. They will be roped into the tax collection net. They will be the victims of substantial compliance costs, both start-up and ongoing compliance costs, as they implement the government's tax reform package.Certainly, as I went around my electorate and on occasion others, I found in talking to a lot of small businesses and a lot of retailers great concern about the impact of a GST on them. That was one of the reasons why Labor polled over 51 per cent on a two-party preferred vote and, in terms of senators, polled even better than that with something like 60 per cent of the votes for senators being cast for parties and candidates who indicated their opposition to the GST.The other area that I think is of great concern involves sporting, voluntary and charitable groups. How is this going to impact on them? We have not been able to get from the government straight answers as to what happens when scouts are trying to retail a $2 bar of chocolate, what happens to garage sales, what happens to a whole range of activities being undertaken by not-for-profit organisations.These matters have not been satisfactorily resolved, nor have the issues involving financial supplies. I have had contact with people in the superannuation industry and in the life insurance industry where the arrangements concerning financial supplies are far from clear. We start coming across anomalies. We have seen the anomalies with the marriages—the civil celebrant marriages compared with the religious marriages—and we have seen the anomalies in the arrangements as they affect credit unions compared with banks and other financial institutions.We also see in the insurance area, for example, that the legislation specifies life insurances as a financial supply but other insurances are not going to be exempt from GST. So with death and disability cover, which are traditional superannuation fund offers, charges for the death part of the insurance will be exempt from GST but disability cover will presumably attract the GST. That is a most unsatisfactory situation. It is going to make the life of the superannuation funds and others who offer that sort of death and disability cover much more complex than it ought to be, and that will only be at the expense of members of these funds whose benefits will diminish accordingly.The other thing that ought to be said about this legislation is that it is an absolute stone-cold certainty that the GST will rise, as it has in some 21 out of 23 countries where it has been introduced. In Britain it started at 10 per cent—now 17½ per cent; in New Zealand it started at 10 per cent—now 12½ per cent. As for this lock-in mechanism, it is not even here in the bill before the House. The government are a bit like used car salesmen trying to sell you a used car. You ask where the brakes are, and they say, `Oh, they're still coming. They're going to come later.' Anyone who understands the constitutional arrangements which govern this country and the nature of parliamentary democracy knows that there is no prospect that this parliament can bind a successor parliament or stop the GST being increased if that becomes the wish of a future government or parliament.On all those counts, I and the opposition reject the GST. We understand it is regressive. We understand the impact it is going to have on ordinary Australians. We had support from ordinary Australians at the last election to put forward the view that we are now putting forward. I urge members of the House of Representatives and senators to understand the impact this bill is going to have on Australia's taxation arrangements, shifting the taxation burden to those who are least able to afford it, to those who are least able to look after themselves. It is an outrageous sleight of hand on the part of this government and it ought to be rejected by all honourable members.20:47:001522Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The Australian Labor Party are desperate on this matter of taxation reform—for a number of reasons. In their arguments to date in the debate we are having on these important bills, they are trying to ignite some sort of cheap class warfare on one hand, and they are trying to complete the chronicle of absolute lies that they offered during the recent federal election campaign on the other. In some sort of weird and wonderful way they are trying to hold some sort of faith with their supporters by carrying through the lies they uttered to try to get votes in the 3 October election and by repeating them in this place.They have shown that they do not understand the federation of states, the fact that our constitution clearly defines a role for each state parliament as well as for the chambers in this place, and that there are 13 separate chambers in this country that would have to agree to an increase in a goods and services tax. Once it is introduced, an increase in the rate could come only if 13 chambers were to agree to that measure.The only people talking about a GST increasing at some point in time are the Australian Labor Party. They get up day after day asking questions about increasing the tax. So we now know. Their secret agenda is exposed. If at some stage in the future those opposite form government in this country you know that one of the first things they are going to do is what they always do—in typical Australian Labor Party style, they will increase tax.The debate to date has shown very clearly yet again that we know exactly what the Labor Party are against but we have yet to find out what they stand for. As I said in my opening comments, they are absolutely desperate to defeat this measure. They will not defeat it here in the House of Representatives but over in the Senate they want to use every means possible to try to delay and defeat it, because they know all too clearly that their carefully woven web of lies during the 3 October election campaign will be exposed, once the government's tax reform measures are in place. They know that the reforms that the government are putting forward in these bills before us today were supported overwhelmingly by younger Australians who, in particular, wanted to see an end to the ramshackle old system of tax collection that Labor left us before the 1996 election.So they know that, once it is in place, this new taxation system—which the government have proposed and put before the people of Australia to get their permission to propose it in this place—will prove an absolute disaster for the Australian Labor Party's electoral prospects in the future. They know for a fact that an entire generation of voters will be affected by the fact that they were misled by Labor in such great measure in the lead-up to the last election. They know that there will be an entire generation of Australians who will pass on to their children—and I dare say will also influence their parents and their grand parents—that Labor are not interested in good policy but simply in perpetuating scare and lie tactics. They do not mind if they hurt the innocent by some of the utterings they are offering here and some of the nonsense they offered during the election campaign. They do not mind if they pick on older Australians—anything to get a vote. If you listen to those opposite, you would swear that the sky is falling in, that parts of people's anatomies are going to be lopped off as a result of the taxation reform agenda the government are proposing here.Yet the central premise of what the government have on their agenda is to help Australia, to help Australians. This is good policy that is going to be good for this country, not only because it is going to set up our exporters and our small business sector in such a way that jobs will be created and markets will be realised as our prices and the competitive nature of the goods we produce improve, but also because it will help each individual Australian.The government have set out to put forward to the people of Australia a very clear-cut agenda. I know that I received an absolute mandate from the people in my electorate, as did a majority of members in this place receive a mandate from the people in their electorate, to push forward with the government's reform agenda that was clearly stated for all to consider. Despite all the efforts of those opposite and their henchmen in the electorate of Moreton and the absolute nonsense and deliberate hurt they inflicted upon constituents of mine to try and get a vote, I am here today to support the government's agenda.This is the most comprehensive reform of the Australian taxation system in the history of the federation of this wonderful country. It is timely that we are proposing such reforms in the face of a new millennium—a new century. Yes, we are going to hear a lot of talk about the new century and the new millennium over this 39th Parliament. But this government that is now in place is prepared to face the prospect of turning our back on the old in order to bring about the good new.Our current outdated, inefficient tax system—the tax system which those members opposite are prepared to support and prepared to hurt people in the process of supporting—has to go. We have to see a reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations. We do not want to see a continuation of the year in year out uncertainty as governments from the states come here, cap in hand, attempting to get a certain lick of money here or a lick of money there. We want to make sure that income tax for families and average wage earners is fairer. We want to reintroduce incentive for people who want to go out and earn a little bit more. This is all part of the plan that was put to the people, and the people in my electorate and the people in the majority of electorates in this country endorsed that plan. The word `mandate' has been used a lot in this debate, and there is no doubt that the government has one, because the people of Australia gave it one.The Australian Labor Party cannot handle the fact that this government actually took a proposal to the people of Australia. This government took the people inside the confidence of the government's plans, gave them a ton of detail and asked them to approve the detail. The Labor Party cannot stand the fact that today this place is debating a matter that the government has put forward in fulfilment of what we said we would do; unlike 1993 when those opposite were sitting on this side of the chamber as the government and Prime Minister Keating said, `Don't you worry about that,' in the words of a famous Queenslander, `if we are returned, you are going to get tax cuts and there will be no GST.' But, instead, what did they do? The Australian Labor Party came back into power in the 1993 election and up went wholesale sales taxes.Wholesale sales taxes are taxes that the Australian Labor Party loves because they can increase them by the stroke of a pen in some dark room somewhere around the corridors—in one of the big offices in this building. They are taxes that do not have to come into this chamber for approval as have these tax measures today. We are not doing anything that we said we would not do. We are doing exactly what we proposed. We have proved it. We put the policy forward and the people of Australia approved it for us. Our aim is to make our country far more productive and far more competitive than it currently is. We want to help our exporters. We want to deliver more jobs. We want to increase the standard of living of all Australians.This is the first part of a package of measures that will bring about this new tax system by 1 July 2000. It will provide a modern, broad based low-rate goods and services tax. That is the central hallmark of the way the system will work. But hand in hand with that, up to 10 taxes that the Australian Labor Party seem to dearly love will go. Hand in hand with that will be massive personal income tax cuts, and an increase in the tax-free threshold which will mean that low income earners will automatically get the benefit of additional money without having to pay tax on it. But at the heart of what the government's measures are about is empowering the average Australian—which again is something that those opposite do not like, as can be seen by the union boss oriented tantrums that they throw in here from time to time. They do not like the idea of individuals actually having some control over their own destiny. They do not like the idea of empowerment.The real problem we have in this country is the complexity of the taxation system, and all those opposite talk about is trying to make it even more complex. The complexity of the system is felt by average Australians. It cannot be underestimated how annoyed average Australians are about the complexity of the system that the Australian Labor Party want to hold on to. The problem is that if people cannot feel confident in the sum total of the tax acts that make up this country's system, and if they cannot cope with all the changes and the unbelievable complexities, they simply will find ways and means to get around the system. They will turn their back on the system. They have no faith in the law if it is bad law. Consumers at other levels simply turn their back on a product that does not meet their particular levels of satisfaction—and that is true of our taxation system.I would ask those opposite to reconsider their position. This government was elected to do what we are currently doing. If those opposite are so confident that what we have proposed is so bad for Australia, let these bills pass not only the House of Representatives but also the Senate. By the time the next election comes around in late 2001, if those opposite are right and the system is so bad, people will vote us out. Labor might then be able to do what they want to do; that is, increase the GST.But, no, they do not want these bills to get up. They do not want them to see the light of day because they know very well that the people of Australia will be very happy with what the government has proposed. If this bill passes, Labor will be exposed as the charlatans they are and the con merchants they were during the last election campaign. People want this current government to do more than just simply add to what the previous failed Labor governments have done. People actually want something new. People want to be empowered. They want to make a contribution to this nation by building up their businesses, by being good citizens. When they pay tax they want to know what they are paying for. They want to understand the systems that are involved. People do not mind paying their fair share of tax.The current tax system—which Labor has had more than a little bit to do with over the past two decades—seems to be keyed more towards helping a lot of people at the big end of town with their trusts and all sorts of interesting arrangements. But there does not seem to be a lot of assistance for the average Australian. Those opposite keep talking about the average Australian and the average worker. I am not sure how many of them have actually tripped over one in recent months. Certainly the election campaign should have flushed a few of them out and got them out to meet people. If they had actually spoken to average Australians, people would have said, `Let's get a fairer and simpler and more easily understood taxation system.'The taxation system in this country cannot be underestimated for the impact that it has not just on economic wellbeing but also on the social fabric of this nation, because the tax system can either create envy or dispel it. It can create or destroy jobs. It can promote or suppress growth. It can create or put completely under strain social justice. It can create opportunities for those who want to work hard, but it can also discourage effort. A number of people have said to me that they would like to work overtime, but the current tax system—the one Labor wants to defend at all costs—is all about discouraging people who want to work harder and earn extra in overtime, because people on about 1.4 times average weekly earnings start to pay the top rate of tax. It is a system that has got to go. If those opposite were fair dinkum in caring about the workers and battlers of this country they would support the package of bills before the House.We no longer need a taxation system which seems to be more about maintaining the system and the bureaucracy that runs it than getting good outcomes from it for the average Australian. We need to make sure that people are able to make a fair and equitable contribution to the running of this nation. We need a law that has universal support, a law that is fair and easily understood. Otherwise, if it is not easily understood, if it is not easily adhered to or easily respected by those it is supposed to govern, of course it is a law that is destined to be broken.We can make tax laws in this country more transparent. Nothing can be more transparent and more easily understood than a standard rate of tax across a wide range of goods and services in this country. It is no longer fair to burden those who produce things—goods—ahead of those who provide services. It is no longer realistic. This is 1998. I remind members of the Labor Party opposite, and those who may be listening in to this debate, that they should search inside their hearts and realise the workers they claim to represent—it may be more folklore than fact—are going to be in far more secure jobs as a result of the businesses they work for having this sort of taxation system in place.The taxation reforms proposed by this government are good for Australia; they are good for average Australians. They will be good for people in my electorate. I am pleased that the majority of people in the electorate of Moreton saw through the phoney campaign and the outrageous claims that were made in my electorate by those opposite and their henchmen. We have such an unfair, complex and outdated taxation system, yet it is constantly being defended by those opposite. We need a system that no longer delivers the worst possible result, especially to low income earners, to self-funded retirees and to pensioners, along with the small business sector. They are the sorts of people for whom this government is prepared to champion this cause.We are in favour of heading towards the new millennium with a modern taxation system, something that will have a positive impact on the social fabric of this nation. I ask those opposite to reconsider their simple opposition for opposition's sake mantra that they seem to constantly chant in debates in this place.21:03:001526Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I was listening very intently to the member for Moreton. These goods and services tax bills put into effect what the member for Moreton calls `tax reform'. I prefer to refer to it as `tax change' because these bills are simply about shifting the burden from the big end of town to those in the Australian community who can least afford to carry that burden. There are really only three tests for a tax system, in my view.The first is the relative size of the tax take, as a percentage of the size of the economy. I see the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation at the table agreeing with me on that issue. By OECD standards or by any international standard, it has to be said that this country is a low taxing country. It surprises me that the minister at the table denies that fact. It was the Hawke and Keating governments that took us down that path and ensured that the Commonwealth revenue as a percentage of GDP over those 13 years came down significantly.The second test for any tax system is its progressive nature, whether or not it acts progressively and is effective in ensuring that we use the tax transfer system to help those most in need and tax people on their ability to pay. Again, I think the minister at the table should agree that we have a very progressive tax system in this country, given that such a large slice of government revenue comes from the PAYE system and given that the wholesale sales tax system is in itself progressive in that it taxes luxury goods at a very high rate and exempts the essentials of life. So, given that such a large slice of government revenue comes from the very progressive PAYE system and given that the wholesale sales tax, by its very nature, in the way that it is structured, is progressive in itself, we have by international standards a very progressive tax system in this country.The third test is the efficiency of our tax system. Here is where the minister at the table will cheer and say, `This is what it is all about.' If the wholesale sales tax leads to any inefficiencies due to the cascading effect that might flow on to exports, that is not a structural problem with the wholesale sales tax. It can be fixed. If the problem is the way it applies to business inputs, exempt them. That is very easily done. These are other issues that can be addressed.Mr Hockey interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—If that is your main beef, if you say there is a structural problem with the wholesale sales tax, in the same way that the government says, `This is a terrible tax; it taxes some food but not caviar,' that is simply fixed as well—tax caviar. If you say there are anomalies in the wholesale sales tax—and we recognise that they exist—tax them. The minister at the table is saying, `What about plumbers, accountants and all those people?' I understand that currently the services of accountants, plumbers, electricians and motor mechanics are untaxed. I appreciate the recognition of the minister at the table that all these services, which ordinary Australians are so dependent upon, are currently untaxed.There are really only two very good reasons for introducing a goods and services tax. The first is that any GST represents a huge revenue raising mechanism for the government; it is a big win for the government. The second is that it adds to the stability of the government's revenue—of course it does. In many senses it is very non-sensitive to economic downturns because people's expenditure or consumption patterns remain largely the same, because those who work within the economy commit so much of their income to the essentials of life. So there are two advantages with respect to a GST but, unfortunately, both of those advantages are seen through the eyes of the government only. I do not see any advantages for the wider Australian community. I can see, though, a great deal of pain for the wider Australian community. The government talks about compensation—and I will not go into all of the issues because the member for Hotham has articulated and outlined them so very well.I noticed the member for Morton looking a bit nervous because he knows that he will be in trouble in his marginal seat if he looks to be too enthusiastic about the introduction of this tax. Let us put it in simple terms. Let us talk about the last election. I hear members of the government in here claiming a mandate for this tax. This election more than any other was a referendum on one issue—this last election was a referendum on the GST.And who got the majority of the two-party preferred vote in this country? Who got a larger swing against them than Paul Keating did in 1996? It was John Howard proposing this new and regressive tax on the Australian community. It was John Howard who went to the Australian electorate and told older Australians and those on fixed and lower incomes that if he was re-elected he was going to whack them with a flat 10 per cent tax on every service and good they buy.There is a very simple way of summing up what is happening here: you cannot take such a large slice out of the progressive PAYE system—which I have already argued is a progressive wholesale sales tax system—and transfer that to a flat tax on everyone, regardless of their income, and pretend it is not going to hurt them. It is as simple as that. They can argue all they like. The arithmetic of this measure is as simple as that: a huge whack out of two progressive taxes transferred to a big flat tax on everything you buy, whether it be a good or a service, regardless of your capacity to pay. That is what this tax is about. I said there is no mandate for this new tax, nor do I expect there ever will be.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What do you mean there is no mandate? Of course there is a mandate. Who is in government?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—You cannot have a mandate with about 48 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. Those who the government were able to convince that a GST might be a good idea for the Australian economy were those who were courted by the prospect of personal income tax cuts—but there were not too many of them. There were not too many of them because most of them were smart enough to realise that these tax cuts are unfunded and are likely to be undelivered. They were pretty quick to work out that about 80 per cent of those income tax benefits are going to 20 per cent of the community, and of course they are the 20 per cent of the community who are earning the most money. So the Australian electorate worked that out pretty quickly.All this is notwithstanding the fact that the government squandered $20 million or more of taxpayers' money to sell this lousy and regressive tax to the Australian community. The top earners will be okay under this change, if the Senate is foolish enough to pass it, but the people I represent in the Hunter electorate will not be. Low and middle income earners certainly will not be, and certainly small business operators and tourism operators in my electorate will not be better off as a result of this tax.The tourism sector retails, largely, one commodity—it retails services. It provides services to the community, services hitherto untaxed. A GST is also a tax that ensures that a holiday in Bali is going to be cheaper than a trip from Sydney to Cairns or from Melbourne to Cairns. I was disappointed to see the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who was in here for only a moment, leave, because she is setting the example already by taking a honeymoon in Bali, but I do wish her well on her wedding last Saturday.Even more so, this is a new tax that is going to hit the small business community for six. This is the tax that is going to create 1.3 million unpaid tax collectors. This is a business community already struggling. It is already struggling because the government has failed to match up on the issues really important to it—the market dominance issues. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has been ducking and weaving on the issue of an inquiry on market dominance issues. I am told he might finally be dragged screaming to have something to say about that tomorrow, but he has dropped the ball on the red tape issues, and he has failed to embrace the Bell report. Of course, this is only a feeble attempt to address the real issues in the small business community.A GST is going to mean huge compliance costs. I have here a document from the New Zealand government's Department of Inland Revenue entitled GST guide: a guide to working with the GST. It says:We have written this booklet to help all businesses and organisations that have to charge GST and need more information about it. We hope you find this guide helpful when filling in your GST returns. It will show you how you can avoid incurring penalties and how or when GST is refunded to you.I ask the minister at the table to have a look. It is 80 pages long and, of course, the New Zealand model is generally accepted as one of the more simple forms of a GST in the international community. It is 80 pages, and this is the quick, easy guide to operating a small business under a GST regime in New Zealand! When you open it up, you see a whole plethora of complicated forms that business people in the New Zealand economy have to face daily.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Will you table it?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I will be happy to table it, as the minister at the table invites me to do. I am sure it will make great bedtime reading for him tonight. I seek leave to table the document.Leave granted.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Contrary to what the government would have us believe, this is a poor, regressive tax which is going to produce huge cash flow problems for the small business sector. As a consequence, it is going to lead to higher operating costs.This is a poor, regressive tax. I was pleased to see the government finally appoint a consultative committee to look at the impact of the GST—the finer detail of the GST—on the small business sector. I congratulate those people who have been appointed to that committee. I have had the opportunity to meet with them and discuss matters of importance to the sector over the last few weeks. I wish them well in their endeavours, because there is no doubt that there are a number of issues for them to address and Curt Rendall and his team will have to grapple with those over the coming weeks.The government should make no mistake about the fact that the small business community is, at the very best, ambivalent about these tax changes. I will not call them tax reforms as the government chooses to. You will hear certain representatives of some of the peak bodies—in some cases out of loyalty to the conservative side of politics—say that this is not a bad thing for their members. But, if the minister at the table took the time to walk the streets, the strip developments and the shopping centres and actually talk to the small business community, I can assure him he would find a small business community very concerned about the impact of this tax.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—They love it.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The minister at the table says that they love it. I have travelled the length and breadth of the country over the last few months as well as talking to my own small business community in my electorate and I have not yet found one small business operator enthusiastic about this tax. I remind the minister at the table that the ABS definition of a small business is one which employs 20 people or less or, in the case of a manufacturing firm, 100 or less. I point out that it is time that he left the big end of town and stopped talking to those who least need assistance. He should get down to the other end and talk to the mum and dad businesspeople of this world and find out what sorts of issues they are facing. Learn for yourself, Minister, that they are horrified by the prospect of the introduction of this tax. They are prepared to listen but, as last week's Yellow Pages Small Business Index showed, you have a long way to go before you convince the small business community that this is a good tax for them.21:17:001529Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I am amazed at the hypocritical nonsense coming from the other side in this debate on the goods and services tax bills. I am absolutely appalled at their head in the sand approach which denies the real need for tax reform in this country. They somehow try to fool themselves into thinking that the current tax system is sustainable or workable.This tax reform proposal is long overdue. It contains fundamental and widespread reforms that this country needs—reforms that will sweep away the inequities, complexities, contradictions and inefficiences in the current tax system. These reforms are necessary to create a fair system, one that provides incentives to work and to save, one that helps small business, one that helps exporters and one that is sustainable and will take this country into the next century. Yet Labor wants to pretend that the current system is fine. Labor wants to try and defend the indefensible. Labor is opposed to fairness, efficiency and incentive. Labor would rather support a system that is full of inadequacies, inefficiencies, complexities and inequities. Labor would rather tinker at the edges and apply more bandaids than do anything fundamental to improve the tax system in this country.Anyone who looks at the current system in any amount of detail knows that it is fraught with problems. The direct income tax system and the indirect system are both fundamentally flawed. Compared to other OECD countries, our direct income tax system means we have far too much reliance on income taxes. Tax rates in this country are too high. Not only are they high but they are also constantly rising through the process of bracket creep or fiscal drag.In 1954 someone on average weekly earnings had a marginal income tax rate of only 17.5 per cent. By next year someone on average weekly earnings will have a marginal income tax rate of 43 per cent and by the year 2003 a marginal income tax rate of 47 per cent. In 1954 someone on average weekly earnings paid an average tax rate of nine per cent; now it is an average tax rate of 25 per cent.This system of rising marginal and average income tax rates is a system that the Labor Party seeks to defend—a system that is propelling average Australian income earners into higher and higher income tax brackets. In 1970, one per cent of this country was in the top income tax bracket; by the year 2000, 20 per cent will be in the top income tax bracket. Yet this is a system that the Labor Party seeks to try and defend.The current system is just not fair to battling, hardworking Australians. Not only is the system not fair but it provides no incentives to the average worker to go out and work harder. The average worker who does a bit of overtime is faced with a problem of paying almost 50 cents in the dollar on every extra dollar that they earn. There is no incentive to do overtime, there is no incentive to study, there is no incentive to seek promotion and there is no incentive to save. Yet the Labor Party seeks to support a system that destroys all the incentive in this country.The only incentive with the current system is an incentive to evade tax and avoid tax—an incentive to promote the burgeoning black economy in this country, a system that the Labor Party would seem to want to support. There is incentive for elaborate tax minimisation, tax avoidance and tax evasion methods. The trouble is that these are available only to the wealthy while the PAYE earner, who does not have access to elaborate tax avoidance schemes, gets slugged the full rate. The problem is that the current tax system, which is supposed to be progressive, loses its very progressivity because of the access of higher income earners to tax avoidance measures. Yet the lower income earners, the PAYE earners, do not have access to those tax avoidance measures. So the current system that is supposed to be progressive in fact loses its progressivity. Yet this is a system that the Labor Party seeks to support and tells us is working okay. We had the member for the Hunter trying to tell us what a wonderful tax system we currently have and trying to convince us that it needed no reform whatever.The current income tax system creates poverty traps with the interplay between the social security system and the high marginal income tax rates. The loss of social security at some levels involves an effective marginal tax rate for some income earners of up to 70 per cent, yet the Labor Party seeks to support a system that provides no incentive at all to work and to improve and to invest. Furthermore, the current system provides distortions to investment decisions because they tend to be based on tax minimisation criteria rather than on real returns, yet Labor wants to entrench these inequities, to entrench these disincentives and to entrench these inefficiencies.The indirect tax system is every bit as bad. It is an outdated system based on a wholesale sales tax which remains in only a handful of Third World countries. No modern industrial country has the sort of wholesale sales tax system that the opposition wants to burden us with for another generation. It is full of hidden taxes—it is almost dishonest in its secrecy.Many of those hidden taxes that Labor supports are on necessities such as soap, toothpaste, toilet paper, detergents, fruit juices—taxed with Labor's unfair hidden wholesale sales tax system. It is full of inconsistencies and illogical rates—12 per cent, 22 per cent, 32 per cent, 37 per cent, 41 per cent and 45 per cent—illogical inconsistencies that Labor wants to support. Engagement rings are taxed, wedding rings are not. Flavoured milk is, plain milk is not. Biscuits are, caviar is not. Cars are, aeroplanes are not. Toothpaste is taxed, toothbrushes are not. What is the rationale for these inconsistencies? There is no rationale, yet Labor wants to burden us still with these inconsistencies.Furthermore, the current tax system burdens small business with massive compliance costs, estimated now to be hundreds of millions of dollars a year just in complying with the current indirect tax system. Much money and much time is spent in trying to minimise tax rather than trying to get on with the job. It is estimated that one in four dollars in tax revenue collected by small business is spent in trying to comply with the complex tax laws—a system that is strangling small business. After the election in 1996, a number of small businesses and accountants said to me, `Now you are in office, we want to see you reforming the current tax system. It's a mess, it's unfair, it's too complex, it's strangling small business and we want to see it changed.'The other problem with the indirect tax system is that it has a shrinking base. It ignores the growing service sector where the wealthy spend their money and unfairly focuses on the goods sector. It is unfair because it ignores the area where the wealthy tend to spend more of their money. The household expenditure survey shows that the wealthy spend four times as much money on services as the lower income earners do, and yet, by leaving the service sector out of the indirect tax system, we are favouring the wealthy and putting all the burden of indirect taxes on the poor.Over the past decade or so, the percentage of the total indirect tax paid by the lowest decile of income earners has nearly doubled. There is an increasing burden on low income earners by the current inequitable, regressive wholesale sales tax system. If we are going to make it fair and sustainable, we need to extend the indirect tax system to services. Yet Labor wants to retain the current wholesale sales tax system based just on goods. We have seen over the years what has happened to that system—a wholesale sales tax rate that started at 2½ per cent and is now averaging 22 per cent.We saw what happened with the Labor Party when they got back into office in 1993. Right across the board, they raised wholesale sales taxes by two per cent because the current tax system is unsustainable. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants says, `If Australia does not get a GST, inevitably the wholesale sales tax system will increase,' and it will increase and keep increasing.Look at the list of goods that had no sales tax at all when Labor came into office in 1983 that now carry rates of 12 per cent and 22 per cent: agricultural machinery, anti dandruff treatment, skin repair creams, household disinfectants, tractors and ride-on mowers, sunscreen agents, wines, non-alcoholic wines and ciders, biscuits, snack foods, ice-cream, domestic stoves, water filters, wrapping material, fruit juice, muesli bars and health food bars—no sales taxes when Labor came in 1983, now most of them with 22 per cent and some at 12 per cent tax because the current wholesale sales tax system inevitably, and especially under Labor, requires ever increasing rates. And that is exactly what will happen if we do not broaden the indirect tax base to include services. These were all zero in 1983 and under Labor they have risen and they have kept rising.The current wholesale sales tax system penalises exporters because the wholesale sales tax is built into the products that we export, yet our competitors rebate the value added tax when they export. Labor wants to retain a system that penalises our exporters, makes it harder for our exporters and makes it easier for the countries they are competing against.The current system is unsustainable. If we are going to have a tax base that will provide the ever increasing services people expect from governments, it has to be an expanding tax base based on expanding expenditure based on services, not a shrinking narrow tax base that the head in the sand opposition wants to burden us with for years to come. Not only that, the current system, as we know, costs us billions of dollars in evasion and avoidance.This government has put forward a proposal that will remove these inequities, give us a sustainable expanding tax base, remove the inefficiencies, remove the complexities and provide real incentives. These changes are long overdue. This government's tax reform package has significant reductions in income tax—reductions in income tax totalling around $13 billion, reductions in income tax right across the board for all income earners, reductions in income tax that will leave the average family $40 to $50 a week better off net from any increases due to the GST. The average family will be $40 to $50 a week better off, and yet the Labor Party is saying to these average families, `No, you can't have these tax reforms. We want to lumber you with the current, inefficient, inequitable sales tax system for another generation.'It ought to be on the Labor Party's conscience that it is depriving average families of those sorts of tax cuts, those sorts of incentives to work, those sorts of incentives to improve themselves. The government's proposals remove 10 hidden taxes: wholesale sale tax, which I have already talked about, financial institutions duties, bank account debit taxes, bed taxes, conveyancing charges on business property and five different stamp duties. It removes provisional tax which is a pain in the neck for small business and a burden for self-funded and independent retirees. It wants to replace these with one simple, across-the-board, fair, broadly based 10 per cent tax on goods and services. The government's proposals have adequate built-in compensation for low income earners and pensioners that will in fact see them better off as well.We have heard much from the other side about how bad this will supposedly be for small business, yet small business wholeheartedly supports these proposals. Angela Ryan, the Tax Director of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants, said:The appeal for business is the simplicity of the system.Rob Bastian from the Council of Small Business Associations said:Losing provisional tax and the uplift factor were shots in the arm for small business . . . the income tax cuts represent the big win for the sector.Kerrie Clayton, an ASCPA small business adviser, said:The best part about the proposal is that it contains tangible initiatives that will save many small businesses a lot of time and money.Small business is in support of this package and these measures. The National President of the Association of Independent Retirees said this:All fair minded Australians have been calling for a total reform of our current Tax system which is unbalanced and unfair to many Australians. The proposed Tax Reform Plan is both comprehensive and imaginative. It should provide a sound basis for the future.The Government seems to have provided more than adequate compensation to those on low incomes . . . if we reject it, we may never get another opportunity to update our taxation system.The support for this tax system is logical. The support for these changes is well founded. The support for these changes is widespread. The editorial in the Australian Financial Review the day after the tax reform package was announced said this:The coalition must be applauded for its proposal to broaden the tax base and lower the rate structure. There are many reasons why its tax plan should be supported.There are many reasons why the government's tax plan should be supported, yet Labor supports the old system. Labor wants to retain the system that is unfair, that is inefficient, that is unsustainable. Labor's approach in this is hypocritical. It is obstructionist for playing politics for the sake of it. It is backward looking and it has no answers for the future. Labor stands condemned for their approach to tax reform. They stand condemned for their hypocrisy, condemned for their obstruction, condemned for their ineptitude and dishonesty, and, most of all, condemned for putting their own political interests ahead of the interests of Australia. This is necessary reform. It is what Australia needs. We cannot delay any longer on these tax reform proposals.21:33:001532Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The government has talked a lot about mandate. Mandate is one of those words that can be used and abused as seen fit, and never has it been so abused than by this government and this Prime Minister with regard to the debate over the GST. We all know John Howard's true thoughts about the mandate theory of politics. They are a matter of public record. But since the election we have been witness to a conversion of near biblical proportions as he tries to convince us that he has a mandate to impose a GST on the people of Australia. I am here to say that he does not have a mandate.How many times does the Prime Minister need to be reminded that on 3 October this year more people of this country voted for political parties opposed to a GST than for those in favour of it? The Australian Labor Party polled 51.3 per cent of the two-party preferred vote across the nation. In my own state of Tasmania that figure rose to 57.3 per cent, enough to deliver the Australian Labor Party all five seats in the House of Representatives from that state. That is a mandate and that is why I am here today to say that never ever should this parliament pass a bill that allows a goods and services tax. It is a mandate my colleagues take very seriously. The people of Tasmania have told us that they do not want a GST, and for a very good reason.A GST will not do the things that the Prime Minister has claimed. A GST will not mean the end of the black economy. In fact, a GST provides some of the more unscrupulous within our community with an incentive to enter the black economy. This is borne out by research overseas where in the UK it has been discovered that more than one in three British consumers now regularly negotiate to pay in cash to avoid the country's GST. A similar situation exists in Tasmania. A GST will do nothing to stop tax evasion. It will not help with the nation's savings and it will not repair our trade imbalance. Most importantly of all, a GST will not redistribute the tax burden to make it fairer for ordinary Australian men and women.But there are some things a GST will do. It will add to the cost of the basic necessities of life, especially at the supermarket for such basic items as bread, milk, fresh fruit and vegetables. It will mean that, for the first time in our country's history, people will be paying a tax every time they telephone a plumber, electrician or mechanic. It will mean that small business will spend their time being tax collectors for the government instead of getting on with the business of earning a living.People in Tasmania will feel the effects of a GST much more than anywhere else in the nation. Just a few days ago the President of the Australian Council for Social Services, Michael Raper, told a forum in northern Tasmania that Tasmanians already pay more for essential items than in any other regional centre of the country. This is a matter of established fact. Also a matter of established fact is that the average earnings in Tasmania are less than those on the mainland, so the already unequal effects of a GST on Tasmanians will be amplified twice over.In my own seat of Lyons, community concern over the GST has been overwhelming. Local councils fear it. They fear the inconsistencies that have already been flagged, particularly that many local government activities such as holiday programs, swimming pools, sports facilities and hall hire, if they charge a nominal fee, are liable for the GST. Any work they contract out is liable for the GST. Their biggest concern is channelling funding through the states, because they are concerned that local government will become the poor neighbour to everyone. This is particularly true of country councils, who raise a good deal less than half their revenue from rates.Welfare and charitable organisations fear it. Small businesses dread it. Most of all, pensioners, low income earners and people living in small rural towns and hamlets fear it. They fear it because, as a regressive tax, it discriminates in favour of wealthier sections of the community over the less wealthy. Most people who live in my electorate are not wealthy people. They are on low incomes and in many cases live without easy access to the sorts of facilities and services many in the cities take for granted. They are the families who spend most of their income on food: up to 25 per cent or more of their budgets, compared to the 12.5 per cent spent by the wealthiest 20 per cent of Australian families. In the game of tax winners and losers, the vast majority of my constituents will be losers.It is not hard to predict the winners. Using the government's own projections, we see that the Prime Minister of this country will get 17 times more out of his own tax package than the average pensioner—17 times! He then has the temerity to claim that his proposals are fair and equal. I think many Australians feel sickened at the Prime Minister's definition of fairness—which is a bit of a problem in itself, given that most over-the-counter medicines will increase in price under a GST. As put to me in one piece of correspondence recently, the GST is payable by the poor, collected by small business and payable to the rich.The Australian Labor Party and the people of Lyons do want tax reform. The proposals the Labor Party put forward at the last election reflect our commitment to a fair and socially just taxation system that provides tax relief where it is most needed: to struggling low and middle income families, especially those with children. It also includes a commitment towards ensuring that those wealthy Australians who can and should be paying their fair share of tax are made to do so. Nothing at all sticks in the throat of the average Australian more than the knowledge that the mega-rich of our country are not paying their way. These people make their fortunes in Australia but use every means at their disposal to avoid making a fair financial return. Why is it that the government only ever talks about the need for mutual obligation in the context of social security recipients, whom it knows it can push around, vilify and scapegoat on a whim, and not the rich and powerful?As everybody bar the government seems to realise, a GST is not only bad for people, it is also bad for the economy. The inflationary impact of a GST is well documented, as is its impact on consumer spending and jobs growth. In the service sector, from where most future employment prospects are expected to come, a GST will hit very hard indeed. For the government to knowingly go down the road of exposing our economy to these perils borders on the reckless.And no-one, not one person in this place, truly believes that a GST, if introduced, would never ever rise. It simply beggars belief to think that a GST would remain at 10 per cent forever and a day. Take, for instance, these simple historical facts. In 21 of 23 countries that have a GST, the rate has risen. In New Zealand the GST was introduced at 10 per cent; it is now 12.5 per cent. In Spain the initial rate was 12 per cent; it is now 16 per cent. In Britain it was 10 per cent; it now stands at 17.5 per cent. In Denmark it started at 10 per cent and is now a colossal 25 per cent. Every time the rate of a GST in these countries increases, so does the unfairness.The supposed safeguards the government has put in place to prevent increases can only be described as a sham. `What the parliament giveth, the parliament can taketh away.' Any future Commonwealth government can legislate a rise in the GST, with or without the consent of the states. Australians simply do not believe the Prime Minister's promise that the GST will not rise. After all, this is the same Prime Minister who gave a commitment three years ago that he would `never ever' introduce a goods and services tax. This is the same Prime Minister who has performed more backflips in the past three years than an Olympic gymnast, albeit without the grace and elegance.Australians have a reputation for egalitarianism—a fair go for everybody. It is a notion embedded deep within the psyche of our people. What will become of our nation if we lose this picture of ourselves? So much of what this government has done, and is trying to do with this bill, will take us further down the path of a divided society, a society of haves and have nots, of people being left without the safety nets that set us apart from other countries. A GST is one step along this path. The chronic underfunding of our public health system is another.The Prime Minister wants to compensate for his government's failing to provide adequate safety nets by asking business to donate more to charity. At the rate this government is going, it will not be long until we have a `charity state', and from there I guess we will have workhouses for the unemployed and goodness knows what else. The mind simply boggles. At least he has had the good sense to exempt charities from the GST; an act of charity, you might say. But I dare say we will see many new `charities' arising which seem to have rich benefactors, not beneficiaries.Perhaps on the eve of Christmas our Prime Minister has revisited A Christmas Carol and is hearing the ghost of Christmas past on the matter of the GST. Will he heed the ghost of Christmas future that tells us that, if he continues down this path, many people will be the poorer on Christmas Day after the advent of the GST? Can he remember back before the last election saying there would `never ever' be a GST? Will the ghost of Christmas past be heard echoing around the corridors, `Never ever, never ever.'DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Save us.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—There are many in my electorate who are questioning and are really concerned about their future, despite all these promises of exemptions on this and exemptions on that. Exemptions can easily disappear, Mr Minister at the table. This government must start heeding the voice of the electorate, and the electorate is saying that they do not want a GST. I am reminded in this debate of the Prime Minister's defence of the monarchy in the republic debate. This defence is premised on the belief that `if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. All our present tax system requires is the sort of periodic maintenance proposed by Labor during the election. I repeat, `It ain't broke and it don't need fixing.'21:45:001534Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and cognate bills. These bills cover the full gamut of tax changes. I am a country person and I go on form. Looking across the divide here, I do not have a great deal of enthusiasm for the form. I would like to talk about form because in the bush form tells it all. How you performed is a good indication of how you are going to perform in the future, so let us take a little trip back through time.I would like to go back to before the 1996 election. I was a candidate, and I won my seat then for the first time and, like a good country girl, I remember form. When you buy a racehorse, you remember form. When you buy a bull, you remember form. And when you buy a dud, you remember form, I can tell you.Mr Melham interjecting—FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I know a dud when I see one! Let us have a look at form. This is what I told my electorate before the 1998 election.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—That is why you did so well.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I thank the minister. We did so well because we had a plan. I would like to talk about form, because form makes the difference. When the coalition asked for the people's votes before the 1996 election, people could still remember the circumstances then. The Australian people have a good memory, God bless them! I would like to go over some of the form.Labor left us with a budget deficit of $10 billion. I will remind you of some of the terms we have learnt in the last three years. `Black hole' was an astronomical term—it was not something that referred to the economy. Six per cent interest rates were something grandad used to talk about. Labor has taught us a lot about those terms in the last few years. Before the 1996 election, we were left with a budget deficit—a black hole—of $10 billion.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Speak to the bill.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—He hasn't got much form, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are right.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—He's got no form.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The honourable member for Banks and the minister will be quiet.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—We are going to take him for a little ride down memory lane tonight. The coalition took the government to a budget surplus in 1998-99—the first surplus in a decade. Before the 1996 election, Labor left us with interest rates of up to 22 per cent, and I remember them well. We have now had five cuts in official interest rates. We are back to the Beatles, blue suede shoes and bell-bottoms in terms of interest rates—10.5 per cent down to 6.7 per cent, and falling. Like Labor's popularity, they are falling, falling, falling.Before the 1996 election, Labor gave us an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent—the highest since the Depression. In the last six years of Labor, only 16,000 full-time jobs were created. What a miserable performance. What form? Would you buy a racehorse like that? No, you would not. We now have 8.1 per cent unemployment, and it is falling—like Labor's popularity.Since we took government, 300,000 new jobs have been created—209,200 since August 1997. Labor gave us $10 billion in increased taxes—an increase in the wholesale sales tax, and the l-a-w law tax cuts. Let's look at the form, because that is what counts when you buy a dud. That is what the Australian people did not buy—a dud. They bought us. Labor neglected vocational education and training and let the apprenticeship system get run down.I remind the member for Banks that apprenticeships and traineeships in 1996-97 were 100,400. In the last years of Labor government there were only 63,600. In 1996-97, there were 87,000 new places, with $433 million spent on that area in 1998-99. Labor had a new schools policy that was basically a no schools policy. Do you remember that? Two new schools opened in Dawson—terrific! Labor gave us a private health system that was so run down that in 1983, 65 per cent of Australians had private health insurance and by 1995 it had dropped by half.Labor gave us an unsustainable budget in which the Medicare benefits bill was greater than the budget of Western Australia. The PBS budget was greater than the budget of Tasmania. We have maintained Medicare, we have put Medicare easy claim facilities into rural towns so you can claim in your little bush town. We are introducing a 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance.Mr Melham interjecting—Mr Hockey interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Banks should remain silent, as should the minister at the table. You have both been constantly interjecting. The member for Dawson does not want any help. She wants to be heard in silence, so listen to her.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. There was $30 billion in the last budget for private hospitals. Labor was soft on social security fraud, and now we are saving $28 million a week. Tough, isn't it? Form is what counts. When I buy something, I look at form—whether I buy a bull or a racehorse, I look at form, and the Australian people are great people for looking at form.There is an old Chinese curse which says, `May you live in interesting times.' Unfortunately, we do live in interesting times. Australia has been greatly insulated from the difficulties we all face. The National Institute of Economic and Industry Research has warned that Australia will be pulled into the Asian slump. It is not the time, and it certainly was not the time, to let an irresponsible, big spending Labor government take over the economic leadership of Australia. Thank goodness the Australian people agreed with that.I want to tell you another little story. We are going to go back even further than 1996—to 15 May 1936. I would like to share with you the set of instructions the first airline stewardesses had when passengers boarded planes. These are little rippers and I could not believe them when I read them. These are the instructions stewardesses were given: `Keep the clock and altimeter wound up; carry a railroad timetable in case the plane is grounded; warn the passengers against throwing their cigars and cigarettes out the windows; keep an eye on passengers when they go to the toilet to be sure they do not go out the emergency exit.' That would be a bit of a disaster. I feel sorry for the passenger who went out the emergency exit when he was trying to go to the bathroom.This is really extremely funny. We read that and we absolutely laugh. It is a little bit of old history. But, do you know what? We still have the same tax system they had then and it is equally funny. Do not go out the emergency exit in the tax system because you will absolutely be finished. We have the same tax system. It is absolutely laughable. And that lot over there are going to vote for it. They are going to vote for a tax system as old as the system that those airline stewardesses had to deal with in the aircraft. It is just amazing. Are you going to vote for it? Yes, you are.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Those were the good old days!FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Those were the good old days! It is really quite amusing, isn't it? It shows you a lot about form. We have come a long way. Fortunately, we have a coalition government. It is funny to read those old rules and laugh over them, and it is funny to look over to the other side of the House and laugh over them. But the reality is that there is a moral imperative here.For a start I want to talk about the moral imperative in my electorate, because we have a lot of working people in Dawson. Back in the 1950s you had to be earning 19 times the average weekly earnings to be paying the highest marginal tax rate. Admittedly, that was a higher rate than it has been to date. In other words, you could put a bit aside, you could raise your family and you could have a go. You cannot now. In the next few years somebody on average weekly earnings—about $38,000 to $42,000 a year—struggling to raise a family and make their contribution will be paying the highest marginal tax rate.That is absolutely unacceptable. Any government of any persuasion that allows people on average weekly earnings to bear the brunt of taxation in this country has no moral vision. You cannot allow that to go on, and this government will not allow that to happen.The second great moral imperative that faces a responsible government is the situation with our exporters. The world is getting harder, there is no doubt about that. Regardless of whether one thinks that globalisation is a good or a bad thing, the fact is that it is the exporters in a country like Australia that are going to pull us through. They have an unacceptable level of taxation on them. There is only one way to remove that level of taxation and enable them to compete and that is to put in some form of goods and services tax. The coalition government is going to do that. It is going to take $4.5 billion in costs off the backs of our exporters—3½ per cent of their costs.Times are pretty tough in the sugar industry. They are going to be very tough in the next few years. We have had a lot of rain on our sugar, and prices are falling. It is a very hard time and our exporters in the sugar industry certainly do not need any additional government costs.So there are two moral imperatives: being fair to those who are the backbone of this country, the workers, and giving our exporters, who are going to create the future for our children, an opportunity to shed some costs and take their shackles off.I want to talk about the Labor Party particularly. During the election the Labor Party in my electorate offered a gain but no pain tax reduction system. Superficially, it sounded attractive. I will be honest with you, Mr Deputy Speaker: for a while I was a bit concerned. Fortunately, people in Dawson have a lot of commonsense and they realised that there is no such thing in life as gain but no pain. The reality is that if you want to save something for your family you have to go through some serious saving. If your children want to pass an exam they have to go through some serious study. If you want to lose a few pounds you have to go through some serious exercise.People in Australia realise that there really is no formula for a gain but no pain. If you are really serious about bettering your family, your community or your country you have to go through some gain with pain. And that is exactly what the coalition proposed—a big change to the tax system but one which, in the end, gave a gain to all Australians, whether they were average families, pensioners, exporters or small business people.I would like to go briefly through some of the advantages of the proposed tax system. For the first time, 81 per cent of Australians will be paying less than 30 cents in the dollar personal income tax. What a tremendous change for everybody. We are looking at $10 billion worth of taxes off the back of small business. We are cutting tax returns to one page, four times a year.I want to see what the Labor Party is going to do about fuel because they keep talking about rural and regional Australia. But the reality is that we are going to take $3.5 billion off fuel excise. That means that costs are going to come off products transported into Dawson, including fresh food from the south. It means that everything that comes into our electorate is going to cost less in terms of transport. It means that the Bowen mangoes, the melons and the raw sugar that we export from our electorate are going to cost less.It is a tremendous change. For the tourism operators, every one of the big tourism cats that goes out to the reef is going to save on average about $186,000 a year in fuel excise. It is a tremendous change for tourism and for small business. For our pensioners and for those self-funded retirees, there is a safety net to ensure that those who have contributed to this country are able to be insulated, quite properly, against any detrimental effects.This is a package for the future. It is a package for those who are looking at a future for our country. When you look at something, look at its form. Look at the Labor Party's form and look at the form of the coalition. We have delivered on every commitment that we have made. We have a plan for the future. Look at the form, and when you look at the form you will not buy a dud. The Australian people did not buy a dud. What they want is a change for the future. I thoroughly endorse the full number of bills here in the new tax system. I always say to the Australian people: do not buy a dud, go with those who have the form. The coalition has the form.22:01:001537Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I would like to remind the honourable member for Dawson who has just spoken that something else came out of the 1930s. John Howard was born in 1939.A new tax system bill. What a joke of a title. It is as if Moses has just walked off the mountain, with the stone tablets in his hands, and is delivering a message from God to the chosen people. The fanfare and headlines given to these bills far outweigh their true character. These bills do one thing—they change the way the federal government collects revenue. They change it from income to expenditure. That is it. It is not the Sermon on the Mount. It is not the Gettysburg address. It is definitely not Martin Luther King's `I have a dream' speech. And this government is trumpeting the news as if we are all being saved from the damnation of economic hell.The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have constantly claimed that this tax package is the economic panacea for all the ills of this nation. They claim that the only way forward for this economy is for this tax package to be endorsed by this parliament. They are wrong.The Treasurer must think that his job is pretty easy. He inherited an economy vastly different from the one the Labor Party was left in 1983, when the current Prime Minister was then the outgoing Treasurer. Back in 1983, the budget deficit was enormous, interest rates and inflation were high, manufacturing was in a slump and the unemployment rate was appalling.In the years that followed Labor's win in 1983, there was a wholesale reform of this nation's economy that the members on the other side of the chamber have ignored. Under the leadership of former prime ministers Hawke and Keating, this country saw dramatic changes not just economically but socially. Exporting became a mantra, companies looked to diversify and value add, and tertiary industries and services boomed in the new wave of development that washed over our shores. You would think that the Labor government had slept for 13 years or had sold out the country. If that was the case, why were they elected five times?Now the Treasurer claims that the great things that are happening are all his achievements and that all the problems are ours. With that in mind, the government now claims that the GST will solve all of our nation's ills—they campaigned on that fact. Well, we did not. We campaigned on the issues that concern the people of this nation: health, aged care, education, child care, unemployment, racial tolerance, and the list goes on. This government had only one issue—tax.If you listen to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, the GST will solve all of our problems: health care, unemployment, exports, wool prices and probably hangnails and haemorrhoids. But there are two arguments against theirs. Not all countries have a GST. The United States does not and it is the strongest economy in the world. China does not and it has a huge economy. A GST does not mean success.As I mentioned before, this is about changing revenue collection. While that may seem an innocuous statement, the implications for people are far worse. Everyone is a winner— that is the message that the government would like us all to believe. But the people of my electorate of Fowler are, for good reason, more than a little sceptical of the Treasurer's cry. Perhaps they have been ripped off once too often—dudded by a spiv when they were sold a lemon of a used car; promised the world but delivered nothing. Too often they have bought the lucky dip only to win the useless toy. But wait, there is more. Just when they begin to think the package is too good to be true, along comes another bonus. Everyone is a winner—families, singles, exporters, farmers and miners. The longer the list gets the more unbelievable it becomes. People are used to seeing a full-page list of winning lottery ticket numbers, but somehow their ticket number is never there.When it is all said and done, the people of the Fowler electorate were not taken in by the Prime Minister or his fast-talking Treasurer. At the 3 October election, fewer than one voter in five cast a primary vote for the Liberal Party. What does that say for the government's mandate for a goods and services tax? It certainly says a lot about the misgivings that people have about changes to the tax system. The suspicion is that, whatever changes are made, people will be worse off. No matter how many times the Treasurer cries, `Everyone is a winner,' the people of Fowler just do not believe him—and for good reason.The majority of families in the Fowler electorate struggle to make ends meet. They have to balance their mortgage or rent payments and their transport, gas and electricity costs, as well as meet the food and clothing needs of growing families. All of their income is expended. Indeed, as many borrow to meet the cost of major items of expenditure, they actually spend more than they earn. That spending, in most cases, will attract a GST.The unfairness of the GST can best be seen in its application to food. The estimates of Professor Neil Warren suggest that, in the poorest 20 per cent of households, 40 per cent of income is spent on food compared with 11 per cent in the richest households. Yet the government insists on applying a GST to basic food items. A GST on food slugs poorer families more than it does richer ones.Families in Fowler also face the added expense of a GST on clothing. While it may be claimed that rich families spend more on clothing, families with growing children spend a high proportion of their income on clothing. With growing children you have no choice—children grow out of school uniforms and they need new shoes. A GST is totally unfair to families with young children. Living in the outer suburbs of Sydney, families have high gas, electricity and transport costs, all of which will attract a GST. These are extra costs for families that can least afford them. What then of the government's promised trade-offs and compensation? For pensioners, we have already seen how the government's supposed compensation is nothing more than increases which would have come through adjustments in the near future anyway.For taxpayers in Fowler, you cannot escape the conclusion that what the government is offering by way of tax cuts will go nowhere near making up for the added costs to the family budget of a GST. Indeed, a taxpayer on the median income in Fowler—around $30,000—can expect a tax cut of a mere 2.8c in the dollar while someone on $75,000 per year gets a cut of 6c in the dollar. How fair is that? Is it any wonder that people in the Fowler electorate do not want a bar of the GST? When taken with other measures which disadvantage two income families with children, cuts to services over the past two years which have placed great strain on families and threats to employment security, you can see why the people of Fowler voted against a GST.It is hard to find many winners in Fowler under the government's GST, so you have to wonder where all the winners are. The people of Fowler know all too well that they are getting the rough end of the stick. They know that higher income earners will benefit most from the tax cuts. They know that the buyers of luxury cars will get the biggest savings from a flat-rate GST. They know that a tax on food and clothing hits them harder than high income earners. Call it the politics of envy if you will, but the people on Struggle Street know that they will be worse off under a GST.Finally, I would like to turn to mandates. I know the Prime Minister likes to rabbit on about them, so I would like to talk about my mandate. I was elected to represent the wonderful people of Fowler. I have spoken many times before in this chamber about what a privilege it is to represent these people. During the campaign I went to those people with a very clear platform. One of the issues I raised was `no GST'. I made it clear for all of the electorate to see what stance I was taking. They had no doubt as to what the different positions were. That was obvious, considering all the material sent to them by the government just prior to the election.The government did all it could to spread the message of the GST. Just prior to the election they spent taxpayers' money to the tune of about $17 million. They ran a negative advertisement campaign on Labor during the election, rather than inform voters how the GST would affect them. They sent appalling material from the government members secretariat, a group set up by this government not to assist backbenchers in their official duties but to provide grubby political material at taxpayers' expense. It does not even pretend to be non-partisan. On top of that, they even had a spin doctor on Sydney radio as a spokesperson on all government policies.If we look at a few examples of Howard cabinet ministers, what can we see in terms of their mandates? The Prime Minister lost four per cent of his vote. The Deputy Prime Minister lost 6.5 per cent. The Treasurer lost one per cent. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services lost five per cent; the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, six per cent; the Minister for Defence, seven per cent; the Minister for Finance and Administration, five per cent; and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, who had to run away from his seat of Chisholm—which, might I add, was won by Labor—lost two per cent in Casey. Wherever you look, members on the other side of the chamber lost votes.But in Fowler the people of my electorate saw the campaign and rejected the govern ment's agenda. They rejected it like they have never done before. Fowler now has a margin of 26.33 per cent. That is my mandate, a mandate to oppose this unfair and retrograde attack on the people of my electorate. So my mandate is to ask questions like: will a GST fix the problems in the Job Network, in nursing homes or with reconciliation? Will it fix the drug problem? The answer is no. Only leadership can fix those problems, and the Prime Minister has shown precious little of that in the last three years.I would like to end with a quote made in this House with which I agree:Let us look at the position: the Government is exposed by the facts, exposed on a policy front, exposed by the backbench, and exposed by its own incompetence on the frontbench. We might stop and ask ourselves what has changed? There are a few new ties, a few new dresses and a few new suits but, fundamentally, nothing else. It is just the same old tired lot over there. They have no direction, no policies, no mandate, no sense of direction for Australia, and no capacity to put in place, if it did have them, the policies that are required to deal with our very deep-seated economic circumstances as they have emerged and are still emerging.These words were said at the wrong time for the wrong government but they seem very apt now for this government, and I must thank Dr John Hewson for saying them.22:13:001540Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise in support of the government's bill. I am delighted to do so. In fact, the last speaker actually highlighted the great naivety of the Labor Party when it approaches economic management in Australia today. The talk about the people in Struggle Street shows that the member for Fowler simply does not understand the shift in the Australian economy away from goods and more into services. How are we going to meet the requirements of not only the people on Struggle Street but of their parents and their kids without a fundamental shift in the way that Australia manages its economy, a fundamental shift in the way it manages its tax system and a fundamental shift that will ensure that Australia is competitive domestically and also overseas? Without that change, we would become the poor men of Asia and of the world. This is about taking the right action.I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on taking this action. The cafe latte set, to which I am sure the member for Fowler belongs, sit back and pontificate about how we can fix things in Australia. Without the fundamental reforms you are not going to fix anything in this country—let alone in Struggle Street. It is interesting to look at the editorial in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, 3 December. It says:Australia set itself apart from the regional economic mine yesterday with a five per cent annual growth rate.The editorial concludes on this note:Economic management is not a matter of luck but of consistent policy and constant attention to global movements. The current managers, the Government of Prime Minister John Howard, have been doing this.To disrupt the Government's work by blocking tax reform would be sheer political bloody-mindedness and a betrayal of all Australians.The Telegraph editorial is saying to people like the member for Fowler, `Get your act together. If you want to climb aboard the economic engine of what Australia is today, this is the direction you should follow.' You are basically into retro politics. Of course we have heard that from one of your members who said, `You are stuck in the past. It is a 1950s revisit, and you haven't looked at how the world has fundamentally changed.'It is very important to recognise that the world has moved away from just taxing goods and into the service area. There is very little taxing of services in this country. So if people want to go to the gym, if they want to get their hair cut, if they want to go to the restaurant, if they want to go to a resort, they are not taxed. But that shift to taxing services is happening everywhere in the world economy.Tourism—and we had 4.2 million international visitors here last year—is one of the growth engines of the economy and is part of the services sector. The member for Fowler might not understand that, but a fundamental shift has occurred. I can tell you that the tourism industry—the shadow minister is there—was very happy about the fact that bed taxes across the country are going to be removed. And the Labor Party did not promise that they were going to stop those taxes across the country. That was a fundamental flaw of the Labor Party's when they talked to the tourism industry. The industry knew that the bottom line was that they were going to be better off under a GST proposal.It is important in terms of this shift that we also see what has happened in terms of indirect taxes. Indirect taxes as a proportion of the take of taxation have been constantly shifting. We have seen taxes from the indirect area dropping by 0.5 per cent to one per cent of GDP, which represents $500 million per year. That means that we have to find other tax areas, otherwise we would have a problem. When you have a shift in the indirect tax, you have to move it onto the direct tax. We have seen that the share of indirect taxes has gone from 27 per cent to 24 per cent and the direct taxes have continued to grow from 63 per cent to 70 per cent. The factor operating here is seen, for example, in the fact that we have not seen a taxation flow-on, despite the productivity improvements, in the area of car prices. People are not smoking and drinking to the same degree, and of course that means less in terms of tax take. So we need to find new avenues for taxation.The third major factor, following on from the need to broaden our tax base and the problem of that indirect system, is the need to protect the salary and wages earners of this country. In the 1950s, the taxpayer had to be earning 19 times average weekly earnings before paying the top marginal rate of taxes; today it only takes 1.2 times weekly earnings to pay the top marginal tax rate, or by the year 2000. We need to shift that whole approach.The fourth major factor is the personal income taxes and the increased family allowances that will become available to the people of Australia because of these tax changes. They are a great incentive to get people out there working. Under the GST, despite the claims from the member for Fowler, nobody will be worse off. Eighty per cent of taxpayers will be paying 30 per cent tax, and the average family will be $50 a week better off. There will be $13 billion in tax cuts, an extra $2.5 billion assistance for families. There will be a reduction of $4.5 billion in taxes reduced right across the board in terms of the net cost to the government.The fifth major reason we should be supporting these tax proposals today is the overall reduction in business costs because of the ability to provide important tax credits. So it is passed up the line and the credits continue until finally the consumer pays for the tax.I think that provides us with the sixth major reason, which is significant. It allows us to get at the tax cheats. As you check the processes through, you can certainly trace those who have been rorting the system. In New Zealand thousands of companies came out to register in order to get the tax credits. That is what we will see under this program—the people who are rorting the process, rorting the tax system, will be caught out.The seventh major reason is the great incentive that will be provided to Australian exporters. There is no doubt that Australia depends just as much as ever on exports. It used to be that we depended on wool; now it is manufactures, as well as the mining sector and of course the tourism sector. The incentive of taking off a whole range of indirect taxes and not having the GST means that Australian exporters will not operate under the type of handicap they have been operating under to date. They operate internationally under a 4.5 per cent disadvantage on average now. That will be removed when the GST is introduced. That will have a flow-on effect to the standard of living right throughout this great country of Australia. That is one of the key factors why we should be supporting this tax: providing real incentives to our exporters to assist our balance of payments situation and to increase the standard of living by the flow-on effect from the input of overseas currency.The eighth major reason that I support this approach is the change in Commonwealth-state financial relations. The Commonwealth will provide the states with a growing source of income. That is something that has been sought by the states for some time. The great opportunity to rationalise state and federal relations is important. The abolition of the wholesale sales tax, the abolition of stamp duties and the abolition of BAD and FID transaction requirements are great incentives for all Australians.As I mentioned, the Labor Party are involved in their retropolitics. They simply do not understand that the shift to a greater number of people in retirement and a greater of number of students means that somebody has to pay for the taxes in this country. We need to look at how we can broaden the base as much as possible and how we can reduce the overall burden of direct taxes.There is no doubt that there are major flaws in the current system. But there is grave hypocrisy in the Labor Party saying, `It's OK. There are no taxes on foods at all,' when even those regarded as being the necessities of life—bread, milk and butter—are already taxed at the rate of three per cent, and fuel is taxed at the rate of 43 per cent per litre. Then there is the sales tax on computers and on motor vehicles. All this flows on to the cost of goods and food.We have world's best practice in manufacturing and in service delivery. Why don't we have world's best practice in tax delivery? More than 120 countries all over Europe have a VAT. Canada, most of South America and most of Asia have a VAT or a GST. The USA has a retail sales tax and its economic basis is exactly the same as the GST. However, the IMF says that, when you get over 10 per cent of retail price, it is better to go to a multistage tax with offset. A tourism tax is imposed in various countries. In the UK it is 17.5 per cent, in France it is 26.6 per cent and in New York City it is 15 per cent. So there are various taxes around the world with a similar rate to the rate in Europe.Monitoring of price reduction will be an important aspect and business will see the benefits. The ACCC will make sure that there are criteria to monitor the prices. There will be competition out in the marketplace to ensure that prices are minimised. There will be far greater uniformity of taxes right across the board. But there will also be opportunities for the individual—whether they want to put their money into direct consumption or whether they want to save. There will be direct opportunities for savings. The new system will be fairer to administer across the board. The current system is far too complex. A person on an average weekly wage earns $37,000 a year. The tax rate on $38,000 a year is 43 cents in the dollar. That is absolutely absurd. The rate will be brought down to 30 cents in the dollar under a GST proposal.In terms of the criteria of fairness, equity and transparency, obviously the GST meets each of those proposals. Why is it that business is so enthusiastic? Why is it that the taxation community are totally in support of these proposals? The reality is that this is a logical system, it is a clear system, it is a transparent system. The reality is that most people in Australia today do not know what taxes they are actually paying. Let us look at toothpaste, for example. We pay 22 per cent on toothpaste and nothing on toothbrushes. We pay 30 per cent on engagement rings and nothing on wedding rings.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Fix it!MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—The shadow minister for tourism says, `Fix it.' The reality is that this is fixing it. There will be uniformity. Instead of rates of 12 per cent, 22 per cent, 32 per cent, 37 per cent, 41 per cent and 45 per cent, there will be one rate. So we will see uniformity right across the board. The tax will be implemented on an easy basis. We will see dramatic price changes when it is implemented—the price of cameras, the price of watches, the price of cars.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—You say it is a tax on jobs. May I ask my honourable colleague opposite if he could explain to me how it is that this will not create jobs for the Australian car producers if they have a reduction in price from the current levels down to 10 per cent? It just does not make sense that you can move from levels of 32 per cent down to 10 per cent as if there is no elasticity of demand at all—as if people will not shift at all. If somebody offers you a very significant reduction in price, you will be interested. This will occur right across the board. This will occur with consumer products and, most importantly, this will occur with Australia's export products. With every country that we compete with we now have a four to five per cent handicap because these taxes are taken off by our competitors in those 120 countries that have a VAT or a GST.We have to operate an outdated wholesale sales tax with a multilevel system that is difficult to understand, that is complex and that has a huge range of volumes of tax books to which you can refer as to whether or not a particular exemption applies. This will be a simple system. Those who are disadvantaged will be taken care of. The charities will be taken of. It is very interesting to note that Mr Vos, who headed up this inquiry as to how these various exemption areas would be administered, is a former member of the Salvation Army, so he knows how to look after the charitable areas. I think the provisions agreed to in relation to the charitable areas are very generous. The new system looks after the disadvantaged. It gives pensioners a four per cent increase. They will be 1½ per cent ahead of the CPI increases.We will have a fairer system, we will have an equitable system, we will have a transparent system. We will have a system that provides real incentives for those who want to work overtime. Those who want to move from one area of work to another will not be held back by lack of incentive because of their concern that they will go up to maximum rates. It is a system that will provide us with a basis of internationally competitive advantage right across the board. It will exempt religions, it will exempt charities, it will look after the disadvantaged and it will look after retirees. It will transform the Australian economy. It will put us in a globally competitive position. This is the tax that we have been looking for for the past 30 years. It has taken this government, this Prime Minister, this Treasurer, to make it happen.Adjournment154310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.154322:30:001543Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Once banks were the pride of most towns. In any country town, the most prestigious build ings and the architecturally most pleasing buildings were usually the banks, symbolising their position in the town and in the community. The local bank manager was also quite a significant person in any of the small country towns, often serving on many boards. Today, banks have done away with that position of trust and respect in the community. Indeed, they are often seen as villains as more and more banks move away and take away the services not only to country towns but also to urban communities. Indeed, in my own electorate of Throsby, all the suburbs there have had bank closures over the last few years. It is not only the Commonwealth Bank that is withdrawing; all the banks are withdrawing.We are always told that this is because the banks have to rationalise their service and that it will be a better service. I remember going with the member for Kiama and the mayor of Shellharbour to see the state manager of the Commonwealth Bank when they were closing the Shellharbour branch. We had an interesting discussion with the state manager when he told us all the reasons why that bank could not stay there. The interesting thing is that as the banks are closing the profits are going up, but service to the people is getting worse.I had to ring my own local bank the other day. The Dapto branch has recently closed and moved over to Shellharbour Square to rationalise the service. They send you a very nice, assuring letter but when I rang the bank—it was the Colonial State Bank—my telephone call rang out three times before they finally answered. I said, `Thank goodness someone is there. I thought you were all gone.' The person said, `We've been terribly busy.' Obviously, they were so busy that they could not answer the phone. Not only that: the profits of the bank have been astronomical over the last few years—there is no other word for it. Now they are doing away with even more services. They do not even want us inside the bank. For all those years we were encouraged to treat the bank as our special thing. Now we are told we are not to go to the bank, that we must do our banking electronically. They do not want to know us, but they want to use our money to continue to make their massive profits.On the radio the other day, I was listening to some people from the Local Government Association. They were suggesting that there be local branches formed by the Local Government Association. I think that is an excellent idea. In my area, the city of Wollongong, the city of Shellharbour and Kiama would have a huge amount of banking—we have BHP. If all the local businesses in my area used a local bank and if the councils used local banks, I think we could have local banks. The insurance companies are the other villains in the piece, especially in the Illawarra. Today, I heard a Mr Netterkorn, who is the President of SWAG, calling for a local insurance company based in the Illawarra. I think this also is an excellent idea.As big business is deserting us, the consumers, we are going to have to band together and do what we did so many years ago, forming our own community groups, whether in banking or in insurance. We need to say, `Enough is enough' to big business, whether it is the bank or the insurance company. (Time expired)154422:34:001544Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I thought the parliament might like to hear about a very innovative work for the dole project in my electorate. It combines the latest technology to produce a project that preserves our history and our heritage. The project is scanning, recording and making available to the whole of the community as many of the historical photographs as can be located in libraries throughout North Queensland, photographs which are currently ageing and being destroyed by time. Planning for the project began in December 1997 when public librarians met to discuss the opportunity to seek funding from the State Library of Queensland's Innovations Project Grants Scheme to develop a regional database of historical photographs.The project proposal indicated the intention to digitise and index the photographs and make the database available using CD-ROM technology. Participants in North Queensland included the Thuringowa City Library, the Townsville City Library, Hinchinbrook Shire Library, Burdekin Shire Library, Charters Towers City Library and the Bowen Historical Society—an area bigger than Victoria. An innovative feature of the program is the involvement of participants in the Work for the Dole Scheme. Last Friday, I was very fortunate to attend the Thuringowa City Library to meet the participants and see what fine young men and women we have participating in that program.Only about four weeks ago, there were three participants involved. Two of them already have full-time jobs and have been replaced by Anne Mitchell, Benton Lewis and Robert Eberhardt. They are fine people who are doing a marvellous job, being trained in all aspects of the program as they carry out their work at the Thuringowa City Library. They have been trained to index and scan images and input data. Their first task was indexing and inputting data from photographs held at Thuringowa City Library. Increasingly, their work has involved scanning and data input of indexed images received from participating libraries. All the scanning of images and data input is being carried out on site at the Thuringowa City Library. Indexing is the responsibility of participating libraries.Training for the indexing of images is being carried out by the project officer, Ron Store, with the assistance of the Thuringowa historian, Gai Copeman, and participants in the Work for the Dole Scheme. To date, training has been given to the librarian at Burdekin Library and a training day has been held for Friends of the Library at Hinchinbrook. Training days will also be held for volunteers at Charters Towers.What this means is that many of these old photographs can be retrieved by anyone who wants to look at them at the push of a button. I have brought with me into the parliament tonight the kind of result that anybody can get; they can print out a photograph off a CD-ROM. This is a photograph of the bridge at Mount Spec, taken 90 years ago. It has details attached, such as who took the photograph, when it was taken, what kind of a photograph it was, which collection it is in, and so on. The beauty of this system is that it can be made available to any library anywhere in Australia and very shortly, when the system is up and running, it will be on the Internet as well. It is just a wonderful program.To date over a thousand records from Thuringowa, Hinchinbrook and Burdekin have been entered on to the database. Search and display software has been purchased and installed, which allows users to search the database for images on particular subjects. The work for the dole participants have gained new skills and are learning how to work in a team based environment as well as learning really useful work practices. As I said earlier, two of those participants have already moved on to full-time employment.Supervisors of the project, I can tell you, having seen this last Friday, have been delighted at the high level of commitment and responsible attitudes of the young people taking part. Funding for the project will finish at the end of June 1999 and the database of images will be available to participating organisations at that time. I would like to see this project continue. I would like to recommend that other communities throughout Australia take up this kind of project. It is a very worthwhile project in preserving our heritage and one that deserves the support of the Commonwealth of Australia.154522:39:001545Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I have previously spoken about the great work being carried out in my electorate of Greenway by the Quakers Hill Family Services—a joint program between Wesley Dalmar Child and Family Care and the Quakers Hill Uniting Church. I recently had the opportunity of attending the annual general meeting of this organisation, and I would like to update this parliament on some of the functions of it.Quakers Hill Family Services is working with high-risk disadvantaged families, as well as families in crisis. The service has also recently taken up working with Meriton Village residents, who are among the most disadvantaged in the community. These activities have brought family service staff into close contact with many families where children are imminently at risk of abuse and where families have high or special needs. The heavy workload of this organisation can be seen by the following remarks, which are based on the annual report, under the heading `Family Counselling'. There has been an increase in demand for counselling given to a total of 38 families and 97 children. There was a significant demand for counselling for young children aged five to eight years who are struggling with the effects of domestic violence, some of whom had been suspended from school due to their difficult behaviour.There has also been an increased demand for postnatal depression counselling. In the area of direct family support there has also been an increase in the number of families with multiproblem issues, covering some 158 families and 243 children. The intensive family work program has also been extended to provide a very tailored service to families who are at risk of disintegrating. This has often meant working up to 25 hours per week with a single family. For some of these high-risk families, this service has enabled them to come to terms with their own disability and put in place protective measures for their young children. Others had been so traumatised by domestic violence that they needed intensive work to rebuild the very basis of their family. This type of service has also assisted families who have had their children removed into out-of-home care and who are now at the point of family reunion. To date, this service has provided approximately 1,950 hours of intensive family work to eight families.Important work has also been done with the children group service. As the result of high domestic violence, this group has researched best practice on how to work with children who have experienced domestic violence and it has developed a group work program. Additionally, in conjunction with the local schools, a grief and loss program was run for children aged five to seven years. Truancy reduction programs have been introduced in high schools in recognition that if young people are kept in the education system their employment opportunities will increase.The reduction in department of community service funding as of July 1998 and less child care assistance to subsidise low income families being provided by the department of health and family services have brought changes to the service in the area of vocational care. As a result, fees have needed to be adjusted to accommodate the new system, which is confusing many families. There have been 77 families and 108 children serviced by this centre. Of these, 46 families and 66 children are new to the program.Mr Speaker, I am sure you can appreciate, by this range of services provided by the Quakers Hill Family Services, the valuable work they are performing on behalf of families at risk in this part of western Sydney. I am sure that if more funds were available there would still be an enormous amount of work to perform in this area. In this period when governments, the community and families are struggling to solve the many problems facing young people, such as youth unemployment, youth homelessness, drug addiction, violence and youth suicide, the work of organisations such as the Quakers Hill Family Service is invaluable. I thank the management committee, the staff coordinator Glenys Judd, and her hardworking staff on the wonderful work they are performing for the families in my electorate.154622:44:001546Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I rise this evening to speak about how the unions have destroyed a once successful business in my electorate of Barker.Select Meat Exports at Mount Schank in South Australia was one of the largest operations in the south-east. The plant produced meat products for export to over 50 countries and their daily output was approximately 2,000 sheep and 150 beef cattle per day. Their operating revenue was $20 million per year, and approximately 200 people were employed in this business.Last Friday, the managing director, Dr Rodney Aziz, was forced to close the plant because of the actions of the AMIEU. Dr Aziz says that after six months of the AMIEU betraying their members and causing indus trial havoc, the plant is now unworkable and 200 employees are left without a job.During 1996, Select Meat Works closed the plant for extensive maintenance and the building and commissioning of a beef slaughter floor. In October, before the plant reopened, negotiations commenced with the union over staffing and wages for the beef floor. An agreement with Mr Graham Smith of the AMIEU was reached in regard to wage rates and production output. Soon after the agreement was reached, the beef floor commenced production. The mutton floor commenced their operations about one month after the beef floor. It opened on the same terms and conditions which had been negotiated for the beef floor, despite a certified agreement that had expired but had not been formally cancelled. This agreement was therefore, theoretically, still in effect. The agreement reached with the union was that the beef floor agreement would be the conditions of employment until a new certified agreement was negotiated.Negotiations soon began on a new certified agreement to the point of a bargaining period commencing but, then, in mid- 1997, the union suddenly withdrew from negotiations and launched a Federal Court action against two of Select Meat Export's companies—Mount Schank Meat Processing and Quality Meat Packing. The actions succeeded, despite the agreements which were in effect, and these two companies were placed into voluntary administration for fear of an insolvent trader being declared under the Corporations Act. The administration of these companies began on 1 June this year. In the following four weeks, the AMIEU launched a range of actions against the administrator—including strikes—which resulted in the company losing two major service contracts. During this strike action there were threats of sabotage and further industrial action. At a meeting with creditors on June 22 this year, it was decided that the employees of the two companies, Mount Schank Meat Processing and Quality Meat Packing, should be terminated because of their declining prospects of secure employment. Immediately following this, the union embarked on an attack to disrupt the plant's operations and a 24-hour picket line was established. Violent demonstrations took place and company property was destroyed. The plant was unable to operate because of this action. Just four days later, on June 26 at another creditors meeting, it was decided that one company should be placed into liquidation, whilst the union used their power to stop any action on the other company for a further four weeks. An order was sought and received in favour of the company on 26 June from the Industrial Relations Commission to disband the picket line, but union officials and members ignored this court ruling and remained on the site. The company sought damages from the union and the full bench of the Supreme Court. The company's damages claim was granted because—the AMIEU failed to show the necessary respect for the commission's authority—and—the conduct of (the union) in this matter has been such as to impact upon their bona fides, has directly impacted upon the prospects of a settlement to the dispute and must be considered in terms of the public's interests.It is only the second time that such a ruling has been made. The damages claimed are $5 million, which represents the loss of contracts and output following the actions of the AMIEU.Since this determination by the full bench, the union, its officials and its members have remained in violation of the commission and the picket line was in force for approximately six weeks. This was despite several attempts at negotiation, which were all withdrawn once negotiations proceeded to the level of Graham Smith. The federal body of the AMIEU seemed happy, but it was the bloody-mindedness of the state person, Graham Smith, that caused so many problems. The AMIEU has filed actions in the Federal Court for a variety of ridiculous reasons, simply to cost the company money in defence proceedings. Graham Smith, leading the AMIEU, has cost 200 employees their job by encouraging industrial action. (Time expired)154722:49:001547Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Two weeks ago, the Member for Hindmarsh took great delight in coming into this House and reading into Hansard a letter which had come into her possession from `a disgruntled Labor member' in her home state of South Australia. I am glad she is here. I notified her office that I was going to say these things tonight.I, too, Mr Deputy Speaker, have come into possession of a number of letters—from a very disgruntled member of the South Australian branch of the Liberal Party. These letters, along with some interesting phone calls that I have received, reflect very badly, I am sorry to say, on the performance and standard of representation offered by the member for Hindmarsh.In June 1996, a constituent of the member for Hindmarsh who also happens to be a member of the Liberal Party, Mr Bill Thomas, approached the member with a problem that he was having as a small business owner. Mr Thomas's company produces commercial and industrial videos and he had gone to the Australian Federal Police with evidence that video pirates were knocking off his company's products. It was Mr Thomas's belief that, despite the evidence he had presented to them, the AFP had not acted satisfactorily in relation to his case. As a consequence, Mr Thomas approached his local member—the honourable member for Hindmarsh—for her assistance. And suddenly, things started going from bad to worse for this gentleman.According to Mr Thomas, the member for Hindmarsh proved completely useless in dealing with his complaint. Despite his repeated requests for assistance, the member did nothing for him for over two years. As a last resort, an understandably frustrated Mr Thomas wrote to the member for Hindmarsh one final time, in late August this year. This is what he had to say:In the past I have written to you about the above complaint as one of your constituents. I am now writing to you as a long time member of the Liberal Party. When I joined the party many years ago I believed in its charter and the people involved in it. I will also point out that I believed in you and supported you along with other candidates over many election campaigns.Over the past two years I have been pushing you to act on my behalf but found that you did not listen, you weren't interested and furthermore you could not be bothered. You also kept very important information from me and I'm still waiting for you to answer my last letter sent to you on the 22nd of May 1998.I had no other alternative but to approach the Federal Labor candidate for Hindmarsh, Mr Steve Georganas, your counterpart.To your embarrassment, but to my delight, I found him keen to listen, he knew the problem, he took action, and he cares.I have enclosed documents showing what he has achieved in just a few weeks. You will see that he has managed to have an internal investigation into the Australian Federal Police from Canberra with the Commonwealth Ombudsman overseeing the complaint.The only documents you have sent me over a period of two years are just two letters saying that there's nothing you can do.Why can Mr Georganas achieve so much as a candidate for the Labor Party in Opposition where you fail as a Liberal Member of Parliament in Government?You have let the Liberal Party down, you have let me down, you have let yourself down along with your supporters.Mr Thomas was so appalled at the level of assistance and service offered, or should I say not offered by the member for Hindmarsh, that during the election campaign he sent out 55,000 letters—to every household in the member's electorate, at his own expense—urging her constituents to vote for the Labor candidate because Steve Georganas cared more `about helping out' than appearing on `glossy brochures and being on TV'. And the member for Hindmarsh had the hide to have, as her campaign slogan, the saying that she `fights for our local community'.It appears that Mr Thomas is not the only constituent to get less than acceptable service from the member for Hindmarsh. While in a letter to Mr Thomas she calls herself `one of the most acceptable federal Mps' and that `anyone who lives in my electorate has access to me', I have been told also of another instance where an 82-year-old constituent went to see the member for Hindmarsh with a problem she was having with her pension and was told to get out and not come back.With such shocking standards of service and representation being offered to the residents of Hindmarsh, it all starts to make sense why the Liberal member unexpectedly did so badly at the last election. The people of Hindmarsh gave the Liberal candidate a hiding. On 3 October she lost approximately 6,000 votes in the primary count, which is a swing of close to nine per cent, reducing to a swing of close to seven per cent after preferences. After counting had finished, the member for Hindmarsh had crawled over the line by 1,876 votes.I am sure the colleagues of the member for Hindmarsh, particularly her fellow representatives from South Australia, will find Mr Thomas's experiences quite illuminating. If they are looking for answers as to why the member did so badly in the recent election and why her constituents consider her so useless, they should contact Mr Thomas. If they would like me to, I can give them the names, the phone numbers and all the correspondence that has been through my office, and they can get his views `from the horse's mouth'.I am told that there are plenty of other stories that Mr Thomas would like to relay to them about his local MP. If the Liberal Party wants to improve its chances in Hindmarsh at the next federal poll, perhaps it is time it preselected a new candidate—someone who actually wants to do the job of representing the people of this area. I also believe, when the member for Hindmarsh comes in here and gleefully brags about the letter from a failed Labor Party candidate, she should always remember the cliche: people who live in glasshouses should never throw stones—they have a tendency, like a boomerang, to come back and hit you time and time again. Words like this get out over all the electorate, and I have a lot more on this issue. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Consistent with my last ruling, I must now remind the member for Prospect that her time has well and truly expired. Criticisms of members, without substantive motions, are always skating on thin ice. I will therefore call the member for Hindmarsh.154922:54:001549Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I must say to the member for Prospect that I am particularly disappointed to hear her say this today and to hear her leading such an attack. I think the member for Prospect will know through her own time—I believe she came to this place at the same time as I did in 1990—that in the process of that time you sometimes get some very difficult constituents. I am sure, if she thought back, that she could think of some of those difficult constituents. Mr Thomas was one of those that I dealt with. Mr Thomas, I believe, has been to see Mr Pyne as well and he also went to see Senator Ferris. I believe he found none of us satisfactory.The letter that you quoted was not the one I remember getting from Mr Thomas, which was highly threatening. In it he threatened to write about my character in ways that I would not like to repeat in this House. It was an absolutely threatening letter. I wrote back to Mr Thomas and said that I would not, under the circumstance of having received such a letter, have him back in my office. I told him that perhaps he would like to go elsewhere for help. I recommended that he saw one of the senators as, under the circumstances, I could no longer see him. I might say that the letter did go around the electorate. Mr Thomas had told Senator Ferris that he was broke, so I could only presume that the letter was paid for by the Labor Party. It was a particularly nasty, personal letter—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—He paid for it out of his own pocket.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I hate to contradict the member for Prospect, who said `Paid from his own pocket', but I point out that, if he had no money, sending a letter around an entire electorate would be quite expensive. I think there was no doubt about it, especially as he turned up at the poll with the Labor Party and made some unfortunate comments to one of my staff members.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—He's a member of the Liberal Party. CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The member for Prospect mentioned that he said he was a member of the Liberal Party. I must say that I have not checked to see whether he is a member of the Liberal Party. I say to the member for Prospect that I do not treat anybody any differently whether they are a member of the Labor Party or a member of the Liberal Party. If they come to my office and ask for help, that is exactly what they get. I am very jealous of the reputation I have for going out of my way to help people who come to my office. If you came down to my electorate, I could introduce you to hundreds of people who have come to me for help and for whom my office—not only me but my staff—have gone out of their way to help.Since I came to the House in 1990, I and my staff have prided ourselves on this. One of the mottos of my office is that we will not turn anybody away, no matter what their problem is. We have helped with some very odd problems. One day a man rang up and said, `There's a dead dog next door. What are you going to do about it?' We actually did get the dead dog removed. We have helped people with things that probably are way outside our jurisdiction—with speeding fines and with parking fines when we felt they were unjustly issued. We help with every range of federal issues. So for the member for Prospect to come in here today and quote from one constituent whom, I would suggest, she obviously went to interview and, on the basis of what was said, cast aspersions on my reputation, I find it unworthy of her. Might I add that the letter I quoted from about the Labor Party is available in a public newspaper.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices1549The following notices were given:Mr Neville to move:That this House:(1) draws the attention of the Government to the condition of the national rail track;(2) commends the Government for its commitment of $250 million to rail infrastructure but asks that it be expanded; (3) calls for the declaration of national rail highway from Brisbane to Perth; and(4) seeks removal of impediments to a seamless interstate rail system.Mr Reith to move:(1) That a Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector be appointed to inquire into and report on:(a) the degree of industry concentration within the retailing sector in Australia, with particular reference to the impact of that industry concentration on the ability of small independent retailers to compete fairly in the retail sector;(b) overseas developments with respect to this issue, highlighting approaches adopted in OECD economies; and(c) possible revenue-neutral courses of action by the Federal Government (ie courses of action that do not involve taxation reform).(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 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 select committee until completion of the joint committee's report.(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.(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 any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee of 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.(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 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 the adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(16) That the committee report no later that 6 months after this resolution is agreed to by both the Senate and the House of Representatives.(17) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the House of Representatives Standing Committees on Industry, Science and Technology and the Senate Economics References Committees appointed during previous Parliaments.(18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.(19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Lavarack Barracks Redevelopment Stage 2, Townsville.Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies Stage 2 Development, Pinjarra Hills, Qld.Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: CSIRO National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research, Bentley, WA.Documents1551The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 7 December 1998:Aged Care Act—Principles under section 96-1—1998—Accountability.Accreditation Grant.Classification Amendment (No. 1).Committee Amendment (No. 1).Flexible Care Subsidy Amendment (No. 1).Quality of Care Amendment (No. 1).Residential Care Subsidy Amendment (No. 2).User Rights Amendment (No. 1).Child Care Act—Determination—Child Care (High Need Regions) Amendment (No. 1) 1998.Christmas Island Act—Casino Control Ordinance—Revocation of designation of casino premises 19 November 1998.Customs Act—Instruments of approval 1998 Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43.Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Export Control Orders 1998 No. 3.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination 1998 No. T24.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Remuneration Tribunal—Determination 1998 No. 23.Taxation Administration Act—Determination 1998 No. TD 98/27.Rulings 1998 Nos. TR 98/18, TR 98/19, TR 98/20, TR 98/21.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments under section 196B 1998 Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81.Answers to Questions in Writing1552The following answers to questions were circulated:1552(Question No. 23)231552Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What measures has the Minister's Department undertaken which are categorised as positive discrimination programs, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic.(2) What are the details and funding commitments involved in each case.1552McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) & (2) Within the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, the following programs could be categorised as positive discrimination programs:Indigenous Cadetship ProjectThe Department appoints Indigenous Australians, from time to time, under the Indigenous Cadetship Project (ICP). The ICP is an initiative under the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs' (DETYA) Training for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Program.The funding commitment required can vary depending on the age of the Cadet and the length of the course of tertiary study they are completing. Financial support can be divided into three categories:. the study salary paid to Cadets during the academic year (this is reimbursed to the Department by DETYA);. the practical training salary paid to Cadets during their work placement within the Department over the long summer break between academic years; and. allowances (eg. Book and Equipment Allowance, Reviewed Travel Allowance).In the case of a 20 year old Cadet, for example, the study salary is currently $12,480 per annum (paid pro-rata based on the academic year), the practical training salary is $21,860 per annum (paid pro-rata based on the practical training period), with a maximum Book and Equipment Allowance of $350.For Cadets who are required to temporarily relocate from interstate in order to do the annual work placements, additional expenses are incurred in the form of airfares, accommodation and Reviewed Travel Allowance (RTA). Airfares can vary greatly depending on the Cadet's home base location. Twin share accommodation costs in the vicinity of $45 per night, and the Cadet would be eligible for RTA of approximately $92 per week during the practical training period.Indigenous Cadets are responsible for their own Higher Education Contribution Scheme liabilities.Community BroadcastingThe Government continues to support community broadcasting as a valuable means to provide access for those whose voices are not regularly heard on other media. In 1998-99, a total of $4.824 million was allocated to the sector under a grant to the Community Broadcasting Foundation Ltd. Community broadcasting allows special interest broadcasters to communicate with specific, or targeted, audiences. For example, there are five full time ethnic stations, and a further 70 general stations, which offer access to almost 1400 hours of ethnic programs weekly, in 90 different languages. Eight stations provide services specially designed for the needs of Australia's print handicapped citizens. Ten community stations provide special interest programming for indigenous Australians, and 30 indigenous media groups produce over 1000 hours of programming which is broadcast on general community stations, thus providing opportunities for all Australians to hear Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people express their own achievements, concerns and values.To advance the principle of equity in the delivery of broadcasting services, the Government specified that the 1998-99 grant to the Community Broadcasting Foundation was to be allocated as follows:. $2.376m for ethnic community broadcasting;. $0.574m for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander broadcasting;. $0.270m for print handicapped; and. $1.096m for community broadcasting generally. AccessAbility Grants ProgramThe AccessAbility Grants program, administered by the Department, was introduced in the 1998/99 Budget as a measure to improve access to the Internet and online services for people with disabilities. The 1998/99 Budget allocated funding of $1.5 million for grants in each of the years 1998/99 and 1999/2000.Grants are awarded on a competitive basis for eligible organisations to undertake projects designed to improve access to online services for people with disabilities, and which demonstrate innovation and best practice. The program does not attempt to meet the funding needs of individuals whose disability impedes access to the Internet, but rather, seeks to demonstrate new models for supporting access, that can be taken up widely. The program has been well received by the disabilities sector.Eighteen (18) projects have been funded in the first round, announced on 30 July 1998. The successful projects range across a variety of disabilities, and all States and Territories, with the exception of the Northern Territory, are represented.The AccessAbility program is complemented by an online data base, developed in response to calls from the disabilities sector for a Web resource, providing comprehensive information on a broad range of online accessibility issues. The AccessAbility Online Resource incorporates information on standards development and other policy issues, case studies, training issues, hardware and software products and support programs, both from Australian and key international sources.It is envisaged that submissions for the next round of funding will be called for around March 1999.The Universal Service Obligation (USO) and the Universal Service LevyThe USO includes a requirement to supply standard telephone services to people in Australia on request. Under section 142 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 , the requirement includes a telephone handset that does not have switching functions or any equivalent customer equipment supplied in order to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). The Act also includes a power to specify in regulations customer equipment, other goods and services to be supplied to a person with a disability to give people with disabilities and industry greater certainty about the extent of the obligation. The USO is funded under the Universal Service Levy, as required under the Act, to which all carriers contribute according to their eligible revenue for the financial year.To this end, the Telecommunications (Equipment for the Disabled) Regulations 1998 (the Regulations) specify the kind of customer equipment that is to be supplied to a person with a disability for use in connection with the STS. These Regulations aim to take into account improvements in technology by giving flexibility for equipment provision to vary as technology changes or reduces in price.Telstra, as the USP, is required to provide this equipment to comply with the Regulations and announced its Disability Equipment Program (DEP) on 17 September 1998. The DEP effectively replaces the Government's original equipment services for TTY's, Telstra's TTY Program and Telstra's broader equipment program for people with disabilities. The current DEP has guaranteed funding under the USO.National Relay ServiceIn order to ensure the delivery of the standard telecommunications services to people who are deaf, or who have a hearing and/or speech impairment, the Act also requires the provision of a National Relay Service (NRS). The new arrangements under the Act allow for the funding of the NRS through the NRS Levy to which all carriers are required to contribute on a quarterly basis. As a result, the NRS has guaranteed funding and its services are continually reviewed and enhanced. For example, the NRS now includes the provision of a dedicated emergency call service that is better integrated for faster dispatch of emergency services. The provision of the NRS has been contracted out to the Australian Communication Exchange Limited (ACE LTD).Funding for consumer representationThe Act (s.593) also allows for the funding of consumer representative bodies on telecommunications issues.The Blind Citizens of Australia (BCA) successfully applied to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for funding of $100,000 under this provision. As required under their contract, BCA has obtained the services of a wide range of representatives from various disability organisations who, when required, work with industry in the development of telecommunications codes and regulations.Other CommentsThe Department administers a range of cultural programs. While many of these encourage applications from particular groups all applications are judged strictly on merit and none therefore include "positive discrimination" in the sense of preferential treatment. Departmental cultural programs which provide advice or information contain special features for use by people with disabilities but costings for these elements are included in total program costs. The Department also runs programs directed at overcoming geographic isolation, however, this was not viewed as a personal charac teristic and programs are aimed at communities rather than individuals.1554(Question No. 63)631554Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Is it the Government's position that the construction of Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek is an important part of (a) expanding and (b) improving Australia's tourism infrastructure; if so, (i) why and (ii) does she support the position.(2) Does she support the construction of Sydney's second international airport at Badgerys Creek for tourism reasons; if not, why not; if so, why.(3) Is there strong support within the Australian tourism sector for building Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek; if not, why not.(4) Will she draw the attention of the Australian tourism industry of the (a) negative consequences for the people of western Sydney of building a 24 hour international airport at Badgerys Creek and (b) merits of other proposals for Sydney's second airport; if not, why not.(5) Did she state in the House on 9 March 1998 that she supported the construction of Sydney's second international airport offshore on pylons outside Botany Bay and adjacent to La Perouse; if so, does she continue to support that position; if not, why not; if so, will she promote the position to Australia's tourism industry; if not, why not.1554Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Government recognises the importance of having adequate airport infrastructure in place to cater for Sydney's projected tourism growth. To this end, the Government is committed to conducting a thorough and transparent EIS process on the proposed site for a second airport at Badgerys Creek. No decisions about the second airport will be made until the EIS process has been completed. As a Minister of the Government, I support this position.(3) I understand that the tourism industry supports the provision, in the medium to long term, of a second airport to service Sydney's needs.(4) One of the key objectives of the EIS process for Badgerys Creek is to inform interested parties of the environmental and community impacts of building a major airport at that site. I understand that the tourism industry has been closely involved in the EIS process. Should the Government decide not to proceed with Badgerys Creek, following consideration of the final EIS and associated studies, then other proposals would need to be considered.(5) While recognising that the next millennium will deliver radical new solutions to many of this century's problems, the construction of an offshore airport would need to be considered in light of detailed feasibility studies which consider the engineering, environmental and commercial viability of such a proposal.1555(Question No. 114)1141555Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the Minister, his or her predecessor or his or her Department appoint a (a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament or (b) member of the secretariats of the national offices of the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Greens as a (i) statutory appointment, (ii) consultant or (iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998; if so, in each case, (A) what was the person's name and the position to which he or she was appointed, (B) to which political party was he or she affiliated, (C) what remuneration was involved, (D) was the appointment (I) full-time, (II) part-time or (III) casual, (E) what fees were applicable and (F) with respect to (I) travel allowance, (II) vehicles, (III) telephones and (IV) attendance fees, (aa) what entitlements were claimable, (ab) how often were entitlements claimed and (ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement.1555McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:To collect and assemble the information requested would be a major task for my Department, and statutory and other bodies under my portfolio, and I am not prepared to ask them to commit the considerable human resources required to obtain the information to answer these questions.