1998-12-103911REPS181101998-12-10Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous181109:31:001811Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—by leave—I move:That this House, recalling that 10 December 1998 is the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations:(1) reaffirms the deep and enduring commitment of the Australian Parliament and people to the universal and fundamental human rights set out in the Universal Declaration as a birthright for all peoples and all nations;(2) deplores the violation of human rights wherever and whenever this occurs; and(3) pledges to give wholehearted support to the principles enshrined in the Declaration and to promote the full realisation of human rights for all people throughout the world.This is an important day, and it honours an important event in the march of mankind to a more just and equitable international order. Today Australia joins the international community in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By passing this motion today, parliament can recognise the importance of the universal declaration, and also reaffirm Australia's continued unswerving commitment to the principles which the declaration articulates. The declaration proclaims a comprehensive list of rights and freedoms that all individuals should have as a birthright.In 1948, when the United Nations Assembly adopted the declaration, it was an inspiration to a world still reeling from the horrors of the Second World War, a war which had destroyed the lives of millions of soldiers, and it also represented an act of withdrawal of the human rights of civilian populations unparalleled in the history of the world. It was a war that had seen the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany carried to their demented lengths in the death camps of the Holocaust. All of these horrors were an immediate driving force behind efforts to have a charter of human rights endorsed by the world community.It is important to recall the contribution of the leaders of the world then—the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The contributions of many Australians include—I am happy to acknowledge, from the other side of politics—the former Leader of the Opposition, the late Dr Evatt, and many others who made an important contribution.I think it is also very important that we as an Australian parliament record with intense pride that Australia was one of the eight-member drafting committee that played a major role in the development of the declaration. The drafters ensured the declaration's universality and durability by embodying rights common to all nations and foreign to no culture, and it remains a common standard of achievement and aspiration for people throughout the world.Since 1948, Australia has given strong bipartisan support to the declaration and the principle that human rights are both universal and indivisible. At home, Australia has built a society which places the utmost importance on the values of decency, fairness and tolerance. Respect for the rights and freedoms of others is a continuing hallmark of the Australian nation. Our record in this regard is second to none and, as Prime Minister, I am always proud to promote it internationally. Abroad, Australian governments of all political stripes have always taken seriously their responsibility to promote observance of human rights throughout the world. That does not mean that we always engage in hectoring other countries with different histories and different customs.But the coalition government will always make its views clearly known on the fundamental necessity of respect for human rights. We will actively seek practical and effective measures to improve and promote greater observance of them. We do so not just on the basis of a document agreed in the United Nations and the successive covenants to the declaration: our efforts to promote human rights are a natural consequence of the values that we hold dear as a nation. They constitute an obligation that follows from our commitment to a fair go for all people.It is once again worth reminding ourselves on an occasion such as this that Australia has been one of fewer than 10 nations which has maintained and enjoyed continuously democratic traditions for the whole of the 20th century. We are sometimes too reluctant as a people to declare to the world how successful we have been in relation to many of these fundamental achievements. For a nation of 18 million people, for a nation which quite properly is proud of its role as a middle power but is not a world power, it is a remarkably strong source of pride for an Australian to say that he or she belongs to a country that has been one of a group of fewer than 10 that has been continuously democratic since the beginning of this century. If you wanted an illustration of our commitment to human rights, that commitment starts at home. If you do not respect the human rights of your own people, then you can hardly put yourself in a position to lecture the rest of the world.In making those remarks and expressing with some intensity the pride I feel as an Australian Prime Minister in the democratic institutions of our nation, I do not pretend for a moment that our human rights record has been without blemish. I do not pretend for a moment that continued areas of poverty, deprivation and disadvantage within our society in 1998 do not represent some diminution of the human rights of the people who comprise those particular groups.It remains an important commitment of this government that those areas of disadvantage—including, of course, the indigenous people, but not only in that area; other Australians who suffer disadvantage—be very directly and vigorously addressed.Since coming to office, the coalition government has established a Centre for Democratic Institutions. I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs in particular for his commitment to that task. We have worked very strongly for the establishment of an international criminal court. I know that members on both sides of the parliament have worked very strongly for this, and I commend them for it. This development, and a number of other developments that I will turn to in a moment, indicate that the past 12 months have been extremely important months in the march towards greater fulfilment of the goals of the universal declaration that we honour today.I can remember a number of years ago when a distinguished former colleague of mine in the Liberal Party and now Australia's ambassador to France, John Spender, himself the son of a former distinguished member of the International Court of Justice, argued very strongly for the establishment of an international criminal court in his position as shadow minister for foreign affairs. I know there have been many members of the Labor Party who have taken up the cudgel for that. It is a source of great satisfaction and pride to all of us that a former Governor-General and distinguished member of the High Court of Australia, Sir Ninian Stephen, served on the tribunal that tried many of the abominable war crimes that came out of the collapse of the old Yugoslavia. The contribution that Sir Ninian made as an individual, as an Australian and as a great jurist to that tribunal is something that we should commend very warmly.We have worked for the establishment of an international criminal court. Only yesterday, our permanent representative to the United Nations signed the statute of the court on behalf of Australia. We have supported a global ban on landmines and we have committed large funding to removing them from war torn areas in Afghanistan and Cambodia. We have, in the face of some criticism from others, developed a practical dialogue on human rights with China. We have reoriented our aid program to give greater attention to promotion of human rights, especially through improving governance in the countries in our region. These are some of the practical steps we have taken in the past 2½ years as part of our commitment to human rights.The 50th anniversary is an opportunity for all of us to reinvigorate our efforts to ensure that human rights are enjoyed in full by all peoples in all countries. Quite plainly, they are not at present. Quite plainly, there remain significant areas of the world where abuse of human rights continues. Our responsibility as a nation respecting human rights and human values is to achieve practical improvements on behalf of those people who are suffering a deprivation of human rights. Those practical achievements are not always realised by hectoring from a distance. They are sometimes realised by bilateral engagement and they are sometimes realised in different ways in different circumstances.The last year has seen some very significant developments. The development surrounding the former President of Chile, particularly the decision of the British House of Lords—it was a surprise to many to find that there was no automatic sovereign immunity to be enjoyed—was a very significant decision. It is a decision that will be debated and it is a decision that is not without import so far as the future activities, the future movement and the future behaviour of leaders are concerned. It does highlight that life is full of compromises and life is full of political accommodation if a greater cause is to be achieved.We have had some recent examples of people who have had undoubted associations with organisations that have not always respected human rights to the full degree being embraced into the official body politic and even being allowed to visit our country in circumstances where earlier those people were denied entry to our country. But who could deny that in the longer run that is not a sensible approach to adopt if in fact the greater goal of the greater peace is achieved.It is just a reminder of the two-edged character of some of these developments. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision in the case of General Pinochet, for example, and I know there would be many in this House who would agree and who would warmly applaud it, the fact is it represents a very significant development and it is a very significant reminder to all of us of the universality of human rights. In the long run, I believe, whatever concerns there may be as to some of the implications, that represents solid progress towards the cause of and a more accommodating international atmosphere for people who care about human rights. Those two developments and the establishment of the criminal court do represent very signifi cant milestones along the road towards a world which will deal even more vigorously with human rights.But, in the end, it is the determination of countries such as Australia, in alliance with other nations of like mind, that have made the greatest contribution towards human rights. Never let it be forgotten that the denial of human rights in World War II by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was turned back by the determination of the allied nations to resist. That should never be forgotten. The history of the world reminds us that countries occasionally must be prepared to take stands to achieve those ends.I invite all members of the House to commit themselves today to helping make the principles of the universal declaration a reality for all of us. I know that, inevitably, whenever there is a discussion of human rights and the universal declaration, there will a debate about whether we should have a bill of rights in this country. That debate will go on long and loud, I suspect, on both sides of the House. I remain very strongly attracted to the views expressed on this issue by a person still regarded as probably the greatest chief justice Australia has produced, Sir Owen Dixon, who argued very strongly that the greatest bulwark of human rights and the greatest protectors of human rights were not immaculately crafted bills of rights in constitutions but rather the vigour, openness and liberality of a nation's institutions.It is still the case that a vigorous, open parliamentary democracy, an incorruptible judiciary and a free and vigorous media are the three greatest guarantees of liberty in our society. However imperfect those institutions may be, however flawed and frail Australians may think its parliamentary institutions are, however critical we in this place may rightly be on occasions of the standards and approach of the Australian media, and however much it may now be fashionable to attack with impunity just about every institution in Australian society, it remains the case that if those three institutions are in fundamentally good health they, more than any immaculately crafted declaration in a constitution, will protect our fundamental rights and liberties. The 20th century is replete with nations whose constitutions enshrine the most beautifully crafted commitment to human rights and civil liberties, only to see them overturned because of the frailty of the other institutions of those nations. One can only think of such things as the Weimar Republic and some of the language of the constitution of the now ruined Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.This is an important day. It is an important bipartisan occasion. The commitment to the fundamental values of our society—the freedom of movement, the freedom of thought, the freedom of worship, the freedom of speech and the freedom of lawful association and lawful assembly—is held very dearly and held in common by people across the political divide in this country. We will bicker and argue and debate and hurl insults at each other on other issues, but on some of these fundamental things there is a bond that unites all of us who believe in the cause of liberal democracy and in the cause of human rights.The most valuable thing that we can do today is to assess the strength of our own institutions and remember that there are millions of men and women around the world who do not enjoy the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. They do suffer, they do continue to be persecuted. We have seen in the last 12 months some appalling examples of human rights being denied in different parts of the world. I hope, in a pragmatic, effective but nonetheless passionate and committed way, that all Australians will do what they can to bring a bit of light into the lives of the people who are so affected.09:50:001814Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I support the motion. I support the opportunity to make this a bipartisan celebration. We had an opportunity a couple of years ago to speak on the occasion of International Human Rights Day. It was an annual event and this is a genuine anniversary. Today we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations on 10 December 1948. The declaration is for Australians and indeed, many around the world, strongly identified—and I am glad the Prime Minister identified him again—with a great son of Australia: the great jurist, statesman and former leader of the Labor Party, Bert Evatt, who secured, as he did, so many other opportunities for Australia to play a role in the creation of the international institutions after World War II with a berth on the drafting body of the universal declaration. Indeed, the UN General Assembly was presided over by Doc Evatt, and I think it is worth recording the words he uttered at the time the declaration was passed. He said:The adoption of the declaration is a step forward in a great evolutionary process, the first occasion on which the organised community of nations has made a declaration of human rights and fundamental freedoms. That document is backed by the authority of a body of opinion of the United Nations as a whole, and millions of people—men, women and children—all over the world will turn to it for help, guidance and inspiration.The United Nations was basically created, and assigned itself authority, to deal with two problems that the statespersons of the time identified as having led to international failure and breakdown in 1939. There was an enormous depression amongst international statesmen about the failure at the conclusion of the World War I to secure a method of international practice that would prevent war from occurring again. It was to address what they saw as the weaknesses of the League of Nations that they devoted attention to a number of matters. One was an attempt to make sure that the United Nations had capacities to enforce the peace. The structure that was associated with the permanent five—the security resolutions that were associated with the charter of the United Nations—was an effort to get over what they thought were the major organisational problems that were associated with the League of Nations. I guess you would have to say, in passing 50 years worth of judgment on them, it has been a pretty mixed bag as far as the successes of the system that they put in place are concerned.The second was an attempt to establish a set of universal principles about the rights of individuals beyond the rights of the nation state—an attempt to move away from what they saw to be moral relativism in international relationships—and to argue that there were limits to sovereignty and that those limits ought to be based, in the first instance at least, upon the rights of individual members of any particular society that rose above questions of expediency as far as those governments were concerned. It was a debate then and it continues to be a debate now.The reason it was a debate then was that those who drafted this declaration—indeed, those who set up the United Nations—looked back with horror over the repeated violations of human rights within boundaries and by nations invading other nations in imposing their will on populations that became their victims. Also, there was a concern by statesmen of the time of the capacities of particular ideologies to come to deprive people of human rights and seek their own justification for doing so within a framework of views that by no means ought to have been accorded universal application.The most startling problem for the statesmen of the time to deal with was the full-blown revelation in 1945 of the consequences of Nazi Germany's policies towards the Jewish community in the liberated death camps. Just as the creation of Israel represented in many ways a form of international atonement for what came to be seen as a problem which ought to have attracted greater attention among the powers at the time, so it was too that the holocaust fundamentally underpinned people's consideration of the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.The international community, despite a continuing debate over the issue of the limits of national sovereignty in relation to control of the peoples within the boundaries of the state, nevertheless proceeded from the UN Declaration of Human Rights to a number of other covenants. It has not been an inactive area of international debate, either in terms of application or in terms of a desire to build upon them. The universal declaration has been joined by two covenants—one on civil and political rights, the other on economic, social and cultural rights—to form what is often called the international bill of rights. Many conventions have followed since then on the elimination of racial discrimination, the elimination of discrimination against women and the convention against torture.It is impossible to separate the declaration from the postwar environment that gave birth to it. It is in one sense an important monument to the victims of that war, but even more an important statement on the value of human life. Since the declaration's adoption we have had a pretty chequered pattern of individual national performance on the upholding of the declaration and the subsequent covenants. These days ambitions in this regard have become somewhat more limited than the ambitions of those who initially put the declaration down. I think the American political scientist Stanley Hoffmann, who gave the following definition of international liberalism, represents that assessment about what we ought to be aspiring to and how we ought to be utilising something like this declaration. He said:To be liberal does not mean necessarily to believe in progress. It means only to believe in a limited and reversible perfectibility of man and society, in particular, in devising institutions based on consent that they will make society more humane and just and the citizens' lot better.It is this limited and reversible perfectibility which I think best describes the importance of the International Declaration of Human Rights. As we are confronted almost daily with the limits to and the reversals of progress on human rights, it has become an important inspirational document for all of us. It is a sort of `yes, but' document in international relationships: `Okay, you have a particular economic problem. Sure, you have this set of cultural views, sure you have these sets of concerns about the coherence or unity of your society. Yes, but, contemplate the situation of the individual and the rights of that individual to live with at least a degree of happiness and freedom from oppression.'That is an important counsel for us in Australia. Human rights issues present a substantial challenge to our foreign policy and our foreign policy in the region. Our regional neighbours grapple with their human rights issues, and the challenge for Australia in relation to them is to develop a consistent and appropriate response both from the region and as befitting Australian values and concerns.If you look now at the history of the postwar world, you would have to say that most of the last decade has probably presented the best opportunity we have had internationally to start to impose or at least to elevate the issues of individual human rights to a higher level of concern as far as the international community is concerned. There is no doubt that the collapse of the Cold War and the ideological divisions between the two superpowers has at least moved one major impetus towards moral relativism in international politics.The overwhelming security concerns that were associated with that cold conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, that justified on both sides the support of quite heinous regimes and quite appalling practices, drifted away and gave an opportunity to the statespeople of the world and to nations to start to elevate human rights out of the defences of national sovereignty that had been built up associated with the consequences of that international competition in relation to the Cold War. It is no accident therefore that we have been able to seriously get on to the agenda of the international community over the last decade issues related to the capacity to commit crimes against humanity, crimes against society and war crimes. There was a plethora of trials associated with defeated powers in the 1940s and then human rights rather went off the agenda, occasionally being taken up from time to time by very respectable people who were often perceived to have very eccentric opinions, and informal trials were held all over the globe in the period of the Cold War.Things have got more serious now, as those who were involved in the conflicts associated with the collapse of the former Republic of Yugoslavia are beginning to find. People are testing issues related to violation of human rights and violations of rights to life are again testing issues of war crimes in a way that is letting people know that they are going to be held to account.I feel genuinely sorry for our colleagues in the British government at the moment who are handling the problem associated with Pinochet. I watched Jack Straw on the box this morning discussing a decision he had taken to allow the court processes in the United Kingdom and those in Spain to proceed with extradition. We have to remember that Pinochet's status at the moment as a senator and the situation in which he finds himself back in Chile was part of a deal to get rid of the appalling, oppressive government that he ran. The people in Chile swapped the right to deal with this fellow in the way in which he ought to be dealt with for the freedom which he so ruthlessly suppressed for such a very long period of time.I have sympathy too for the socialist foreign minister of Chile who faces appalling domestic problems in handling this particular situation as he seeks to bring Senator Pinochet back to Chile and non-justice. Nevertheless, it is a magnificent warning to people who oppress their populations that such things can occur to them, that there is an international court of public opinion which may well deal with them should the legal circumstances arise. That must give pause for thought for would-be dictators, for dictators everywhere and for future dictators, that out there waiting for them may well be something completely horrible which will ultimately hold them to account. If it places a check on the sort of behaviour engaged in by people like Pinochet, then that is going to be a very good thing for us all.We ought not let this moment pass without at least some recognition of another international statesman who now faces persecution in Malaysia. Whatever the consequences of the court process which is under way at the moment, the Malaysian government needs to comprehend that on both sides of politics in Australia this issue is being watched very carefully. The reason I mention Anwar Ibrahim's name in these circumstances is that, in a period of time when we were all being lectured on Asian values, he was one of the few who stood up well before it was expedient to do so and made statements about the question of human rights and Asian values. Some time ago, in support of a notion of a universal human right, he said:If we in Asia want to speak credibly of Asian values, we too must be prepared to champion those ideals which are universal and belong to humanity as a whole. It is altogether shameful, if ingenious, to cite Asian values as an excuse for autocratic practices and denial of basic rights and civil liberties. To say that freedom is western or unAsian is to offend our own traditions as well as our forefathers who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices . . . it is certainly wrong to regard society as a kind of false god upon whose alter the individual must constantly be sacrificed. No Asian tradition can be cited to support the proposition that in Asia the individual must melt into the faceless community.I do not think you could find in a particular cultural context a more effective description of a universality of the principles which we have had enshrined in that universal declaration, that an Asian statesman, in a period of triumphalism about Asian values, could make such an unexceptional statement. A statement that really could be made in any context albeit with its own cultural overlay I think bespeaks very well of the man. Whatever he may have done, this person does not deserve to find himself in his current situation and it must be a matter, on this day of celebration of a great charter, of continuing consideration to all of us here.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1817r7031817Debate resumed from 9 December, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Crean moved by way of amendment: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".10:06:001818Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—On the one hand, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate; on the other hand, I have to express my concern at the nature of it. In the short time available, I particularly want to draw attention to some of the impli cations of a GST on remote and rural Australia—in particular, the distinct and very definite inequalities that prevail within the tax proposals of the government as they affect people who live in these regional and remote communities. The implications go to the distributional impacts of this quite iniquitous tax, both vertically and horizontally. Frankly, I am a little surprised that our colleagues on the other side of the House have not picked up on these issues. I know there is some trepidation within the National Party about the impact of a GST and that in their heart of hearts they do know what I am talking about. The first thing that must be recognised about a GST is that, compared with other indirect tax systems, a GST or VAT inherently discriminates against country areas and, the more remote the area, the greater the discrimination. This is because the GST effectively applies the tax to the retail value of goods and services, including the costs of transport and distribution. The wholesale sales tax, on the other hand, does not tax the final stages of transport and distribution.An arithmetic example illustrates the point. Take a good with a wholesale value of $100 and subject to sales tax of, say, 22.5 per cent. Say that the final retail transport and distribution cost, including the retailer's margin, is $80 in a city, $120 in a country town, and $160 in a remote community. These proportions would not be atypical. At present, therefore, the item sells for $202.50 in the city, $242.50 in the country town, and $282.50 in the remote area. With a GST replacing sales tax, the final prices come to $198 in the city, $242 in the country town and $286 in the remote area. So an apparent reduction in the tax rate from 22.5 per cent to 10 per cent has had the effect of reducing the price by all of 2.3 per cent in the city and 0.2 per cent in the country town, but has increased the price by 1.2 per cent in the remote community.The government's estimates of the price effect of the GST package relate to the consumer price index. The CPI, however, is based, as we know, purely on city prices—it takes no account of the higher prices paid in non-metropolitan areas. So even if the government's estimates of the CPI effect are accurate, they still understate the cost of living impact in rural and remote areas. And if I have time, I will come back and illustrate that point in more detail.In the arithmetic example I have provided, to effect a 2.3 per cent price reduction in remote areas, the retail transport and distribution cost and margin would need to fall by $6.50, or four per cent. It needs to be remembered that fuel costs are only one part of the additional cost of supplying goods and services in rural and remote areas. There are also labour and other costs in the transport and retail task, profit margins for the firms involved, and higher unit costs resulting from lower throughputs than in the cities.In all, it is unlikely that the fuel price reductions contained in the government's package would offset the discriminatory impact of the GST compared with the government's taxation system. And there is absolutely no evidence at all—in fact, some would say there is quite contrary evidence—of the argument that savings would be achieved as a result of costs going down in the transport sector and that this will mean lower freight costs. In fact, in the Northern Territory during the election campaign, the major freight distributors in the transport industry indicated that it was unlikely they would pass on any savings because of the low margins they already have.A second discriminatory element of the government's tax reform package derives from the fact that incomes are, on average, lower in rural and remote Australia than in the major cities. Low income people spend a higher proportion of their income on food and clothing, which are currently tax exempt but are to be included in the GST. I will come back to an example if I have time.The proposed income tax cuts provide the greatest benefits to taxpayers on about $75,000 a year. With lower average incomes, non-metropolitan Australia will therefore receive a disproportionately low share of these income tax reductions. I might point out that the median wage for Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory is a handsome $180 per week. Compare that to $72,000.One aspect of a GST that does provide a net benefit to non-metropolitan Australia is, of course, the removal of taxes from exports—other than tourism. However, the extent of this impact should not be exaggerated. There is very clear evidence that at least in some industries its impact will be minimal. It is inconceivable that all of the proposed reductions in taxes will be passed on to purchasers—at least some will find their way into firms' profits, or at least will be used to offset the administrative burden of the GST itself, particularly on small business. This is what makes the government's estimates of a two per cent CPI effect so suspect. What is more, the CPI estimate is dampened by an expected currency appreciation arising from the estimated impact on exporters' costs. That raises the question of whether the modelling has appropriately captured the nature of exchange rate determination, something that is notoriously difficult to do. More immediately, it means that if the assumption of a full pass-on of all reductions in other indirect taxes is not correct, then the CPI estimate is doubly deflated.It is not surprising that other analysts and commentators have suggested a CPI effect of more like over four per cent than the 1.9 per cent assumed by the government. Indeed, a rough calculation based on the government's revenue estimates supports such a calculation of a price impact in excess of four per cent.The government's estimates are that a GST of 10 per cent applying to more than 90 per cent of consumer expenditure will raise some $32 billion in the year 2001-02. Of this, $26 billion net is to be returned in the form of lower indirect taxes, $4.5 billion of which goes to exporters—according to the government. Simple arithmetic suggests that, even on the assumption of a full pass-on of all the price reducing elements of the package, the increase in consumer costs will be a price impact of three per cent—compared with the government's estimates of a price impact of under two per cent.But if businesses pass on only, say, half the benefit they receive from reduced financial institutions duties and stamp duties—and as I have pointed out, it is likely that in the transport sector in the Northern Territory they will not even pass those on—then the price impact will be 4.3 per cent, more than twice that estimated by the government. This is a much more realistic scenario than that painted by the government and still might be considered optimistic in that it assumes that all of the reduced wholesale sales tax is passed on.That calculation has a number of very severe implications. It suggests that the government's compensation package is inadequate for most families, particularly low income families and social security recipients. It suggests that the supposed national economic benefits, such as from reduced costs on exporters, have been greatly overestimated. It further suggests that the Reserve Bank will have to take strong monetary policy action through higher interest rates to prevent this extra price impact being built into ongoing inflation.We need to be very conscious of the distributional effects of this inequitable tax. When we talk about the cost of doing business in the bush, I have a very good example in the cost of housing. I will give it very briefly. I am talking about the construction of a two- to three-bedroom dwelling. Bulla is a small Aboriginal community in the Victoria River district. The cost of that house in that community is $143,000. The cost of building a similar house in Hobart is $89,000. To build a similar house in Adelaide it is $92,000 and in Sydney $132,000. In Darwin the average cost is $130,000. A similar house built at Demed, which is an outstation of Gunbalunya in the Northern Territory, would be $180,000. You can see that the prices paid by Territorians living in remote communities are far higher than those paid by people living in the major metropolitan areas.An eight per cent increase, which is what has been estimated by the Housing Industry Association to be the increase in the cost of housing, would mean that in the case of Hobart you would pay an extra $11,000 for a house but in the case of Demed, this outstation near Oenpelli in the Northern Territory, you would pay an extra $22,500. I ask the government whether it is their proposal that they will increase program funding levels to all of these Aboriginal organisations and communities that provide housing, to compensate for the additional costs they will wear as a result of this tax. I know what the answer is—the answer is no. This is an unfair tax. It is a tax which will hurt ordinary Australians. Most of all, it will crucify those people who live in regional and remote Australia.10:17:001820Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—One of the most important problems that Australia has to come to grips with is that we are in fact a vanishing race. The population of Australia projected for 2098, a hundred years time, is, according to the latest National Geographic , some 14 million people. According to Professor Richard Blandy, it is some 12 million people. That is assuming fairly high immigration rates, and our immigration rates are negligible. On negligible immigration rates, we are talking about a population of six million people. The male youth suicide rates are now second only to those in Russia; they are the second worst in the world. Gaolings of youths throughout Australia have increased some 300 per cent since 1966 and youth suicides have increased some 200 per cent.If a mother chooses to stay at home and look after kids, in our society today she is penalised. If a single-income family has a husband and wife and two children and they are on average weekly earnings, the average income for those four little Australians, if you like, is $6,000. If they are what we call a Dink family, a double income and no children family, their income is $26,000 each. What would you prefer to be on: $26,000 disposable income or $6,000 disposable income? Not unnaturally, all of the mothers in Australia, whether they like it or not, are forced out into the work force. This move towards income splitting provides a choice, and we should unashamedly say that this is something that needs to be done.The second thing I want to talk about is the $7,000 for the first home ownership scheme. I thought one of the most marvellous things I ever saw government do in my 24 years in parliament was the introduction of the first home ownership scheme, which I think was by Mr John Howard when he was Treasurer. It has been reintroduced now. For the poor people in a place like Charters Towers, when we had enlightened government in the BjelkePetersen years we could provide free land for them. That, along with the first home ownership scheme, if they did not have a job, provided them with a job. They could then build their own homes, as 11 people did in Pentland outside of Charters Towers. So it is a marvellous scheme, and a marvellous attribute has been provided by this package.I have not got time today to say where I think we should be philosophically with respect to where we raise taxation from. One of the great difficulties I have always had with this is that it is a marvellous mechanism for raising extra money in the hands of an ALP government. The Bjelke-Petersen government's trenchant opposition to the introduction of this sort of tax was coloured by the fact that when the ALP government came to office it had $41,000 million of revenue coming in, but when it left office it had $115,000 million of revenue coming in. Yet average weekly earnings in that same period only rose from $372 to $634. What the then government said is, `We deserve a 300 per cent increase, but the average Australian deserves less than 100 per cent increase.' That is what was said by the ALP government, and that is one of the great fears that I always hold with respect to this sort of mechanism being introduced.However, there are so many good things in this tax reform package, and some of them I need to note here. We compete in export industries against massive subsidies from other parts of the world. I instance two of our three biggest agricultural exporting industries, sugar and beef. We are allowed only 7,000 tonnes of beef into the United States. When we had Saint Francis station, one of the neighbours produced 7,000 tonnes of beef a year, and he was not all that big. So one single Australian farmer can produce 7,000 tonnes of beef but that is all we are allowed into the biggest market in the world. There are 500 million people in the European Union. As far as sugar goes, the biggest exporters are from Europe, and they enjoy a subsidy of 193 per cent. Recently there was a series of articles in Time magazine which I think every Australian should read. It gives you some idea of what other countries are doing to subsidise their exports: $125,000 million a year was the figure put out by Time magazine.At least this tax package removes the burden of government charges from our exports, and that gives us an advantage which is vitally important to every single person in this country. The greatest problem, outside of our population, outside of being a vanishing race, is the current account deficit, which this year will probably go close to $30,000 million. Everything humanly possible must be done to make those industries competitive. I have a very excellent paper which I would like to table from Alan Medley of Medley Supermarkets. In all my years of politics, it is very seldom that I have got such professionally presented documentation of a point of view. He supplies all of the retailers in north-west Queensland. He is a wholesaler who provides a complete grocery range of items, with the exception of meat.The figures here indicate that the overall tax now being levied is 8.465 per cent. I would like to table this document. That means that the regime that we are moving into will make a difference of 1.5 per cent. That, plus the comments of NARGA, Alan McKenzie and the shopkeepers that we really cannot differentiate, has coloured my judgment somewhat. The figures are there, and I cannot question them.I agree with the previous speaker—one of the very few times in this House that I ever have or probably ever will—that in country areas we have a problem. It might be as a result of this, but we will deal with that at a later stage. The problem exists right at this very moment. A person on average weekly earnings in Australia, $37,644, pays tax of $8,820. In the mid-west area of North Queensland, which was my old state seat, we had a cost of living difference with Brisbane of 23 per cent, which represented $8,648. So, if you took the tax off and you took off the loss of purchasing power because the person lives in Julia Creek, Hughenden or Cloncurry, he ends up with an income of $20,000.That is bad enough, but if he lives in Normanton or Karumba he has a 40 per cent cost of living difference—that is, $15,058—and that leaves him with the princely disposable income of $13,786. If he was a wife and two children, he is below the pension. So, even though he starts off on average weekly earnings, a very handsome $37,664—and I suspect there are very few people in Normanton and Karumba earning that amount of money—he ends up with a disposable income which is less than the pension if he has a wife and two children.This problem must be addressed, and it can only be addressed by a revision and a revisiting of the zone rebate system that exists at the moment. The issue has not been visited in 17 years. When it was visited 17 years ago, the tribunal comprised a Sydney accountant—a person I found to be most insensitive and with very little understanding of what he was dealing with—a trade union official, who put the point of view of the employee quite strongly, I must say, and a departmental official from Canberra. We did not get a good deal. We got a deal, but it was not a very good deal, and it has been 17 years since it was done.When I started work, my first job was shovelling lead dust at Mount Isa Mines. I got a very big wage—it was probably almost twice average weekly earnings in those days—of $66 a week and I paid tax of $5 a week. If I had been married with a couple of kids, I would have paid $2.50 tax. The zone allowances then were such that they would attract young men to go out there, because you could earn a lot of money and you could save a lot of money. That was the profound importance of the zone allowances in attracting population to these areas.The sad fact of the matter is that fewer people are living in these areas now than in 1966. So, if there were a compelling case for generous zone allowances in that period of time, it would be a far more compelling case today. The country is rapidly emptying—90 per cent of the surface area of Australia is currently unpopulated—and the tiny population that is left is rapidly dwindling. Mount Isa's population has fallen from 30,000 to close to 20,000 in the last 10 years. The mid-west, over the last 2½ decades, has gone down 40 per cent. That will give you, Mr Deputy Speaker, some idea of what is happening in these areas.In addition to that, if you live in a town like my home town of Cloncurry, there are very few people on average weekly earnings. There are no cappuccino machines or art galleries. There are no universities. There are not even high schools in most of these towns. There is no Australian Rugby League matches to go and watch. In fact, until recently there have been no rugby league matches to watch in the mid-west. I was one of the people that started off the mid-west rugby league. There was no football at all last year in that area. There is no shooting since that has been virtually banned by actions in this place and in other places.There are very few dentists throughout that area. There are no accountants. There are no lawyers. There are no specialist doctors. There is no surgery. As for the subsidised commuter transportation system enjoyed by the big cities, which is worth $4,000 million a year in subsidies to the cities, when we go to work we have to pay a petrol tax of 120 per cent and we have to pay a sales tax on our motor cars, a tariff level together of about 50 per cent. I would plead with the Treasurer to please address the matter of the zone allowances because, independent of anything that is happening here in this parliament, we desperately need action along these lines. We need it urgently.If we do not act upon the zone allowances and zone rebates, the population will continue to dwindle. Having given the matter a lot of thought, I cannot think of any approach that we can use that will do the sorts of things that need to be done, other than the Cloncurry clause, which is being introduced in this bill. It will do away with the fringe benefits tax on those companies that are decent enough to allow families to live together in their mining situations and restore the level of population in the mining towns. For that I must sincerely thank the government.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—During debate the honourable member for Kennedy indicated he wished to table a document. Does the honourable member for Kennedy seek leave to table a document?HX4KATTERMr Katter—Yes.Leave granted.10:29:001823Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—If former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson's famous observation that a week equals a long time in politics is true, does logic dictate that the words `never, ever' can also be construed as a different period of time when politics is concerned? That is the leap of faith the Prime Minister would like us to take anyway. It seems `never, ever', according to our Prime Minister, means `not in the next term of government'. That is an incredible suspension of logic, but that is what he and the government want Australians to believe he meant when he made his famous anti-GST pledge in 1995. But, of course, he meant nothing of the sort.During the course of the 1996 election campaign, and in the phoney 12-month campaign that preceded it, the member for Bennelong, now the Prime Minister of Australia, appeared on any radio or television show that would have him in order to try to gain the trust of the Australian voting public by proclaiming his key message: `The promises I make, I keep.' At a time when Australians view their politicians with an almost intractable level of suspicion and cynicism, Prime Minister John Howard placed great emphasis on trying to convince Australians that, unlike other politicians, he could deliver on his promises. The Prime Minister said:During this campaign, I will not be embarking on . . . campaign promises which aren't worth a candle flicker.He also said:I would rather promise half of what I'm asked and deliver on 100 per cent than promise everything I'm asked only to find I cannot keep some of those commitments.While delivering these fine words, he also made it clear that a coalition government would never, ever introduce a GST. In one breath the Prime Minister said, `I will keep my promises,' and in the next breath he said, `There will never, ever be a GST.' So why are we here 2½ years later debating the merits of the coalition government's tax package which has, as its central plank, a 10 per cent goods and services tax on almost everything Australians do or buy?How silly of me—`never, ever' actually only means `in the lifetime of the next parliament'. `Never, ever' means nothing of the sort! `Never, ever' means `when hell freezes over'; it means `not if you were the last man on earth'; it means `when pigs fly'. And yet here we are with a GST staring us right in the face. Chalk it up as another win for hypocrisy and half-truth over good government and honest politics.The GST legislation introduced by the Treasurer in this House last week represents an attack of a kind never seen before on the lifestyles and communities of low and middle income Australians. I would like to comment on many aspects of the coalition's tax package, but unfortunately time does not permit it. We have been given only 10 minutes each to debate this important legislation. I will try to satisfy myself by focusing on two aspects of the package which are of particular concern to me: the compensation measures contained in these bills, and the government's erroneous connection between job creation and the GST.For a succinct appraisal of the compensation measures contained in the GST legislation, one need look no further than this comment by the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins. He said:The fact is, its tax package is seriously flawed. It contains a . . . GST accompanied by utterly inadequate compensation for people on welfare and people with children, as well as tax cuts biased heavily in favour of higher income earners.. . . . . . . . .The Government sought to conceal the flaws in its package by issuing dishonest tax tables and by suppressing the Treasury study of the distributional impact of the indirect tax changes. For good measure, it left the package on the table for a mere seven weeks before it rushed the electorate to judgment.Mr Gittins is not the only economics writer, analyst or spokesperson who has difficulties with the compensation measures contained in the coalition's tax package. For the record, let me list some of the others who have gone on record registering their concerns: Colin Hargreaves of the Economic Modelling Bureau of Australia; Neil Warren of the University of New South Wales; Ann Harding of the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling; and, finally, the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.The root problem with this government's underestimation of the impact the GST will have on the CPI index can be found in the economic modelling carried out by Treasury when it was in the process of constructing this package. Treasury provided this government with a number of different GST tax models and compensation packages for it to consider. The figures the coalition settled on—and this is why its compensation offer is so hopelessly flawed—did not contain crucial modelling based on the household expenditure survey.For all the Treasurer's hyperventilation and hyperbole in regard to the household expenditure survey and his comments regarding former Treasurer Dawkins's supposed lack of regard for the HES, I would like to put one thing straight. Both the 1985 compensation tax proposals considered by the then Labor government and the 1991 Fightback proposal put forward by the coalition were based on economic modelling that took the household expenditure survey into account. If the government's current tax package had included modelling based on this HES data, it would have found—as a similar study by the Melbourne Institute did find—that low income earners require two to five times the amount of compensation that the legislation provides in this current GST proposal.The government says that the cost of living for a pensioner will only rise by $6 per week with a GST and that it proposes to put nearly $11 extra into their pockets to compensate. But economic modelling, taking the household expenditure survey into account, suggests that the cost of the GST to pensioners will be more like $14 to $18 a week extra. The government has based its tax package on the erroneous assumption that all households—rich, poor, pensioners and wage and salary earners alike—save the same and spend the same. How crazy is that?My constituents, the majority of whom are low and middle income earners, would like the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to understand that they do not have the same saving and spending patterns as families living in Kirribilli or South Yarra. Well-off Australians may spend more money on food and the essentials of life, but poor and middle income families spend a greater percentage or proportion of their income on such necessities. Even Dr Michael Carnahan, one of the Treasury mandarins who had such a close hand in preparing the coalition's tax package, has admitted that `different people do indeed buy different things'. He also conceded that there `are arguments' in favour of considering the impact of the GST on different households.The poorest 20 per cent of households spend almost 40 per cent of their income to buy the food they need to survive. The richest 20 per cent devote less than 11 per cent of their income to the same necessities. As Ross Gittins again so eloquently put it:. . . food is the dominant item in the budgets of the retired. Why? Not because they eat more than the rest of us, but because they have low incomes and they have cut back their spending on so many items.And yet the government wants Australians to believe that we all save and spend in the same pattern. What a load of rot! As with all things put together with scant regard for detail, the sloppy preparation of the tax package has led to a sloppy outcome. But in this case, a sloppy outcome will lead to financial and lifestyle pain for many thousands of Australian families and, in the process, drain the budget of over $12 billion between the years 2000 and 2003.The second aspect of this tax package that I would like to take issue with is the government's assertion that the GST will lead to jobs and a reduction in unemployment. If anything, the GST will be a job destroyer. It will place a dead hand on the services sector, the major growth area for jobs in Australia over this last decade. Indeed, the Economic Modelling Bureau of Australia has said that the GST `could destroy 150,000 full-time jobs and 50,000 part-time jobs in its first year of operation.' For tax reform to lead to job growth, the leading economists are not talking GST. They are not talking consumption tax. They are talking tax credits. They are talking roughly the same policy on tax reform that Labor took to the last election.The proposal that has received the most coverage of late has been that prepared by Professors Peter Dawkins, John Freebairn and Ross Garnaut, Dr Michael Keating and Chris Richardson and submitted to the Prime Minister for his consideration. Their tax reform-jobs blueprint is heavily dependent on three of the pillars central to Labor's tax reform package. It endorses the setting of an explicit unemployment target, it recommends the introduction of a tax credit system in order to provide an incentive for people to leave welfare for work and it endorses the development of many of the same labour market programs the coalition government did away with when it came to power in 1996.As for the other part of their proposal concerning the freezing of minimum wage rates, when tax credits were introduced into the US and the UK, neither reforms were accompanied by such a movement with regard to the minimum wage. Tax credits, unlike the GST, are about employment. The GST will not only retard job growth but, in the process of reforming our tax system, it will throw thousands more Australians onto the unemployment scrap heap.Tax credits let families keep more of what they earn. A tax credit system will make sure that people on low incomes are better off working than staying on the dole because it will give them more the more they work. While a GST saps effort and initiative, tax credits offer rewards for both.The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and everyone in the government paint the GST as a magic elixir for all of Australia's ills. On the contrary, if these bills are passed then the GST will become Australia's chief cause for complaint. This is a government, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that has confused stubbornness with courage. The courageous thing to do would be to take a step back, recognise the inadequacies of this package and fix them. Without taking such action, the passage of these bills will intro duce a tax that will become a yoke around our country's neck and around the neck of our people from which we will never be able to gain relief.10:40:001825Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—If we were simply to listen to all those members of the opposition who have taken part in this debate on A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and related bills, we could be forgiven for thinking that this debate was simply about the introduction of a GST. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak in this debate because this is a debate about introducing a new tax system. It is about introducing a new tax system to get rid of an outdated, outmoded tax system designed in the 1930s. We are now about to move into the next century and yet the opposition would have every Australian individual, business and exporter working with a tax system that is completely and utterly outmoded. It is for those reasons that I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak in this debate, which is about the introduction at long last of a new tax system.I would like to talk about the need to introduce this new tax system. The most unfair tax in our tax system today surely has to be the wholesale sales tax. This is a tax that builds into every layer of production, process, transport and marketing of our goods produced in this country. It is a hidden and very unfair tax. The average consumer has only to walk down the street of their local shopping centre and walk into their supermarket, newsagent, electrical goods store or any of the variety of stores there to find that hundreds and hundreds of normal everyday items have concealed within their prices the wholesale sales tax. It is an arbitrary tax. There are seven different rates of this tax. It applies arbitrarily to a range of goods. As I said, it compounds into the cost of the good.The losers from this wholesale sales tax are, firstly, the Australian consumers. They are the ones who are duped by this most iniquitous tax. But our small businesses are also disadvantaged by this tax and a whole range of other taxes which we are going to get rid of in this new tax system. Because of these unfair taxes those businesses are made un competitive. As several members from the government have pointed out, the exporters in our country are also disadvantaged. It is very hard to compete in the global international markets. I can name many exporters from within my own electorate who have fought tooth and nail to gain entry into some of these important niche exporter markets—especially some of our producers in aquaculture, a new industry for many of our primary producers. Many exporters have really had to fight hard to get a foot into some of these niche markets, and they are being disadvantaged.I have heard speeches in this place by every member on both sides of this chamber exhorting our exporters to get out there and do better. But, by opposing the introduction of this tax, every member of the opposition is saying to our exporters, `We are going to tie one hand behind your back. We are going to make you uncompetitive. We are going to disadvantage you against all of the other countries that are your competitors in that international marketplace.' That is what every member of the opposition is doing—disadvantaging our exporters and making them uncompetitive.As well as that, every member of the opposition who has stood up in this place and has opposed this legislation is disadvantaging all of our hardworking people out there who are trying to earn a living. As an illustration of this, recently I was in a small town called Kinglake in my electorate where I was approached by a man who wanted to complain bitterly about the tax system. He was an average worker trying to support a wife and three children. They were a single income family and he told me that his income could not support that family. They could not even afford to send the children off on school camps. He nominated the reason why he was falling behind in society as being that he was losing so much of his salary in tax. He, like so many others, made a point of coming up to me and saying, `It is not worth our while to work any overtime because we simply lose it in tax.'In the brief time that I have available today I have given just some of the reasons why this new tax system is so needed. It is needed for our individual workers, it is needed for our small business people and it is needed for our exporters. This government is prepared to introduce this new tax system.The last speaker, the member for Prospect, was talking about the compensation that is contained within this new tax system. Let us have a look at some of this compensation. The first method of compensation to all Australians under the new tax system will be to ensure that 81 per cent of all of our taxpayers will never pay more than 30 cents in the dollar in tax. That has to be one of the best incentives of all time. As well as that, we are increasing and making far more simple the family assistance within this legislation. For example, we are doubling the extra $1,000 tax-free threshold for each dependent child under the family tax initiative to $2,000, which is the equivalent of $140 per year per child. These are real benefits to families. We are doubling the extra $2,500 tax-free threshold for single income families with a dependent child under the age of five. That $5,000 tax-free threshold means $350 per year per family. These are real initiatives.There are others, including an increase in the maximum assistance for child care for low income families by $7.50 a week, an increase in social security benefits and an up-front increase in allowances by four per cent. This means that those receiving any form of income support are going to have that increase long before the GST is introduced. The assets test for pensioners is being increased by 2.5 per cent. We are making sure, importantly, that all of our citizens who are receiving income support pensions are always going to be ahead by 1.5 per cent.In stark contrast to what the opposition ever did in government, we are making sure that those on income support are always 1.5 per cent ahead. They are not going to be in catch-up mode. By the stance the opposition are taking with regard to this legislation, they are denying ordinary Australians the advantage of those tax cuts. They are denying them assistance to families. They are denying small businesses the chance to be competitive and to get ahead. They are denying our exporters the chance to be competitive.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the bill has expired. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.10:54:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)75Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Howard, J. W.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.65Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000Bailey, Fran, MPMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.10:57:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)75Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Howard, J. W.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.64Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1828Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:01:001828Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move:Page 65 (after line 6), at the end of Chapter 2, add:Subdivision 29-D—Consumer protection: tax receipts29-100 Tax receipts When a business provides a consumer with a receipt or docket issued in respect of a taxable supply the receipt or docket must separately include: (a) the price of the goods or service excluding the GST; (b) the amount of the GST; and (c) the total price including the GST.In June this year, on Perth radio, the Treasurer belled the cat. The GST, he said, would be embedded in the price of goods and services—`embedded', he said, but read for that `hidden' because this GST is not required by their legislation to appear on any receipts that a consumer will receive.The amendment I am moving today protects consumers by revealing that very hidden GST—if it gets passed by the parliament. It ensures that every time people pay the GST they will know exactly how much, so they will know exactly how deep Peter Costello has his hand in their pockets. Every minute of every day, from the cradle to the grave, there will be 10 per cent on almost everything they purchase.The amendment also ensures that people will be saved from having to divide the price of every purchase by one-eleventh. The Treasurer says that this 10 per cent tax is a simple tax, but yesterday even he could not tell me, when asked in this chamber, what was the GST component of a grocery bill of $138.70. If the Treasurer cannot tell us what the GST component is, how can he expect the punters to know?This is an insidious tax—but, worse, they have hidden it. The Treasurer of this nation who introduced this tax cannot even calculate off the top of his head the GST slug. That is after excluding the 48-pack of Panadol which will not attract the GST—but the 24-pack will—and then working out the input tax rate for financial services. This is the greatest hotchpotch of tax legislation this parliament has seen.If the Treasurer cannot divide by 11 to work out what the GST is, and he has been labouring for 18 months on this tax, imagine how the poor mum with three screaming kids at the checkout counter is going to work out the GST that she has been slugged for. What about the elderly going in and having to pay more for their package of goods not being able to work out this amount? There will be queues into the street waiting to get into supermarkets as a result of this confusion. If the Treasurer cannot do it, how can he expect the punters to?The disclosure also makes retailers think twice before simply adding 10 per cent to the existing price of their products because the person will clearly see the pre-GST price and know whether the abolished taxes have been passed on. Labor's position is clear: under the GST regime consumers must have a right to know what they are being forced to pay in tax. By this amendment we will enshrine in legislation that right to information—if the GST gets up.Those who oppose this amendment and support a GST oppose protecting the interests of ordinary Australians. There is no middle ground in this debate. Either members in this place support the protection of consumers' interests or they do not, just as there is a clear division between Labor opposed to the GST and the coalition for it.The vote on this amendment will show where every member in this House stands on this important issue. Hansard will show in stark terms the name of every member who votes to introduce a GST and then to hide it. How will they explain that to their constituents? (Extension of time granted) The only mention of this issue in the total tax package put forward by the government is in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. The issue, as important as it is, gets a grand total of five words in almost 1,000 pages—five words which say, `Displayed prices will include GST.' There is no debate, no justification for this indefensible position—just five cynical words.The position of the Treasurer on this issue of hidden taxes is unbelievable and hypocritical. Before the election he sent propaganda to every home in the country complaining about the unfairness of so-called hidden taxes. Members may remember that document sent around under the Treasurer's name. It was a newsletter from Peter Costello, the member for Higgins, and it said `The hidden tax system'. I quote from it:This newsletter reveals the unfair, hidden and complex tax you already pay every day of your lives.It sounds like a GST to me, Mr Deputy Speaker: `unfair, hidden and complex'. That is the GST. He went on to say:Who knows what taxes they are paying on goods? Wherever you go, there's hidden taxes.So now we have the hypocrisy of the man introducing this legislation saying that allegedly $15 billion of hidden taxes is a terrible thing but $30 billion of hidden taxes is good for the nation. What sheer hypocrisy! He has campaigned on the basis of saying, `We'll get rid of hidden taxes,' and he has brought in the granddaddy of the lot in terms of hidden taxes. Because the GST is imposed at the retail level, it can easily be identified to consumers. This option does not exist for the wholesale sales tax.The Treasurer could easily ensure that the GST is not hidden but he has chosen not to do so. After running around complaining about hidden taxes and claiming that they are unfair, he has now decided to hide the unfairest tax of all—10 per cent on just about everything you buy. By his own definition, this makes the GST doubly unfair.But the double standard does not stop there. We find in his legislation rules concerning tax invoices. They are contained in subdivision 29-C and they provide for regulations. Those regulations that can be made, according to their own tax package, could force businesses to separately disclose the amount of the GST on their business clients—`could'. I asked the question: will they? I got no answer yesterday. We have still got to wait and see about this great, comprehensive package.If there is a regulation and a provision that could require businesses to identify the GST, why not have a similar one for consumers, Minister? Why shouldn't there be one for consumers so that, every time he has got his hand in your pocket, they know what he is taking out. If it is fair enough to require a provision in there for business tax disclosure, why not for consumers? That is the point we are making. That is what the amendment is about. That is what we are asking this House to vote on.We then go to the example that is contained in the explanatory memorandum. The example used is a tax invoice made up in the name of Big Ben's Clocks, 12 Grandfathers Road, Cuckooville. This tax system sounds like it is in cuckoo land, the way it is going—riddled with anomalies and inconsistencies and hidden from the Australian public.There is no regulation concerning the right of consumers to be told how much GST they will be charged on almost everything they buy. I asked the Treasurer yesterday whether he would force this disclosure for business and he smugly told the Australian people to wait for his regulations. We now have further evidence of more concealed information. Everywhere you look in this whole exercise, the Treasurer is hiding something. Now he wants to hide from consumers the full extent of this GST.What does business think about the proposal of the Treasurer? John Dahlsen, Chairman of Woolworths, the second largest retailer in the country, is reported as saying—(Time expired)11:11:001830Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We will be rejecting this amendment proposed by the member for Hotham. It is typical of the Labor Party to want to prescribe something that is going to cause more paperwork, more costs and more hardship, particularly for small business.I am advised that under subdivision 29-C, subsection 29-70, which refers to tax invoices, consumers will have the option of asking for a tax invoice. They will be able to ask for a tax invoice. The member for Hotham continues to twist and turn the facts as it suits him in order to place more of a paper burden on small business and more of a paper burden on business generally, at the cost of the consumer.If we want to talk about hidden taxes, what we should talk about is the wholesale sales tax. Why talk about the wholesale sales tax? Because if you were going to start from scratch to create the most difficult, complicated, burdensome hidden tax, you would start with the Labor Party's wholesale sales tax. Not only do you not know what the individual tax rates are, but you do not know to what goods they are going to apply. What you can say with absolute certainly with the GST is this: one-eleventh of what you pay will be the GST. But under the Labor Party's rules it could be anywhere from one per cent to 100 per cent, depending on the make-up of the product, depending on the way that it is distributed, depending on the substance of the products within the definition of the wholesale sales tax. It could be any amount. When the Labor Party, in their own unctuous and unique way, talk about the application of what they define to be the revelation of a hidden tax, they start with a great knowledge base. The great knowledge base is the system that they have created, which they have stood up for the last three days in this House and defended—that is, the hidden wholesale sales tax.I defy any consumer in Australia to tell me, at an immediate instance, how much wholesale sales tax they are paying when they go to Woolies and buy a product. Is the wholesale sales tax price passed directly on to the consumer, does it become a retail tax or is it watered down in the process from wholesale to retail? That is the question they have to ask.They might be paying, in the case of an individual product, say, 12 per cent wholesale sales tax on that product. When they go to the counter to pay for that product they may be paying 10 per cent of the retail price or maybe 14 per cent of the retail price—who knows? Yet the unctuous Labor Party stands up here and seeks to try to impose further paperwork, further burdensome processes, on small businesses, which, at the end of the day, have to pay for them out of their bottom line.We are into transparency: every time you go into a shop, one-eleventh of the price you pay will be the GST. It might not be the 42 per cent under the Labor Party, it might not be the 37 per cent under the Labor Party, it might not be the 22 per cent under the Labor Party, it might not be the 12 per cent under the Labor Party, it might not be the 15 per cent under the Labor Party—given that distortions are created on the way to the retail end—but what you know with certainty is that the Labor Party is the strongest advocate of more burdensome paperwork for small business.What you know with certainty is that the Labor Party is the creator of hidden taxes. It is the defender of hidden taxes; it is the greatest advocate of hidden taxes. The Labor Party has a lot to be answerable for in their defence of the wholesale sales tax system. We are going to vote against it because we are against more paperwork for small business and we are against the confusion and uncertainty of the current wholesale sales tax system. (Time expired)11:16:001831Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—That was an interesting intervention by the minister. He will need to go and check what he said and perhaps come in and correct the record, because he said in his intervention that consumers will be given the option of getting the GST disclosed to them. By what mechanism does that occur, Minister?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—The regulations. We have already told you.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The regulations simply say `could', and we still have not got an answer from this government as to whether the regulations `will'. The critical point I make is that an invoice, as defined in your own legislation, is an obligation to pay. A receipt is proof you have paid. Therefore, a receipt is not an invoice, Minister.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—If you are changing the definition, I would like you to get on your feet and tell me you have changed the definition. If what you are now saying is that the regulations could provide for all receipts at supermarkets and at every other purchase point to include the GST, that is an improvement because it is in the direction of our amendment. Then what we want is a guarantee that you will require it in the regulations, and that is what our amendment seeks. But don't you come into this place and try to pretend that there is an option there to protect consumers, because there is not.As the legislation stands, there is only a provision for an option, not a guarantee, in relation to tax invoices—invoices that are sent from someone to another saying, `You, Joe Hockey, owe me this.' That is what an invoice is; that is not what a receipt from a supermarket cash-out counter is. A receipt is proof you have paid, because your obligation to pay is the fact that you have wheeled those things through in the trolley, you have had them rung up on the cash register, you have seen the price, you have paid it and you have got your receipt. It is proof of payment; it is not an invoice. That is where you have got it wrong, Minister, and that is where our amendment will fix it up.Let me just go back to a point I did not conclude before. It is not just Labor that is calling for this, it is not just Labor that is saying consumers should know every time you have your hand in their pocket taking tax out. Every minute, every day, cradle to the grave, they want to know how much. They cannot be expected to become mathematical wizards, dividing everything by 11 every time they walk into a place. Get up and tell me—I will throw the numbers to you off the top of my head if you get up next time—how easily you can divide by 11. You expect the punters to do that, you expect the elderly to do it, you expect kids going into shops to do it. What are you going to do—issue them with calculators? Is it your industry development program for the technology industry to issue people with calculators so they know what one-eleventh of everything they buy is? One- eleventh is being taken by this government every time a purchaser pays.It is not just Labor arguing about this: the chairman of the second largest retailer in the country, Mr John Dahlsen, is saying Woolworths want the GST to appear as a separate item on dockets, rather than being hidden. Why does he want it? Clearly, because Woolworths are concerned that, under the Treasurer's hidden tax proposal, they would bear the brunt of consumer anger because of the unfair price rises that the GST will bring. And it is not just Woolies. Bill Healy of the Retail Traders Association in New South Wales says the RTA wanted the 10 per cent GST to be levied separately at the point of sale rather than being built into the ticket price.The Treasurer wants to shift the blame for his decision to retailers. It is interesting that, since the last election, the Treasurer has also taken consumer affairs into his portfolio. The protector of consumers is now going to hide a tax from them that he is going to impose every time they go in to buy something. The consumer groups want this tax disclosed; Labor wants this tax disclosed. That is why we are proposing this amendment. It is not complex. If the minister at the table is so confused as to what has to happen, no wonder the public is confused.We want to make sure that, if we get the GST, it is up there in lights, reminding people every minute of every day, on every item and every service that they buy, that this government has got their hand in their pocket, taking 10 per cent out. They will know how much, they will know who is doing it and they will know who is opposing it. Labor is opposed to this tax, Labor is opposed to it being hidden, and the amendment should be supported. (Time expired)11:21:001832Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—The government will certainly be opposing this amendment. The argument put forward by the member for Hotham would be laughable if this matter were not so serious. Labor has had a wholesale sales tax hidden in this country for years and years. When you go to the supermarket, you do not know whether you are paying 12½ per cent, 22½ per cent or 45 per cent.The Labor opposition do not understand small business. They hate small business. They ran this economy into the ground for 13 years. They destroyed thousands of small businesses. I know, because I was involved in small business. Somehow I managed to survive, but many of my friends and colleagues did not. Part of the reason was the unwieldy paperwork, the wholesale sales tax and the interest rates that were up around 22 per cent. The skyrocketing inflation destroyed small businesses.We want to introduce fair, simple GST tax reform. It will be a simple and fair system of taxation in this country. Everyone will know how much tax they will pay on items—not like it is now. They do not know what they are paying. The member for Hotham said that the government will have their hands in the pockets of consumers, taking tax. For 13 years, every single day, the Labor government had their hands in the consumers' pockets. In 1993 they promised tax cuts—the l-a-w tax cuts—and as soon as they got back into government they sneakily and underhandedly increased wholesale sales taxes. They did not say a word about it; they just snuck them in. They went from 20 per cent to 22 per cent and from 30 per cent to 32 per cent. Not one word was said to the consumers about the wholesale sales tax that they were paying. Where was the compensation for the elderly pensioners in my community?Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I remind the honourable member for Robertson that we are discussing the amendment, not the general bill. He should try and direct his remarks to the content of the amendment.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYD—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will direct my remarks to the contents of the amendment. The exact point I was trying to make was that the wholesale sales tax was not shown on retail dockets, was not disclosed. Now we have the hypocrisy of the Labor opposition in coming in here and putting forward an amendment like this.Mr Lee interjecting—IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYD—Everyone knows the amount of the GST. We have put forward the amount of the GST. Everyone knows what they will be paying. The hypocrisy of the Labor opposition! When they were in government they hid the wholesale sales tax and did not disclose it. They did not let people know the amount. Now that they are in opposition they come forward with this sort of amendment to say that it should be disclosed.83ZIRWINMrs Irwin—It should be disclosed.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYD—It is being disclosed. We have just been through an election campaign where the government put forward its tax policy and told the community in an open and fair way what we proposed to do to take this country forward and help small businesses. Right through the election campaign we had the type of attack that the opposition is throwing at me today. There was the scare campaign they put out through the electorate, the misinformation that they distributed throughout the election. When you have a marginal seat, you are aware of what is going on. I am just thankful that the Australian community saw through that misinformation. They appreciated the fact that the government were prepared to be honest and fair enough to put to the Australian community exactly what we proposed—a fairer tax system which will allow this country to go forward and allow small businesses to develop and employ more people.The pensioners in my electorate and throughout Australia will know exactly what they are paying, unlike what happened with the hidden wholesale sales tax which the Labor government kept putting up. There was no compensation whatsoever for that. They hid it all the way along. The hypocrisy of the Labor opposition to come in here with an amendment like this! (Time expired)11:26:001833Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I rise to expose the government's breathtaking hypocrisy on this issue of hidden taxes. I can reveal that the Premier of Victoria must be watching this debate in Victoria on a monitor. At the very moment that the shadow Treasurer was on his feet today, the Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, supported the proposal to list the GST as a separate cost on dockets. We agree wholeheartedly with the Premier of Victoria. In response to the government's suggestions that we are in favour of a paperwork burden and against small business, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the government's own document, `Regulation Impact Statement for the Introduction of a Goods and Services Tax', which confirms that, in its first year of operation, there will be 1,400,000 GST registrations and that the numbers are expected to grow by about 200,000 in the following year. At present, 75,000 businesses pay wholesale sales tax. So the number of businesses paying this tax, bearing this paperwork burden, will grow from 75,000 to 1,400,000 and, in the next year, to 1,600,000. Their hypocrisy is stunning.On 25 June, the Treasurer was asked—I think this resolves the question of whether the government is going to move on this or not—whether perhaps the GST could be shown on dockets. He said that his GST would be:. . . embedded in the price . . . just as a goods tax is embedded in the price.In other words, they will not be changing this. I can confirm that. Then they put out their $17 million taxpayer funded propaganda.DT4CREANMr Crean—$20 million.Mr Costello interjecting—83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—$20 million? It is going up all the time. I am sure it is $20 million. Treasurer, I invite you to confirm that number. I am sure you will be able to.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—No, it's not.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Treasurer will not respond to the member for Rankin.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—On that propaganda, the Treasurer said:This newsletter reveals the unfair, hidden and complex taxes you already pay everyday of your life.We will see a doubling of taxation under the goods and services tax compared with the wholesale sales tax. In other words, there will be twice as much hidden tax unless this amendment gets up.It is quite clear that there is widespread community support for this amendment. In the Australian on 24 August, the Australian Consumers Association was reported as follows:The Government should change its position so that the GST should be displayed in the prices of goods.It is an entirely sensible proposition from the Australian Consumers Association. Woolworths is a fairly substantial business around Australia. They are reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 November as saying:. . . the purchase price and tax should be shown separately on the docket.Finally, the executive director of the Retail Traders Association of New South Wales, Bill Healey, said that consumers would have to have faith that most retailers would levy the price changes honestly. He said the issue was one of the reasons the RTA wanted the 10 per cent GST to be levied separately at the point of sale rather than being built into the ticket price.So here we have it—the Premier of Victoria, the Retail Traders Association of New South Wales, Woolworths and the Australian Consumers Association—they all, quite correctly, want this government to agree to reveal the impact of this GST on the dockets at the checkout. This is an entirely reasonable proposition. We are at a loss to understand why the Treasurer—who says, `We have got this great plethora of hidden taxes'—will not agree to make his own tax visible by putting it on the docket. It is an entirely reasonable proposition and he should agree. I would be very happy to hear him agreeing to this amendment today.11:31:001834Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government rejects this amendment. Obviously it is a stunt which was brought into this parliament with all of the flurry and abuse that the member for Hotham could work himself up to, to move it and to do it in his uniquely furious way. But, of course, it is an absolute stunt. Why is it a stunt, Mr Deputy Speaker? Well, let me make this point.The Labor Party introduced wholesale sales tax in the 1930s. From 1930 to 1998 did the Labor Party for one day—for one day—insist, by law, that the wholesale sales tax component of a good be shown at the checkout?Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for the Northern Territory has been called to order many times. I caution him to be silent.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—The Australian Labor Party introduced wholesale sales tax in 1930. From 1930 to 1998 did the Australian Labor Party for one day—for one single day—require by law the wholesale sales tax to be shown at the checkout counter? No, not for one single day. They come in here today and say, `68 years of our failure should now be swept aside and the government should do something that we didn't do for one day in 68 years.'Let me put it another way. Did the Labor Party, for all of the period that it was in government—the 13 years of Labor government—insist that every petrol station issue a receipt showing the price of the petrol and the price of the excise? Did it, for one day? Did it have a law for one single day? Or does it come into this parliament today and say, `Hereafter, every petrol station must give you a bill—one bill or two—which shows both the price of the petrol and the petrol excise'? Did it say that for one day? No, of course it didn't. After 68 years and after 13 years of government, this is just an absolute stunt and the Labor Party knows it.Yesterday we had another blow up in the face of the shadow Treasurer. He walked into question time yesterday and said, `Tell us what the GST would be on a $138 supermarket purchase,' to which I said, `One-eleventh' straight off the top of the head. He said, `Oh, but do the division. Unless you can do $138 divided by 11 in your head you don't actually know the answer.'Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give you a question that no person could possibly answer: what would be the wholesale sales tax on $138 worth of supermarket purchases? I ask the shadow Treasurer to go to the dispatch box and tell me. You can tell me in a fraction, if you like. Give me a fraction. What would be the wholesale sales tax on $138 of supermarket purchases? You could not answer it. The only way you could possibly answer it would be to know every single item in the basket and every single rate. You would then have to apply an economic model to get the embedded cost and you would come out with some kind of estimate. But stand up, shadow Treasurer, and tell us—what is the wholesale sales tax on $138 of supermarket purchases? Just go to the dispatch box. I will take it in a fraction. I will take it in a percentage. I will take it in dollars. I will take it any way you want to do it. But you just walk to the dispatch box and do it. It is impossible to do, because you need to know every item and every price on every wholesale sales tax list.Let me tell you about Labor's wholesale sales tax. The Labor Party says, `Don't tax an antique gold-plated fountain pen, but do tax pens and crayons at 22 per cent.' That is Labor's tax. The Labor Party says, `Don't tax lobster, but do tax biscuits at 12 per cent.' The Labor Party says, `Don't tax a toothbrush, but do tax toothpaste at 12 per cent.'Opposition member interjecting—CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Let me ask you: in your basket, did you have one pack of toothpaste or one toothbrush? Because unless you can tell me the answer to that question, you cannot tell me what wholesale sales tax is. The Labor Party says, `Tax knitting needles at 22 per cent, but knitting wool at nothing.' What is the logic in that, Mr Deputy Speaker? You have a complex system riddled with different rates. Nobody knows what it is. The Labor Party never insisted that mandatorily it be put on every bill. This is an absolute stunt and the government will reject it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I remind all members that we are debating the amendment and their remarks should be addressed to the content of it, including the Treasurer.11:36:001835Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, you always know when you have got the Treasurer, because he shows it. He has come in here today because he got tricked up yesterday. Any originality in his approach today? No, but he has to throw the same question back to me.I will tell you this—and it is important for the backbench to understand this—this is the difference between Peter Costello and Peter Reith. As much as we cannot trust Peter Reith, he has got a hide like a rhinoceros. He never shows it; he never shows discomfort; he never gets sucked in. But this bloke, the guy with the glass jaw, the bloke that is dragged into this place—you know when you have got him, because he shows it. He is so transparent. He is so preening of himself—always looking up to the gallery, always smirking and grinning, always into the stunt. But here he is; he would not even come into this place during debates on these issues—he spent only 58 minutes introducing the most complex piece of legislation—IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask you to bring the member for Hotham back to the issue of the debate. He seems to be digressing quite strongly.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member for Robertson. Resume your seat. The honourable member for Hotham will of course address his remarks to the contents of his amendment.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. The reason this amendment is important is that consumers deserve to know what the Treasurer is taking out of their pockets every time they purchase. It is very interesting that he is not just the Treasurer of this nation; he is also minister for consumer affairs. What minister of consumer affairs anywhere in the world would introduce legislation by which consumers had their taxes hidden? But this Treasurer has. He is a world first minister for consumer affairs—hiding the tax that he is imposing on the very consumers that he is supposed to be protecting. This man is a hypocrite, because this man campaigned to get rid of the hidden taxes—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will withdraw that statement.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will withdraw if he takes offence.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, as the chair it is my responsibility.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I withdraw. This man campaigned on the basis of getting rid of hidden taxes and now he has introduced a new one. He has introduced a new one that will yield twice the revenue. He has introduced a new one that covers every good and service practically in this country. And there is no point talking about the simplicity of the 10 per cent GST, because even he could not divide by 11. How does he expect the mums and dads to do it? How does he expect the elderly to do it? He could not do it, so how can the punter be expected to do it? This is a Treasurer without consistency, without commitment to his portfolio—IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—I raise a point of order. When Mr Speaker took the chair at the start of this parliament—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—What is your point of order?IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—he mentioned scorn and derision. The member for Hotham has made a vicious attack on the Treasurer—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. Resume your seat.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—This amendment has to be passed because we have to do the job the minister for consumer affairs will not do. We have to protect consumers. We have to show what this tax is worth, because the government will not.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.11:45:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)67Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.72Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question now is that the bill be agreed to.11:50:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)71Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.67Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill agreed to.18371837Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The question now is that the bill be now read a third time.11:56:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)74Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.67Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills1838r667Billsr666Billsr702Billsr699Billsr698Billsr697Billsr665Billsr664Billsr6601838Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Mr Costello:That these bills be now read a second time.11:58:001838Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I have a number of amendments. We are required to move them sequentially as a result of the government bungling the way they have brought forward this package. To give some indication as to the duplicity of this government, the night before yesterday we had an agreement about times for this debate that would have enabled more time for us to speak. That was broken within 24 hours unilaterally by them insisting upon a new order of business being introduced at 9.30 a.m. today.We have the position where there are nine of these bills before the House, three of them we support or, depending on what happens with one of our second reading amendments, four we could support. Because the government is requiring us to vote for them in a block in one motion, we are forced to oppose them. I made approaches through the office of the Leader of the House to try and get procedurally a separation out of those four bills. I think it is important to demonstrate that there can be agreement on both sides of the House about sensible tax reform, and we do support three of these bills and maybe a fourth bill subject to the debate.However, they are not letting us vote with them. They are not letting us demonstrate support for their position. Why won't they do it? Why are they so hung up on the stupidity of this procedure that they will not allow us to do it? This highlights the frustration the opposition has with the way this government manages the affairs of the House, particularly on such an important package of measures as this.There is a package of nine bills here. I will do what I can in the time that I have left—only 10 minutes—to go through the six amendments, because I understand that the Speaker requires them to be read in. I am not sure whether time permits me to do that, but I will do my best. The first of these bills is the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1998 . This bill imposes a new 10 per cent tax on almost everything. On behalf of the opposition, I move the amendment to A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1998 :That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) condemns the Government specifically for its proposed excise imposition and for seeking to impose a GST on Australian families which will inevitably rise over time as it has risen in almost every country in which a GST has been introduced; and(2) condemns the Government for attempting to deceive the Australian people that there is a constitutionally valid mechanism which will ensure that the GST rate will not rise over time".The next bill is A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1998 . This bill makes it a custom to pay 10 per cent on almost everything every time you fork out money from the cradle to the grave, turning a new 10 per cent tax into a new custom in this country, but not telling people the amount.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I am loath to interrupt the honourable member for Hotham, but the chair would have no objection if you wished to move your amendments in the terms circulated if that would suit your convenience.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—That is very kind of you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will go through them, because I think the amendments are important in themselves, but if I run out of time in the minuscule time that is available to us, I will adopt your course of action. In relation to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1998 , which makes it a custom to pay 10 per cent, I move the following amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) condemns the Government specifically for its proposed customs imposition and for seeking to impose a GST on Australian families which will inevitably rise over time as it has risen in almost every country in which a GST has been introduced; and(2) condemns the Government for attempting to deceive the Australian people that there is a constitutionally valid mechanism which will ensure that the GST rate will not rise over time".The third bill is the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1998 . This bill puts a huge new imposition on the Australian public and on Australian families. It imposes a 10 per cent tax on almost everything they buy. Every time they buy a good or a service, the government will have its hand in their pockets taking out one-eleventh. That is what this bill imposes on the Australian public. I move the amendment to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1998 :That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) condemns the Government specifically for its proposed tax imposition proposal and for seeking to impose a GST on Australian families which will inevitably rise over time as it has risen in almost every country in which a GST has been introduced; and(2) condemns the Government for attempting to deceive the Australian people that there is a constitutionally valid mechanism which will ensure that the GST rate will not rise over time".The next bill is A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Bill 1998 . This bill imposes a huge administrative burden on at least 1.4 million small businesses and family businesses, turning them into government tax collectors and burdening them with an administrative nightmare. That is what this bill does. I move the amendment to A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Bill 1998 :That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) condemns the Government for seeking to impose a huge new unnecessary taxation compliance burden on Australian small business which will involve, inter alia, large start-up costs, significant ongoing costs, an erosion of the competitive position of small business relative to big business which are not nearly compensated for by the claimed cashflow effects of the GST; and(2) condemns the Government for introducing legislation which is very complex which adds to the complexity of the tax system, rather than simplifying the system".The next bill that I propose to move an amendment on is the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 . This bill involves Australia making a huge transition from being the strongest economy in the world; an economy which is served by a taxation system which was developed, changed and reviewed by successive Labor governments over 13 years, producing an economy in which we fundamentally changed the structures, the approach and the strength of the nation with low inflation. We did it with a tax system that, from time to time, needed review and repair, but we made those reviews and repairs without a GST.We are now being asked to make a transition from being the strongest economy in the world—no system is `broke' here. The IMF says that this economy has performed well over the past seven years, and Labor was in power for two-thirds of those years. This government inherited a system that even it could not muck up in a hurry. This bill will commence the process of mucking it up. This bill is unfair; this tax is unfair. It is bad for the economy; it is bad for jobs. I move the amendment to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 :That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House condemns the Government for imposing complex, anomaly-ridden transitional arrangements concerning the GST on Australian business which will inevitably involve competitive distortions and costly compliance burdens".I have only one amendment in relation to the next group of four bills—A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 , A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998 , A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Bill 1998 , and A New Tax System (Australian Business Number Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 —and that is an amendment to A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Bill 1998 . I move the amendment to A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Bill 1998 :That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) condemns the Government for not going far enough in its tax package in cracking down on tax avoidance;(2) calls on the Government to tighten the legislation and administration of the Prescribed Payments System (PPS) system to ensure that only genuine self-employed people are within the PPS system; and (3) condemns the Government's failure to introduce legislation abolishing provisional tax".Our complaint here is simply that this bill does not go far enough. We agree with it as far as it goes, but we believe it should go further. As I said at the opening of the debate on this particular group of bills, there is a lot in common between both sides of this House on what is needed for taxation reform. We should have been entering into sensible debate and dialogue to get agreement on how we can repair the current system. We think that it can be repaired; we think it can be reviewed. We think it can be done sensibly and all of it without introducing a GST. This government has given no opportunity for such a debate in this chamber. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Are the amendments seconded?12:08:001841Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I second all the amendments moved by the member for Hotham. I will also make a comment, given that the government has moved so quickly in this place once again to deny the rights of members of parliament to debate what it maintains is the most far-reaching and important piece of legislation dealing with taxation reform introduced into this place. If, in fact, it was so important to it, one would have thought more hours would have been made available to us all to debate this matter.I will make specific reference to a couple of bills that are a part of this package. The simple fact is that there are elements of this package which the opposition agrees with, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said. In respect of the effect the GST will have on small business, let me say this: in the course of the last parliament I went around Australia, as the shadow minister with this portfolio responsibility, talking to small businesses. They said that the last thing they needed, particularly in micro-business, was an impost on them in terms of the amount of bookkeeping that would be required and the additional hours they would have to put in after a long day at the office, at their work or at whatever they were doing, just to maintain the records so that the tax police from the Australian Taxation Office would not be on their case all the time. The simple fact is that small business do not want this sort of taxation regime. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, Labor has never shied away from taxation reform if it was necessary.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for the second reading of orders of the day Nos 2 to 10 has expired. The original question was that the bills be now read a second time. To this the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved amendments in respect of certain of the bills that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.12:14:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)76Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.66Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The question is that the bills be now read a second time.12:20:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)77Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.66Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Bill 1998 announced.Miscellaneous18431843Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:25:001843Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I appreciate being able to speak briefly on this legislation. As agreed, because of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in six minutes time I have to make a presentation elsewhere in this building.This is the second leg of the tax reform package which delivers the transport fuel tax cut worth $3½ billion to Australians—wherever they live in Australia—to the Australian economy, to exporters and to consumers in rural and regional Australia. It is the breakthrough which I have worked for over many years and which I thought we could get close to in the lead-up to the 1993 elections.It is a privilege to stand here as a member of the coalition federal government with a mandate to deliver a new tax system: a goods and services tax; the abolition of wholesale sales tax; and the abolition of a huge amount of diesel fuel excise tax right across this country.I point out to the House that the diesel fuel excise—the transport fuel tax—reductions provided for in this legislation will apply not only in respect of road, important as that is, but also in respect of rail operations. The diesel fuel is consumed by the Australian railway systems, which are variously government and private enterprise railways, across the big system of Queensland, a narrow-gauge system, and the systems of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, as well as a private enterprise rail, including iron ore and coal haulage, where it has not been electrified.This measure will be a huge boost for rail transport as we enter the beyond 2000 period and it is one which has been long overdue. Governments on both sides of this parliament have hit hard against rail over the years. They have applied to rail a diesel fuel excise tax regime which was very unfair. I am proud of the fact that, as part of the tax reform package, there is now to be a huge reduction in fuel excise applying to rail. Equally, there is going to be a big reduction in fuel excise applying to road. That will give consumers across country Australia and exporters right across Australia a chance to have a far more effective approach and a lower cost transport system to apply upon the implementation of this tax reform package on 1 July.The first leg of the fuel equation was delivered under subdivision 123-A and division 123, which deals with diesel fuel credits, in a new tax system bill. The second leg comes with A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill. I note that the opposition has previously moved some amendments in relation to the excise bill. I reiterate that the government stands absolutely behind this part of the package which gives the country areas of Australia a fair go, at long last, in relation to transport fuel taxes.I note that the Democrats have already signalled out for particular opposition the tax system changes in respect of diesel fuel. They have not done their homework on this. The more efficient you can make rail in this country, the more contribution you can make to the greenhouse equation. The more efficient you can make road in this country, again the better it is for the greenhouse equation.I recognise that over the years the Democrats and others have pursued a particular agenda with regard to pollution, environmental considerations and the like. The bonus of our tax reform package, and one of the absolutely core parts of that package, is the transport fuel tax reform, because that will help us along the pathway of a more efficient transport system and give people living beyond Mildura and Mount Isa, at long last, a fair go with both the cost of supermarket goods on the shelves and the costs of exports from those regions to the ports, the airports and to the world.I strongly commend the new tax system package of legislation going through the House of Representatives this day and I particularly commend the transport fuel tax reform. I am proud of it, the Treasurer is proud of it and the government is proud of it. It is long overdue.12:29:001844Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move:(1) Clause 4, page 2 (line 12), omit "10%", substitute "0%".I move this amendment for two reasons: one to demonstrate how simple it is for this government to change the tax rate by a simple decision of the parliament to change the rate which they said was locked in by the so-called `fantastic mechanism', to quote the Treasurer; and, second, to reinforce the point that, if we have already started to see the government, under pressure, agree to extending the exemptions to the GST, why not take it to the fullest extent and exempt everything? What they could have on the books is the technicality of a GST and no rate.I want to go to this issue of the lock-in of the mechanism because this was heralded with great triumph by the Treasurer when his package was announced. He referred to it, and I mentioned the words before, as a `fantastic mechanism' for making sure that the rate once struck is locked in. But where is this fantastic mechanism in the legislation? The only reference one can find in the 1,000 pages of bill and explanatory memorandum is contained in clause 1-3(b) which says:The Parliament acknowledges that the Commonwealth: . . . . . . . . .(b) will maintain the rate and base of the GST in accordance with the Agreement on Principles for the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations endorsed at the Special Premiers' Conference in Canberra on 13 November 1998.So here we have this fantastic mechanism being based on an agreement on principles—the principles of which still have to be thrashed out and which, when I asked the Treasurer in this parliament where his mechanism would be, he said we would have to wait on.What is he hiding? If in fact he has got this fantastic watertight mechanism developed, why isn't it in his legislation? Why isn't it the subject of scrutiny in the Senate where the inquiries are taking place? We know this government will not answer the question. But the issue is: where have they guaranteed the lock-in?To demonstrate how simple it is to change the rate, all that is required is a bill to be introduced into this parliament. In the schedule to that bill—called a taxation reform act 1999—is a two-line entry. The first is to repeal the part that levies the rate at 10 per cent and, secondly, to omit `10 per cent' and substitute `15 per cent'.Let us not have any of this nonsense about the veto powers. A simple act of parliament will increase this GST. Why is it so simple to do it? Because we are demonstrating it here today. We are demonstrating by an amendment that you can turn the rate from 10 to zero. It is validly before the parliament, and the parliament will decide whether it gets up. Remember that Labor will be voting against the GST and the coalition will be voting for it. There will be 10 per cent on almost everything you buy. From the cradle to the grave, there will be a new 10 per cent tax on everything.That is what they want to impose, and they will have you believe that the rate will not increase. Do not believe them. Do not believe them because the rate can be changed by a simple act of this parliament. If anyone doubts that this can happen, of the 25 countries that have introduced a GST, 22 have put it up. And another one—Switzerland—is about to put its up. Do not believe them when they say that the rate will not rise.We are still looking for the `fantastic mechanism' of lock-in, and so is Jeff Kennett. Jeff Kennett has written to the Prime Minister saying, `You have dudded me, Prime Minister. You told me that there was a lock-in mechanism.' (Extension of time granted) But this is not the first time that Jeff Kennett has attacked this legislation. He did it again today by saying he wants the 10 per cent disclosed on all receipts. That is something that this government have just voted down. Not only are they imposing a 10 per cent tax; there is also no mechanism to ensure it cannot rise and there is no mechanism to identify the precise amount. This amendment should be supported.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.12:39:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews)65Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.75Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—The question now is that the bill be agreed to.12:46:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews)75Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andren, P. J. Bailey, F. E.Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.65Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.18461846Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)10000PON/A10—The question now is that this bill be now read a third time.12:51:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews)75Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.65Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills1847r666Consideration resumed.1847Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:53:001847Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I move:(1) Clause 4, page 2 (line 12), omit "10%", substitute "0%".The GST is the most unfair tax that has ever been thought of, conceived or applied in this country. The opposition completely opposes the GST because it will be unfair to low and middle income earners and unfair to Australia's pensioners who have worked all their lives and made a great contribution to this country.Older Australians deserve dignity, respect and peace of mind. What will they get in response? If this legislation goes through, they will get a 10 per cent tax on just about everything they buy and use. It is a disgrace that this parliament should even be considering imposing a regressive, harsh, unfair tax on ordinary Australians and on decent Australian pensioners. Our older citizens, who have done so much for this country, now have to face the prospect in their later years—after having worked all their lives and paid taxes all their lives—of being hit with a new tax which will affect not only their future incomes but also the value of their savings.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.12:59:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews)64Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.77Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The question now is that the bill be agreed to.13:06:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)77Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.64Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill agreed to.184910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The question now is that this bill be now read a third time.13:13:00The House divided. 0Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.0Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bill read a third time.Bills1850r70218501850Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)10000PON/A10—Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1998 has expired. The question is that the remaining stages be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells being rung—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As this is a new bill and therefore new business before the chair, don't we have to have a four-minute division? I think the standing orders require four minutes.10000Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—There has been no debate intervening between.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I understand that, and in the normal course that would be one minute without any dissent from us. But this is actually a new bill. It is a new matter before the parliament. It is not a continuation of the old debate; it is a new debate.10000Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The standing orders refer to successive questions. It does not necessarily resolve anything about being different bills.13:17:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)77Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.64Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills1851r699Billsr698Billsr697Billsr665Billsr664Billsr66018511851Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)10000PON/A10—Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of orders of the day Nos 5 to 10 has expired. The question is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to.13:22:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)77Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.65Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a third time.Bills1852r6581852Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.13:25:001852Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) condemns the Government for proposing to replace the Wholesale Sales Tax with a regressive GST;(2) notes the advantages of the WST which include no tax on services, the exclusion of necessities such as basic food, clothing, footwear, health, and building materials, flexibility, a multiple rate structure to enable differential tax rates to be applied to different goods where appropriate, low administrative costs for government, very low compliance costs for most businesses as only 75,000 taxing points are needed compared to 1.4 million taxing points for the GST;(3) calls on the Government to undertake a review of the WST to address the perceived anomalies with a view to correcting them as the alternative to the introduction of a GST; but(4) notes that a GST, if introduced, cannot be maintained on top of the WST, as this will result in an unreasonable increase in the indirect tax burden on ordinary Australians".The Treasurer says this country needs tax reform. I agree with that—the system does need constant reform. But the simple fact is that the need for tax reform does not mean that the only option is a GST, nor does it mean that the existing tax system is broken.Is the tax system broken? This is what is often asserted. Not according to the Treasurer, who just the other day admitted that it is not broken. Not according to the Minister for Finance and Administration, who has just released a document showing revenue $5 billion higher in the first four months of this year than in the same period of the previous year. Not according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which, just yesterday, released data showing that growth in total tax across the country in 1997-98 was 5.2 per cent, or $8¼ billion.Being in surplus is a rare occurrence in most OECD countries, but not in Australia. Including this year, the Commonwealth has been in surplus for six of the last 12 years. Labor delivered four successive surpluses in the late eighties and early nineties. Now the budget is back in surplus again and is forecast to be in surplus into the foreseeable future—all this without a GST.The supposed notion that the sales tax base is crumbling is unsustainable. The facts demonstrate a very different story. Rather than declining, sales tax has maintained a very constant proportion of total revenue and GDP over the last decade. Australia's fiscal position is sound due to Labor's sound economic management and tax reform. Australia's tax mix—that is, the relative share of direct and indirect taxes—has indirect taxes at around 30 per cent of total tax revenue, comparable to the OECD average.But the most damning indictment of the claim that the system is broken comes from new modelling released just today. According to that modelling of the government tax package, an analysis based on the Monash model:The Treasury has asserted that a major change in the tax mix is necessary because the present array of indirect taxes will raise insufficient revenue in relation to Australia's future public sector requirements. However the Treasury provides no explicit revenue forecasts.I underline that point again. The Treasury, according to the Monash people, provides no explicit revenue forecasts. I continue with the quote:At this stage of our research we have found no evidence to support the Treasury's proposition. In our basecase forecasts, indirect taxes grow at about the same rate as GDP, even in the absence of increases in rates of indirect tax.The Treasury and the government will not produce their modelling. Try as we have to get that modelling produced, they will not. They are hiding it like they are hiding so much else in relation to this package, but we will insist upon this material being made available in the Senate inquiry. But here is independent modelling debunking the assertion of the Treasurer.In short, the system is not broke, and it is not going to break. There is no need for the large increase in indirect taxes being proposed by Mr Costello. Australia simply chooses to raise its indirect taxes in a different way from other countries. This system works well in Australia, is fairer to ordinary people and to families and should not be abandoned for a GST. The truth is that, while the coalition desperately want a GST, Australia does not need one. The Treasurer says he wants to replace a 1930s tax system with a GST—a value added tax. But the idea of a value added tax was first advocated in the United States by T.S. Adams in 1911. He wants to replace a 60-year-old tax with an 80-year-old one. He claims that we should have a new tax for the new century, but what he is proposing is a 1911 tax. Some reform!He forgets to point out that, in Australia's case, the transition will be harder than in other countries because we have no turnover tax and therefore no large administrative infrastructure to collect the tax from a large number of production units. But, as much as the Treasurer would like to characterise it, Labor is not about defending a 1930s tax system. Labor has already modernised Australia's tax system.We make no apology for concentrating on equity when we reform the system, and we continue to insist that taxation reform be fair. His case is that the sales tax was introduced in 1930 and therefore it should be repealed and replaced with a GST which was developed in the 1950s in Europe. On that basis, all excise, customs duties and income taxes, both personal and corporate, would also be repealed because they all predate the sales tax. But the truth is that we do not have a 1930s tax system. Our tax system is almost unrecognisable from that of the 1930s. Successive Labor governments have constantly updated it and Labor fully modernised it through our period of office.The 1985 tax summit agreed to significant sales tax reform, and in 1992 the sales tax legislation was substantially streamlined. Labor in government also repaired the direct tax base which was crumbling, a tax base we inherited from the man who is now Prime Minister—bottom of the harbour, John Winston Howard. Remember him when he was Treasurer—and all those rorts, all those bottom of the harbour schemes? That is the tax system that we inherited.Labor's major reforms include the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the petro leum resource rent tax, the taxation of foreign source income and cracking down on tax havens. Collectively, these fair, progressive measures contributed around $7 billion this year to better public services without impacting unfairly on ordinary Australians and ordinary PAYE taxpayers. Other reforms, such as the superannuation taxation regime, have further increased this contribution to around $10 billion.The coalition oppose the vast majority of these fair, modernising taxation reforms. We all remember the now Treasurer, the member for Higgins, and his desperate attempts to block Labor's measures to crack down on tax avoidance through employee share ownership schemes. I quote him:We've knocked off the last two and we plan to knock this one off as well. We will be opposing root and branch Labor's latest proposal.So today we have in charge of our tax system the tax rorter's friend, now Treasurer of Australia, Peter Costello, and old Barnacle Bill from the bottom of the harbour as Prime Minister. That is who is proposing this taxation reform—and what form have they got? Appalling form.The real issue in taxation is keeping the direct tax base in good repair. That is where the focus should be with the government, not increasing the cost of living for ordinary families. Labor has demonstrated that, if the government is vigilant in keeping tax avoidance in check, we do not need an unfair tax on necessities. That remains the case today.The wholesale sales tax is a better tax than the GST. Its structure is very flexible and can react quickly to urgent situations. Two recent examples come to mind. When the High Court held that the business franchise fees of the states were unconstitutional, what did this Treasurer do? He used the sales tax to impose a 15 per cent surcharge on wine and other alcoholic products to recover the threatened revenue. This increased the number of rates from six to seven. Let me repeat that. The Treasurer, Mr Costello, increased the number of sales tax rates from six to seven. But it was very effective also in dealing with the unprecedented fiscal crisis confronting the states. Were any of the states criticising the sales tax then? No. Because it helped to save their budgets in a relatively simple and effective manner. Furthermore, when some of the states threatened to renege on the uniform gun laws, what did the Prime Minister do? He threatened that a punitive level of sales tax would be imposed on certain firearms if the states broke the agreement. So, for the Prime Minister's greatest achievement in his first term, he enlisted the flexible multirate sales tax. These options are simply not available under the flat rate GST.So sales tax has a great flexibility as a policy tool, and it has been used by both the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer in precisely this mode. The wholesale sales tax is an input tax, just as his tax on financial services and home rentals is an input tax. A multiple rate structure in an indirect tax is not a fault; rather, it is an advantage. His input taxes, just as wholesale sales tax—the very thing he berates—he now adopts in his tax package: input taxing.Mr Costello has also criticised the seven-rate structure of the wholesale sales tax. But we should remember that the GST will have up to five rates—nil; 10 per cent; probably around four to five per cent, depending on the flow-on impact for input taxed industries; and others for luxury cars and for wine. Sales tax has seven rates, of which Peter Costello produced two, and the tax he berates he now adopts. In fact, the Treasurer is a serial taxer and a serial hypocrite to boot!Labor believes that necessities should not be taxed—food, clothing, footwear, electricity, gas, telephone and health care. We also believe that luxuries should be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary items. All of this can be achieved by sales tax. What should also be understood is that the flat rate GST structure proposed here is not the norm. Most countries that have a GST have a multirate structure. They believe that differing goods and services should be taxed at differing rates. Just some examples of countries with differential rates in the OECD include Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Swit zerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. We should also consider the range over which these exemptions fall.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—We had an agreement about time.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—My time is up there on that clock. You broke agreements today and it is getting back to you now.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—We had an agreement and you—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—And we had an agreement about this morning and you have broken it.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—You have broken it.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—You agreed to give us 10 minutes.CT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—And you agreed to give us more time today and you broke it.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—We had an agreement.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—You broke it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. The ministers will stop interjecting. The honourable member for Hotham will address the chair and address the question before the chair which is that this bill be now read a second time.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Examples of consumption for which GST exemptions have been given include telecoms, legal services, ferry, road and bridge tolls, standard municipal services, passengers, transport, sport, burials, sale of new buildings, artists and travel agents. None of those attracts or—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—On a point of order: we had an agreement in place that there would be 10 minutes allowed for the Treasurer to complete on this bill, and the shadow Treasurer and member for Hotham is breaking that deal. I ask him to keep to that deal.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume his seat. There is no point of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—None of those I have listed attracts sales tax. So, rather than being out of step with the rest of the world, Australia's exemptions in its indirect tax system are consistent with general overseas practice. Food is not generally taxed at the standard rate either.The efficiency of sales tax is also impressive. For the 1996-97 year, almost 95 per cent of the revenue is provided by a little over 8,000 taxpayers. These firms will provide around $14 billion in sales tax this year. Contrast this with the GST that will increase the number of taxpayers from 75,000 to 1.4 million. The initial cost of the GST approach is estimated as $7,000 by the National Tax Accountants Association. This represents about $10 billion in costs in the first year, with huge ongoing costs as well.The government claims that sales tax is a tax on manufacturing and the GST spreads the burden to the services sector. But you cannot look at these issues in isolation. The services sector will have this GST imposed on everything that they do. This is the country's fastest growing sector in terms of employment. Of the two million new jobs created in Labor's 13 years, practically every one was generated in the service sector. The GST is a tax on service industries and a tax on jobs.Government ministers say a payroll tax is bad because it is a tax on jobs but, in the same breath, they propose a new $30 billion tax on those jobs. This is going to have interesting implications for the Ralph review of business taxation. For, while sales tax is weighted more heavily on manufacturers, miners and farmers, so are the various tax concessions and outlays measures. Last year, manufacturers, farmers and miners received $2.6 billion in budgetary assistance—75 per cent of total industry assistance. In proportion to its size, the services sector received just a fraction. So manufacturers are compensated for a sales tax with significant concessions—tax expenditures. Service industries do not receive the tax concessions, but they also do not pay the tax. So the GST is going to change all of that. Service industries which will be paying 10 per cent on everything will demand significant compensation. They will be the ones pushing for the 30 per cent company tax rate goal. Note the word is `goal'. `Goal' is an even more discredited commitment than a non-core promise. These people will demand, through the Ralph re view, reductions in the company tax rate. They will argue that with the GST manufacturers will no longer need special assistance measures. It will be an interesting debate and we will be following it intensely.This week we have witnessed the disappearance of the Treasurer's great anomaly-free tax system. We can score as many points on the GST anomalies as he can on the wholesale sales tax. But the truth is that all indirect taxes are going to have anomalies, particularly where there are exemptions. They arise when the boundaries for those exemptions are drawn. The point about sales tax is that the task of administering these issues and sorting out the anomalies does not fall to the ordinary small businessman and woman.The wholesale sales tax does an effective job and it should not be repealed. It is a better, fairer, more efficient tax than the GST. Unfortunately, the GST has now been passed by the House despite Labor's best efforts. Labor will redouble those efforts to have the GST rejected by the Senate, but we are now presented with a series of bills which, however inadequately, are designed to compensate for the GST—XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: there was very clearly an agreement between the opposition and the government in relation to the conduct of this debate. This is a flagrant breach of it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There is no point of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—They are designed to compensate for the GST by removing sales tax, introducing personal income tax, and various other compensation measures. It would be a double blow to the Australian community to be hit with a GST but retain the wholesale sales tax and receive no compensation. Labor will therefore not oppose these measures in the House—XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—On a point of order, there was a clear agreement between the opposition and the government in relation to the conduct of this debate, and this is a flagrant breach of it. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Your point of order is not a point of order. It is not relevant to the debate.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We call on the government to address any perceived anomalies in the wholesale sales tax rather than impose a new 10 per cent tax on almost everything. I point out, however, that if we succeed in defeating the GST in the Senate, the compensation measures will become unnecessary—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the member for Hotham made an agreement with us about speaking time for the Treasurer.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The minister will resume his seat.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will address the point of order, because this government has broken agreement after agreement on the time that we were going to have for debate.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—The point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I am raising with you, at 12 minutes before 2 o'clock, is that there was a clear agreement between the opposition and the government.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Resume your seat. I regret to inform the Chief Government Whip that agreements made between parties are not part of the standing orders and you cannot raise a point of order on it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—And the abolition of sales tax will be opposed.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—I rise on a point of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Mr Deputy Speaker, is this another point of order on the same point? If so, you should adopt the Speaker's ruling and—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Why don't you keep to the agreement?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Why don't you keep to your agreement?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Both members at the table will resume their seats. Before I call the minister, I have already ruled that there is no point of order regarding agreements made informally between the parties. So if you wish to raise a point of order, it had better not be on that one.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—My point of order is on relevance. The member for Hotham is not speaking to the appropriate bill; he is right off track. He is talking about the overall package and, therefore, I ask you to bring him back to the substance of the debate, which is an end to sales tax, which the member for Hotham is opposed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the minister.WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order in respect of the arrangements for today, Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.50 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.DT4CREANMr Crean—The noes have it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is a division required?DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have only had one call. Do you want a division or not?DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes, on the amendment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You have not moved the amendment.DT4CREANMr Crean—I did.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No. You have not moved the amendment. It was not seconded. If you did move it, it has not been seconded. Order! It has not been seconded and therefore lapses.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an absolute joke. I moved this amendment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No. Resume your seat.DT4CREANMr Crean—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is this: did you call for the seconder before you ruled my motion out of order?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, I have no obligation to.DT4CREANMr Crean—You are required to do that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The rules and regulations for the House required me, at 1.50 p.m., to put the question despite the fact that you still had not finished and you still had not had somebody second your amendment. The question is: do you want a division?DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes, I want a division on the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No. There is no amendment. I will put the question again so everybody is quite clear. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.18571857Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)10000PON/A10—The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills1857r6571857Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.13:52:001857Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I also have an amendment to move in relation to A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998, and I would hope, unlike the ruling in relation to the previous one, that this can be before the House.We oppose the government's intention to compensate people through the measures that are contained in its taxation reform legislation—its income tax bills—because they are about compensating an unfair tax. But as I indicated in relation to the last bill, we cannot allow people not to have compensation if the GST is passed. We recognise that it is being passed in this chamber. We will be doing everything that is necessary to oppose it in the other place, in which case this compensation measure is not necessary.But let me just say how this government has mucked up their strategy. They wanted a position today where they had Labor voting for the retention of a wholesale sales tax, and they also wanted a position whereby we would vote down their tax cuts. They will not get that. Why? Because they did not move the bills in the right order. Had they moved the wholesale sales tax and the tax cut bills before they introduced the GST, then of course we would have been required to do that. Blind Freddy could have seen it but not these moles sitting on that side of the chamber. These people are hopeless tacticians led by Peter Reith on instructions from Peter Costello, who cannot even get the order right.But what have we achieved today? We have achieved the position whereby all members on that side of the House are on the record voting for the imposition of a 10 per cent GST on almost everything. Every time people go into a shop Peter Costello, with his hand in your pocket, will be taking 10 per cent.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are discussing a new tax system for personal income tax cuts, and the member for Hotham is talking about the bills that have already been passed. I ask him to get back to the substance of the bill which is under debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Resume your seat. There is no point of order. We are talking in cognate.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So the government members have voted for the imposition of a 10 per cent tax on almost everything—Peter Costello, with his hand in your pocket every time you go into a shop and purchase something—and these bills are about trying to compensate people for that.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Hotham clearly should not address the Treasurer by his name but rather by his seat.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Moreton. I have drawn the honourable member for Hotham's attention to it, and I am sure he will refer to all ministers and members correctly.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. Not only do they have a 10 per cent tax on everything but they do not want to tell people what that amounts to—dividing everything by 11. Even the Treasurer could not do it yesterday, but he expects the punters to be out there doing it every time they purchase something. The minister for consumer affairs not wanting to tell consumers how much tax they are paying? It is dereliction of duty, Treasurer. We are having to do your job for you. We are having to introduce legislation so that people know exactly what they are paying.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that you bring the member for Hotham back to the substance of the debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat. There is no point of order. The practice of this House is that when bills are under the guillotine it is regarded as a cognate debate and it is wide-ranging.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—They should know it, because it is a mechanism they introduced and mucked up.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Point of order!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do hope that the honourable member for Moreton is not going to canvass the points of order that I have already given a ruling on.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Mr Deputy Speaker, no. Out of great respect to you and the position you hold, I wish to raise a further point of order. It seems to me that, I would hope unintentionally, the member for Hotham is accusing you, by way of his delivery, of certain things. He is talking across the table; he is not speaking through the chair.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. I must say to you and to all other members that if there is any need for me to protect myself I am quite capable of doing it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We oppose this proposition because of the fiscal profligacy of the government's planned personal tax cuts, as evidenced by the dramatic impact of the tax package on the forecast Commonwealth budget, reducing the underlying balance in the year 2000-2001 by $4.76 billion. We oppose it because of its unfairness in that 50 per cent of the tax cuts go to the richest 20 per cent of taxpayers, with the other 50 per cent going to the other 80 per cent of taxpayers. The other deficiency in this package is the failure to adequately address the disincentives to move from welfare to work and to consider Labor's alternative approach through earned income tax credits. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House requests that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to produce a fairer tax system with no GST, and in particular to overcome the following deficiencies:the fiscal profligacy of the Government's planned personal tax cuts, as evidenced by the dramatic impact of the tax package on the forecast Commonwealth budget, reducing the underlying balance in the year 2000-01 by $4.76 billion;the unfairness of the tax cuts in that 50% of the tax cuts go to the richest 20% of taxpayers, with the other 50% going to the other 80% of taxpayers; andthe failure to adequately address the disincentives to move from welfare to work and to consider Labor's alternative approach through earned income tax credits".What you have to understand is this: this is a government that is having to introduce these tax cuts because it has also introduced a new unfair anti-job tax. The Treasurer likes to rail forth about no-one paying more than 30 cents in the tax dollar on marginal tax rates. They will. They will be paying 10 cents on every dollar. On every dollar they spend they will be paying 10 per cent more. That is what they will be paying.So add to the 30 per cent the other 10 per cent and then people will start to wake up to what they have here. It is an unfair tax, and these tax cuts are about buying that very unfairness. But they do not do it properly. They do not compensate properly because the assumptions on which the compensation is based are flawed. They assume a full flowthrough of the taxes that will be abolished. We will demonstrate in the Senate that that will not occur. The 1.9 per cent inflation rate is a bodgie one, and if the inflation rate is bad the compensation package is more skewed. I will return to this subject after question time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements185914:00:001859Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Attorney-General will be absent from question time today. He will be addressing the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights National Conference in Sydney. Therefore, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice185918591859Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen modelling released today by the Centre for Policy Studies, Monash University, on the government's tax package? Has he seen their finding that:The Treasury has asserted that a major change in the tax mix is necessary because the present array of indirect taxes will raise insufficient revenue in relation to Australia's future public sector requirements . . .At this stage of our research we have found no evidence to support the Treasury's proposition.In our basecase forecasts, indirect taxes grow at about the same rate as GDP, even in the absence of increases in rates of indirect tax.Treasurer, if the Monash economists do not believe that the tax system is broken, how do you expect to con the rest of the community?1859Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I welcome the question. I would have welcomed the opportunity to stand in the debate if the member for Hotham had not broken the agreement that prevented me from doing so. So I am glad that he has given me this opportunity to participate. I thank him for that opportunity. I presume the premise of his question is that the tax system is not broken. As I recall, he said rather rhetorically, `If Monash doesn't think it is broken, why are you changing it?' If the Labor Party does not think the tax system is broken, you can stand and defend it to the last man and woman, but you will not have us supporting you.DT4CREANMr Crean—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: did not the Treasurer admit last week on radio that the tax system is not broken?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not a point of order and he cannot expect me to entertain that sort of point of order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Okay, you are reinforcing your point that you do not think the tax system is broken. You will have trouble convincing Australians of that because Australians who are living under huge marginal income tax rates of 43 cents in the dollar, facing the prospect of paying 47 cents in the dollar, do think the tax system is broken. We know Labor is a party of reaction. Labor can only oppose; it cannot build. So Labor has to maintain this pretence that the tax system works because it will not engage in reforming it.It was not always the case that Labor opposed tax reform. When it had decent leadership—when it had any leadership—back in the mid-1980s, it used to support tax reform. Who supported tax reform? The current Leader of the Opposition and the member for Holt, when they were in the Keating Labor Party, supported a 12½ per cent broad based consumption tax—as I have already told the House—in a booklet put out back in 1985. I had to go to great lengths to find that booklet because I thought all of the copies had been destroyed. I am not sure that troglodytes like the member for Hotham endorsed a broad based consumption tax, but it was certainly endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Holt back in 1985.Back in the 1980s when Labor was supporting a broad based consumption tax, indirect tax represented 7.2 per cent of GDP and now it only represents 5.8 per cent. So Labor was arguing to broaden the indirect tax base right back in the 1980s when it was substantially higher than it is now. Back in the 1980s, direct taxation on individuals and companies was only 16.4 per cent and now it is 17.2 per cent. Therefore, back in the 1980s Labor was supporting reducing the burden of personal income tax even though it was less than it is today. If you wanted to make sure you have a sustainable position in relation to the tax base, you would be broadening the indirect tax base. This point was made by somebody in debate in the Main Committee last night when he said:The sales tax regime has been undermined by the shift in consumer spending from goods to services. This is the inevitable consequence of a modern service based economy. Tax modernisation is needed to protect the integrity of the public sector's revenue base.Do you know who said that?DT4CREANMr Crean—I can guess.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It was the member for Werriwa, Labor's thinker, Labor's lonely thinker, who stood up in the Main Committee and belled the cat. You have somebody who thinks and somebody who does not. If I were on the Labor backbench, I would follow the member for Werriwa on that one.18601860Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I direct my question to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House whether he is aware of recent independent surveys on the state of the Australian economy? What do these surveys indicate about the nation's economic prospects going into the New Year and how does Australia's current economic performance compare with recent history?1860Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—In the last week, there have been a number of surveys released which find that business expects economic growth to continue in the New Year. The New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce released a survey today saying that business confidence has undergone a transformation in the last three months. Katie Lahey, the Chief Executive, said that the optimism stems from reported improvements in general business conditions, sales revenue, export sales, selling prices, profits and investments in plant and equipment. Ms Lahey also stated that the survey found strong support for the government's tax reform package and that 84 per cent of respondents supported the federal government's tax package. It is great news to have such a vote of support—84 per cent—from small business.We finish the year in Australia in a strong position in very difficult international circumstances. Australia's growth rate compares exceptionally with economies in the region, nearly all of which are in recession. Australia grew by five per cent. It grew faster than the United States, faster than the major economies in Europe and faster than the OECD average. We do that at a time when inflation is low. Headline inflation was 0.2 per cent in the September quarter and 1.3 per cent over the year. Inflation has now been below two per cent for over two years.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—We gave you that.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Ha, ha! There was an interjection from the Labor Party: `We gave you that.' The shadow Treasurer said on 21 July 1998:After three Costello budgets we have slower growth, we face the Asian crisis. It's not what I call a fireproofed economy.It is not fireproofed and it is all my fault. The Leader of the Opposition said on 3 December:In so far as we are fireproofed from the impact of the Asian crisis, it is due to the harsh and difficult changes that we in the Labor Party put in place.So the deputy leader says we are not fireproofed and it is the coalition's fault; and the leader says we are fireproofed and it is all the good work of Labor. That is what you would call a consistent economic message. Bring the member for Werriwa down on to your front bench. The lonely thinker, the empty chair in every question time as he conducts this experiment: is it possible to be a thinker and a member of the Labor Party at the same time?We go into this with a budget which is in surplus and a charter of budget honesty praised by international authorities as state-of-the-art legislation. Official interest rates have been cut six times since the coalition came to office. Under Labor home mortgage interest rates were 10.5 per cent; now they are below 6.5 per cent—a saving for the average Australian home buyer of over $4,000 per annum since this government came to office. And that is great news for home buyers. This side of the House thinks it is great news for home buyers. You can compare that to the Keating- Beazley-Crean-Evans interest rates of 17 per cent in 1989-1990.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It's a completely bogus comparison.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It's a bogus comparison to compare 6.5 per cent to 17 per cent, a totally bogus comparison. Why? Because it puts Labor in a bad light. The Financial Times editorial of 3 December stated this:Australia was once regarded as one of the more hopeless cases in the industrialised world. Its response to the Asian crisis suggests this is an economy whose prospects should now be taken seriously.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Well done.18611861Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Thank you, Prime Minister. I direct my question again to the Treasurer. Is he aware that the Monash modelling released this morning has found that the long run effect of the package on the economy will be negative, that business cost benefits and international competitiveness improvements are illusory, and that residential building is a loser because of the proposed GST treatment of the sale of new houses? Treasurer, in light of these findings, how can you seriously claim that the GST is good for the economy?1861Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I recall, in that policy document, A new tax system , which was put to the Australian people, we cited assessments, as I recall, from the Melbourne Institute, from the Brotherhood of St Laurence, I think—we did not put our own figures out there—on the amount that this would add to growth. I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham, saying in a debate just earlier that this was a terrible fiscal stimulus. Well, if it is a fiscal stimulus, it would be adding to growth, would it not? On the one hand, he wants to criticise it because it is a fiscal stimulus; on the other hand, he wants to say that it is going to have a negative effect on growth. I have learnt one thing when I have taken questions from the member for Hotham: never respond to a proposition or a quote that he puts in somebody else's mouth until you have seen it with your own eyes, and you have actually learnt what the truth is—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—And you've road-tested it.CT4Mr COSTELLO—And you've road-tested it.DT4CREANMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer was asked if he was made aware of the findings of the Monash model. If he hasn't read it, then he should sit down and say he hasn't read it. If he has read it, he should comment upon those findings, because they are damning of his package.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We do not need any help with the answers; we find answering your questions easy enough as it is. In the Australian new tax system research we quoted from the Melbourne Institute and the Brotherhood of St Laurence. I think we also got a research document from Access Economics about the new jobs that would be created. As I recall, there were responses from Econtech to the same effect. As I said earlier, one of the Labor Party's attacks on cutting personal income tax is that it is a fiscal stimulus. If it is a fiscal stimulus you are complaining about, do not try to have it both contradictory ways at the same time. What the Labor Party has to learn to do is to run a coherent economic policy, to think of a position and to defend it.18621862Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, the Australian Bureau of Statistics today released the labour force data for November. What do these figures reveal about the policy direction the government is pursuing?1862Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Groom for his question. The latest monthly stats have come out. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate has moved from 7.7 per cent to eight per cent. It does reflect the fact that the numbers jump around a lot. The figures last month fell to 7.7 per cent so we are seeing some monthly volatility.What takes the volatility out is the trend unemployment rate, and the trend unemployment rate has actually fallen for the month from eight per cent to 7.9 per cent, which is moving in the right direction. Also within the figures is a marginal improvement in the youth unemployment rate, which is welcome, and in respect of the trend employment number there is a growth of around 11,000. I think what the figures demonstrate, apart from the fact that there is volatility in the month-to-month numbers, is that a lot of the numbers this month were in New South Wales, where there were 48,000 fewer jobs on the seasonally adjusted number, which is a very large and obviously significant number in this set of data.The real point to make, though, is that there are still a lot of things that need to be done to create the framework within which we can see jobs growth in the future. The shadow minister, the member for Batman, did the usual opposition doorstop on the issue. After he had run through the numbers, the final question was, `Well, what are you going to do about it? What would Labor do about it?' What is Labor doing about it? They are voting against absolutely every measure that we put up that would create jobs. Here they are today in one division after another voting against tax reform which will be to the great benefit of business. They will vote, and have voted, against benefits for small business. No-one has created more jobs than small businesses in Australia in recent years. What is the Labor Party's attitude to that? They vote against it.There is a lot more to be done in respect of creating the framework in the future for jobs growth. This government is committed to the policy changes that really will create jobs. We will put our votes behind constructive measures that will create jobs in the future. It is a pity that the Labor Party continues to fail to take their own rhetoric and then apply it when it actually comes to things that count, namely, votes in this place and in the Senate.18621862Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be aware that in the last 33 months of the Labor government 628,000 jobs were created and in his 33 months 310,000. Is the Prime Minister concerned that, with the release of the November labour force figures today, not only has there been a sharp rise in the unemployment rate to eight per cent but the participation rate has fallen to 63.2 per cent? Is the Prime Minister aware that, had this government managed to sustain the higher participation rates that were achieved under Labor in 1996, the real unemployment rate today would not be eight per cent but 8.9 per cent? Does the government now admit that the current rate of unemployment understates the true state of the labour market because of the success of government policies in squeezing people, and particularly women, out of the labour force?1863Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of statistical comparisons between our management of the Australian economy and that of the Australian Labor Party. I am eternally grateful, on this last question time perhaps of the year, that the Leader of the Opposition should have given me an opportunity to reflect for a moment on some of the comparisons. I say so in the confidence that the Australian public will go to this Christmas knowing that the economic circumstances of this nation are better at this Christmas than they have been for more than 30 years. They will go to their Christmas knowing that we have the strongest economic growth rate in the Western world. They will go to their Christmas knowing that the quality of economic management of this nation over the last 2½ years has piloted the Australian economy away from the worst impacts of the Asian economic downturn. They will go to their Christmas knowing that these words were written in an editorial by Maximilian Walsh in the Bulletin only this week. Under the heading `Good News for the Coalition', with an engaging cartoon of one of my Liberal state colleagues, he talks about the Howard era and he says that real wages have risen by 10 per cent during the time we have been in power. This is a measure of the miracle of our economic management.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The Prime Minister has been asked a set of questions that related exclusively to the job market and to participation rates and comparative unemployment rates, and we are entitled to expect some relevance in an answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister's answer is entirely relevant to the question asked.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Real wages rose by 10 per cent. Mr Walsh went on to say:What is critically important in respect of that figure is that the profit share of income climbed from 16% of GDP to well over 17%. Not since the `60s have we had it so good.Mr Walsh, very importantly, went on to say this:The explanation for the simultaneous rise in both real wages and profits is that our national productivity has moved up a gear.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear about national productivity.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order is again on relevance, Mr Speaker. The eight per cent who have never had it so good perhaps would like to know from the Prime Minister the answer to my question, because they are not getting one now, despite his arrogance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not have a point of order. On the matter of relevance, the Prime Minister's response is entirely relevant to a question which, as I wrote it down, drew comparisons between the approach of the government and the opposition to this difficulty.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will start that again. The more the Labor Party noisily interject, the more they proclaim their sensitivity about the comparison. Maximilian Walsh says that there has been a simultaneous rise in both real wages and profits. I repeat: there has been a simultaneous rise in both real wages and profits, and that is the foundation of rising employment in secure, well paid jobs. We have delivered rising employment and we have delivered secure and well paid jobs. He goes on to say that productivity has moved up a gear.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I thank the House for the sort of silence that in fact everyone in Australia has a right to expect. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The article goes on to say:Just how and why that has happened is something the economists will pore over. However, the statistical fact is that the Howard government, by the most sensitive measure of the hip-pocket nerve, really has delivered.The truth of the matter is that, on every economic comparison, the Labor Party's last years in office were an abject failure compared with our first two to three years.The man who asked me the question drove unemployment in Australia to a post-Depression high of 11.2 per cent. The man who asked me the question left us a budget deficit of $10.5 billion. The man who asked me the question is leading a negative opposition to the most historic economic reform package this parliament has seen in the form of the taxation package. I conclude by saying to the Australian people that the management of this economy is in sound and reliable hands. We are delivering strong growth and a secure economy, which is the basis for rising living standards for all Australian families.18641864Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of any recent comments about public health in Australia? Can you also inform the House of the initiatives the government has taken in public health?Opposition members interjecting—1864Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I am surprised such a question should cause amusement on the other side of the House. I did notice that, in debate in another place over the last two nights, there have been several comments that population health is what the government should be commenting on. I thought I would mention 10 things that I take particular pride in that were conceived about 2½ years ago.The first is a national public health partnership. For the first time ever, we have a new way of approaching population health with the Commonwealth, states and territories. It has meant negotiating an agreement with eight different governments around Australia and thereby setting clear goals and targets. We have a coordinated and consistent approach across the whole country.The second is our national illicit drug strategy, which is allocated $214 million of extra money over four years to address the issue of illicit drugs in Australia. This has been addressed in both the supply and demand side of drugs with slightly over 50 per cent going to the health aspect of that, which is in fact the demand for drugs.The third thing which we take particular pride in is our work in smoking. For the first time ever, again, we have got nine Commonwealth, state and territory governments around Australia to pool their money and run one consistent campaign. It has now been picked up in more than 12 countries around the world. The fourth thing I mention is our immunisation campaign, which has been very successful with respect to measles.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is an abuse of question time. This is properly the subject of a ministerial statement. If the minister wishes to tell the House about all his achievements, he should do that and allow that matter to be debated.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Calwell will resume his seat. The minister's response could not be deemed to be a ministerial statement. He indicated there were 10 points he wanted to raise.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—It has shown sufficient success that, if you take a cohort of 12-month-old children, unlike what was reported in one newspaper yesterday—we have an 84.3 per cent completed immunisation rate for that group. That is still below our target but substantially better than the 53 per cent completed childhood immunisation rate we found 2½ years ago.Fifthly, we have looked at a number of specific illnesses—diabetes, folate in terms of spina bifida, HIV-AIDS—and muscular- skeletal initiatives, in all of which many would say we are leading the world. The sixth is that we have had a second mental health strategy, one that is focused on prevention, particularly early intervention, in psychosis in young people. This is something that we recently had the British health minister, Paul Boateng, out here looking at and is something which the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has praised us for and has said he wishes to emulate.Seventh, in the area of cancer, we have introduced a national cancer control initiative. The early signs of this are that we are showing improvements in the prevention and early detection of cancer, leading to better survival. Eighth is the environmental health strategy—something the Labor Party, I might say, promised in 1993 and never even commenced in their last full term of government—looking at air and water quality.Ninth, in Aboriginal health, funding has been increased in the three years that we have been in government by 44 per cent. Finally, in rural health, we now have a rural health department operating out of the University of Sydney, out of Broken Hill. In 1997, for the first year in many years, we had an increase in the number of doctors in rural Australia. As a direct result of our initiatives in 1996, rural retention grants are to be introduced next year to help keep doctors in country areas.It is sad that people opposite should find this amusing. They are population health issues that affect the most disadvantaged people in the community. They are 10 things that the opposition, when in government, could never even dream of. They show your incompetence. They show the fact that you have never understood health, and that is why you cannot fix it.18651865Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question again to the Treasurer. In the light of his comments on the work of Econtech, has he seen the modelling by Econtech on the effect of the government's tax plan on the housing indus try? I ask whether he is aware that the report states: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.Treasurer, how many economists will it take before you admit that your new 10 per cent tax on almost everything will destroy jobs and send important industries backwards?1865Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have probably already told the House that, if you reform Australia's tax system and you take taxes off exports, you give exports a great boost. That is a great thing. If you take the burden of wholesale sales tax off the motor car industry, you are going to get a much more vibrant motor car industry in this country. I do not know why former ACTU officials would be opposed to that. If you broaden the indirect tax base from just manufactured goods to goods and services, you take the tax burden off the manufacturing base and you create much more equity in that growing part of the economy. All in all, and for the reasons that the Labor Party said in 1985 when it supported tax reform—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this was a specific question about modelling that he referred to and now wants to duck. I am asking you, on relevance, Mr Speaker: will you ask him to address the question properly and relevantly?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The answer has been entirely relevant.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, you're a joke.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I heard what the member for Hotham said, and I made a presumption—and I will give him the benefit of the doubt—that his remarks were not addressed to me.DT4CREANMr Crean—It was addressed to him—he is a joke.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham now runs the risk of me taking action against him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The reasons that the Labor Party gave in 1985 when it had the leadership were:The government's preferred approach would mean a switch in the tax system, with more tax paid at the time income is spent, but less tax paid at the time income is earned. This will reduce the level of tax avoidance and evasion because many of the ways income tax is avoided will be directly removed by new laws. There will be bigger cuts in income tax than increases in consumption tax.That is the policy that was supported by Kim Beazley and Gareth Evans and the Labor Party in their document on tax reform in July 1985. They were right then, and they are wrong now. I have finished.DT4CREANMr Crean—He has finished, and he hasn't defended his tax package—he has talked about Labor's.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I had presumed, I have to say, that the Treasurer had not finished and was going to refer to the housing industry. That is why I allowed him to continue.18661866Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. What reforms has the government initiated to increase competition and enhance price transparency in petrol retailing? What has the government done to establish a regime for open terminal access in the petroleum industry, and what benefits will the government's policy deliver to petrol consumers, especially those in rural and regional areas like those in Mallee? What has been the success of the government's policy so far?1866Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Mallee for his question. I acknowledge the interest he has shown in the petroleum industry.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—What is he—a petrol head?CT4Mr COSTELLO—No, he's not a petrol head—I think you're a far more likely candidate, my friend. In July, the now Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, and I announced the government's reform plan for petroleum retail marketing. It was based on the recommendations of the 1994 Industry Commission and the 1996 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry into petroleum products.I have always said that petrol pricing will depend on a number of factors. One of the principal ones is the world price for oil. The exchange rate will contribute to it. Refining costs will contribute to it. We have always said that, all other things being equal, a more competitive retailing end of the market will deliver lower prices. That is, prices will move according to world prices and exchange rates and everything else—things we do not have control over—but, all other things being equal, if you have a more competitive retail end of the market, you will get better prices.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Our package was to allow open access to oil terminals for bulk fuel supply customers, and we have done that. Our package was to get monitoring of prices by the automobile clubs, and the automobile clubs are now doing that for us. Our package was also to introduce a more competitive regime in relation to petrol marketing. Of course, like all economic reform, it was opposed by Labor. Labor opposes everything, and so it opposed reforms to petrol marketing. In fact, Labor said in its policy: `The one sure thing is that under Mr Howard petrol will rise.'8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—That's right!CT4Mr COSTELLO—That's right, is it? Okay. One of the thinkers on the Labor frontbench says that that is right. The consumer price index for the September quarter showed that petrol prices fell 2.2 per cent. The Labor Party said that the one sure thing is that petrol prices would rise—and that has been confirmed by a member of its frontbench. The consumer price index for September showed that prices fell 2.2 per cent and, in relation to some areas, you can actually now buy petrol for under 60c a litre.We have implemented open access. This has given new opportunities for bulk suppliers to get into the industry. We intend to move on and enhance competition in the retail area because, by enhancing competition, by getting more effective sales of goods and services, you are going to see the kind of productivity lifts that the Prime Minister talked about which will make our country strong.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter is ignoring the remarks of the chair.18671867Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister read the regulatory impact statement released by the government on the GST which shows gross compliance costs to Australian business of $1.9 billion a year and a further $300 million a year in administrative costs to be borne by the Australian Taxation Office—a total deadweight burden on the Australian economy of $2.2 billion a year? Does the Prime Minister agree with me that he was right on 12 March 1981 when, as Treasurer, and in respect of his last great tax adventure, he told the House:A multi-stage VAT was rejected fairly quickly because it would have imposed an enormous paperwork burden on both taxpayers and collecting authorities.1867Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I certainly am aware of the regulatory impact statement and I am certainly aware of the statement I made to this House in 1981, which followed a very vigorous internal debate inside the then government. Those who were around at the time will be very well aware of the vigour of that debate. I was making a statement on behalf of the government as Treasurer at that time.I have never disguised the fact that, over the last 20 years, I have argued both in and out of government for the reform of our taxation system. And it gives me immense pride, as we come towards the end of this parliamentary session, that this is the week that the government I lead—in which the honourable member for Higgins is the Treasurer—after 25 years of need has finally matched the national need and introduced taxation reform.What really matters is that this is the government that, after all the opportunities former governments—both Labor and Liberal—have had, has finally bitten the bullet; this is the government that has done the job in the national interest. I applaud the Australian people's courage—83UCOXMr Cox—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister's answer has nothing to do with the administrative burden that this tax package is going to put on the Australian business community.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is entirely relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Of course, with any change there are burdens, but there are also greater benefits. The cash flow benefits of a broad based indirect tax far outweigh any of the burdens. If you just read one side of the ledger you will always get a negative, miserable outcome. If you read both sides of the ledger you will get a glorious future for the Australian economy.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—You fiscal vandal!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio is ignoring the chair. He will exercise some restraint.18671867Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the implications for the Bougainville peace process of the Papua New Guinean parliament's failure to pass legislation relating to the formation of a Bougainville Reconciliation Government? Will the government continue to support the peace process, including through the Peace Monitoring Group?1867Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question. I very much appreciate the interest he shows in this most important issue to Australia. One of the achievements of this government—and it has many achievements in many fields—has been the contribution that it has been able to make to peace in Bougainville. In that context, I cannot hide the fact that we were disappointed that the Papua New Guinean parliament recently failed to pass legislation to establish the Bougainville Reconciliation Government. That is something that we were looking forward to, and indeed we remain hopeful that it will occur. Nevertheless, it was a matter of disappointment that that legislation did not pass because the requisite two-thirds majority was not obtained as a result of a boycott of the vote by some members of the opposition.It is fair to say that the Bougainville peace process, despite that vote, remains very much on track. This lack of enabling legislation for the Bougainville Reconciliation Government is not a fatal setback.I was delighted to be informed that on 8 December a meeting of the Bougainville Transitional Government and the Bougainville Interim Government, the BTG and the BIG, recommitted the parties in Bougainville to the process of peace and to the cease-fire which was signed early this year.The following day the Bougainvilleans announced that they would establish a Bougainville People's Congress by the end of this year and that they would maintain their commitment to the establishment of a Bougainville Reconciliation Government. This is a very good message; this is a very good development. It confirms my view that the Bougainville peace process does remain on track.Tonight I will be going to Papua New Guinea. It will be an opportunity for me to discuss this issue further with ministers there, and not only to reaffirm our commitment to the peace process but also to inform Papua New Guinea ministers that we will remain active leaders of the Peace Monitoring Group on Bougainville. We will certainly be continuing to participate in the PMG until the end of February, and I do not doubt that its life will extend well beyond that. But it is important for the House to understand that the PMG will not last forever. In the end the people of Bougainville, in consultation and eventually agreement with the government of Papua New Guinea, will have to take affairs into their own hands. The Peace Monitoring Group cannot remain forever. It is itself an interim arrangement, but it is a very important way in which Australia is helping that peace process.I also inform the House that tomorrow I will be opening the Australian funded hospital in Buka, in the north of Bougainville. I think all Australians, particularly members of the government, can take great pride in the fact that we have built this hospital. It demonstrates the very real dividends that peace can bring to the people of Bougainville.18681868Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that 18 workers in Melbourne have been sacked by a company named Roadmark without payment of their long service leave, holiday pay and severance pay? Does the Prime Minister recall advising the parliament on 2 March 1998 in relation to protecting employee entitlements:The alternative that has been suggested—that some kind of trustee guarantee system government business enterprise introduced similar to what operates in other countries—is one that we are looking at . . . And further:We are examining ways in which bona fide help can be given without creating difficult precedents.Prime Minister, when are you going to stop looking at these solutions and actually find one?1868Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not aware of the particular circumstances of the case that the honourable member refers to. As the honourable member has raised it with me, I will find out about it. If there is anything further that I can add to what I am about to say in relation to that particular company and the circumstances of its employees, I will.More generally to the issues that the honourable member for Gellibrand has raised, they have of course arisen in the context of a lot of community concern about the circumstances of the workers at Cobar, which provoked a great deal of debate on this issue. It is an interesting coincidence that the honourable member should ask me the question in the very week that a very satisfactory conclusion has been reached in relation to the Cobar workers. That has been due to the activities—I might say with appropriate encouragement from the government—of the Australian Securities Commission. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, if it had not been for the strong but entirely appropriate representations that were put to the Australian Securities Commission, the very satisfactory outcome in relation to that matter would not have been realised.I remind the House that 85 per cent of the benefits that were due to those workers have been recovered. That is a direct consequence of representations that were made and in which my office, the Treasurer's office and the office of the minister for workplace relations were involved.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—It's about to reopen.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The mine is about to reopen, as the Deputy Prime Minister reminds me. The rhetorical part of the honourable member's question was: when are you going to do something? I would have thought that getting 85 per cent of their entitlements back was certainly doing something. I would have thought that a government that was prepared to use the steady recovery facilities of the Australian Securities Commission to secure that outcome was a government that was doing something. And when it comes to doing something—83KROXONMs Roxon—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. The Prime Minister has indicated that he may not be aware of the circumstances of this case. This case does not deal with a company liquidation. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister's answer is entirely relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The honourable member asked me a specific and a general question. I said in relation to the specific question that, if there was anything further I could find out, I would come back to her. I am now answering the general part of the question.I would remind the honourable member for Gellibrand in relation to the Cobar mines that, whilst individual entitlements will vary, the settlement means that the employees as a group can expect to receive a total of 85 cents in each dollar that was due to them when the mine was closed. Trade creditors are expected to receive approximately 29 cents in the dollar. In other words, the recovery for the workers has been something like 3½ times—Mrs Crosio interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—This is good news for the workers and everybody should be pleased about it. You should not be trying to stop me from informing the House about it.The other and final point I would make to the parliament is that—Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is an occupier of this chair. She knows better than that. I ask her to exercise some restraint.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The other point I would make is that the member for Prospect and others have been urging the government to take action that for 13 long years the Labor Party, when it was in office, declined to take. I can only remind the honourable member for Prospect of what has been said before—that the matters that she has raised are under consideration inter alia by the Labor ministers of the various states.I think what the government has done in relation to Cobar indicates a very conscientious commitment to the protection of the rights of Australian workers. A recovery of 85 cents in the dollar is a great deal better than many workers had recovered for them in the 13 years that you were in government.18691869Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Mr Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister for Employment Services. The Work for the Dole scheme has proven very popular in my electorate of Hughes, as indeed it has across Australia. Can the minister outline to the House how the Work for the Dole scheme is helping to prepare participants for work while they meet their mutual obligation responsibilities? Has there been any recent opposition to the scheme?1869Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—Work for the Dole is giving thousands of young Australians new skills, new responsibilities and new opportunities. For instance, the Thuringowa city library project, which is strongly supported by the member for Herbert, is teaching participants how to index and computer scan historic photos onto an Internet database. For instance, the Ballarat project, strongly supported by the local member, has participants restoring a heritage paddle-steamer. These are typical of hundreds of projects giving thousands of young Australians the experience they need to get real jobs.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You shouldn't let them cut your hair in future!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks. EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am advised that the Work for the Dole pilot project in the electorate of Robertson had 120 out of 200 participants proceeding to full-time or part-time employment. It is results like this which help to explain growing community support for this great project. In fact, the member for Werriwa, an intellectual beacon amidst the wasteland of ideas opposite, has even proposed a work for the dole scheme of his own. He wants to compel parents on welfare to become teachers aids for their kids.Mr Speaker, it seems that the only people opposed to Work for the Dole are a small group of union oligarchies. Not surprisingly, the New South Wales government has instructed its agencies and instrumentalities not to participate in work for the dole schemes without `a full consultation with the New South Wales public sector unions'. That is not consultation with employers and unions; that is not consultation with the whole community—MK6MOSSFIELDMr Mossfield—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my right! The member for Eden-Monaro is ignoring the chair. The member for Cunningham knows better.MK6MOSSFIELDMr Mossfield—I raise a point of order under standing order 145 which states:An answer shall be relevant to the question.The question did not relate to anything the New South Wales government is doing.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my right! The answer is entirely relevant to the question of Work for the Dole.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I think the member for Greenway is showing a little sensitivity on this. I regret to say that last year union opposition helped to stop a Work for the Dole project in the electorate of the member for Hughes. I understand that a small clique in the head office of one union is now trying to veto a number of Work for the Dole projects on the north coast of New South Wales, despite the support of the relevant New South Wales government agencies and despite the support of the local union organisers.The young people of Australia need to understand that sections of the union movement are trying to take away from them new skills, new opportunities and new responsibilities. Members such as the member for Greenway, the member for Batman and the member for Hotham need to understand whose side they are on. Are they on the side of the dinosaurs in head office or are they on the side of local union officials who want to give young Australians a fair go through this great program?18701870Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise what action he is taking to arrest the massive unemployment being experienced in Gippsland as a result of the 18,200 jobs which have been destroyed in the region since March 1996? Prime Minister, do you still think it was a good idea to make unemployment worse in Gippsland by cutting 100 jobs from DEETYA and CES offices; cutting 40 jobs from Telstra's Gippsland work force; and cutting 50 jobs from our Australian Securities and Investments Commission office in Traralgon? And do you still think it is a good idea—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will come to his question.84HMr ZAHRA—to cut 10 per cent of the staff at the Centrelink office in Morwell in light of the rapidly increasing number of clients—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will come to his question. If the member does not quickly ask his question, he will sit down.DT4CREANMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It concerns your ruling about length. Can you compare in a word count the length of the question by the member for McMillan with that of the member for Cowper who occupies the chair and should know better? If there are going to be standards in this place, they ought to be applied evenly, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Hotham will resume his seat. He knows that was not a valid point of order. He may be interested to know that, following the question by the member for Cowper, I did a word count the next day and found that it was much shorter than a number of questions that have been asked. The member for Hotham is welcome to come to my office and compare the length. So that lengthy explanation is not needed.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 142 and standing order 144 and not just in relation to the duration of the question. I note that it was not a question—Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler can count himself warned. The member for Parramatta has the call and will be heard in silence.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, it was not a question; it was a multiple series of questions. It was filled with comment, argument and opinion. It contained a series of unauthenticated allegations of fact. It was really a short speech. We ought to move on to the next bona fide question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta will resume his seat.Mrs Irwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will bear in mind the fact that the chair determines who rises and who is seated. In response to the comment by the member for Parramatta, it was not a valid point of order. There is no explicit direction against multiple questions. However, I do not intend to encourage multiple questions and it was at that point that I interrupted the member for McMillan, whom I believe has asked his question and is now awaiting me to call the Prime Minister to answer it.1871Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not know about the length of questions, but I think I have had the longest preparation time for an answer for a very long period of time. Can I say to the honourable member who asked me the question that I understand his concern about the continuing level of unemployment in the area that he represents.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Have you ever been to Gippsland?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, many times, and I will be very happy to visit areas like that—and I will be doing so over the next three years and in subsequent years of my prime ministership. I will be very, very happy to do that.It is true that the levels of unemployment in this country vary. Some parts of Australia experience very high levels of unemployment and others do not.There are a number of things that can be done to assist in reducing unemployment in areas such as the La Trobe Valley and other regional areas of Australia. One of the things, of course, that you can do is to press ahead, as the coalition government has done, with the regional forest agreements. We inherited inactivity in that area and, since we have been in power, we have been successful in securing quite a number of those.Another thing that you can do, of course, is that you can encourage exports. You can encourage exports of raw materials. You can encourage and allow exports of uranium. You can generate a thousand jobs at the Jabiluka project. You can generate export income for Australia. Another thing you can do is to—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—We're talking about Gippsland, not Arnhem Land.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will not continue to warn the member for Batman who seems to think that interjecting is a right.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—I want to raise a point of order under standing order 145. It goes to relevance. Unemployment when the Prime Minister took office was 9.2 per cent. It is 14.4 per cent now, and our community deserves an answer from you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned! The answer is entirely relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reality is that a lot of things can be done to reduce unemployment in regional Australia. All of the measures being taken by the present government, with one or two rare exceptions, to reduce unemployment in regional Australia are being opposed root and branch by the Australian Labor Party. And I would have thought the member who asked me the question would be, like all other members, interested in reducing youth unemployment. Young jobs are protected by protecting youth wages; young jobs are advanced by supporting the government's proposals in relation to unfair dismissals.The truth is that, when we assumed office, unemployment had averaged 8.7 per cent under the previous government, and it had reached 11.2 per cent. Whilst I do not regard the present level of unemployment in this country as being satisfactory—and I have never asserted for a moment that the unemployment problem represents anything other than a very significant challenge to whoever is in government—the undeniable fact is that the Australian economy now is stronger and better able to generate jobs than at any time in the last 20 years. As we come to the end of this year, we can be secure in the knowledge that we have a stronger economy than Australia has boasted for more than three decades, and that is overwhelmingly due to the policies of the coalition government.18721872Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I ask the minister: will he inform the House of the latest developments in the wool industry.1872Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his question. He has always shown a great deal of interest in one of Australia's great rural industries. The House will be aware that there have been difficulties in recent times with the wool industry, and that the government, prior to the election, took a decision with regard to the management of the wool stockpile. That was welcomed across the industry. We have now gone on with that.The legislation has gone through the House of Representatives—and is now through the Senate—to establish the freeze, and we will go on now to establish an interim advisory board to work with industry and government in the management of the stockpile as we go through the transitional process of moving towards the demutualisation of the stockpile.It was interesting to note a press release from the member for Corio earlier this week when he spoke about the cost to the stockpile of the government's decision, but what he did not realise, what he did not mention in his press release, was the fact that those are costs to the stockpile, and—whether we remain under the previous administration's regime or whether we move to the position the government is now taking—those holding and management costs will be there. But the stockpile has maintained its level and increased its value.So we are moving to establish the Interim Advisory Board. Yesterday we announced that the Chairman of the Interim Advisory Board would be Donald McGauchie, a highly respected agropolitician across Australia, a former President of the NFF, a highly respected corporate player in Australia.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is answering a question of interest to all Australians, and he deserves to be heard.Opposition members interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—The new Chairman of the Interim Advisory Board is a great Australian and he is a well-respected industry leader. I suppose the Labor Party would have us appoint John Coombs to the job. You've got to be joking! We want people with ability, experience and respect within the industry. Through this transitional period with the wool stockpile, we are very confident that Mr McGauchie will do a great job on behalf of the wool industry in Australia as we de-mutualise the stockpile and hand control of the stockpile back to the owners, the wool growers of Australia. I say again that our government has a great deal of confidence in the job that Mr McGauchie will do in looking after the interests of the wool growers of Australia.18721872Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the decision by the Northern Territory government to phase out bilingual education in Aboriginal schools? Is the Prime Minister also aware that his government funds bilingual education programs in Papua New Guinea and Vietnam? Prime Minister, given that article 26(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children, will you take a direct approach to the Northern Territory government, asking them to ensure that bilingual education continues to be available in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory?1873Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I find it incredible that a question about literacy amongst indigenous Australians should be raised by the Labor Party.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler, the member for Kingsford-Smith and the member for the Northern Territory will exercise a great deal more restraint or I will be forced to warn them.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—Mr Speaker, on a point of relevance: bilingual programs are about cultural maintenance as well as literacy. That is something this minister does not appreciate. He knows nothing about Aboriginal education or employment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory has been warned.Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons will exercise some restraint as well. The minister has been on his feet for 11 seconds. I will not tolerate this level of interjection and noise. Let that be understood by those on both sides of the House. The minister has the call.BT4Dr KEMP—As I said in my first 11 seconds, I find it incredible that the Labor Party would raise a question concerning literacy amongst indigenous young people. After their 13 years in office, we have now discovered that 70 per cent of indigenous students are below the national standard.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have admonished members of this House not to use scorn and ridicule and that is the very thing which this minister is doing. When are you going to take some action about it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. I have also been admonished by the House for commenting, but allow me to say to the member for Dobell that if I were to run a scorn and derision meter on comments made by the members for Batman or Hotham, or members on the government front bench, it would be running neck and neck.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Why don't you name them?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman makes a quite inappropriate interjection. The minister has the call.BT4Dr KEMP—It is the coalition government which has been forced to address a problem which was totally ignored and neglected for 13 years. This question shows the blindness of the Labor Party when it comes to matters of educational equity.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—Mr Speaker, on a point of relevance: this question related particularly to the issue of bilingual education. The minister has not even mentioned those words in his reply so far. It is also about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory will resume his seat. The minister has the call. The minister has been perfectly relevant to the question asked and he has the call.BT4Dr KEMP—I was referring to the blindness of the Labor Party when it comes to fundamental issues of educational equity. The question asked about a Northern Territory bilingual program concerned with literacy education amongst young Northern Territorians. It has been up to this government to finally address the issue, not only amongst all young Australians, but amongst indigenous young Australians.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, on a point of relevance: there is a distinction between literacy and bilingual education, which has to do with education in Aboriginal languages. That is the issue. The issue is not the literacy issue; it has to do with—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Why don't you permit me—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat.848SECKERMr Secker—Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Barker will exercise some restraint. The minister has the call.BT4Dr KEMP—As the members of the Labor Party well know, one of the major reasons for these bilingual programs concerns the literacy skills of young people, and I am addressing that aspect of the question. Last week, I announced that the government would be putting in place a national literacy program for indigenous Australians. That program will be an effective program because, for the first time, we will have a program focused on outcomes, not rhetoric, not feel-good feelings in the stomach which we have had from the rhetoric—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.BT4Dr KEMP—of the previous government for the last 13 years—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I will not tolerate ministers overriding the chair. I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. It is the case that bilingual education is fundamental to the establishment of literacy. There is not a single commentator on literacy, as far as the Aboriginal community is concerned, that does not recognise that. Therefore, the question was directed not to the intentions of this government, but to the intentions of the government in relation to the action by the Northern Territory government, which is a direct attack on literacy in the Aboriginal community. What is he going to do about it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.BT4Dr KEMP—I didn't hear you, Mr Speaker, and I apologise for appearing to ignore you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question and deal with the question of bilingual education.BT4Dr KEMP—I announced last week that the government would be working with the states and territories, including the Northern Territory, to put in place for the first time a program for the education of indigenous young people, which will be focused on the actual outcomes of those programs. This government has already lifted spending on indigenous education. It is a government which is now putting more resources into outcomes focused programs.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. The question was whether the Prime Minister would approach the Northern Territory government about what they are going to do about bilingual education. The minister has not answered that question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory will resume his seat.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have no choice. The member for the Northern Territory is actually asking me to discharge him from the service of the House under standing order 304A. The member for the Northern Territory is discharged from the service of the House under standing order 304A—and I ask all members of the House to exercise, in this last question time, a little more restraint.The honourable member for the Northern Territory thereupon withdrew from the chamber.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 99, `Proceedings on question of order', which states:Upon a question of order being raised, the Member called to order shall resume his or her seat, and, after the question of order has been stated to the Speaker by the Member rising to the question of order, the Speaker shall give a ruling thereon.Mr Speaker, it is implicit in the standing orders that the member raising the point of order is entitled, as of right, to state their point of order before it is ruled on by you. Mr Speaker, I submit that you have overstated the position when you suspend him under the standing order for raising the point of order, when you have not given him his time to state the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have a great deal of respect for the member for Banks.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order, members on my right! The member for Banks, given his logistical position in the chamber, may not have been aware of the fact that the member for the Northern Territory had stated his point of order and was, in fact, discharged from the service of the House for subsequent interjections.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—On a further point of order, Mr Speaker: in discharging him, you did not rule on his point of order in relation to relevance, and I ask you to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I had, in fact, determined that the minister was being relevant, and it could scarcely be claimed, when he was dealing with education, particularly with literacy in the Northern Territory, that he was irrelevant to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—The government has also introduced, for the first time, intensive English as a second language courses for young indigenous students who do not have English as their first language. This is proving to be an exceptionally effective way of addressing the literacy needs of young people who are native speakers of a vernacular language. The government is very proud of the fact that it has faced up to these fundamental issues of educational equity in the Northern Territory and throughout Australia and we will continue to work with the Northern Territory government to achieve better outcomes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I call the member for Denison on a point of order.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—He has finished.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is still entitled to his point of order.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is again on relevance, because the question was about whether education is to be conducted in a single language or in two languages, and the human rights that are entailed. He has avoided it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison will resume his seat. The minister had, in fact, dealt with the relationship he was having with the Northern Territory government and was, in that sense, fully relevant.18751875Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House how the recent APEC meeting has contributed to regional efforts to deal with the Asian economic crisis? Are there any alternative views as to how APEC should have handled this issue?1875Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Suffice it to say, as honourable members will know, the recent APEC meeting did have some positive outcomes, including the endorsement of the Australian government's economic initiative.Mrs Irwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is warned.4G4Mr DOWNER—There were useful initiatives on ecotech and the support of the work of the G22 on improving international financial system. But there are alternative approaches. I noticed on Monday an article written by Senator Cook, the opposition spokesman on trade, who argued that at the APEC meeting, APEC—and, indeed, the Australian government, in encouraging APEC—made a mistake by concentrating on economic issues and should have more narrowly focused the whole meeting on trade alone.It says something about the Labor Party that it has not even noticed that there is a regional economic crisis—the most severe of its kind in at least a generation. The Labor Party criticises the government for focusing the APEC meeting on this economic crisis. Of course there was discussion about trade; of course there was a focus on that. But this was a meeting that went way beyond that, and the Australian initiatives were an important part of the successful outcome. All I can say in the brief time available to me is that the article written by Senator Cook is yet another insight into the lack of intellectual rigour—if you could use the word `intellectual' at all—within the Labor Party.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper , it being almost 25 past three.Personal Explanations187615:23:001876Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—Yes, in respect of matters relating to Tasmania.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You may proceed.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—In my daily read of the Senate Hansard , I find on page 1047 of the Senate Hansard of Wednesday, 9 December, a statement by Senator O'Brien purporting to quote comments from the speech I made to the parliamentary press gallery last Friday night—sometimes termed the `Placido' speech—which I understand should not be quoted directly by anybody, including by its author.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister needs to come to the point on which he was misrepresented.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—I did not use the words quoted by the senator. Indeed, I specifically mentioned potential growth industries for the state of Tasmania, including tourism, timber, Tasmanian seafood exports and, I might add, industries such as the ferry industry. My comments admitted that there was concern in respect of Tasmania and stated that the federal government was committed to helping boost the Tasmanian economy.15:24:001876Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—I certainly do claim to have been misrepresented by the member for Hotham on a number of occasions since 26 November, culminating in today when he charged me with having a very lengthy question.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, in the words of the member, he said `since 26 November'. If he was misrepresented he should have taken the first opportunity in relation to those misrepresentations to correct them.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, I understand. But I gathered from what the member for Cowper said that he felt that he had been misrepresented in the debate today.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am fully aware of the standing orders regarding personal explanations.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cowper will come directly to his personal explanation and not delay the House.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—All right, I will. My question on 26 November 1998 took 16 lines in Hansard . From 11 November to 1 December, there have been 20 questions of 16 lines or more—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cowper should resume his seat. I have already indicated to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the member is welcome to come to my office and make this mathematical review. Does the member for Hotham want to make some other point?DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes. He should know better than anyone. He has got to show where he was misrepresented, Mr Speaker. He has not done that. No! He has not shown where he has been misrepresented.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat!Business187615:26:001876Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House is seeking indulgence. Members may find the comments of the Leader of the House of particular relevance to the activities of the House for the next one or two sitting days. The Leader of the House has indulgence.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The best advice I have is that the Senate will resume the second reading of the private health insurance legislation at around 5 o'clock today and that there will be two speakers, Senator Harradine and the minister. Depending, obviously, on the votes on the second reading, the committee stage has been estimated to finish at about 7 o'clock or maybe a bit later. Allowing time for production of the message and the like, it would be some hours before that legislation could come back to the Senate. If that is the consequence of whatever steps the Senate might take, on that basis we will certainly be here until 8 o'clock or thereabouts. I will attempt to give members a progress report on developments as things unfold in the Senate in the next couple of hours.In the House, we have the introduction of a couple of bills just after 5 o'clock and the consideration of some Senate amendments on the payment processing legislation. The National Transmission Network sale legislation needs to be dealt with, but there is not a lot involved in that. On that basis, we would expect to have valedictories at 7 o'clock or perhaps a little after. We will try to keep members informed as we go along. Obviously, this is not a matter within our control in this House; it is a matter for the Senate.15:28:001877McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, could I have your indulgence to briefly comment in response to those remarks made by the Leader of the House? I will be very brief.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I grant you indulgence.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I thank the Leader of the House for having given me prior advice of that information and for advising the House. I want to raise with him the possibility that, if the sitting of the House extends beyond the time of valedictories, we will put in place an arrangement—whether by way of extended adjournment debate or some other means—that will allow backbench members a chance to use the time effectively, if they have to be here, to speak on matters of interest to themselves or their electorates. I ask you to give that some thought. I am not asking for a response now.1877Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I seek your indulgence.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has indulgence.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is a good idea which we put in place in the last term, and we will do so again. It will be a matter between the whips.Questions to the Speaker187718771877McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, it will have become obvious to you and to everyone in the House that the interpretation of the relevance rule has become somewhat contentious.Government members interjecting—5I4Mr McMULLAN—That is not intended to be a criticism of anybody; it is statement of fact. It is clear that some of the previous interpretations which have been made are not those to which you intend to adhere, which is your right.What makes it difficult is that the interpretation you are applying is not clear to us. We would appreciate, over this period when the House is not sitting, some sort of indication from you of the criteria which you are applying in determining that the questions are relevant. We found the interpretation you related to the Prime Minister's response with regard to employment extraordinary. I am sure there are criteria which you are applying and we would appreciate being told what they are.1877Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Fraser has made his point. I will respond without any delay. The Leader of Opposition Business is welcome in my office at any time to wade through the copious pages of Hansard dating back to 1983 and the various rulings by various speakers for various ministers on relevance. He will find I have been consistent with all of them.Documents18781878Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard .The schedule read as follows—Anti-Dumping Authority Act—Anti-Dumping Authority—Report for 1997-98.Australian Political Exchange Council—Report for 1997-98.Australian Science and Technology Council Act—Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council—Final report, for the period 1 July 1997 to September 1998.Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act—Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board—Report for 1997-98.Committee reports—Government responses to parliamentary committee reports—Response, 10 December 1998, to the schedule tabled on 1 July 1998.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Nuclear Safety Bureau—Report for 1997-98.Tobacco Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act—Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—Report for 1997-98.Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Access and equity report for 1998.Department of Industry, Science and Resources—Energy use in Commonwealth operations—Report for 1997-98.Freedom of Information Act—Report for 1997-98.Members of Parliament (Staff) Act—Reports on consultants engaged under section 4 for 1997-98.National Crime Authority Act—National Crime Authority—Report for 1997-98.Attachment to the report—Correspondence relating to the Intergovernmental Committee of the National Crime Authority.Natural Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act—Australian Landcare Council—Report for 1997-98.Pooled Development Funds Act—Pooled Development Funds Registration Board—Report for 1997-98.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Freedom of Information Act—Report for 1997-98. Nuclear Safety Bureau—Report for 1997-98.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act.Pooled Development Funds Act—Pooled Development Funds Registration Board—Report for 1997-98.National Crime Authority Act—National Crime Authority—Report for 1997-98.Attachment to the report—Correspondence relating to the Intergovernmental Committee of the National Crime Authority.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance1878187810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The unfairness and incompetence at the centre of government policy-making, as exemplified in health and taxation.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:32:001878Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—One of the interesting things, on this final day of parliament, that brings into clear relief all that arrogant triumphalism that we have heard from the government over the last few weeks is the government's extraordinarily poor performance, as far as unemployment numbers are concerned, that was revealed today. This is the worst monthly jump in unemployment since 1992. We have to recollect that in 1992 what was then being experienced was a worldwide recession. That may yet be experienced—I hope not, and I believe not—in the course of the next 12 months, but we are not experiencing it now. Then there was a worldwide recession and that was the background the last time unemployment jumped like it did today. The government attempted to gloss over that with monthly volatility and all the rest of it. That is fine; there are monthly volatilities in the figures. But it does not disguise the fact that their overall performance as far as unemployment is concerned has been absolutely pathetic.Let me go through the numbers. This is of direct relevance because it relates to something I am going to say about tax in a minute or two. In the last 33 months of Labor's term of office, there were 628,000 jobs created in this country; the 33 months of the Liberal period of office has seen 310,000 jobs created. The last 33 months of the Labor government saw 363,000 full-time jobs created; the figure for this government is 126,000 jobs. In part-time jobs, 265,000 were created under Labor; 183,000 have been created under this government. The downward trend in unemployment in the last 33 months of the Labor government was 2.5 per cent; the downward trend under this government has been 0.4 per cent, and that is before we get to the issue of the participation rate, which would put that figure into perspective. The participation rate was 68.3 per cent when the Labor Party left office; it is 63.2 per cent now.The point about all of that is this: the only improvement in unemployment numbers which this government has managed to produce—and the Prime Minister's complacent statement that this is the best the Australian people have ever experienced in 33 years—is that, by driving women out of the work force and sundry others discouraging them, you have managed to produce a situation where we are not here discussing today an unemployment level of 8.9 per cent. If we had been discussing today an unemployment level of 8.9 per cent, that would have set off alarm bells throughout the media in this community, and in this country there would be a public disquiet and a lack of confidence over job prospects.In the last quarter they have finally managed to achieve a level of growth that was routine under the previous Labor government. On the basis of that particular swallow for this particular summer, the Prime Minister claims that we are experiencing the best period economically—our golden age—for at least the last 33 years. The arrogance of that comment surpasses only the arrogance with which he claims credit for the fact that there is any level of fireproofing at all.You are now seeing—it is a shame they did not do it before the election; we would have much appreciated it then—one economic commentator after another going through the list of changes that the Labor Party put in place in the 1980s and the extraordinary consequences we bore for that politically with the base of people who normally supported the Labor Party.When we go to the levels of productivity that the IMF referred to, which they praised here—the figures that the IMF produced were not for the last couple of years; they were for the last eight—those productivity changes have now permitted a situation of increased profit share and increased wages growth which are entirely a product of the decisions that were taken by the previous government. The contribution of this government since it has been in office, with the competence with which they have handled public policy, has been to put a baseball bat through that achievement for the first two years. Even after doing that, so resilient was the economy that it has been able to storm back based on the changes that were put in place before they came to office.They complain that they confronted a budget deficit when they came into office. Contemplate a budget deficit of $25 billion with an 11 per cent unemployment rate and an 11 per cent inflation rate. That is what we inherited from John Howard back in 1983. They inherited an economy which at least they had the honesty and decency at the outset, before they got into fables in this parliament, to describe as `better than good in parts'.What is their contribution? They keep inviting everybody to express new ideas in this place. They do have a new idea. The new idea is this: if you introduce a goods and services tax you improve the possibility of generating job growth in the economy. That is genuinely a new idea. I give that to them. People have introduced goods and services taxes in the past—there is no doubt about that. It was introduced in Europe, in the first instance, not to provide jobs, because it was introduced at a time when people thought that jobs would grow forever, that we would never have an unemployment problem again and therefore we could afford to tax value.That was the assumption that was around at that point of time. It did not matter if you put a cumbersome set of compliance burdens on business. Who cared? Business would generate jobs anyway. So let us get that into place. What was its purpose? To provide jobs in the European Community? No, to subsidise French agriculture. So that there could be a set of subsidies that suited the European conditions of the time, which went for the protection of agriculture in Europe—to the very great bane, I might say, of Australian farmers when that was done. That was one reason for doing it.Other governments have put it in place for other purposes, such as revenue raising. If you do put on a tax, it is likely that you will raise revenue, so governments have put on goods and services taxes to raise revenue. In recent times most have been deeply disappointed with the performance. They have been deeply concerned with the fact that they have found even greater difficulties in relation to compliance. Despite the burdensome requirements on compliance, they have had even more disappointment in relation to the compliance than they expected to. Most have found, as the British Treasury revealed, that estimates by treasuries of what they will receive has fallen far short.But that had nothing to do with jobs—nothing at all. Nobody on earth—until the Australian Liberal party decided to reinvent itself on that subject and lose the wisdom that they once had in relation to a comprehension of the compliance costs and others—had ever come managed to come up with the idea that putting a GST in place would actually create job growth.One of the problems that this government is going to confront over the next six months as the Senate inquiry proceeds is that they are going to start to get the Econotechs and the Monash groups coming forward with the proper analysis. Hitherto, these groups have been looking at distributional effects associated with a GST. They have been looking at the issues of fairness and equity, and they have come to some pretty horrible conclusions as to whether or not the compensation package of the government in relation to the likely increase in cost—as opposed to the government's claimed increase in cost—is going to take place. And they have given it a thumbs down on that front.Now they are turning their attention to the growth issues related to a goods and services tax, and what they are finding is that in some sectors it will be deeply punitive of continued growth in those sectors and that, in the country as a whole, at very best it will have a nil effect and the likelihood is that it will constrain growth. And if you constrain growth, of course, you constrain the jobs.So here we are: we sit at the beginning of this term of parliament with unemployment rising, with unemployment rising through the roof if the people who had left the work force bothered to stay there, and we have a government with one idea: a unique idea to them but the one idea having nothing to do with a central problem of economic management in this community.So they are going to put in place a goods and services tax. Why would it be commonsense to suspect that the modellers are probably correct when they say from a statistical point of view that the government is going to be wrong in its projections on jobs? From a commonsense point of view, if you introduce for the first time a tax on the area of the economy which has generated 90 per cent of the job growth in the last decade, it would penetrate the minds of all but the most obtuse on the government front bench that the likely effect of this would not be to create additional jobs but to detract from that. That is commonsense, producing earlier on from our point of view during the course of the election debate what the modellers are now producing and will no doubt present to the Senate over the next six months. This is a 100 per cent job killer, this great new idea of this government being imposed here.Contrast that with the tax credit proposals that we had which were rewarding people for work, encouraging people into the work force, a job grower, an accepted job grower in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the international community, the United States, in particular, is the definer as far as job growth is concerned.There is a second statistic that people might like to contemplate. Ninety per cent of jobs growth has been in the service industries and, when you go to job growth in the economy, virtually the entirety of it resides in small business and a very substantial portion of it in microbusiness. And of course they experience a massive increase in compliance costs, resources of about $2.2 billion, taken overall. Resources which could have been devoted to investment, resources which could have been devoted to the creation of additional employment opportunities, are instead going to be part of a burdensome and debilitating compliance obligation upon ordinary businesses in this community. That will of course have a completely negative effect on jobs. This is public policy stupidity, not backed up by logic and argument but by mindless, loudmouth, arrogant assertion. That is all we get from this government: mindless, loudmouth arrogant assertion.That stupidity is matched only by the stupidity in the health area. That is the other of two areas that ought to be contemplated. There is no doubt a problem with public hospitals in this country, and logic would suggest that when you have a public hospital problem in this country you actually provide the hospitals with resources. One and a half billion dollars is twice what all the state governments put forward as their optimum claim on the Commonwealth. The most gilded of gilded lilies as far as they are concerned is less than half of what the Commonwealth is prepared to spend on one thing. The government is prepared to spend $1.5 billion on a two per cent improvement in the numbers of people taking out private health insurance.In so far as it impacts at all on funds for public hospitals, it is the case in a number of states that if they get that two per cent there is an automatic discount as far as public hospitals are concerned. There is no relationship between what is the actual reduction in obligation on public hospitals and that cut; there is no requirement to demonstrate that in fact demand has fallen in the public hospitals—there is merely an assertion that it ought to fall and therefore they will be deprived. So, as $1.5 billion is spent on marking time, what is going to happen—at least in Brisbane and Melbourne, because they are the first two cabs off the rank—is that they are going to lose something like $100 million a year as far as public hospitals are concerned. This is going to be truly spectacular. This is yet another feature of policy incompetence by this government.Here we have, at the start of this new parliament, in the two key areas of public policy, the government's two new ideas. There are two results from those new ideas. One is increasing joblessness and the other is deterioration of public health in this country. If those are the new ideas that they enjoin us to support, what else do they have in mind for us? What other elements of destruction do you wish to wreak on the Australian community and Australian families? We will have a few new ideas for them, don't worry about that. But we will not be going along with two of the worst ideas, argued for in the worst possible way, that those concerned with public policy in this country have set eyes on.15:47:001881Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—Thus ends the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition for 1998. Are we any better for that contribution over the last 12 months? Has Australia moved forward because of some positive policy statements from the Leader of the Opposition over the last 12 months? Do Australians today head into their Christmas break with an understanding of what the Labor Party stands for in relation to taxation reform? Do we understand what they stand for in relation to any reform? In fact, across a broad range of policies, what policies do they stand for at the end of 1998?I challenge any independent and concerned citizen to have a look at the Hansards of the last two weeks, and more particularly the Hansards of the last week, and try and draw a consistent line through the speeches of all the members of the Labor Party. What is the consistent line of the Labor Party on taxation? It is that when they come into the House they vote against everything. The Labor Party's justification for that voting is changing dramatically by the hour, by the speaker and by the forum. Earlier today the member for Hotham was justifying the Labor Party stand in relation to taxation reform. He stood in this House at the dispatch box and said that, as far as he was concerned, the present taxation system works well. Why? Because it is giving us a fairly even run of revenue at the moment and because it is giving us a good return at the moment.Yet only a few weeks ago it was the Labor Party and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who said, `Now is the time for tax reform. Here is our contribution.' They came up with this fairly elaborate system—it did not work, but we have not forgotten it—of taxing pre-1985 assets with the capital gains tax. The form of the Labor Party is such that that policy of taxing assets pre-1985 was, by comparison with every other tax policy that the Labor Party has had over 2½ years, a longstanding policy. It was announced just before the election campaign and it was dumped after the election campaign. That is what I call a long-term Labor Party tax policy.Full credit to the member for Werriwa, because what he is doing is challenging the Labor Party to think about the policy direction it was to take in relation to half the Australian budget. He is launching a challenge. The most interesting aspect of the member for Werriwa's comments in the Main Committee yesterday is that he came up with a credible tax proposal. It should be considered and then it should be rejected. But at least it has an element of credibility, certainly in comparison with whatever alternatives have been provided by the Labor Party. The member for Werriwa is right. He said yesterday in the House that the Australian tax base is broken. He went on to say, with classic understatement, that the corporate tax base is also in poor shape. He reflected that no-one genuinely supportive of the active role of government in our society could be satisfied with the existing tax base. Some of the interjections from the Labor Party have been about the benefits of the wholesale sales tax being its progressivity. I have been here for four days. I have listened to everything, and one of the justifications they use for keeping the current system is that the wholesale sales tax regime is progressive. Mr Latham says:It is simply not possible to defend the current tax system on the basis of its progressivity.That is what he said. On the one hand, the front bench members of the Labor Party are saying, `The current system works well.' On the other hand, they are saying, `We want taxation reform.' On the one hand, they are saying that the current system is progressive and, on the other hand, someone else in the Labor Party is saying, `No, it is not progressive by any measure.' So where does that leave us?The Labor Party have further form. It was only yesterday that the opposition health spokesman was talking about the impact of a GST on pharmacists. The opposition health spokesman talked about it as being `one of the most dramatic changes to Australia's taxation system'. On that basis, she is absolutely right. That is an absolutely correct assumption.The member for Jagajaga went on to state a very interesting inconsistency. She said the worst thing about the application of a GST to a pharmacist's products is that some of the products would have a GST applying and some of them would not. `Where does that leave the poor old pharmacist?' she asks. She says, `In a state of confusion. How terrible that is.' Then the member for Jagajaga went on to argue for exempting a whole range of products that would make retailers' lives an absolute, complete, unmitigated, administrative nightmare. The member for Jagajaga's speech on Tuesday, 8 December 1998 is a terrific example of the inconsistency of the Labor Party. It is all wrapped up in one single speech.Over the last three days I have heard some crackers. I have heard the Labor Party constantly trying to justify the current system. Some say it is progressive, some say it is not. Some say it works well—`It gives them a good source of revenue.' Others say, `Look, the current system is a lot simpler than a GST.' We have had the absolutely absurd proposal from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that you have to be able to tell consumers how much GST is on their bill. He took $138.40 as an example and said, `How much is a GST on that?' I will tell you: it is one-eleventh.If you ask yourself what the wholesale sales tax is on $138.40 worth of groceries you buy from Flemming's, Payless or whatever the case may be, you also need to ask yourself what is in that basket of goods. Could it be that any of the goods in that basket of groceries is taxed at any of the six different rates that could apply? That is at the wholesale level; that is not even at the retail level.Try to work out what the current wholesale sales tax levels are on products. The wholesale sales tax on toothpaste and flavoured milk is 12 per cent; serviettes, 12 per cent; fruit juice, 12 per cent; matches, 12 per cent; toy jewellery for the kids, children's confectionery cigarettes, toilet paper, other fruit juice and cordial, 22 per cent; cigarette lighters, 22 per cent; tobacco paper, 22 per cent; pet food, 22 per cent; and facial tissues, 22 per cent. But the Labor Party have been arguing for four days that the battlers out there do not buy those products. So they do not buy facial tissues, pet food, paint rollers, tobacco paper, cigarette lighters, rakes, baby rattles, envelopes, baby powder, fruit juice, et cetera. They say only the rich people of Australia buy those products. Everyone else is walking around with a fig leaf in front of them! That is the argument, and it lacks credibility.In the Labor Party's search to justify their opposition to our mandate, they are clutching at anything and it is showing to the world that the Labor Party stand for nothing. The Labor Party are at a crossroads at the moment. Go back and read the maiden speeches of the new members and of the member for Hotham—particularly the disappointing performances. As objective as I can be in these circumstances, the Leader of the Opposition is clearly rattled. Over the last few weeks the Leader of the Opposition has shown that he is really struggling to come to terms with the fact that the Labor Party do not stand for anything. The Labor Party are going to have to go through a cathartic period.Apart from changing the taxation system and apart from the mountainous number of benefits of the reforms that we are putting in place, the most interesting political observation you can make about the tax package is that it has been a very revealing process about the Labor Party. You have to ask yourself: what do the Labor Party stand for in 1999? What do they stand for as we approach the new millennium? That is an interesting challenge. They have gone through all the justification procedures and they have come to a conclusion. Some members of the Labor Party who are really thinking about the issues involved here—and it is not just the member for Werriwa—need to ask themselves over the Christmas break, `What are we going to believe in as we approach the new millennium?' That is a real challenge.Mr Melham interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The member for Banks is one of the more credible people on this matter. He believes in something. But it is a real challenge for the Labor Party to lay down its manifesto for the direction of Australia into the 21st century. If you looked at the Hansards on this entire tax debate, you would be asking, `Where is our consistent line of philosophical belief?' It is a real challenge.Over the last few weeks, the Labor Party has been justifying itself, saying, `On this occasion, we are responsible for the most significant improvements in the Australian economy over the last 30 years.' Labor is claiming responsibility for five per cent growth. It is claiming responsibility for the lowest interest rates in 30 years. It is claiming responsibility for the lowest inflation rates in 30 years. It is claiming responsibility for falling unemployment. The members of the Labor Party are amazing—they are magicians—because they did all that, and yet in 1996 they gave us a deficit of $10.3 billion!What people fail to note in the argument about the deficit is that it was not just $10.3 billion, it was $10.3 billion in 1996, and it was increasing in 1997, increasing in 1998, and increasing in 1999. It was a growing structural deficit. It took real courage for the coalition to make the hard yards in relation to our budget. Australians are now seeing the benefits.There is proof of our credibility on this issue. We said to the Australian people, `We'll take the budget and we'll fix it and there will be long-term benefits to the people of Australia.' We are now presenting a tax package and saying the same thing: `Here is a tax package. We are being courageous about it; we are being fair dinkum about it. Here is the benefit for the Australian people.' The most attractive part about being a minister and a member of the government at this time is that we are doing the right thing for Australia. It makes it all worth while. I urge the Labor Party, over the next few months, to think about where it is going. (Time expired)16:02:001884Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—The speaker before me, the honourable member for North Sydney, used the words `challenges' and `credibility'. I will deal with the question of credibility later, but, on the question of challenges, I suggest that the challenge which is facing members of this House as we leave for the Christmas break and look towards the New Year period is the challenge facing members opposite—to undertake a review of the way in which the government has treated Australians in 1998 and to examine what 1999 will bring.The record of the Howard government over the last 12 months can be summed up in one word, and one word alone—unfairness. It is not fair that more than 750,000 Australians are unemployed and that, courtesy of this government's attitude to industrial relations, millions more live their lives in fear of unemployment. It is not fair that this government's answer to that sense of job insecurity is a law making it easier for workers to be sacked. It is not fair that older Australians are slugged by the government's up-front and daily fees for nursing home care.It is not fair that our schools, TAFEs and universities have borne the brunt of this government's budgetary cutbacks, with $130 million hacked from government schools and nearly $1 billion hacked from our universities. It is not fair that youth unemployment is a staggering 26.9 per cent. Indeed, at the end of 1998, we can, unhappily, say that we are seeing the birth of the Howard generation—out of higher education, out of work, and out of hope.This record of unfairness, of denying security and opportunity to Australians, is one of which the government should be ashamed. Its sense of shame should not stop there. It seems to ill behove members opposite to use the word `credibility' because, in 1998, this government yet again has shown the Australian people that its word is worth nothing, and that it holds the Australian people in too much contempt to feel any need for honesty.This is the government and the Prime Minister who promised to raise standards in Australian politics, and then engaged in the unheard-of abuse of spending $19.4 million of taxpayers' money promoting a party political tax plan just weeks before the election. This is the government and the Prime Minister who pledged `never, ever' about the GST, and he now apparently wants to make it the crowning achievement of his prime ministership. To the Prime Minister and members opposite—particular the 39 members who hold marginal seats—let me say that by the time the GST is being considered by the Senate after Easter next year, you will no longer be viewing it as a crowning achievement; you will be viewing it as a crown of thorns.Australians already know that this tax is an unfair one and that the government tax plan is designed to put money into the pockets of those who already have the most money and to put the hand of Peter Costello—the Treasurer—into the pockets of ordinary Australians every time they buy food or clothes. In the new year, it will become increasingly clear that not only is the GST an unfair tax but it is bad for Australia as a nation. The interesting feature of question time today was that, despite repeated questioning from this side, the Treasurer—himself an old Monash boy—refused to deal in any way with the report entitled, The government's tax plan: analysis based on the Monash model, which was published by the Centre for Policy Studies at Monash University and released today.It is no wonder the Treasurer did not want to deal with this report because he could not answer the findings within it and, no doubt, could not attack its credibility given that it comes from the same institution that gave him a law degree. Let me quote some of the key findings in this report. When dealing with this report, we need to note that much of the modelling was done on the basis that it accepts the government's assumptions about the flow-on effects to business costs and consumer prices from the GST—which I am reminded is a bit heroic given the clear flaws in that modelling. Accepting that there will be a 3.2 per cent reduction in business costs and accepting that there will be a 1.9 per cent increase in consumer prices, the conclusions this report comes to are as follows:The Treasury and the Government are inclined to portray the 3.2 per cent reduction in business costs as a major advantage to business arising from the proposed tax changes. To us, this advantage seems illusionary.. . . . . . . . .At some points in the Treasury Paper it is argued that cost reductions will give Australian producers a competitive advantage in international markets. This also seems illusionary.They then go on to deal with a further analysis of the government's tax plan, and in the end come to the conclusion that it is bad news for Australia because in the long run it will have no positive effect on employment, GDP will shrink and there will be a negative effect on welfare. Stand back and think to yourself: what a great tax plan this is—no new jobs, a smaller and weaker economy and a negative effect on welfare. A great tax plan—a great move for this government as we move into 1999 and beyond.As we move into the summer holiday season when many Australians will be taking a holiday with their children and families, it is important to note that this report concludes that a number of industries will specifically lose from the government's tax plans. The one clear loser will be the tourism industry, with hotels, air transport and entertainment particularly knocked around by the government's tax package. One has to wonder what the Howard government has against the tourism industry, given the selection of the minister to represent the tourism industry in this place and this tax plan.Having looked at the question of tax, we really could not leave a review of the year that has been and the year to come without also looking at the question of health—one of the major debates we have had in this House in the past few weeks. To look at the question of health and what has happened to ordinary Australians over the past 12 months, I obtained from my office one of the many clips that I have from the Melbourne Age about the fate of patients in public hospitals in Victoria under this government's health scheme and, of course, under the Kennett government's health system. One could have got a clipping very much like this one from the pages of the Age on almost any day of 1998, but this clipping is from 10 July. It is headed, `It is hard to be patient when you are 14, in pain and you are told you cannot get an operation to end the hurt for 18 months.' It then goes on to give us the case of Nicole Nye. It says:Nicole Nye has been in almost constant pain since she was 10. It is a lot for a child to bear. Her mother, Glenda, does not know how to explain to her daughter, now 14, why she must wait for an operation to stop the pain in her right foot, why she still hobbles because the pain makes it impossible to walk normally, why she has not been able to play basketball for four years.The explanation is then given by Nicole's surgeon at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Of course, he could not be named—this is Jeff Kennett's Victoria. The article continues:Nicole's surgeon says she would be fortunate to get an operation within the next 18 months . . . the hospital was struggling to cope with patients in the urgent category, who must be operated on within 30 days to avoid costly penalties. Category two patients are also required to be operated on within a set period, 90 days, but cuts to facilities and the need to clear category one patients first means that he—Nicole's surgeon—. . . has only been able to perform one operation for a patient in the same category as Nicole this year.The surgeon said:`It just means people are waiting a long time in pain.'From the same hospital there was a leaked memo from the vascular surgery unit head, Mr Peter Field, who said that patients were waiting so long for surgery that they were losing limbs and suffering aneurisms and heart attacks.That is a report on the state of public hospitals in Victoria. This is John Howard's Australia, Jeff Kennett's Victoria. As I said, you could get a report like that from the newspaper almost any day of the week. And we are dealing with a government that intends to spend $1.5 billion on health but not one dollar of it will go to fix the circumstances of the thousands and thousands of patients like Nicole who languish in pain on hospital waiting lists.In 1998 this government has failed Australia on jobs, education, aged care and youth jobs. As we move into 1999 we will see them failing once again the tests of competence and fairness as they move towards the implementation of their GST and a further attack on public hospitals through their health legislation. This is a government that does not deserve Australia's support. It did not get it for the GST in 1998 and it will find that these things will come home to roost in 1999.16:12:001886Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I would like to say how pleased I am today to be able to speak to this matter of public importance and to be able to speak with relevance. This matter is of vital importance to the people of my electorate. It is particularly relevant to the 33,562 constituents who have private health insurance cover and who believe in the competence and fairness of this government in delivering a promised health insurance rebate. That includes more than 10,000 people who anybody would agree were battlers.The fairness and competence of this government in health policy could not have been summed up better than by the Premier of New South Wales on 2 February 1997. He said:The exodus from the private health insurance system was costing New South Wales public hospitals $246 million a year as they struggled to meet the swelling demand. As fast as we hurled money at those hospitals, there was a further abandonment of private health cover and a further rise in demands on the public system. What a staggering admission from the Leader of the Opposition's colleague. Premier Carr was absolutely right. Instead of pledging this rebate the government could have taken the incompetent and the unfair option—the policy vacuum option—and just thrown money at public hospitals.Premier Carr is not alone. It is also a matter of record that the Premier of Queensland, when he was the Goss Labor government's health minister, said in February 1995 that it was `an unarguable fact that if more people took out private health insurance it would alleviate the burden on the public health system.'This government, Bob Carr, Peter Beattie and all of the Premiers party to the current Commonwealth-state health care agreements understand the importance of private health insurance to the public system. Under the health care agreements, the state Premiers agreed to extra public hospital funding being linked to the level of participation in private health insurance. For every one per cent decline in private health membership, the states will get an extra $82 million in federal government funding under this agreement. That is acknowledgment in black and white that declining private health insurance membership puts direct pressure on public hospitals. The government is attempting to address this in a fair and competent manner.Only today, I received an urgent fax from a retired medical specialist from my electorate. His message was succinct, unlike that of the opposition benches. It was as follows:If the subsidy goes, I will leave private medical insurance because of financial circumstances. There are many others like me. Private insured will fall below 30 per cent. Private insurance will die! So will the three billion dollars.If we just keep putting money into the public system, we are not treating the cause of the problem. If we can stop the drop-out from private health insurance and if we can do more to keep the people now in private health insurance, then we will be more effective. If we can entice even a modest number of people back into private health insurance, then we will have achieved a massive victory and achieved something that the Labor benches never could. Former Labor health minister Graham Richardson said, on 26 October 1993:In my view, we cannot continue to have private health insurance bleed in the way that it has in the past years because this does increase the strains on the public system.He knew. There was an admission five years ago by the Labor health minister that something had to be done. On 9 February 1994, in answer to a question from Senator Lees, he admitted:. . . we have to face the fact that in public hospitals around Australia there are people who are in pain and discomfort and who are waiting too long for treatment.He went on to say:I want to do something about them—not just today, but over the next decade and beyond. I want to look to that public system and make sure that it can handle everyone that it cannot handle today, and all those people who will be added to it in the future. I believe that, in order to plan for that over the next decade, I at least need to somewhere near stabilise those who are in private health insurance.What vision. You should be so proud to have had that man. From my own experience, the people who physically and psychologically rely on their private health insurance and who cling to it no matter how unaffordable it seems are the people who normally could not afford it. But they cannot afford to be out of it. Those people feel that they need this safety net, and they make enormous sacrifices for it.Health fund figures show that the biggest decline in membership in recent years has been among high income earners, while membership among low income earners has been relatively stable. That seems to shoot down the opposition's argument. The effect of fewer privately health insured will devastate country health services if private hospitals close. Base hospitals will lose specialist staff, including X-ray facilities that are now provided by private hospital radiologists. All rural citizens, including the non-insured, will lose out.The Leader of the Opposition is so intent on cutting down tall poppies that he is also prepared to sacrifice those who really need him. In his own electorate, there are 45,820 privately health insured voters. Of those, 15,250 already qualify for the $600 rebate. These are low income earners. Now he has moved on to depriving the majority of Australians by opposing reductions in personal income tax. Eighty-one per cent of taxpayers will have a top tax rate of 30 per cent or less under our policies, compared to around 30 per cent of taxpayers currently.The Leader of the Opposition is also opposing the removal of bank charges, taxes on transactions and stamp duties. These charges currently affect most Australians. The Leader of the Opposition would prefer to apply a pre-1985 capital gains tax imposition that affects so many of our elderly population. The Leader of the Opposition wants to force retailers to tie up many thousands of dollars in wholesale sales tax on the floor of their shops, yet they have to struggle to pay overdrafts to banks. These people almost need compensation for pain and suffering. They do not need to continue to carry this burden and they should not be forced to when there is a fair and competent system just begging for implementation. If the Leader of the Opposition can oppose these policies—a private health insurance rebate and the introduction of a new tax system—and deprive Australians of a fair and competent system in health and taxation, all I can say is: shame, Leader of the Opposition, shame.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills1887The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 Committees188718871887Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)10000PON/A10—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of Senators Bourne, Chapman, Cook, Ferguson, Harradine, Sandy Macdonald, MacGibbon, O'Brien, Quirke, Reynolds, Schacht and Synon to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. 1888188816:21:001888Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the first report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.Bills1888r657Debate resumed.16:22:001888Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—In question time, the Treasurer took issue with the fact that it was only Labor saying the current tax system is not broken. We have said that, as I have argued in debates earlier today. But the Treasurer would have you believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is only Labor that is saying the system is not broken. Indeed, the Treasurer himself, on 3 December, in an interview with Fran Kelly on ABC Radio National said precisely that thing. The interviewer asked, `Why do we need to change the system? You've always argued that the tax system's broken. Is it broken if we're performing so strongly?' This was the Treasurer's response:Yeah, the thing I've always said about tax reform is the Australian tax system will last this year and next year and it might even last the year after that.We have not argued that there should not be ongoing reform. Indeed, we have put information before this chamber indicating what we consider that reform should be. But not only are we saying the current tax system is not broken, so too is the Treasurer. Do not let him come in here with the cant and hypocrisy in question time and pretend that he thinks the system is broken when he goes on radio and says it is not.The opposition does not agree with the design of the proposed tax cuts in the bill before the House. We are not arguing that ordinary Australian workers do not deserve an income tax cut; they do. But what we are arguing is that the government's proposals are unfair and that they are fiscally irresponsible. The value of the tax cuts is large—$13 billion per year. But Australians are not getting a $13 billion tax cut. These tax cuts are largely being paid for by the GST.What is contained in the package is a tax-mix switch of around $6 billion per year. People will get the illusion of tax cuts but they will pay for them by the unfair mechanism of the GST—a new 10 per cent tax on almost everything. Peter Costello will have his hand in your pocket every time you purchase anything and receipts will not demonstrate how much he is taking out of your pocket. But he will be there. Every minute of every day, from the cradle to the grave, he will be slugging you with a new 10 per cent tax.What these tax cuts mean is that the government is proposing to loosen fiscal policy, to spend the surplus that it unfairly built by destroying services and jobs to the tune of nearly $5 billion per year from 2000-01, rising to over $7 billion in 2002-03. We say that this is grossly irresponsible and reckless.If these tax cuts are delivered, their excessive cost will put further pressure on the level of services provided by the Commonwealth. Basically, these tax cuts will lead to service cuts over time. The brunt of these service cuts will not be felt by the high income earners who benefit so disproportionately from these tax cuts. But they will be felt by ordinary people—those that need a hospital bed, those that go into nursing homes, those that send their children to government schools.The unfairness of the tax cuts is truly breathtaking. More than half of the value of the tax cuts—$6½ billion per year—is allocated to 20 per cent only of taxpayers in the highest income brackets. So half of all the cuts go to the top 20 per cent income earners. What is fair about that, Minister? Just tell me that. I ask you not to look into your speech notes but to tell us what is fair about that. The other 80 per cent of the community get what is left over. In other words, half the tax cuts have to service the other 80 per cent. That is totally inappropriate, totally unfair and not what Labor would do. We have indicated in our amendment the direction that we think the government should be taking. Never before have such unfair proposals come before this House. It is no wonder most Australians voted against these proposals: 51½ per cent voted against this tax package.Let us take some examples. Page 178 of the tax package describes the tax cuts for single people without children. Someone on $20,000 gets $10.36 per week, someone on $35,000 gets $19.98, but someone on $75,000 and above gets $85.77. What is fair about that? That is what we are critical of in terms of this package. The richer you are, the bigger your tax cut. That should not be the rationale by which we distribute taxation in this country. We should have principles of equity involved, not rewarding the highest income earners in this disproportionate way.That is not to say that these people should not have tax cuts. If you want to devise a scheme that gives them tax cuts, do it, but do it fairly and do it in a way that targets the assistance to people in greatest need—low and middle income earners. This is not what this package does. The thing that makes these tax cuts so completely unfair is that higher income earners get not only much higher income tax cuts but also a higher proportion of benefit as income rises up to $75,000.Again, as page 178 shows, someone on $75,000 gets a 7.3 per cent increase in their income, whereas someone on $35,000 only gets two per cent and someone on $20,000 only gets 1.3 per cent. Again I ask, Minister: what is fair about that? Why should this House support a package that is as grossly unfair as that? The higher your income, the higher the level of tax cuts—and, most unfairly, the higher the proportion that benefit.Labor says that working Australians do deserve a tax cut but that the tax cut should be fairly targeted and should not be as compensation for an unfair GST. It should be given without a GST. Labor has shown how this could be achieved through targeted tax credits which both deliver a fair tax cut to hardworking Australians and improve the incentive for people to move from welfare to work. This is the initiative that Labor argued for and which has been picked up by the five economists as the most effective way for tax reform, encouraging people back into the work force.Our policy is not only fairer but more fiscally responsible because it costs less—it cuts less into the budget surplus—and, importantly, it gives incentives for people to participate in the labour market. Under our scheme people get significant benefits up to $70,000. Depending on their family circumstance, they actually get better benefits than the government's proposed tax package, and they get them without a GST.That is really what the debate should be about. It should be about fairness, it should be about targeting and it should be about using the tax system to get people off welfare and into work. It should not be grossly distorting the tax cuts that are contained in this package to buy an unpopular new tax—the 10 per cent GST. That is why, I reiterate, I have moved the second reading amendment that is circulated in my name. In case there is any doubt about it, I will ensure that there is sufficient time for my seconder to speak so that we can actually vote on this and not be deprived of it because of the government's guillotining stance and the way in which it has botched its tactics in this whole debate.That second reading amendment that I have moved and circulated in my name shows that there is a better way than that proposed here—a way that can assist hardworking people, a way that Labor has developed—and we reject the way that Peter Costello would have the direction go.John Howard left Labor with very high marginal tax rates when we came to office. Let us not have any of this nonsense about Labor having failed to reform the tax scales. The top rate was 60 per cent when John Winston Howard was Treasurer of this nation. Malcolm Fraser and he lost the election in 1983 when they had the top marginal tax rate at 60 per cent. Do you know where it cut in? It cut in at $35,788. Do you know what the second top rate was? It was 46 per cent, and it cut in at $19,500. The lowest rate was 30 per cent which cut in at an income of $4,595.By the time Labor left office, we had completely refashioned the rates and thresholds. Labor provided seven rounds of changes to income tax scales: one in November 1984, one in December 1986, one in July 1987, one in July 1989, one in January 1990, one in January 1991 and one on 15 November 1993. The value of these tax cuts to the Australian community is over $30 billion per year. So let us not have any of this nonsense about Labor having failed to reform the tax system.We introduced the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the withholding tax because the system was leaking. It was leaking because John Winston Howard—bottom of the harbour John—had allowed tax rorts to run rampant but had done nothing about them. That is what the Liberal Party, left to govern this place, bequeathed as a legacy to Labor. It was left to Labor to fix it up. With this unfair, regressive approach that you are proposing in this package of bills you will botch it again.In the forward estimates we had also made provision to deliver a further round of tax cuts as superannuation from July 1997. They were worth another $4 billion per year. It was this government that promised to deliver that superannuation co-contribution. Then, when they got elected, they reneged on the promise. And, reneging on the promise, they then brought in a savings rebate which they said would be paid for out of the savings from not having to proceed with the second round of superannuation.But do you know how long that savings rebate lasted, Mr Deputy Speaker? It lasted six weeks. Six weeks and it was abolished. It hardly saw the light of day. And this from a government that talks about broken promises. It is the grand champion when it comes to the broken promise, to the commitment to fair tax reform and to doing something about our national savings.We were making huge inroads into national savings through the combination of getting unemployment down, taking more people off welfare and getting more income tax paid because people were working more, and we were supplementing that by our approach on a national superannuation agenda. It is this government that has gutted it. Labor had an outstanding record on taxation reform. All of the reforms were achieved without a GST. Fair cuts can be delivered again without a GST, as Labor demonstrated before the election.I again want to come to this question of the benefits being illusory because we hear the Treasurer ranting and raving—Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—You will get your go. You were not prepared to give us a go, so you will pay the consequences of that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member will put his remarks through the chair.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Please shield me from these interventions, Mr Deputy Speaker! The government fraudulently says that 81 per cent of taxpayers will face a marginal income tax rate of only 30 per cent. What it does not tell the Australian people is that the GST, since it is a flat 10 per cent on almost everything that people buy, is effectively a further income tax rate of 10 per cent, because most people spend all of their income. So simply changing the income base to a consumption base means little if it is going to be slugged with another tax. It is not a 30 per cent rate that most people face; it is really a 30 per cent income tax rate plus a 10 per cent GST.Let us take an example of the effect of the tax package on a person on an income of $30,000. Let us compare the effect of the government's package with the current tax arrangements and ignore the Medicare levy for the purposes of this exercise. Someone earning $30,000 currently pays $6,222 in income tax, leaving them with $23,778 in disposable income. If we assume that all of that income is spent, none is saved, then an estimate of the amount of the wholesale sales tax payable is five per cent of disposable income. That figure comes out at $1,189. So the average person on $30,000 pays $6,222 in income tax and $1,189 in sales tax. That is under the current system. The total of the two taxes is $7,411.Under the government's tax package, the income tax for the same $30,000 goes down to $5,380 but the GST will then take 10 per cent of the remaining income, or $2,462, when it is spent. So total tax will actually increase in this example, up to $7,842. The person on $30,000 will actually pay $431 more tax under the combination of your tax cuts plus a GST versus what they are paying now.This is from a government that says it is helping people. This is from a government that says it is actually improving the lot of ordinary Australians. It is making it worse and it is trying to use the subterfuge of the huge income tax cuts to buy this unfair, antijobs, antieconomic growth strategy, as the models produced today show. The Treasurer talks about his models. Let us see them. He has not produced them. We will ask for them through the Senate inquiry. But day by day this package is unravelling. You cannot make it fair and it is bad for the economy.No wonder the Treasurer is so concerned to hide the full impact of the GST from consumers. The minister with responsibility for consumer affairs, the Treasurer, will not even put on the receipts what the cost of the GST is. No wonder he is insisting that consumers do not get to know how much tax they are going to be paying, because if they did they would know that they are not just getting the tax cuts, but they are being slugged with a 30 per cent tax rate plus a 10 per cent tax on top.I go to the vote on this bill. These tax cuts are not fair and Labor considers that they should be withdrawn and redrafted to make them fairer, as stated in the second reading amendment which I have moved. Labor will redouble its efforts to have the GST rejected in the Senate. We are now presented with a series of bills which, however inadequately, are designed to compensate for the GST by introducing personal income tax cuts.It would be a double blow to the Australian community to be hit with a GST but not get any income tax cuts by way of compensation. Labor will therefore not oppose these measures in the House, but we call on the government to address the unfairness in the distribution of the tax cuts. I point out, however, that if we succeed in defeating the GST in the Senate there will still be scope to provide fairer income tax cuts to ordinary working Australians. This will be of real benefit to these people because they will not be slugged by a GST which needs compensation. It is not appropriate for this to be before the House currently, but we have a government which is hell-bent on introducing an unfair and regressive tax—a tax which they are so ashamed of that they will keep it hidden and not let people know how much they are paying. It is a tax which will hit people from the cradle to the grave every time they buy.We want to have tax reform, but tax reform without a GST. Labor demonstrated over its 13 years that you can have tax reform without a GST. Even the Treasurer admits that the system is not broke now, despite what he might say in his rhetoric. The system is working. It needs constant reform; we agree with that. We are prepared to sit down with the government and agree on the areas in which we can reform the system, like cracking down on tax avoidance mechanisms, making sure that people who get away with not paying their fair share of tax are having that tax imposed upon them, not slugging ordinary Australians with a 10 per cent tax on families, family values and lifestyle. This is a terrible tax and it is a tax that cannot be made fair.We will use every strategic approach to defeat this GST because that is the mandate which all on this side of the House were elected to pursue. We said we would oppose the GST if it was brought in by this government, and that we will do. This government has tried to gag and guillotine debate. We will make sure that all the forms of the parliament and the public are used to demonstrate the unfairness and the antijob, antieconomic development impact of this tax. If we succeed in that, we will not need to pass these tax cuts. What we can do instead is implement Labor's way—the tax credits approach, fairer tax cuts and getting people off welfare and into work.I repeat the amendment which I have moved:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House requests that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to produce a fairer tax system with no GST, and in particular to overcome the following deficiencies:the fiscal profligacy of the Government's planned personal tax cuts, as evidenced by the dramatic impact of the tax package on the forecast Commonwealth budget, reducing the underlying balance in the year 2000-01 by $4.76 billion;the unfairness of the tax cuts in that 50% of the tax cuts go to the richest 20% of taxpayers, with the other 50% going to the other 80% of taxpayers; andthe failure to adequately address the disincentives to move from welfare to work and to consider Labor's alternative approach through earned income tax credits".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?16:44:001892Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I second the amendment. The government would have the Australian people believe its spurious claim that tax reform and the GST are the same thing.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. We had an agreement with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today that, in the available time for debate, there would be an equal opportunity for members of the government and members of the opposition to debate the issues. On this occasion, for the second time today, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has broken the agreement and has not provided us with an opportunity to respond to his comments. In this situation, if the opposition is going to continue—Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister knows there is no point of order. As has been ruled earlier in the day, the chair is not necessarily aware of any of these types of agreements and, therefore, the standing orders are silent on these matters. So there is no point of order.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to make you aware in this instance.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order and the honourable minister will resume his seat.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I want to talk about the government's claim, because you can have tax reform in Australia without a goods and services tax. That is Labor's position. The reason for that, fundamentally, is that we wish to— Motion (by Mr Ronaldson ) put: That the member be not further heard.16:50:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)76Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.65Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.16:56:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)77Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Howard, J. W.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.65Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.18941894Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Order! The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills1894r701Billsr663Billsr659Billsr7001894Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Mr Costello:That these bills be now read a second time.16:58:001894Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move:A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) condemns the Government for seeking to impose a regressive GST on social security recipients, such as aged and veteran pen sioners, which will dramatically increase their ordinary costs of living and erode the value of their savings; and(2) condemns the Government for not providing adequate compensation to social security recipients and in particular for trying to short-change aged pensioners by pretending that a 4% pension increase, which would have been delivered over time anyway due to the link between pensions and wages, can compensate for the effects of a GST".A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1998That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) condemns the Government for seeking to impose a regressive GST on social security recipients, such as aged and veteran pensioners, which will dramatically increase their ordinary costs of living and erode the value of their savings;(2) condemns the Government for not providing adequate compensation to self-funded retirees and social security recipients for the erosion in the value of their retirement savings and retirement income streams due to the GST; and(3) condemns the Government for proposing to end the current tax-free status of superannuation and life insurance investments which underpin pensions and annuities and impose a new tax on retired Australians".A New Tax System (Income Tax Laws Amendment) Bill 1998That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) notes that the Savings Rebate was introduced as compensation for the Howard Government abolishing Labor's superannuation co-contribution scheme which met Labor's commitment to the second tranche of income tax cuts from the One Nation statement;(2) notes the hypocrisy of the Government announcing the abolition of the Savings Rebate only six weeks after it commenced;(3) condemns the Government for proposing in part to pay for their GST compensation measures by abolishing another supposed compensation measure; and(4) notes that the abolition of the Savings Rebate demonstrates that other supposed compensation measures to be introduced because of the regressive GST are not guaranteed to remain into the future".A New Tax System (Aged Care Compensation Measures Legislation) Bill 1998That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) condemns the Government for not adequately compensating pensioners for the effects of the GST;(2) notes that the Bill does not make pensioner residents of nursing homes "considerably better off", but merely intends to ensure that they will not be even worse off than they already will be under the GST; and(3) condemns the Government for not guaranteeing the same treatment for residents of public housing as it proposed in the Bill for nursing home residents".I have not got time, because of the government's guillotine, to actually go through these amendments and deal with these measures. Let me simply say that the government's four per cent so-called benefit to pensioners is a ruse, it is a trick, because the four per cent had to be paid anyway.Motion (by Mr Hockey) agreed to:That the member be not further heard.16:59:001895Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I second the amendments. The pensioners of Australia need a better deal from this government than they are getting. What is happening to Australian pensioners is a disgrace.Motion (by Mr Hockey) agreed to:That the member be not further heard.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.17:04:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)75Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Howard, J. W.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Worth, P. M.66Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of orders of the day Nos 13 to 16 has expired. The question is that the bills be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998 , A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1998 and A New Tax System (Aged Care Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998 announced .18961896Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a third time.Bills1896r6481896Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.1896Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1896s1901896Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.1896Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous18961896Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—As required by resolution of the House I table a copy of the Register of Members' Interests for the 39th Parliament.Bills1896The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998 Bills1896r6611896Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.189617:14:001896Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 delivers on the government's commitment to address legitimate community concern regarding possible exploitation of consumers and excessive profit taking by business in the transition to the new tax system which has just gone through the House.The bill inserts a new Part VB into the Trade Practices Act 1974 to give the ACCC special transitional powers to monitor prices for three years from 1 July 1999. The monitoring will identify instances where consumers have not fully benefited from reductions in tax rates, or would otherwise be exposed to greater than necessary price rises.This bill prohibits price exploitation during the three-year transitional period. Price exploitation occurs if the price for the supply of a good or service is unreasonably high, having regard to the effect of the tax changes under the new system. It is recognised that many factors may affect price and, therefore, price exploitation will not occur if the unreasonably high price is attributable to the supplier's costs, supply and demand conditions, or any other relevant matter. The ACCC will issue guidelines relating to price exploitation, in particular about when prices will be regarded as unreasonably high.Prosecutions for breaches of the prohibition on price exploitation will be taken by the ACCC in the Federal Court, with penalties of up to $10 million for a body corporate, and up to $500,000 for a person other than a body corporate.The ACCC will have extensive information gathering powers to facilitate its price monitoring and prosecution roles. It will also be able to seek injunctions to restrain breaches of the prohibition. As an alternative to taking court action, the ACCC will have power to accept voluntary undertakings relating to prices and price setting, using its existing powers under the Trade Practices Act to accept undertakings.The ACCC will also have power to issue a notice to a corporation that it considers has contravened the prohibition against price exploitation. These notices will constitute prima facie evidence, in proceedings by the ACCC to seek penalties or to obtain an injunction, that the price charged is unreasonably high, and is not attributable to supplier's costs, supply and demand conditions, or any other relevant matter. It will be for the corpo ration to whom the notice is issued to provide evidence to the contrary.The ACCC will also be able to issue a second type of notice to a corporation, relating to supplies that may be made in the future. In this notice the ACCC will specify a maximum price which, in its opinion, may be charged for a supply referred to in the notice. That is, the ACCC will be able to provide a warning to a corporation that if it supplies above the maximum price specified, that price will, in the ACCC's opinion, constitute price exploitation. This notice will not constitute prima facie evidence in future proceedings, but the ACCC will be able to publish details of the notice as it sees fit, including in national newspapers. Adverse publicity should help to discourage price exploitation and in addition provide consumers with information of assistance in avoiding unnecessary price rises.Limitations on the Commonwealth's constitutional power mean that these measures cannot extend across the whole economy without the cooperation of the states and territories. To facilitate that cooperation, the bill creates a form of text to be known as the new tax system price exploitation code. This code replicates the provisions of the new Part VB in the schedule to the Trade Practices Act, and also contains the other provisions and regulations to the Trade Practices Act so far as they relate to Part VB, modified to refer to `persons' rather than `corporations'. The application of this code by state and territory legislation will provide economy-wide coverage of these anti-profiteering measures.Competitive pressures that already exist in the economy should largely ensure that the benefits of reductions in tax rates are passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. Nevertheless, this bill is necessary to deal with those instances where price exploitation could occur. The substantial penalties that can be imposed demonstrate this government's determination to ensure that consumers receive the full benefits of the changes to the tax system. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills1898r7121898Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.189817:20:001898Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the income tax law to give effect to the following measures:Tax penalty arrangementsThis bill gives effect to the 1998-99 budget announcement to replace the existing late payment penalties in various taxation laws with a uniform tax deductible general interest charge. The new arrangements will be simpler and better reflect movements in market interest rates. The changes follow a review by the Australian Taxation Office of late payment and notification penalties in consultation with professional and representative bodies. That review flowed from the government's response to the recommendations of the Small Business Deregulation Task Force.The charge on an outstanding amount will be calculated daily on a compounding basis. The nominal interest rate from which the daily charge is calculated will be set at the 13-week Treasury note rate plus eight percentage points. The penalty for late lodgment of income tax returns of individuals and the penalty for underpayment of income tax will also adopt the general interest charge.Alignment of remittance datesThis bill implements the announcement in the government's tax reform paper, Tax Reform: not a new tax, a new tax system , that from 1 July 1999 the remittance dates for medium and small Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Prescribed Payments System (PPS) and Reportable Payments System (RPS) payers will move from the 7th to the 21st of the month. The alignment to the 21st of the month is in anticipation of a large number of businesses being required to make one payment on the 21st of each quarter to cover most tax debts.Running Balance AccountsThis bill also introduces amendments to support a system of running balance accounts. The objective of this measure is to establish a taxpayer accounting system under which the Australian Taxation Office can record and monitor all of a business's different tax liabilities on a single account. Debts under the sales tax, pay as you earn, prescribed payments and reportable payments arrangements for the year ending 30 June 2000 will be administered in this way.The introduction of running balance accounts will provide for simpler tax accounting and collection arrangements.These new accounting and penalty arrangements will position the ATO to better assist taxpayers in minimising any escalation of taxation debt and will allow for a simpler and more efficient process of penalty calculation.They will also enable the ATO to provide a comprehensive statement of a taxpayer's outstanding tax debts at a particular point in time.These amendments will provide an accounting platform in the lead up to one running balance style account to support most taxation debts after 1 July 2000.Tax avoidance: foreign tax credit schemesThis measure amends the general anti-avoidance provisions of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (the act) to render ineffective, schemes designed to acquire or generate foreign tax credits that can be used to shelter low-taxed foreign source income from Australian tax.A foreign tax credit scheme operates on the basis that foreign income is earned which gives rise to an entitlement to foreign tax credits. A scheme is entered into whereby a foreign income stream is acquired by another taxpayer. Where the acquisition cost of the income stream is deductible to that another taxpayer, those deductions largely cancel out the foreign income the other taxpayer has now acquired. The major portion of the foreign tax credits which relate to the acquired foreign income stream are then available to offset tax payable on the taxpayer's other foreign income of the same class.The Australian Taxation Office became aware that these types of schemes were being promoted in Australia. The Commissioner of Taxation does not accept the efficacy of these arrangements, and proposes to challenge them under the existing law in the courts. To put a stop to the development of future schemes, the government announced on 13 August 1998 that it would amend the general anti-avoidance provisions of Part IVA of the act to render such schemes ineffective.These types of arrangements have also been identified in the United States and the United Kingdom, and remedial action has also swiftly been taken in both those countries.The amendment is designed to protect the revenue base. In the absence of such swift action, the revenue base could be exposed to a significant threat.The government also announced on 13 August 1998 that, as part of its tax reform package Tax Reform—not a new tax, a new tax system, it will modernise the general anti-avoidance rules. This process will be conducted in line with the principles of the integrated tax code. In view of the threat that the foreign tax credit schemes posed to the revenue base, it was necessary to announce the measures and bring legislation to the parliament as soon as possible rather than await the modernisation of the general anti-avoidance rules.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills1899r7101899Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1899NaN:26:001899Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The General Interest Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 accompanies Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998, which replaces existing late payment penalties in various taxation laws with a uniform tax deductible general interest charge.The imposition bill will impose the new general interest charge as a tax to the extent to which the charge cannot validly be imposed as a penalty.Details of the measures in both bills are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills1899r6001899Consideration resumed from 9 December.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 57 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(2) Schedule 3, item 3, page 57 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(3) Schedule 3, item 10, page 58 (line 31) to page 59 (line 23), omit the item.(4) Schedule 3, item 14, page 62 (line 3), omit "7", substitute "14".(5) Schedule 3, item 15, page 62 (line 10), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(6) Schedule 3, item 22, page 63 (line 22) to page 64 (line 15), omit the item.(7) Schedule 3, item 25, page 66 (line 31), omit "7", substitute "14".(8) Schedule 3, item 26, page 67 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15". (9) Schedule 3, item 33, page 68 (line 18) to page 69 (line 7), omit the item.(10) Schedule 3, item 35, page 71 (line 18), omit "7", substitute "14".(11) Schedule 3, item 36, page 71 (line 25), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(12) Schedule 3, item 43, page 73 (lines 8 to 31), omit the item.(13) Schedule 3, item 46, page 77 (line 29), omit "7", substitute "14".(14) Schedule 3, item 47, page 78 (line 5), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(15) Schedule 3, item 54, page 79 (line 17) to page 80 (line 7), omit the item.(16) Schedule 3, item 56, page 81 (line 31), omit "7", substitute "14".(17) Schedule 3, item 57, page 82 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(18) Schedule 3, item 64, page 83 (line 18) to page 84 (line 8), omit the item.(19) Schedule 3, item 66, page 85 (lines 28 to 31), omit the item, substitute:66 Subsection 408JB(5) Omit all the words before "after", substitute "Subject to subsections (5A), (5B), (6) and (7), the period specified under paragraph (3)(d) must be the period of 14 days".(20) Schedule 3, item 67, page 86 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(21) Schedule 3, item 72, page 87 (line 13) to page 88 (line 2), omit the item.(22) Schedule 3, item 74, page 90 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(23) Schedule 3, item 75, page 90 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(24) Schedule 3, item 82, page 91 (line 31) to page 92 (line 21), omit the item.(25) Schedule 3, item 85, page 94 (line 31), omit "7", substitute "14".(26) Schedule 3, item 86, page 95 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(27) Schedule 3, item 91, page 96 (line 13) to page 97 (line 2), omit the item.(28) Schedule 3, item 93, page 99 (line 13), omit "7", substitute "14".(29) Schedule 3, item 94, page 99 (line 20), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(30) Schedule 3, item 99, page 100 (line 28) to page 101 (line 17), omit the item.(31) Schedule 3, item 101, page 103 (line 31), omit "7", substitute "14". (32) Schedule 3, item 102, page 104 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(33) Schedule 3, item 107, page 105 (line 13) to page 106 (line 2), omit the item.(34) Schedule 3, item 109, page 108 (line 13), omit "7", substitute "14".(35) Schedule 3, item 110, page 108 (line 20), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(36) Schedule 3, item 117, page 110 (lines 1 to 29), omit the item.(37) Schedule 3, item 120, page 113 (line 7), omit "7", substitute "14".(38) Schedule 3, item 121, page 113 (line 14), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(39) Schedule 3, item 125, page 115 (lines 4 to 32), omit the item.(40) Schedule 3, item 127, page 118 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(41) Schedule 3, item 128, page 118 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(42) Schedule 3, item 133, page 119 (line 26) to page 120 (line 15), omit the item.(43) Schedule 3, item 135, page 122 (line 21), omit "7", substitute "14".(44) Schedule 3, item 136, page 122 (line 28), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(45) Schedule 3, item 138, page 123 (lines 6 to 27), omit the item.(46) Schedule 3, item 140, page 125 (line 15), omit "7", substitute "14".(47) Schedule 3, item 141, page 125 (line 22), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(48) Schedule 3, item 146, page 126 (line 31) to page 127 (line 28), omit the item.(49) Schedule 3, item 148, page 130 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(50) Schedule 3, item 149, page 130 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(51) Schedule 3, item 156, page 131 (line 30) to page 132 (line 21), omit the item.(52) Schedule 3, item 158, page 134 (line 26), omit "7", substitute "14".(53) Schedule 3, item 159, page 135 (line 2), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(54) Schedule 3, item 160, page 135 (line 11), omit "7", substitute "14".(55) Schedule 3, item 167, page 136 (line 19) to page 137 (line 10), omit the item.(56) Schedule 3, item 169, page 138 (line 28), omit "7", substitute "14".(57) Schedule 3, item 170, page 139 (line 3), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15". (58) Schedule 3, item 171, page 139 (line 12), omit "7", substitute "14".(59) Schedule 3, item 177, page 140 (line 32) to page 141 (line 21), omit the item.(60) Schedule 3, item 179, page 143 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(61) Schedule 3, item 180, page 143 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(62) Schedule 3, item 187, page 144 (line 30) to page 145 (line 20), omit the item.(63) Schedule 3, item 189, page 147 (line 5), omit "7", substitute "14".(64) Schedule 3, item 190, page 147 (line 12), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(65) Schedule 3, item 194, page 148 (lines 9 to 31), omit the item.(66) Schedule 3, item 196, page 150 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(67) Schedule 3, item 197, page 150 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(68) Schedule 3, item 198, page 150 (line 25) to page 151 (line 16), omit the item.(69) Schedule 3, item 200, page 152 (line 26), omit "7", substitute "14".(70) Schedule 3, item 201, page 153 (line 2), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(71) Schedule 3, item 204, page 153 (line 26) to page 154 (line 15), omit the item.(72) Schedule 3, item 206, page 155 (line 30), omit "7", substitute "14".(73) Schedule 3, item 207, page 156 (line 5), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(74) Schedule 3, item 208, page 156 (line 16), omit "7", substitute "14".(75) Schedule 3, item 209, page 156 (line 23), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(76) Schedule 4, item 44, page 163 (line 20), omit "7", substitute "14".(77) Schedule 4, item 45, page 163 (line 27), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(78) Schedule 4, item 52, page 165 (lines 9 to 31), omit subsection (2), substitute:(2) If: (a) the favourable determination is made following a person having advised the Department of a change in circumstances; and (b) the change is not a decrease in the rate of the person's maintenance income; the determination takes effect on the day on which the advice was received or on the day on which the change occurred, whichever is the later. 17:27:001901Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.In the interests of passing the legislation, the government has agreed to withdraw the proposal to introduce a common seven-day notification period, which is one of the elements of the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 .The government introduced a range of amendments in the Senate when it became clear that this measure was not going to pass the Senate. The government is disappointed that the Labor Party and minor parties chose to oppose this sensible reform in order to score a few pretty cheap political points. The seven-day notification provisions already apply to a number of social security payments, including the newstart allowance, partner allowance and mature age allowance. Having a common seven-day notification period would have simplified matters for both customers and Centrelink staff. It is a very worthwhile reform, but it seems that some members opposite were not interested in achieving that advance.Introducing a seven-day notification period for pensioners and family allowance recipients would have provided for more accurate decision making. It would have reduced the risk of customers receiving incorrect payments and possibly facing subsequent debt recovery action. It would also have provided customers with the opportunity to receive a higher rate of payment if they notified changes in their circumstances within seven days.The government had made provision for people in special circumstances who found it difficult to comply with seven days by allowing for a 28-day notification period in such cases. As amended, the bill will mean that parenting payment and pension customers will continue to have 14 days to inform Centrelink about changes in their circumstances. However, with the longer notification period, it is impractical to backdate decisions as was originally proposed. This was made clear during the course of the debate in the Senate. The government has proposed these amendments in the interests of securing passage of the legislation to ensure that the many worthwhile benefits included in the legislation are rapidly introduced.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.17:31:001902Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments to the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 . I am delighted because they go some way towards fixing the problems that we identified when the bill went through the House. I am delighted because, despite the minister's indifference, the government has finally acknowledged the mess its bill was going to create.Most importantly, I am delighted that we have a chance to amend a measure which would have deepened the crisis in Centrelink and delivered nothing but heartache to roughly 1.7 million retirees and 1.8 million families who depend upon Centrelink services. It is not very often in politics that you have the chance to achieve fundamental change but, in convincing the government to change its ways, the Labor Party is justifiably proud that we have delivered some very important changes to Australia's pensioners, retirees and families.These amendments do two things. Firstly, they remove the provisions from the bill that would have reduced from 14 days to seven days the time that pensioners and some other social welfare recipients have to notify of changes in their circumstances. By maintaining these notice periods at 14 days, these amendments simply restore the status quo. Secondly, these amendments remove the beneficial measures from the bill that would have allowed backdating of pension increases where the pensioner notified of a change of circumstances resulting in an increased entitlement.In respect of the first of these two issues, Labor has said consistently that the notification obligations of pensioners must not be made more onerous at a time when Centrelink is so clearly unable to deal with the demand on its services. Pensioners are finding it difficult enough to contact Centrelink within the current 14-day period. What sense would that make when the number of staff is being cut by 5,000? What sense would it make when two-thirds of callers to Centrelink cannot get through? What sense would it make to reduce the notification period from 14 days to seven days?When the bill was originally debated in this House, the government seemed unable to understand this point. During the debate, the minister opposite referred to the opposition's second reading amendment—and the House should remember this—in the following way:The comment in the first clause of the proposed amendment deals with Centrelink's inability to deal with a number of people attempting to contact them; therefore, that is some kind of excuse for not agreeing to the reduction in the notification period from 14 days to seven days. The reduction from 14 days to seven days does not increase the number of calls that have to be made. It just means that they have to be made in a more reasonable and common time frame.Clearly, the minister has repudiated that this evening. It is difficult to conceive of a response that misses the point more than the minister did in the second reading debate in this House. This is the same minister who dismisses the time it takes for people to get through to Centrelink on the phone. He ignores the mistakes or the pressures created by his savage funding cuts and job cuts. This is the minister who runs around the country crowing that they are cutting jobs while improving services—he says `Fewer jobs, more services'. Can the minister have so little regard for the remaining 23,000 dedicated staff of Centrelink or its six million clients that he can pretend that anyone is going to swallow that proposition?Before it agreed to these amendments, the government was saying, `Yes, we're making it harder to get through, we're cutting staff, but it is only reasonable that the opposition should agree to reducing from 14 days to seven days the time to contact that body.' That was clearly a nonsense. The point is very simple: if pensioners and others, particularly families, are having enormous difficulty in contacting Centrelink within 14 days, how on earth is it logical to claim that they can do it within seven days?This fits a pattern of activity by the government. As I said in my speech on the second reading debate, those in the House who are familiar with the book Animal Farm might recall the character of Squealer. Squealer was one of the pigs on Animal Farm who continually ran around the farm saying how good things were—he was constantly issuing glowing reports about how the brave new world had arrived and everybody was happy. Squealer used those statements to trick those working on the farm into believing that they were better off than they were, and that things would improve soon although they were getting worse all the time.It would seem that when it comes to this Centrelink issue, the government's side is full of Squealers who are rushing around the countryside crowing and issuing statements and claiming that, although we are losing 5,000 staff—(Extension of time granted)GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. This is a debate about specific amendments to the legislation, and the honourable member for Lilley is going into a general debate about the staffing levels in Centrelink. He is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I expect the member for Lilley to refer to the amendments, as I am sure he will.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The amendment that the government is now agreeing to—our amendment to its legislation which makes it 14 days not seven days—is entirely dependent upon the amount of staff in Centrelink. Every member of parliament—even your good self, Mr Speaker—is completely familiar with the disaster that is occurring because the victims of the disaster walk from the Centrelink offices to the offices of their members of parliament to complain. That is occurring throughout the 148 seats in this parliament. Every member of this House is aware of that disaster.During that debate in the Senate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, representing the minister opposite, had this to say in a complete change of heart:It will be a more feasible, workable and acceptable process if we had a 14-day reporting period.This is in complete contrast to what occurred in the House. What happened in that time? The opposition went out and campaigned nationally on this issue, drew attention to what had occurred and the government finally caved in and saw good sense. And I am pleased that they did. Thank God the government changed its tune and did what we always told them they should do.Following the Senate debate, the Minister for Family and Community Services issued a press release, and this is what it said:Another important part of the legislation will mean that for the first time there will be a consistent 14-day requirement for the customer to notify a change in circumstances that could affect any payment.The transition is now complete. Having vehemently opposed Labor's view that the notification period should be kept at 14 days and then supporting that view in the Senate, the government now appears to be taking credit for it as if it were its idea in the first place.Mr Truss interjecting—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—If it was your idea in the first place, why was it not in the legislation? And why was there an attempt to change it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley knows that he needs to address his remarks through the chair.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am suitably chastised. The government's concession, sadly, has come at a price, like so much of what this government does. They could not simply concede that reducing the notification period was unreasonable and still maintain the beneficial and equitable measures also contained in the bill. That is why they would not support Labor's amendments, which would have had the effect of maintaining the 14-day notification period without disturbing the beneficial backdating measures in the bill. For the government, it was a trade-off: `We will take out the measures that are altogether unreasonable, but you cannot have it both ways, so we will also take out the more than reasonable measures, just to get even.'The bottom line behind that strategy was money. The government had hoped to more than pay for the beneficial measures by reducing the notification period and knocking more and more people off benefits because they could not get through to Centrelink. They say that removing the unreasonable measure while keeping the beneficial measures would reduce the savings expected from the bill by some $33 million a year. But it should be said that the bill, in its original form, was expected to save over $45 million in the year 2000-01. In other words, they could have maintained the 14-day period, kept the beneficial measure and still have had some net savings from the bill. Had they done so, the bill would have represented a more genuine improvement to the system. It is a shame that this government was not prepared to forgo some of the savings produced by the bill to achieve this end.Nevertheless, I am delighted that the government has seen that it got this matter wrong and that it would have caused an enormous amount of pain, particularly to pensioners and families, and that it has accepted the commonsense of Labor's argument.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1904s187Consideration resumed from 9 December.190417:41:001904McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998 , together with the National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 , implements the government's decision to sell the National Transmission Network.Bills to enable the sale of the network were passed by the House of Representatives in the previous term of this government. However, the recent federal election was called before the Senate could complete its consideration of the bills. These current bills incorporate minor amendments, including those recommended by the Senate committee which examined the previous bills. The amendments extend the access regime in the bills to include ancillary services provided by the ABC and SBS and to cover community television providers. A further amendment confirms the original policy intention of the sale bill that the access regime applied by the bill is restricted to carriage services for the transmission of existing analog broadcasting services.These bills will give the ABC and SBS a direct commercial relationship with transmission service providers, thereby increasing the national broadcasters' responsibility for transmission of their programs. The ABC and SBS have been seeking such a commercial relationship for many years—and it was denied to them by previous Labor governments.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Ignored by Labor.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Ignored by Labor. The sale of the Transmission Network will provide a range of benefits as a result. The ABC and SBS, and other network users, will finally operate in a purchaser-provider relationship with service suppliers. Transferring this operational activity to the private sector will produce the scope for greater client focus and responsiveness that flows from normal commercial practice. How could anybody object to such a binding and obvious principle?CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—You could if you were Labor.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Only a Labor Party could possibly ignore such commonsense to put the major broadcasters in direct contact with the service provider.In addition, this reform sets the scene for a greater degree of competition in the transmission services market, particularly with the introduction of digital terrestrial broadcasting. Sale proceeds will be used to further reduce the public debt—another Labor inheritance.In agreeing to sell the network, the government has recognised the importance of safeguarding important broadcasting policy objectives. We have made it perfectly clear that the maintenance of existing ABC and SBS coverage and service quality, particularly for regional and remote communities, is a prerequisite.In addition, we will ensure that existing community service obligations are preserved, including those for network users such as Radio for the Print Handicapped, remote commercial satellite broadcasting services, self-help retransmission groups and emergency service operators.In the medium term, we recognise that there is likely to remain limited competition in the transmission services market, especially outside major metropolitan centres. Against this background, these bills balance the desire to maximise the benefit of establishing commercial synergies with the need for competitive safeguards to protect the government's broadcasting and social policy objectives. Even at this late stage the Labor Party seeks to hinder the government in this very important and necessary reform.The network will be transferred to one or more national transmission companies, which will have agreed contracts with the ABC and SBS spelling out transmission requirements for existing analog broadcasting services. These companies will be sold to the network purchaser, or purchasers, with the contracts in place. A compact with the ABC and SBS will spell out the government's transmission coverage and quality expectations—in return for the full funding of the costs of the broadcasters' initial five-year transmission contracts.The legislation also provides for an access regime similar to that put in place for the telecommunications industry for the benefit of certain nominated customers. The access regime will guard against any imbalance in negotiating power which could have led to essential transmission services and facilities not being available or only being available at monopoly prices. Mind you, if the parties are unable to reach agreement on the terms and conditions to apply to such an access regime, they will have recourse to the ACCC to arbitrate the matter.This combination of contractual and legislative provisions will balance the likely market power of new network owners to ensure continued access by national broadcasters and other nominated users on reasonable terms and conditions. Commercial users of the network will have recourse to standard fair trading legal safeguards, including those under part 3A of the Trade Practices Act 1974.The ABC and SBS will also be able to establish their own transmission services. This power, together with the ability of the broadcasters to purchase future requirements from other providers, will provide commercial leverage and introduce contestability into the market, particularly in relation to digital broadcasting services.The ABC and SBS will report to the parliament, through their annual reports, on any significant changes in transmission coverage or quality of national broadcasting services. Very interestingly, the ABC and SBS will be responsible for dealing with any complaints from the public about reception quality. That is exactly what they want and what they need. In the unlikely event that a suitable and timely response is not provided by the broadcasters, and a substantial problem appears to exist in relation to changed transmission coverage of a community, the minister will have the option of directing the Australian Broadcasting Authority to investigate the matter.With this contractual and legislative package, the ABC and SBS will at last have a direct commercial relationship with the provider of their transmission services, and a degree of flexibility in determining how best to meet their future transmission needs. At the same time, the Australian public can be confident that coverage and signal quality for existing national broadcasting services will be protected.In addition, self-help retransmission groups, emergency service operators, remote commercial satellite service providers and providers of radio for the print handicapped services will be protected by the access regime. Capped charges in contracts or supplementary funding will ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged.Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—I will listen closely and even with amazement to the shadow minister for communications trying to object to this reform. It is a reform that safeguards all interested parties. It increases competition and enhances the service that the ABC and SBS are required to provide by making them directly responsible and answerable for the quality of their transmissions. In the light of that, what possible objection could the Labor Party have except on ideological grounds or on purely political grounds based on opposition to any sensible, rational and necessary measure introduced by the government?In drawing my remarks to a close, I stress again that the government is very proud of this legislation and believes that it deserves to be supported. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.17:49:001906Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—This lot would flog the aerial off a family car. This minister is an absolute disgrace. The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation is a member of the National Party yet not only comes into this House and refuses to cross the floor on the full privatisation of Telstra but would happily come into this House and flog off the transmitter service. You are an absolute disgrace. For a person who comes into this place and says he is standing up for rural and regional Australia and rural and regional Victoria, you should be ashamed of yourself.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth knows that he is obliged to address his remarks through the chair.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Given the lateness of the hour, the lateness of the sitting and the proximity to Christmas, I am suitably admonished. I will now deal with the details of the bills.Mr Hardgrave interjecting—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—The Speaker stopped me, Sunshine, not you. The substance of these bills was in effect contained in the bills that were presented to the parliament in 1997 as the national network transmission bills. They passed through this House, they proceeded to the Senate, they were the subject of a reference to a Senate committee and they died when the parliament was dissolved. They have subsequently been debated in the Senate this week and now fall for consideration here. In that respect, whilst we will make our opposition to this measure in strong terms, we have been happy to oblige the government and to deal with the matter prior to the parliament getting up before Christmas.Our position was made clear both in the House and in the Senate in the course of discussion on the 1997 bills. Our position was also made crystal clear in the course of the minority report in the Senate on the 1997 bills and in the course of discussion in the Senate this week. Senator Bishop, the shadow parliamentary secretary for communications, outlined in a very cogent manner the reasons for the opposition's disagreement with these measures. I think they can be summarised under five headings.Firstly, we regard the National Transmission Network as part of our national infrastructure and as an important part of our communications infrastructure. We believe it is important in the national interest and in the public interest that the network remains in public hands. We do not accept that there is any good reason for the network to be sold off and we do not accept the argument put forward by the government that the selling off of the network will lead to any efficiencies.Secondly—and this is a point that the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, who is at the table, ought to be cognisant of—we have the view that there is a danger to rural and regional transmission services if the network is sold off. If the network is sold off, the objective of the network owner or owners will be one of profit motivation and that runs the risk, as it does in the Telstra exercise, of adversely impacting on rural and regional and remote Australia.Thirdly, we are concerned about the `commitments' which the government says it is making to the national broadcasters—the ABC and SBS—on the five-year sequence that the bills and the government's invitation for tender bids for the privatisation outline. If you were a national broadcaster, you would not want to be holding your breath on the basis of a guarantee from this government for funding, either for general purposes or for transmission services—whether those transmission services were for the current regime or for a digital regime in the future.Fourthly, we are concerned about special interest and community broadcasting and we are not persuaded that these are adequately catered for. Fifthly, which in a sense is a new point, we are concerned about the method in which the government has presented this legislation, particularly for senators in the course of this week. The government has effectively put a gun at the heads of senators and has said to them, `We will dispose of this asset irrespective of whether we do it legislatively or executively.' The government would flog the aerial off the family car without even getting the proper authority from the owner.Senator Harradine made it absolutely clear in his speech to the Senate that he was opposed to the measure. You have put a gun to his head. If you were going to do it executively anyway, he would fold his cards and let you do it legislatively. The manner and the method in which you have approached this matter is, in my view, quite disgraceful.I will deal in some detail with some of the four or five reasons which I have outlined. The National Transmission Agency, I think it is generally acknowledged, some years ago was a tired and listless agency. It was poorly managed and it had low staff morale and a dissatisfied client base. But about five years ago the agency underwent radical changes. When you look at last year's draft annual report, it indicates there has been a permanent reduction in network operating costs of $26 million without any noticeable effect on quality or reception of ABC or SBS broadcasts.At the same time, the network has grown rapidly. From 1992-97, the number of transmitters grew from 862 to 1,197. In addition, 54 new transmissions have been established, extending the ABC's services to an additional 1.3 million people. SBS has extended its coverage to two additional major regional areas and the ABC's Triple J, which I know the minister now finds himself compelled to listen to, given his new responsibilities, has extended its coverage to a further eight regional centres.In short, the transmission network, despite massive budget cuts and a decline in capital expenditure from $54 million in 1993-94 to $30 million in 1996-97, has become an efficient and effective agency. So there is no good reason, in the opposition's view, for selling the transmission network. The government, on the other hand, has advanced, I think, two principal arguments for the privatisation: firstly, the proceeds of the sale will be used to reduce debt and, secondly, the national broadcasters will be able to establish a more commercially based relationship with transmission service providers and will have greater control over service levels and planning of new services. This was a point that the minister made in what was, I think, an abridged second reading speech, for which I am sure the House was very grateful.As to the first point—the reduction of debt—the parliamentary secretary in the Senate was throwing around some ballpark numbers. Those numbers, if you dispose of this asset—anywhere from $100 million to $200 million or even $500 million—frankly, will not make a great impact on the national debt when compared with the other privatisations upon which this government insists. When you throw that into the balance, the national interest of having a national piece of communications infrastructure, I do not think that is a very strong argument.Secondly, I think that the ABC and the SBS have been used, in effect, disingenuously by the government. When you examine the public submissions of the ABC and the SBS to the Senate committee in the first half of this year, what they effectively campaigned for was to own the transmission network as a way of improving their control. They did not actually advocate selling off the government arm of the service.Mr McGauran interjecting—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—This is where we fundamentally differ. We say that this is an important piece of the national communications infrastructure. It is important that it is in government hands because if it is not in government hands a number of things will occur, one of which, in our view, will be adverse service implications for rural and regional Australia. I thought—correct me if I am wrong—that is what the government stood for, but time after time—Mr McGauran interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I have allowed the member for Perth to go beyond the standing orders in responding to the minister. I ask the minister not to provoke the member for Perth and I ask the member for Perth to address his remarks through the chair.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I was doing very well until I was outrageously provoked, Mr Speaker. The opposition is of the view that the National Transmission Network is an efficient and effective organisation and should remain in public hands. It is a crucial piece of communications infrastructure. That is our first substantial point.Secondly, the sale of the transmission network, far from giving the national broadcasters and the various community broadcasters who currently utilise the network control of their own service delivery, in our view, makes them vulnerable. We believe that the financial guarantees that have been made by the government to the ABC and the SBS are effectively to protect them for five years. As I have said, you would not want to hold your breath with this government on a guarantee for funding for the national broadcaster.Thirdly, in the new technology, digital, there is no guarantee of access under this regime and there is no guarantee of funding for the ABC and the national broadcasters. As was detailed in the Senate in the course of debate this week, that is clearly a matter for future consideration. Fourthly, we do not believe that the community service obligations covered in the bill are substantial. We worry very much about the adverse implications for rural and regional Australia and for the special interest and community broadcasters.I might just outline what occurred in the Senate this week in respect of this bill. The Labor Party opposed the bill, as it had previously. The Australian Democrats opposed the bill. The Australian Greens opposed the bill. Senator Harradine ultimately supported the bill, but it is useful to read into the record what he actually said.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—I think you've already told us.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I am about to give you a quote for your edification. Senator Harradine said:This measure is one that I believe should not be supported . . . No valid or convincing reasons have been advanced by the government for the sale of this agency. In principle, I feel that the sale of the NTA should not be supported. But we have to come down to the guts of it and see what would occur if we did oppose this measure in this chamber.What the government has made crystal clear is that, irrespective of the outcome of this legislation, they would have flogged it off anyway. They would flog the aerial off the family car without the proper and appropriate authorisation of the owner. We oppose the bills.18:00:001908Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I delight in the analogy of the car used by the honourable member for Perth. The great contrast between the Howard government and previous Labor governments with regard to matters such as privatisation of assets can be summed up with a regular analogy of mine that those opposite, when they were in power, sold the family car to buy the weekly groceries on more than a few occasions.They sold off Qantas and they sold off the Commonwealth Bank after an election, even though they promised the people of Australia before that election that they would not do it. What did they do with the proceeds of the sale of the analogous `family car'? They bought the weekly groceries—they did nothing about retiring debt. If you want to use the analogy of selling off an asset such as a family car, this government is paying a big chunk off the mortgage. We are paying a big chunk off the household mortgage of the nation of Australia—something which every member in this place is partially responsible for administering, and something which every person in Australia shares a big chunk of.I look forward to the House passing the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998 before us today. I welcome the opportunity to speak again on this particular sale because I think it is addressing a number of important matters and not just the retirement of the extensive debt that those opposite happily clocked up over their 13 years in office. It really worries me when a senior member of the Labor opposition—the alternative government of this country—says that $100 million or $200 million is not much money to go into debt. It is an insight into the economic ruin that those opposite stand for. Labor equals debt. There cannot be any other way of putting it.This government deals very responsibly with the charge given to it by the Australian people in the administration of the nation's books and the nation's economy. Assets such as the National Transmission Agency have commercial benefit. It is only right that it should be offered to the market for sale, because it sends a good signal to the market that we are serious about competition for the services that it provides.Just as the previous government administered the veterans' affairs portfolio and made the government a purchaser of health services rather than simply an owner of beds and infrastructure, this government is saying that the National Transmission Agency, once sold, will still be able to provide the infrastructure. We are not packing up the National Transmission Agency infrastructure and sending it offshore. If you listen to the member for Perth, it is as if it is being disposed of and it will never be seen or heard from again. The infrastructure continues to exist and, moreover, those who purchase services from it are going to have the commercial relationship that they want.The ABC, SBS and a number of community broadcasters that make use of the NTA throughout Australia are, rightly, going to be able to demand performance from the NTA because of the commercial relationship they have. The ABC itself would dearly love to buy the NTA or a chunk of it—I know that. I am sure that some of the small community groups would dearly love to be able to do the same thing. Either way, they are going to have a commercial relationship, which is something they have been seeking for some time.It is also worth noting that with the introduction of digital broadcasting, which is an item that is on the national agenda now, there are some major capital infrastructure improvements that the taxpayer would have to fund if the NTA continued to be on the government's books. We will be selling the NTA on the basis that that work has to be done—that certain conditions, as far as obligations to the communities that the NTA's signals reach and service, are met. They are all terms and conditions of sale. That, in itself, makes false the nonsense that those opposite offer—the great `sky is falling' analogies that they draw, particularly for rural and regional Australia.The member for Perth has often talked about Telstra, and he talked about it again today. He talked about the performance of Telstra, particularly in rural and regional Australia. The reverse argument should be aired in this debate, and that is that the reason why Telstra's performance as far as repair and service to rural and regional Australia's consumers is poorer than in the city is that, in the city regions and the major metropolitan areas, there is greater competition in telecommunications services. That competition is putting pressure on Telstra and, as a result, they are improving their service out of bounds. Continuing with the sale of assets, such as the National Transmission Agency and Telstra, will improve competition in rural and regional Australia and it will improve the results the member for Perth bemoans.It is important, because of the wide ranging matters that the member for Perth offered in this debate, to compare and contrast the Australian Labor Party's performance on a number of matters. As the minister at the table, who is the member for Gippsland and the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, said, `They are into opposition for opposition's sake, at every turn.'The fact that they are here today opposing with their very last breath the sale of this asset, which will help to retire some of the debt that they clocked up over their 13 years, the fact that they are offering all sorts of spurious claims about what may or may not happen, in their minds, to rural and regional Australia as a result of this, despite the fact the government has clearly legislated—and provided a range of regulations to back up that legislation—to guarantee the quality and quantity of service and improvements to service as well as getting a commercial return, proves to me that this is an opposition which has no interest in good policy but simply in cheap politics. It makes you wonder whether we are ever going to be able to advance the cause of good administration in this country in a bipartisan sense if the opposition is going to come in here on a daily basis opposing things.Look at some of the other matters that have passed this House today in contrast with the NTA bill before us. If the tax bills are so wrong, and if the private health insurance rebate initiative is so wrong, why don't you pass those sorts of bills in the Senate and campaign against the government, day in and day out, until the next election? If you think we are so wrong and you are so right, go out and prove it. But, no, you simply want to prevent the government from getting on with its job of running this country properly. Passing legislation such as the tax bills and the private health insurance rebate will prove to the people of Australia that we have introduced good proposals, and we will prove that those people opposite have misled deliberately during the most recent election campaign.I am delighted to support this bill. It is yet another commitment offered to the people of Australia before an election delivered after an election. Those opposite cannot understand that particular tactic because they have proved on too many occasions in the past how they are prepared to put one particular proposal before an election and then do something else afterwards. We are not like them. We are about responsible government; we are about the responsible fiscal management of this nation; we are about competition; we are about reward for effort. I hope that those opposite have a nice Christmas and consider their position on a range of other matters that have been before the House this day.18:08:001910Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Likewise, I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think the member for Moreton was espousing the Dick Balm principle in this matter. The point is that he talked about everything except the most important issue, that is, the provision of services. No doubt like me, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have people in your electorate who simply do not have access to the services which the national transmission network carries—basic services like SBS, Triple J and ABC Radio's Classic FM. The fact is that many people in my area simply do not have access to those services. I am sure that is the case in your own area, Mr Deputy Speaker.I refer to people in the Wollombi Valley, the Muswellbrook, Scone, Merriwa, Murrurundi and Quirindi local government areas in my electorate. None of those people have access to these very basic and good services. I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, given that the FA Cup and World Cup finals are shown only on SBS television, that that causes quite a few problems in my electorate during winter.The question I have to ask myself, as a local member, is this: will the sale of the NTA improve their prospects of getting those services? I suggest that the answer is no. We have already seen evidence of that in my own electorate. The people of the Wollombi Valley were so close to getting these services last year that they could taste it. It was all but done. Unfortunately, negotiations between the NTA and a land-holder broke down over the provision of a cable or some sort of infrastructure line across his property. The NTA had to inform residents of the Wollombi Valley that, because of the pending sale of the agency, they were not in a position to begin negotiations with a new land-holder. So Wollombi has missed out. Wollombi is still without SBS transmission, clearly because of this proposal. I seek leave to table a letter from the National Transmission Agency to residents of the Wollombi Valley which makes that point very clearly.Leave granted.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I have to ask myself: will the residents of my electorate stand a better or worse chance of getting these services following the sale of this network and this agency? The answer has to be no. I point out that people in the Upper Hunter are currently on a list for the provision of these services and they are ranked 23 of the 24 regions. It is going to be a long, long time, at best, before they get these services. I cannot see that this sale is going to make their prospects any better. Indeed, I think it is going to make them worse. It has been demonstrated in the case of Wollombi. I do not see any real basis for this sale. It is not going to raise any big bucks for the government. It just seems unnecessary.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—It's ideologically driven.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—It is probably just ideologically driven, as my colleague points out. This is an important piece of community infrastructure, carrying with it very important community service obligations. That is clearly why the opposition opposes the sale of the agency.18:12:001911McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—in reply—I appreciate the contributions made by individual members. I was terribly disappointed by the shadow minister's contribution. He listed five grounds of opposition and each and every one of them was ideological. They were not matters of substance which went to the key points, which include not just the issue of reduction of debt but also the improved service—because SBS and ABC are more answerable and responsible for the quality of their transmissions—and, moreover, the new competition that the sale of the NTA will bring because of the new entrants, whilst all the time protecting and safeguarding the other users.With regard to the comments by the member for Hunter, they were peripheral, if I may say that without in any way reflecting on the seriousness of the matters which he put on behalf of his constituency. But there is no way in the world that the coverage of the NTA can be brought into this debate.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Read the letter.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—I happily concede that not every square centimetre of your electorate is served by the NTA, nor are very many rural electorates, and that is why we have embarked on this reform. There is far more likelihood—in fact, near certainty—that the ABC and SBS will extend their transmission coverage because of the funding that the government provides, for a start, and because they are answerable to their viewers in a way they have never been before.I do not know how many times I, like you, have made representations to the ABC or SBS on behalf of my constituents who are receiving no coverage or poor coverage, only to be told that it has nothing to do with them, that they have no control over it. As a matter of priority, they may well want to extend into areas of my electorate but are unable to do so. We free them up to make those transmission decisions for themselves. So the solution to the difficulties referred to by the member for Hunter—understandable and legitimate as they are—is to vote with the government on this necessary reform. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.18:18:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)74Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Williams, D. R. Worth, P. M.65Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1912Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran) read a third time.Bills1912s188Consideration resumed from 9 December.191218:23:001912McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 supplements the just passed National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998 in putting in place arrangements to effect the government's decision to sell the National Transmission Network.This bill amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to make it clear that both the ABC and SBS have the power to produce, transmit and arrange for the transmission of programs. Both organisations will be required to provide details in their annual reports of significant changes in transmission coverage of national broadcasting services.Where a substantial problem appears to exist in relation to changed transmission coverage of a community, the minister will have the power to direct the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to conduct an investigation into the matter.Minor amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1992 will facilitate ABC and SBS control of the Radiocommunications spectrum used to broadcast their services.This bill will have no financial impact. I commend the bill to the House. I present a signed explanatory memorandum to the bill in relation to the National Transmission Sale Bill earlier on.18:25:001913Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 is a necessary bill but it does not ameliorate the evil which the minister has just perpetrated.1913Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran) read a third time.Committees1913191319131913Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)10000PON/A10—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, subject to the following amendment:That paragraph 2 of the resolution be amended to provide that two senators be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one senator be nominated by any minority group or groups or Independent senator or senators.Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith.Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) agreed to:That the amendment of the Senate be agreed to.Bills1913r6121913Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Lee moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that Australia's future economic and social prosperity depends on a well resourced, quality education and training system; and(2) condemns the Government for:(a) refusing to provide growth funds to support Australia's vocational education and training needs;(b) failing to meet its commitment to `enhance the role of TAFE' and `reinvigorate the TAFE system'; and(c) imposing a GST which will make education and training more expensive and less accessible".18:29:001913Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—The second reading speech of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs points out:A network of strong TAFE institutes, operating alongside and in competition with quality private providers, is an essential feature of an effective and responsive vocational education and training sector.The importance of increased competition in the training system and the importance of increased responsiveness, efficiency, quality and client choice are also asserted. These factors lead the minister to:. . . strongly support the further development of a diverse vocational education and training market with a mix of public and private providers delivering high quality services.Unfortunately, as is so often the case, in the Northern Territory different views prevail. As an example, the opportunity for indigenous women and men to participate in such a system is becoming deliberately thwarted by the Northern Territory government's current Minister for Education and Training, Peter Adamson.Let me give you some background about how a Territory minister can prejudice the education and training opportunities of indigenous people through the mishandling of moneys allocated by the Commonwealth government for a quite defined purpose, namely, the redevelopment of the Institute for Aboriginal Development's Alice Springs campus.The Institute for Aboriginal Development—IAD—is an Aboriginal community controlled provider of adult education services in Central Australia. It currently offers education and training programs for adults in vocational and training courses, preparation for tertiary studies and, in conjunction with La Trobe University, graduate courses in education, management, counselling and human services and it will be offering an undergraduate bachelor of arts specialising in Central Australian languages and societies from the beginning of next year.IAD is also a regional centre for language and cultural maintenance, interpreter services and training and it has an internationally recognised cross-cultural awareness program. Currently IAD requires substantial capital development of its campus to continue to provide much needed services to the region. Since its establishment it has not received any substantial allocation of capital funds from the Northern Territory government—none over 25 years.To address this oversight, an application was made in 1995 for funding under the Commonwealth Infrastructure Program to undertake the necessary capital works. IAD was allocated a grant of $2.6 million under the program, but two years later is yet to receive a cent from the grant. In 1995, the Commonwealth government announced a one-off $15 million capital grant to independent providers of vocational education, employment and training to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The grant was to be delivered through the Australian National Training Authority—ANTA—as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander facilities component of the infrastructure program.In August 1995, state and territory training authorities were provided with draft guidelines as to the allocation of that funding and requested to pass the information on to relevant providers in their jurisdiction. The Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority—NTETA—received the guidelines and passed them on to a number of Northern Territory service providers, including IAD. Submissions for the funding were initially considered by the state and territory training authorities. The most appropriate submission or submissions were then endorsed by the training authority and passed on to ANTA.NTETA received 11 submissions from Northern Territory training providers. Asset Strategies were engaged by NTETA to assess and prioritise the submissions. They found that IAD had the highest correlation with the ANTA guidelines. On the basis of Asset Strategies' report, NTETA endorsed IAD's submission and passed this endorsement on to ANTA. In April 1996, NTETA contacted IAD to inform them their submission had been endorsed to ANTA for $4.3 million. ANTA received submissions under the program totalling $29 million from across Australia. Two members of ANTA's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Training Advisory Council then met with staff from ANTA to assess these submissions. A decision was made by ANTA as to which submissions would receive funding and $2.6 million was allocated to IAD in the Northern Territory. In July 1996, NTETA wrote to IAD to inform them of ANTA's allocation. In September 1996, Mr Sabaratnam Prathapan, Chief Executive Officer of NTETA, met with IAD to advise that the grant of funding was subject to IAD agreeing to move from the current South Terrace campus in Alice Springs to a site adjacent to Centralian College, a Northern Territory government mainstream education provider. This view was supported by the then Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training, Fred Finch.The IAD board was opposed to moving to the Centralian College site for a number reasons. The board consistently reiterated its opposition to relocation from its current site which is unencumbered.In December 1996, following a meeting with the then Minister for Education and Training, Fred Finch, it was agreed that a feasibility study should be conducted into the suitability of each of the possible sites. On this basis, IAD engaged the services of KLCK Architects from Melbourne. As requested by him, the terms of reference were sent to Minister Finch for his approval and no objection was received. The report from the feasibility study came down strongly in favour of IAD remaining on the South Terrace site.In February 1997, the minister was provided with a copy of the report and attended an IAD board meeting at which he agreed to support IAD's decision to remain on the present site at South Terrace. Between February and October 1997, both NTETA and Minister Finch publicly supported the funding being provided to IAD to refurbish the current South Terrace site, including Minister Finch informing parliament that the funding would be approved. Over this period, NTETA was also in contact with IAD and IAD's architects for the redevelopment, Tangentyere Design, in relation to the carrying out of the works. Considerable time and money was expended by IAD over this period on the clear understanding that the funding would be received.In late 1997, Mr Fred Finch was replaced by Peter Adamson as the next Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training. The new minister contacted IAD in October 1997 to inform it that the Northern Territory would not allow the grant to be passed to IAD unless it agreed to co-locate with Centralian College. This position has been maintained by the minister since that time.In December 1997, IAD again wrote to ANTA seeking their assistance in gaining access to the Commonwealth grant. ANTA wrote back and stated that as with all approvals under the initiative, final funding requires the support of the relevant state or territory training authority. The Northern Territory government has stated that they intend to have the funding redirected into another Northern Territory program. In response to this, ANTA stated that the grant would be re-allocated if the dispute was not resolved.The following are some of the key reasons why IAD is opposed to the move. First, it would undermine and frustrate IAD's status as an independent provider of education and training. Secondly, the Centralian College site is culturally inappropriate for students from some of the language groups, whereas there are cultural reasons why the present site is particularly appropriate. Thirdly, the present site is in an area of town with easy access to other Aboriginal services and regarded as a safe place for Aboriginal people. Fourthly, IAD has built up a reputation among students around the present site, where they have been located for nearly 30 years.Fifthly, IAD are concerned that they will be seen to lose their separatestatus in the eyes of students and consequently fail to attract those students that the mainstream education system has failed. Sixthly, Aboriginal people are seriously disadvantaged as users of adult education facilities. IAD has good reasons to believe that many Aboriginal students will drop out or fail to enrol rather than attend a campus located adjacent to Centralian College. Lastly, IAD does not accept that there is force in any of the reasons provided by the Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training and his department in favour of the move.The Northern Territory minister continues to reiterate that the IAD must move or lose the money. This is not a negotiation but a puerile attempt to force his will upon the Aboriginal community of Alice Springs and indeed of Central Australia. And they are Commonwealth moneys which were previously allocated by the Commonwealth government to ANTA for the purposes of IAD, previously agreed to by a Northern Territory minister. This new minister has reneged on the agreement previously made and is subsequently causing a great deal of frustration, hurt and concern amongst the Aboriginal community of Central Australia.In question time today I asked a question of the Prime Minister, subsequently responded to by the minister for education, on indigenous education, relating in this instance to bilingual education. As my colleague at the table points out, he failed to answer it. The fact that the Northern Territory government cannot come to terms with their responsibilities to deal properly with indigenous people is just one of a type. Not only have we seen it in bilingual education; we have seen the attitude of the Northern Territory government over a number of years in their withdrawal of resources from bush schools to ensure that they supplement the resources of urban schools. There is a great deal of concern about the way in which Commonwealth moneys, earmarked for Aboriginal education, may have been misused by the Northern Territory government.It ought to be pointed out that there is not one Aboriginal community, outside of the Stuart Highway or the major metropolitan areas, with a decent high school. There is no high school at all, in fact, in any Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. That is an absolute scandal. This afternoon we had the minister for education failing in his responsibilities as minister to come to terms with the need for bilingual education in these communities. Now we have the Northern Territory minister underlining their absolute ignorance of the needs of Aboriginal people. This parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the Northern Territory government are held to account. This government has a responsibility to the nation to ensure that indigenous education outcomes are improved. They will not be improved unless the government listen to Aboriginal people. In this instance, the Aboriginal people have made their concerns widely known, and they have been expressed consistently both to this government and to the Northern Territory minister.The Northern Territory minister refuses to listen to them. I plead with the minister and I plead with this government: just for once in your life, do the right thing. If this money is not dealt with properly by the Northern Territory government, if they refuse to direct it to the purposes for which it has been made available—that is, to redevelop IAD in its current site—then take the money from ANTA and give it directly to IAD, bypassing the Northern Territory government's approval mechanisms. That is the only solution. They have to force their will upon the Northern Territory government. It is just not good enough that agreements made between the Commonwealth government via ANTA and Aboriginal service providers—in this case, IAD—are being undermined by a recalcitrant Northern Territory government minister, who clearly has no idea of his responsibilities—nor does he care to undertake them.If the will of this community is to improve Aboriginal educational outcomes, then we have to do it at all levels of education. Not only do we have to improve the outcomes at primary school and actually build high schools in Aboriginal communities or provide them with the resources to get a decent high school education; we also have to make sure that there are decent post high school vocational education training opportunities. What IAD does is provide those opportunities. It has been very successful in providing those opportunities without the assistance of the Northern Territory government. It behoves the Northern Territory government and this government to ensure that the Northern Territory government minister who has that responsibility carries it out with care and ensures that when the needs of Aboriginal people are properly and responsibly expressed, as they have been, they are acted upon. He is denying the rights of Aboriginal Territorians to access the resources which have been properly made available to them via the Commonwealth government through the ANTA grants process. I suggest to the minister that he take this matter seriously—although I stress that I am concerned that he will not—and ensure that this money gets directed to where it should be—to IAD.18:41:001916Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 confirms the revised ANTA agreement. As such, it confirms each of the government's failings in vocational education and training. This government's leading mistake in public policy has been to target education for the biggest round of funding cuts. This is an act of enormous folly. At a time when nations around the world are trying to invest ever more in the skills of their people for good economic and social reasons, the Howard government has decided to make education and training its number one target for funding cuts.For TAFE, this has had a very bad result. TAFE funding under this government has been cut by $240 million. At a time when 35,000 Australians each year miss out on the TAFE place of their choice we should be trying to increase TAFE funding. We should be trying to wipe away the backlog of 35,000 Australians who cannot get into the TAFE course of their choice.The other problem with this bill is that it confirms the efficiency dividend approach to the TAFE sector. This is an approach that says you can take the Victorian system as a benchmark for TAFE and expect the same level of provision, the same level of efficiency, to be applied to each and every other state and territory around the Commonwealth. Commonsense would indicate that Victoria, in any level of public provision but particularly education, is a very different scenario from decentralised states like Queensland or indeed the Northern Territory, as the member was outlining earlier. The evidence in Victoria further shows that we are not talking about efficiencies as such; we are talking about crude cuts to the TAFE sector—not productivity gains but crude cuts across the board.The second problem with the efficiency dividend approach in TAFE is that it is very hard to measure productivity. It is very hard to measure productivity in any part of the service sector—but more so for knowledge. Knowledge is weightless and intangible—whereas most economists who talk about productivity are talking about things that can be weighed in the tangible economy. So it is a very difficult concept to apply productivity and efficiency gains to a service sector, particularly for the weightless item of knowledge.The third problem with Dr Kemp's efficiency dividend approach is that it takes post-secondary education in Australia further down the path of managerialism. I can understand why governments are always looking for a managerial approach that increases technical efficiency and the throughput of a service like education, but you can go too far with that approach. It needs to be understood there are some things in the education sector that cannot be measured, there are some things in the education sector that cannot suitably have an input-output model applied to them. One of the important things in education is the time and space academics need to create—the time and space that is needed to create new learning items, new learning services, new curriculum, new ideas, new concepts. Of course, this is the very nature of education.The crude input-output model aimed at throughput is not very effective in terms of the time and space academics need to create. Some people listening might say, `Well, academics, that is the university sector. Why do you apply that concept to TAFE?' The reason is this. There is an information revolution under way that has huge potential for the TAFE sector. During the time of the last parliament, for instance, I visited one of the TAFE colleges in Adelaide and saw the development of interactive learning technology for soldering—a traditional trade area, the art of metal soldering. This was a package being devised by one of the teachers in the particular TAFE college, and that teacher needs the time and space to create what is a very important concept: interactive learning technology allows students to pick up curriculum and information from the computer and frees up the teaching time for more intensive face-to-face instruction where it is needed.So the information revolution has enormous potential for TAFE curriculum and TAFE learning methods. The time and space needed to free up people in the TAFE sector to take good advantage of that potential is absolutely critical. That time and space will not be maximised and will not be used effectively if we continue to go down Dr Kemp's efficiency dividend path. It is a false economy to cut back in the TAFE sector and apply efficiency dividends when it is at a cost to the development of new learning methods and new learning curriculum. What we need to appreciate is that quality vocational education in Australia relies on Commonwealth growth funding. It relies on the sort of growth in funding we have not seen out of the Howard government.The other important reform that needs to be embraced is to move TAFE to a national system. The TAFE system in Australia is very uneven in its quality and its provision. I have visited TAFE colleges in some parts of the country that one would associate more with the 1950s and 1960s type of learning than the information potential of the 1990s. Yet other colleges, such as those particularly in the state of South Australia, are very advanced indeed. The idea of a national system, with more uniform national provision and higher standards, is appealing. This national system in TAFE will be achieved only if the Commonwealth takes greater funding responsibility. I argue the case whereby the Commonwealth should take that responsibility, moving step by step each of the 84 state and territory TAFE institutes onto the Commonwealth budget.This approach has been used with universities where the Commonwealth has a profile funding relationship with each of Australia's 40-odd universities. Why can't the same system be used to bring TAFE colleges onto the Commonwealth budget and establish a sophisticated, modern national TAFE system? It can easily be done out of Commonwealth-state cooperation. It does not need to be done overnight. You can phase this in over a 10-year period step by step, bringing the 84 TAFE institutes onto the Commonwealth budget, establishing a national TAFE system.This would have the advantage of improving the university-TAFE interface, particularly for those dual sector institutions in your state of Victoria, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins. For instance, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology is a dual sector institution, university and TAFE. Under the current arrangements, this federal-state confusion that we have, they cannot have common use of facilities. They also meet an additional $5 million cost each year because of the double accountability systems that are required in answering to both the Commonwealth and state governments in the dual sector. The national system would overcome this inefficiency with the double accountancy and accounting systems and the lack of utilisation of joint facilities.The other thing that a national system would achieve is to rationalise the funding arrangements. At the current time some TAFE students are working out that they can undertake a year or two of TAFE courses and then get an accreditation for a university course, and thereby avoid their HECS liability. Something needs to be done about that, and it will only happen under a national TAFE system. We need to recognise that university and TAFE now have similar courses and similar funding needs, particularly in areas like information technology and business management. Indeed, the two-way flow of students between university and TAFE sectors in Australia has increased enormously.TAFE in this country needs to be developed as an attractive alternative in the higher education system. This does not imply a shift towards an academic based curriculum but rather the need to strengthen TAFE's relevance, structure and resource base. A national TAFE system needs to be developed as a logical response to the rapidly changing nature of work and vocational education. The TAFE graduates of the next century will face a work force with a declining number of jobs founded on manual and repetitive skills. They are more likely to be involved in product development, management and marketing than the mass production of standardised goods. This requires the development of both abstract and applied knowledge—the skills of both the head and the hands—in the TAFE system. Increasingly, TAFE is being called on to prepare Australians for the work of the future, not just the jobs of today. This is a profound challenge to the effectiveness of the TAFE curriculum: preparing young Australians for jobs not yet conceived, using technologies not yet invented. It highlights one of the difficulties with competency based education and emphasis on immediate performance at the expense of adaptable knowledge.The current government's pursuit of a user choice agenda has aggravated this problem. By defining the user of vocational education and training as the employer, Dr Kemp has encouraged a narrowing of the curriculum to suit the immediate needs of each user enterprise. In an environment of constant workplace and technological change, however, this often leaves students and workers without a broad base of portable and adaptable skills. Enterprise based training leaves them vulnerable to the inevitability of economic restructuring. Students and workers need to be defined as the core users of VET and TAFE services. Emphasis needs to be given to the development of critical and creative thinkers through a broad training curriculum. More than ever, work force entrants require strengths and skills in problem solving and workplace adaptation. Only in this fashion can TAFEs successfully prepare Australians for the jobs and economic opportunities of the future.Let me conclude with some comments about the forgotten part of TAFE, the FE part of TAFE—further education. Further education has been neglected by the Howard government in its education agenda. It has faced funding cuts and it now faces the 10 per cent GST cost. It has also faced, as a product of these policy changes, the negative impact of user pays. I would advocate that a greater share of ANTA funding needs to be directed to the role of further education in Australia. We need to recognise that adult and community education is very often the first critical step to a more structured type of vocational education.We have a big problem in this country whenever we talk about lifelong learning. To be serious about lifelong learning in Australia, we need to do something about the one in four Australians who currently never go back to any sort of learning after they leave school. Twenty-five per cent of our adult population never return to any form of education after they leave school. To bring those people back into TAFE and university often requires a first step—the valuable first step of adult and community education.There are plenty of examples around the country where adult education provides that valuable role in bringing people back into education. It gives them the confidence to think that education can be a regular part of their life, and the confidence to take that first step back into an education institution and go on to higher qualifications. I saw such an example, for instance, at the Kiama ACE provider in the electorate of Gilmore. They received correspondence from a woman who had been there years before for a horticultural course. She wrote to them to thank them for giving her the confidence and the enthusiasm for education, as she undertakes her pure maths degree at Wollongong University.Education is unlimited in its potential for what it can do for people and what it can do for a society, but for many Australians the important thing is to re-engage them with the power and potential of learning, and that is where adult education has such an important role to play. I highly recommend to the government the need to look at the ANTA funding arrangements to provide a greater share of resources to adult education.So much more needs to be done in lifelong learning. All these points are emphasised by studies around the world, including by the US educationalist Dick Balm, who has recently produced some interesting figures about adult education and its importance for higher qualifications. So much needs to be done for lifelong learning, but so little is being done by the Howard government. As soon as we can change that situation and put more resources into adult education as well as vocational education, it will be a very good service to this country, and it is one of the things that needs to be considered in the parliament's assessment of this ANTA bill.Debate interrupted.Miscellaneous191918:55:001919Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I seek your indulgence to advise members of the arrangements for the balance of this day.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Thank you. The intention is that the House will take a dinner break just after 7 p.m., when this particular bill has been completed. That will complete all of the matters currently before the House, and that will finish off outstanding matters. We propose to have a dinner break so that members can get out until 8.30 p.m., when the House will resume. At 8.30 p.m. we will have valedictories. Upon the conclusion of valedictories, we expect then to have an extended adjournment. This is necessary to allow time for the private health legislation to return from the Senate. I am not able at this stage to say exactly when that might be, but some hours would be our estimate. At 8.30 p.m., or thereabouts, I will give the House a further update on the information available at that time. So just after 7 p.m. there will be a dinner break until 8.30 p.m. We will have valedictories and then an extended adjournment and, with a bit of luck, we will complete matters within a reasonable time after that. I thank the House.Bills1920r6121920Debate resumed.18:57:001920Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I thank those members who have taken part in this debate, because this Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 amends the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992 to reflect the new agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories on vocational education and training, setting out planning, accountability and funding arrangements for the three years 1998-2000.By way of consequential amendments, the bill also amends the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 to incorporate into the general allocation the funding previously set aside specifically to support off-the-job training for traineeships, to supplement the amounts appropriated for 1998 and 1999 in accordance with real price movements reflected in Treasury indices, and to rectify an omission made in the original Australian National Training Authority Act by making it clear that the Australian National Training Authority, or ANTA, is exempt from state and territory taxes, to which the Commonwealth is not subject.The new ANTA agreement reflected in this bill is founded on a recognition by the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments that vocational education and training is integral to the development of an Australian work force with the range and depth of skills necessary to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry.The member for Dobell claimed that the process of negotiating the new agreement was a difficult one and that the result was a compromise. This of course is true of most negotiations. The original ANTA agreement was a compromise. The former Labor government began negotiations with the aim of the Commonwealth assuming responsibility for vocational education and training. As we all know, the negotiations ended with the creation of the Australian National Training Authority. Of course, there was the usual posturing during negotiations on the new agreement but, at the end of the day, all the ministers remained committed to a national industry-led vocational education and training system.A key feature of the new agreement is that it provides a stable basis for funding vocational education and training over the next three years. The Commonwealth will maintain funding to the states and territories in real terms over the period of the agreement, and states and territories have undertaken to achieve growth in their vocational education and training systems through efficiencies. Growth has been achieved. States and territories collectively plan to deliver an extra 70,000 student places in 1999, over the figure for 1997.Since 1995, the level of unmet demand has fallen by more than one-third—from 74,300 in 1995 to 48,100 in 1997. States and territories not only plan to provide more places but also plan to do so more efficiently, with national unit costs anticipated to improve by 3.6 per cent over 1997. These are not figures that the Commonwealth has just dreamt up; they are figures from the ANTA board's report—figures agreed by all states and territories. However you look at this, the ANTA board's reports are a significant result.State and territory ministers for vocational education and training have agreed in 1999 to deliver a total of 1.5 million enrolments, more than 138,000 new apprenticeship places—which is an increase of nearly 10 per cent—and, overall, 4,000 school based apprenticeships. It is an excellent outcome, particularly for young Australians who will benefit from additional vocational education and training places that will help them gain real jobs. It is also a win for taxpayers, who can be assured that the funds will be put to the best possible use. Of course, it could have been better if the largest state, New South Wales, improved its efficiency. New South Wales predicts that it will only be 0.43 per cent more efficient in 1999 than it was in 1997. In contrast, South Australia predicts an improvement of 10.27 per cent.The member for Dobell claims that the efficiency has led Victoria's vocational education and training system into dire trouble. Responsibility for the management of vocational education and training in Victoria is a matter for the Victorian minister, but it is worth noting that Victoria has made significant efforts to improve efficiency in recent years and has the lowest unit cost of any state or territory. By comparison, New South Wales, for example, spends nearly a third more than Victoria for the same output. Victoria also has the highest participation rates in vocational education and training and higher pass rates than New South Wales. It has the highest employer satisfaction rates with vocational education and training of any state or territory. Overall, it would seem that efficiency and quality are not mutually exclusive, as the opposition would have us believe.The member for Dobell would also have one believe that the GST will make education more expensive. The Treasurer has made the point that, under the government's tax reform, education becomes cheaper. Those who supply education will get all of their tax back and there is no tax on outputs. Education will, therefore, be cheaper and more affordable than it is under Labor's tax embedded inputs.It is evidence of this government's commitment to the vocational education and training sector that over the next three years the Commonwealth will contribute more than $2.7 billion through the ANTA agreement, and this is in addition to around $400 million annual funding for other Commonwealth vocational education and training programs. Total Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training in 1998-99 will be $1.4 billion—an increase of $46 million over the previous financial year and an increase of $190 million over the last year of Labor government.The government has acknowledged the challenges each state and territory will face in implementing nationally agreed initiatives. The new ANTA agreement will allow states and territories as equal partners to identify and plan for future growth requirements, including requirements arising from major changes in factors affecting demand. A key element of the ANTA agreement is the National Strategy for Vocational Education and Training for 1998 to 2003. This strategy, which was endorsed in May this year by all state and territory ministers for vocational education and training, expresses the same spirit of cooperation and collaboration evident in the ANTA agreement. It is a collective commitment by all Australian governments to work in partnership with the industry to make our vocational education and training sector one of the best in the world. It sets out a vision for the development of the sector over the next five years. As a visionary statement, it is not surprising that it has a life beyond the current agreement.The new agreement is not only about funding; it is also about ensuring the high quality of training by reinforcing the national framework for competency standards, recognition and qualifications. It provides a solid foundation for improving choice, including through increased competition within the vocational education and training sector, and it also implements the user choice for apprenticeships and traineeships whereby funds flow to the training provider chosen by employers and apprentices or trainees.A network of strong TAFE institutes operating alongside and in competition with quality private providers is an essential feature and an effective response of the vocational education and training sector. Increased competition is an important mechanism that can drive improvements in the training system to increase responsiveness, efficiency, quality and client choice, providing a basis to encourage a stronger training culture in Australian enterprises and through the Australian community.The member for Batman is concerned about skill shortages, and so are we. Since the early 1980s, long before this government, shortages have been recorded in some areas. It is worth remembering also that shortages of skilled people now may be the result of a failure in the training system five or more years ago. This government is making a concerted effort to develop and improve school based vocational training arrangements so that young people can maximise their employment prospects. We are also working to make vocational education and training more flexible, responsible and attractive to business.In the past, many employers, particularly in small business, have been put off from recruiting apprentices by the complexity of the arrangements, the red tape and the need to deal with many organisations. To assist in overcoming these barriers, the government has introduced improved apprenticeship and trainee support services. From 1 May, employers, apprentices and trainees have had access to new apprenticeship centres, which will help cut red tape and provide a one-stop integrated service. There are currently 60 organisations operating new apprenticeship centres in over 200 sites across Australia as part of the Job Network. The Job Network has outperformed the old Commonwealth Employment Service where it counts—in placing more job seekers in work. It is clearly not failing, as the member for Batman would have us believe.Apprenticeships have been modernised and are now expanding real work based training into new industries and occupations. In a flexible way, they are delivering training which responds directly to the needs of businesses and are opening up opportunities for many young Australians in high growth industries as well as in traditional trades. Already, new apprenticeships are expanding into industries such as agriculture and telecommunications and information technology, where many occupations have had no nationally recognised training arrangements or qualifications in the past.The number of trainees and apprentices in training reached record levels at the end of September. If current trends continue we expect around 200,000 people will be in new apprenticeship training by the end of 1998. To underpin the strong growth in training opportunities for young people, the federal government has allocated $433 million in the 1998-99 budget to support the continued expansion of new apprenticeships.The member for the Northern Territory has made comments about the Institute of Aboriginal Development and I would remind the member, if he had been in the chamber, that $2.6 million was allocated by ANTA to the Northern Territory government for redevelopment of IAD. The states and territories are responsible for management of vocational education and training within their own jurisdictions. The Commonwealth has no role in this matter and it is a question for the Northern Territory to sort out with the IAD. But the money is still with the Australian National Training Authority. It has not been reallocated.The member for Werriwa has made a number of points, all of which have been covered in my previous comments. Through the new ANTA agreement the Commonwealth, states and territories have made a commitment to continue to work together with industry to ensure that Australia's vocational education and training systems provide expanded opportunities for young people and improve skills for the work force and the broader community.The Commonwealth, states and territories will be working together with industry to achieve these objectives. The new agreement is a big win for the young people of Australia, who will benefit from improvements to the quality and relevance of training as well as additional training opportunities, and also for taxpayers who will see real benefits for increased efficiency.Again, I thank members who have taken part and I commend this bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1922Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Ms Worth) read a third time.Sitting suspended from 7.11 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.Valedictory192320:30:001923Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, could I have your indulgence to offer some valedictory remarks. There is a reasonable presumption that this will be the last occasion that the House will sit this year. It is therefore in accordance with time honoured tradition that, as Prime Minister, I offer some valedictory remarks. I do so, if I can be forgiven for saying so, with a great deal of pride and satisfaction because it has indeed been a very good year for the government. We believe modestly and respectfully that it has also been a good year for Australia.I would like to start by thanking all of my colleagues in the Liberal and National parties for the tremendous support and help that they have afforded me as Prime Minister and as coalition leader over the last 12 months. Inevitably, because this has been an election year, the recollections of the year are dominated by the election campaign, which culminated in the government's return on 3 October.In the nature of political combat, it is never possible to say farewell to people who either retire at election campaigns or get defeated. This year was no exception because the election campaign was called after a winter adjournment of some weeks. Therefore, I was not able to extend some of the courtesies that I would have liked as Prime Minister and party leader to have extended to a number of colleagues who announced their intention of retiring separately from those who had no intention of retiring but who were retired by the operation of the democratic process.I do want to record in particular my thanks to a number of my colleagues who announced their retirement at the last election. I start with Ian McLachlan, that very elegant, gracious and decent former Minister for Defence and the member for Barker since 1990. I have a great affection for Ian. He was a good colleague and a good friend. I also think he was a very good defence minister. He was, in his earlier days—and still is because he is a very fine golfer—a very good sportsman, being 12th man in the Australian team in the early 1960s. He brought a certain flair and style to his portfolio. I wish him and Janet well and the very best of luck in the future.I have a special affection for Bill Taylor, who retired as the member for Groom. As Leader of the Opposition in 1988, and not terribly long after the 1987 election—where I ran into two brick walls: one of them had Bob Hawke written on it and the other had Joh Bjelke-Petersen written on it—I had the good fortune of campaigning for Bill Taylor as the Liberal candidate for the seat of Groom in Queensland. We recorded a magnificent swing not only to the coalition but also within the coalition to the Liberal Party—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It was really good, admit it.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—It was very good.8I4MARTINMr Martin—You knocked off the Nationals, John!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Don't bring ungracious thoughts into this, this is not the occasion. I did it very sensitively and graciously. Let us not talk of these factional variations; let us think of the broader cause. Bill, good luck in the future. You were a great servant of the Liberal Party.There are two other people I would like to thank. Bruce Reid, who held the seat of Bendigo, came in that great anti-Labor flood in Victoria in 1990.HM5GEORGIOUMr Georgiou—Which one?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Without doubt it was the greatest number of seats won federally in Victoria in any federal election, Petro, I think since the war. I think the member for Kooyong was the state director on that occasion. It was a great campaign. I think Victoria had something to do with it as well. Bruce was a very distinguished member and well liked on both sides of the House.Finally, I thank Bob Halverson, who is now the Australian Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See. He occupies a position that has been occupied by a number of colourful people in Australian politics. The very first was a Scottish Presbyterian. It was one of Sir Robert Menzies's ironic touches to appoint Hugh Roberton, a Scottish Presbyterian, as the first Australian ambassador to Ireland.Government member interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I do not know about that.I do want to record my thanks to some of the other colleagues who lost their seats. Some of them may return—I hope they do. Some may not. Whatever may be their future, I do want to say thank you to Bob Baldwin, the former member for Paterson; Eoin Cameron, the former member for Stirling; Richard Evans, the former member for Cowan; Elizabeth Grace, the former member for Lilley; Sue Jeanes, the former member for Kingston; Ricky Johnston, the former member for Canning; Graeme McDougall, the former member for Griffith; Don Randall, the former member for Swan; Andrea West, the former member for Bowman; Russell Broadbent, the former member for McMillan; and Nick Dondas, the former member for the Northern Territory. I particularly record my respects to Warwick Smith, the former member for Bass. Finally, I thank Chris Miles, the former member for Braddon. They are colleagues who are remembered by their friends. They represent those who were defeated at an election when the coalition had a particularly large majority. Inevitably some casualties were suffered. I thank all of them for the contribution that they made to the coalition and for the contribution they made to the first 2½ years of the coalition's first of many terms in office.Turning now to those who continue to occupy the government benches, today was the day on which the House of Representatives passed the monumental historic and groundbreaking reform of the Australian taxation system. I want to thank all of my government colleagues for the tremendous support that they have given to me and to the Treasurer. Amongst my leadership colleagues, I particularly want to record my gratitude to my friend and colleague the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister.I have said this before—and I will say it again because it does bear repeating—no Prime Minister could have a finer, more effective, more loyal deputy than I have in Tim Fischer. Tim Fischer is a fine Leader of the National Party. He is an extremely good trade minister and I can say without any fear of contradiction that one of the best known Australian names, wherever you go in the world, at a political level is Tim Fischer.Mr Beazley interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I am glad the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me. The Leader of the National Party enjoys that affection and that reputation because he has a quality that I think all of us admire, and that is, he is a very sincere and genuine person. You may disagree with Tim Fischer's politics, you may not like his views on particular things, but he is a genuine article and he does believe in things. He is a very honest, upright Australian who has served his country in both war and peace. I salute you, Tim, for the tremendous contribution that you have made to the strength and the integrity of the government.I would also particularly like to thank the other members of the leadership team. For the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and the Treasurer, Peter Costello, this year has been a special year. Any Treasurer who is able to boast on this valedictory night that he has presided over the introduction of the biggest single reform to the Australian taxation system since Federation is a person who has held that job with enormous distinction. Peter has done a remarkably good job in the course of this year and I thank him very warmly.I also thank my other colleagues in the leadership group—Senator Robert Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate; Senator Richard Alston, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate; and John Anderson, the Deputy Leader of the National Party and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. All of them have combined to give tremendous help to me and they have all combined to add to the effectiveness of the government throughout the year.The other person I would particularly like to thank is the Leader of the House and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. I do not think any minister in the government during 1998 went through a period of greater pressure and greater criticism from the other side and from others outside the parliament than did the minister to whom I have just referred.The load that he carried—and may I say that he carried it with strength, determination and conviction—during the waterfront dispute would have been enough to have broken other men and women, but it did not the minister. I salute him and I thank him for the tremendous stoicism that he displayed during that task. We are now beginning to see the fruits of that commitment and hard work. The tide has turned in the public assessment of who really won the waterfront dispute and the tide has turned in a very big way. The minister has every reason to feel particularly grateful for that.I thank all of my other ministerial and parliamentary colleagues. I thank the people who have served in the position of Chief Government Whip during the year. To you, sir, who served in that position, to the honourable member for Mitchell, to the honourable member for Ballarat who has been the Chief Government Whip since the last election, to the member for Corangamite, to the member for Forde and to all of the others, I express my intense gratitude.I also express my gratitude to the now retired but very well remembered former member for Riverina, Noel Hicks, who was the National Party whip. I do not think this parliament in my 25 years has seen a finer winner of marginal seats than Noel Hicks. His boundaries were changed on him time without number but he still kept coming back and he turned deficits of several per cent on the old figures into very comfortable margins. To him and to John Forrest, the member for Mallee, I express my thanks also.To all of my other ministerial colleagues and to all of my colleagues on the government backbench, I thank all of you for the help during the year. I thank my staff. The staff of a Prime Minister carry a very heavy burden. I particularly thank Arthur Sinodinos, my chief of staff, and Tony Nutt, my principal private secretary, and all the rest of my staff who have done such a remarkable job throughout the year.To you, Mr Speaker, I thank you. I congratulate you on your stewardship of the House. It is not an easy job, but I think you have done it with good humour and flair. I wish you and your wife a very merry Christmas and a very relaxing early part of the year.To the Deputy Speakers and to the whips I also express my gratitude. Ian Harris, the Clerk, is warmly regarded and seen as a person of impeccable impartiality and a great professional. I salute Ian and his deputy, Bernard Wright, for the work that both of them have done, and the professional assistance that they render to both sides of the House.To Brian Walshe, the supervisor of the chamber attendants, who is retiring in January after 17 years, I want to particularly thank you. Seventeen years is a long time to serve this parliament, and I wish you and your family well. In that same breath, I also want to record my thanks to Ian Cochran, who retired in August this year after very long service to the House—I think since 1955—in a large number of positions.There are many other people who are deserving of thanks: the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, particularly the Chief Hansard Reporter, Bernie Harris; the Parliamentary Information Systems Office; the staff of the Joint House Department; the protective service officers, and all of those who arrange the travel for members and senators. I want to thank the staff of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who help in the day-to-day running of the parliament; the PLO, Matt Minogue; the tabling officer, Suzanne de Smet and the assistant, Grant Woodbridge. They are some of the people that a Prime Minister should thank at this time of the year. Inevitably I will have left some people out and I apologise to those people.There is another group of people I would like to thank, and in doing so I hope I speak on behalf of everybody in this chamber. They are our families—our wives, our husbands our children, our loved ones, our friends and our siblings. Whatever the relationship or the friendship may be, they endure periods of separation. It is an irregular, challenging life for the family of a member of parliament, and it does exact a very heavy toll on occasions, which I think all of us regret. But we come here because we want to be here—none of us is conscripted. If we are honest with ourselves, I have never found anybody who has been genuinely reluctant to be a member of this parliament, and those who pretend that they are reluctant to be members of this parliament are really deluding themselves and the people to whom they are addressing that question. We come here by choice. Our families often regret that choice but, overwhelmingly, they support it and they endure the separation that is involved as a consequence.I have been extremely fortunate during my almost 25 years in parliament to have had an extremely understanding and supportive wife and very understanding and supportive children. Without them I would not have been able to come here and do my level best as a member of parliament, as a minister, as an opposition leader and as a Prime Minister. On this occasion, perhaps in a representative way, I want to express my gratitude to Janette and to my three children for the tremendous understanding, loyalty and support they have given to me. I know it is a sentiment that any Prime Minister would express, and it is a sentiment that any party leader would express. I know that Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, will share the sentiments that I have expressed. So to our families in particular we record a special debt of gratitude and thank them. Whatever our differences may be, it is a tremendous privilege to live in the kind of robust democracy that we enjoy in Australia.We had these valedictories a year ago, where the usual banter was exchanged, with the usual comments made about the lack of longevity of the government and the likely changes in geography, in position and so forth. That is the natural cut and thrust of politics, and it would be a very odd chamber if that did not occur. We had an election campaign. It was hard fought. The Labor Party won a number of seats from us. We emerged with a comfortable majority. We all put our interpretations on it but, at the end of the day, it was an exercise in democracy that did more credit to us collectively than it did to any one side individually. I think it is very important that we remember that. It is a remarkable fact of life that we can have that kind of contest, and if the will of the people is to change the government it occurs peacefully and without bloodshed. There are disappointments, there are heartaches, and there are people who feel intensely embittered by their rejection by the electorate but, in the end, we do it in a democratic Australian fashion.We have a special democratic quality in this country that is quite distinct from any other. I have often argued that there is a distinctive Australian political culture. One of the big mistakes that people on both sides of politics often make is to overcompare democracy and politics in this country with democracy and politics in countries such as the United States of America or the United Kingdom. There is a special Australian political culture which is quite separate and quite distinctive, and we are particularly privileged to be part of that very, very special democratic culture and that very, very special democratic nature.As we come to the end of another year, I intend to have a good holiday. I think all of us have worked pretty hard during the year, and I do not think any but the most uncharitable and the most unreasonable would argue that we should not have a few weeks off to recharge the batteries, to spend some time with our families and with those whom we wish to spend time with. I would like to take the opportunity in advance of wishing my opposite number, the Leader of the Opposition, a happy 50th birthday—it is a milestone in anybody's life.Honourable members interjecting—Hear, hear!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I am filled with feelings of goodwill towards the Leader of the Opposition and I am very grateful for his contribution. I want to wish you, Kim, Susie and your children, a happy celebration of your birthday on 14 December.To those of us who see in Christmas a source of spiritual renewal and attach a religious significance to it, it is a very special occasion. To those who do not, whose views I fully respect and understand, it is an important occasion for families to get together and for people to renew their friendships. I hope all of you have an extremely enjoyable Christmas. I will no doubt be forgiven on one side of the House for saying this, but I think this parliament adjourns into Christmas with the Australian economy and the Australian psyche in extremely good shape.Government members interjecting—Hear, hear!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I think this will be in economic terms—and to repeat a phrase I used not so long ago—the most golden of Christmases. It is a long time since the Australian economy has celebrated a Christmas as good and as vigorous as this. It is still the case that there are a large number of Australians who will not celebrate a happy Christmas. They will not celebrate a happy Christmas because they are poor. They will not celebrate a happy Christmas because they will suffer tragedy and they will not celebrate a happy Christmas because they will endure the tragedy of domestic unhappiness, denial and deprivation. In our own individual way, we have a responsibility to do what we can to assist in relation to that.To all the members of the parliament and their families, I wish you a very merry Christmas. I look forward to seeing all of you again, and I shall look forward with great enthusiasm, renewed energy, commitment and zeal to returning here at the end of the first week in February and rejoining the great battle for the political soul and heart of the Australian people.20:53:001927Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I thank the Prime Minister for his kind personal remarks, joining the ranks of the large numbers of people who remind me of the last four days of my youth. I appreciate it nevertheless. Can I reciprocate with regard to the good wishes that he extended to me and my family and extend those to Janette and his kids. I hope he enjoys the Christmas break and heads off for a decent enough holiday.Whether or not you agree with the person who is Prime Minister of the country, it is a heavy burden to bear—Prime Minister of this nation—under any circumstances. Whether or not you think it is being borne well, it is still a heavy burden. We always like a Prime Minister who is comfortable and relaxed and I do hope that he enjoys a period of time in which he is comfortable and relaxed over the course of the next few weeks.He was kind enough to mention certain features of the election campaign. Talking about the issue of comfortable and relaxed, there were several occasions during the election campaign when so frozen with fright were our opponents on the front bench that I felt like ringing them up and telling them what our marginal seat polling was showing us, which was that, right through the election campaign, you did not have all that much to fear in terms of whether or not your government was going to survive. But for some reason or other, you managed to convince yourselves otherwise. I was utterly delighted at the end of the day to emerge with the seats that we did in the course of that process. I did not feel like giving you any more of a sense of enjoyment than what you might get from the inevitable outcome, given that you had so many seats for us to pick up. The surprise we got on election day was that the majority of the Australian people were with us. That was a surprise but it seems that it is a lesson not learned by the government.Before I go into any of the normal personal matters on valedictories, I would like to start, unusually, by talking about a person who is retiring, Brian Walshe. He is retiring, as the Prime Minister said, from full-time work with the department on 6 January. He joined the department in 1981. He has served in all attendant functions. In particular, Brian has been the supervising attendant in the chamber during sitting weeks since 1988; in other words, for the whole life of the new Parliament House. When the House is not sitting—and this is why we owe him particular thanks—he works in the area that serves the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow ministry.He is a quiet, unassuming person and he anticipates the needs of members and efficiently does his job. In the chamber, papers are circulated on time and the needs of members are met quietly and efficiently. When he is working with the shadow executive he tries at all times to anticipate the needs of members, to make sure that paper is supplied to photocopiers and that special requests for mail distribution are dealt with. His demeanour is always cheerful and helpful and he sees his job as very focused on the provision of excellent service. He still plays a mean game of tennis, I am told, and bowls, and is a committed supporter of the Magpies in Aussie rules. That wrecks everything I have had to say to this point! I am told he likes to have a quiet punt—but he is allowed to deny this news to his wife if it is, indeed, news to her. His great love is his wife, Joan, and his nine children. He is looking forward to Christmas when eight of his nine children, together with his grandchildren, will join him and Joan here in Canberra.It is a terrific record that you have in this place, Brian. I guess you symbolise for us the wonderful service that we get from the entirety of the staff here, starting with the clerks, Ian Harris and Bernard Wright, and moving from that point through all the staff and attendants, the Bills and Papers Office staff, the Table Office and research staff, the Serjeant-At-Arms, Judy Middlebrook, Dalma Dixon and their helpful staff, and the Hansard staff. We do appreciate the fact that some members are more coherent than others and some are more coherent at different times of the day than others. We are painful to listen to and we must be painful to transcribe; nevertheless, the work is done efficiently and well.I also thank the Jetset staff for what has been a smooth transition and good service, and the other House of Representatives staff, including the printing staff. The Parliamentary Library deserve special praise from us all. We have a superb Parliamentary Library service. It is not something that you necessarily appreciate when you are in government but you sure as heck appreciate them if you happen to be on the back bench or you happen to go into opposition. They really do a terrific job for us.We are also superbly served by the Joint House staff—the cleaning staff, maintenance staff, gardeners, marketing and visitors staff, and the switchboard staff. This is one of Australia's premier tourist attractions. There are a lot of great volunteers around here who make absolutely certain that the thousands and thousands of Australians who wish to witness each year the functioning of their democracy at its peak level, at its apex, get a good chance to do that because they are superbly guided around the building by them.The staff in the cafeteria and Aussie's cafe are always cheerful and helpful to us, as are the shop operators, bank staff, Qantas office staff, hairdresser and all the other Joint House staff. I want to give special thanks to the Comcar drivers, who have done it pretty tough for the last few years and who, nevertheless, serve us very loyally. From my own point of view, Alan MacKenzie, who often drives me here, and my driver in Perth, Rick Boyland, are always very helpful to me in ensuring that I stay, so to speak, on the road.These are the people who make life possible here. We are about 147 members of this place—there are 76 senators—but there are about 3,000 other people who actually work one way or another in or to this building. It is an extraordinary centre of employment in that sense. It takes quite a bit to keep the democracy going and they do very well indeed in supporting our activities here.As Labor Party leader, I am enormously proud of the caucus I have got. We have had a transforming experience in this caucus: 27 new members, 19 as a result of taking seats from our political opponents. There has never been a restructuring in one term of opposition like this—not just in the history of the Labor Party but in politics in this country. It has really been an extraordinary outcome. As I look along the benches and see the faces of people literally half my age or less coming to this parliament, I am amazed— Opposition members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Not very many up with me. I went through an interesting exercise, just to show the turnover in this place, which all members might like to bear in mind when people from time to time criticise the conditions of members of parliament. Somebody pointed out to me the other day that there were 12 members only of the caucus that had voted for Paul Keating in the 1991 ballot, so I sat down with the whip and worked out that there are only 13 who voted for Bob Hawke. The changeover is such that, of the 96 members of the caucus—which is a strong position for an opposition—25 only were here in 1991. That gives an indication of the pace of change. I feel I arrived in this place yesterday, but I am the second longest serving member of the House of Representatives in this parliament, behind Leo McLeay, who is the longest serving member of the opposition in this place. So there is a pretty hefty turnover in Australian politics.While I am enormously grateful for the infusion of new life that we have been given, there are one or two of the older hands that I would like to thank now. I would like to thank Simon, who has just emerged as deputy but was an extraordinarily effective front bencher in the devising of policy and a very effective campaigner. I think the very strong comeback we made in regional Australia was in no small measure due to the contribution he made. I want to thank Bob McMullan, too, who was on the campaign aircraft with me as we watched our position and our marginal seat campaigning polling go from minus two to plus 19 in the course of a five-week campaign, which we thought was pretty darned good. I thank him for the role that he played in that regard.I notice the Prime Minister thanked his Senate leader, and so I should thank mine: John Faulkner. We have a very tough operation in the Senate and a very effective one, as many ministers in the last parliament had occasion to know. The team up there is still in town and still performing very effectively, and will continue to do so.I would like to thank too, on the old hand front, Leo McLeay, who is our long-serving Chief Opposition Whip, and I think members on both sides of the House accept him as the chamber's chief trade unionist. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of Australian politics and does very well indeed. He is joined by Bob Sercombe and Rod Sawford as whips on our side. They are also longstanding servants of the Labor Party in this place.It is invidious to isolate members of your front bench—you really need to talk about those who have the most relationship to the daily functioning of the House, and I have, but the Prime Minister was kind enough to mention some of his colleagues who in some way or another had stepped aside from the situation in which they found themselves. In that regard, I would like to acknowledge Gareth Evans and his very longstanding service to the Australian Labor Party and the Australian people. He is, without question, the greatest foreign minister this nation has ever had.Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am sorry, no. He does not make it on that front. Gareth Evans has been the strongest foreign minister this country has had. If you do not believe it here, just go overseas. You will find that is the response there. There is a response to Tim—I do agree with that—there is another response to Gareth. Tim makes his contribution, I do not knock it, but, in terms of the effective intellectual leadership that Gareth Evans has exercised in international politics, there is no point of comparison with anyone on the other side of the House, or on this side of the House for that matter. His foreign policy contribution has been very substantial indeed. So Gareth has made a great contribution to the political life in this nation. I do not think, as I said, anybody would seriously dispute that.I think I should thank my staff, too. I have never before mentioned them all by name in valedictories, and I do not think I will have the opportunity to do so again, so I intend to do so on this occasion. I think on the first valedictory after an election you can have a bit of indulgence. So I would like to thank David Epstein, Mike Pezzullo, John Angley, Dominic Nagle, Leith Greenslade, Mike Megaw, Chris Barrett, Greg Turnbull, John Flannery, Justin Di Lollo, Liz Iser, Louise Cullen, Sarah Crichton, Denise Taunton, Karen Bissaker, Anna George, Julia Clifford, Virginia Stanhope, Debra Biggs and, in my Perth office, Helen Bissett, Mike Woodhouse, Kelly Peck and Trena Buncle. There they are. Sometimes they feel unappreciated; they are now forever recorded in the Hansard of this nation. I am deeply grateful for the things they have done.Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—You have got into Hansard often enough, so I suppose its worth putting you in there again. In terms of staff, it is appropriate that I thank the whips office staff, who serve a broader community than the whips office; that is, Joan Connor and Ann Stewart, who have done a particularly good job during the course of the year.We are a larger bunch than we were. That is good. We now emerge from the election campaign into this parliament as the largest party in the parliament, and that speaks well of a party organisation external to here and those thousands and thousands of people who worked for us in the election campaign.The Prime Minister mentioned our families and he mentioned too that we are all volunteers here. We are, but they are not. They are conscripted. Their sense of loyalty, their sense of devotion, their willingness to support us—often through thick and thin and in extremely difficult circumstances—is driven by a sense of obligation, not the joy of being in this place, not the authority that comes with making a contribution at the very pinnacle of democratic practice in your community. That does not go with them, and there is not necessarily a great deal of joy for them. We all know what they face up to at home. The life of politicians does not pass without criticism. We, however, are hermetically sealed here; they are not. Often they confront whatever it is that is washing over us. But that which laps against the front entrance of parliament washes over them in the shopping centres or in their place of residence. They approach it all with enormous courage, and we owe them an incalculable debt of gratitude. They also provide us with a sense of joy.There have been terrible psychological studies done of politicians, I have to advise new members. This is not an ideological or party perspective—I am afraid it applies on all sides. We do apparently develop, over a lengthy period in parliament, a certain psychological approach to the rest of the community which tends to seal us off from them. It seals us off from the batterings that we get and we view people, over a lengthy enough period, with a degree of suspicion. These are interesting studies that have been made of us. They are done by people with more scientific bent than anyone in this chamber. Nevertheless, it is an indication of the pressures that come upon us.I want to wish all members of this place a chance to rest and recreate over the course of the next few weeks. These are the chances that we get to return to a bit of sanity, a bit of ordinariness and a bit of normal relationships; the sorts of things that are enjoyed by all other members of the community, which our circumstances often deprive us of and for which we receive no external sympathy at all—none whatsoever. Nevertheless, there are often hard times for us. Because of the pain and difficulty that I know many of our families experience, the loss that many of us experience and the sadness that many of us, on both sides of the House, experience, we really do need this time of the year. I think that, on the whole, we deserve it. In that regard, I wish all members on both sides of the House a very happy, fruitful and restful Christmas.That brings us to you, Mr Speaker. In terms of feeling isolated, introverted, assaulted and despised, I guess every single Speaker feels that way. I suppose, as you look back on the course of this year, you contemplate the fact that there are three Speakers and only you have survived. You would feel, no doubt, like the ancient mariner as you look about you at the end of this year: `The many men so beautiful and they all dead did lie, but a thousand slimy things lived on and so did I.' For you, I suppose, it is a matter of quiet satisfaction as you see that clock ticking towards 1 January and think: `No matter what happens from this point on, when that little book produced by Hansard on services for members of parliament comes out, it will at least say "Speaker from 1998 to 1999."' You have crossed the rubicon and you will tick off each year of survival in the Speaker's chair with a deal of gratitude, no doubt. It is a tough, hard job and we appreciate the fact that it is a tough, hard job. You deserve Christmas at least as much as everybody in this chamber.I thank too the Leader of the House and the whips on the opposition side. The whips on the government side probably have more to do with the day-to-day management of affairs and dealings with the opposition than anyone else. We cannot say we necessarily enjoy the treatment we receive; nevertheless, we acknowledge the fact that you do keep this House running. That is part of your job. It is an important job, an important part of making sure that democracy functions effectively in this country. We thank you for that role you perform and wish you a merry Christmas too.So we look at the scene at the end of this year and at our fellow Australians. As our fellow Australians look at the last year they face a situation which for them is very much a mixed bag, a mixed feast. Some have done very well this year. Some will continue to do very well. Some have suffered great and grievous loss, and many of those losses have been recognised by us here in this parliament. We think particularly of the firefighters whom from time to time we have had to recognise in this place; those who have lost their lives, as have others in voluntary services. Their families will not be having a good Christmas this year—not at all. That will not be their experience, nor will it be the experience of many others who have suffered in the course of this year.If you have had a loss, it is often at Christmas time when you feel that isolation most severely. We do, I think, spend a little time thinking of this as we sit in church—if that is our wont and belief—or as we sit to rest and reflect over Christmas time. I think it does pass the mind of the average member of parliament that they are part of a terrific community, a wonderful community; one which has joys and sorrows that they are proud to be part of. They sympathise with those people as part of the general Australian reaction, the general Australian attitude of mateship, the general Australian love and affection for their fellow human beings. We are capable of absorbing a little bit of the pain as well as a little of the joy of those whom we are proud and privileged to represent in this place.Finally, since the Prime Minister gave me a guernsey on birthdays: happy birthday, Bob McMullan. It happens to be your birthday today. Somebody obviously had a view about that human rights declaration and was so deeply pleased with it they thought they ought to celebrate by having you come along at that time. Bob is 51. It is very notable, Bob, that you have got to that age. At some point in time you must tell me what it is like to reach it. I will look forward to your advice on that matter.We are going to depart here fairly shortly—with any sort of luck for the Senate—and I wish us all a happy Christmas.21:15:001931Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—At the behest of the Leader of the House, I advise the House that the latest information is that the bill will come back from the Senate at a quite late hour tonight. The intention of the government is to keep sitting to allow the completion of this business this night so that we are not required to sit tomorrow.Mr Speaker, I want to reverse the orders in terms of thanks tonight. I guess I started the second day of this year preoccupied by two things: export prospects and election prospects. I want to begin by thanking those who ensured that I am standing at this dispatch box in December 1998: my own electors of Farrer who gave me an absolute majority—I thank them for that—and my campaign director, Mike Kettlewell, and chairman, Jenny Hawkins, and all others in the most elongated electorate in Australia. There were several occasions throughout the year on which I thought I might not be returned but, happily, that was not to be.I want to thank the Prime Minister especially for two bits of advice this particular year. The first was: notch back on the overseas travel and make it more focused and efficient so that you will not be away quite so often in the lead-up to the election.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Did you take my advice?DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—I did, thank you, and just as well as the result turned out. The second thing I think we all commend the Prime Minister for was that brilliant decision—we now know how wise it was in the light of the revelations here tonight—to reject that piece of advice in his office and in fact to proceed with a five-week campaign with polling day on 3 October rather than on 10 October. We thank you for that. I personally thank you, Prime Minister, for good leadership and governance.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—I am making a contribution, which could well do without the interjections of the members opposite, but I do want to thank the Prime Minister for his great and solid support for a very challenging 1998.I also thank my staff in Albury and in my Parliament House office. This year saw my chief of staff, Craig Symon, depart after 10 years working with me, and I wish him well. My new chief of staff, Jenelle Bonnor, and the whole of my staff team I thank very sincerely for the huge, long and hard hours that they complete.To members of the Liberal Party—I have mentioned the Prime Minister—Peter Costello and to all other members go my seasons greetings. I wish them all a happy Christmas and a deserved break and rest.Mr Speaker, you grace the chair you now occupy. You have had a hard start. You hit the ground running. You are doing it very well indeed. You have a right to be confident about the way you have established yourself in that very challenging position of Speaker. We wish you well and a safe trip to Lima, Peru, and back.To the other Deputy Speakers, I thank them. To the Clerk, Ian Harris, and his team: when I was speaking to Ian a few days ago I said, `There are so many changes with new members and new clerks. Could we have some photographs of the clerks at the table and the Main Committee staff to assist us?' Within a couple of days, given his normal efficiency, there they were on the table of the parliament. That is just another example of his efficiency. We thank you, Ian, and your team. I actually think your singing contribution in the parliamentary choir was very interesting today at lunchtime. I wish the choir well and hope they will join us at next year's Christmas concert. This year's Charity Christmas Concert will take place in the Great Hall, with bipartisan sponsorship, on Tuesday night of next week at 7 o'clock, and all are welcome to attend.To the Joint House Department, to transport, Comcar staff, Hansard, the House of Representatives printing staff, who are also printing the program for that Christmas concert: I thank them and I thank you, Brian, and your team. You can walk talk in your retirement from this place. We wish you well.To the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—I was pleased to touch base with them late this afternoon—Dr Ashton Calvert does a great and solid job and one which I acknowledge is in the finest traditions of the Public Service. I know my colleague and minister, Alexander Downer, who is en route to Bougainville tonight, will join me in saluting their work. To Austrade, under Charles Jamieson and their team scattered all over the world: I digress to thank Australians at overseas posts where it is often freezing cold at this time of the year—in Kazakhstan, minus 10, minus 15. We have an ambassador there, Peter Tesch, who is working away with a small team, doing it for Australia, symbolising the solid work of our ambassadors, high commissioners and Austrade officers right around the world.To all of the whips, especially John Forrest, who hit the ground running as well: my sincere thanks and congratulations. To the Senate National Party leader, Ron Boswell, to `Kyoto Rob Hill'—he deserves that title after the great work he has done in Kyoto not once but twice—and to Richard Alston and the ministerial senators and all senators: I wish them well.To the Leader of the Opposition and his team: happy birthday and happy Christmas. You deserve to get off the midnight horror Perth flights for at least four or five weeks. And to the independent member for Calare: the very best as well.Turning to my National Party colleagues just briefly, the Federal President, Don McDonald, and the organisational team have made a huge effort this year, and I acknowledge and recognise that. For my deputy leader, John Anderson, it was an especially sad year for him with a family tragedy. To you, John, and to your family: we wish you well. You more than most in this House deserve a good break.To my ministerial colleagues and to all of my parliamentary National Party colleagues go my thanks for your help and your support; safe motoring; and just remember that many of our colleagues on both sides of the House have had road accidents over the years due to all the hours we spend on the road in our big electorates. So please take good care.In 1998 we farewelled Ian Sinclair, Noel Hicks, Michael Cobb, John Sharp and Paul Marek, sadly. In 1999 we will farewell Bill O'Chee and Sandy Macdonald for the time being. That is a hard blow, but equally I am proud of the fact that at 8 p.m. on polling night I was able to walk into the tally room and say that, with the anti-trade and sometimes racist agenda of One Nation, they won zero seats in the House of Representatives, the National Party won 16 and the Liberal Party 64, as it turned out. So the government won 80 seats with a solid working majority of 12.To my wife Judy, who puts up with one helluva lot, to Dominic and Harrison, who do not yet quite realise how much they put up with, and to our extended families: my thanks and a happy Christmas.Finally, I mention that tonight I have some of my old 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment friends in the dining room. I will go back there; I think it is going to be a long night on several counts. You keep those links to people you had the privilege to serve with, in this case the 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment. To the Navy, the Army and the Air Force scattered all over Australia and beyond: I take this opportunity to wish them especially the greetings of the season and to thank them for the fine work they complete on behalf of the nation.So it is the end of the heaviest and hardest year I have ever done in politics, including my 13th election. I wish everybody a happy Christmas. Please wear your hat if you are out on the beach and outside over Christmas and New Year—the skin cancer rates are climbing. I hope you enjoy your Christmas. Enjoy the deserved break and all the very best for the last year of this century and the last year of the second millennium. Good luck.1933Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As the Speaker I enjoy a particular privilege, because without seeking indulgence from anyone—or, in a sense I am seeking indulgence from all of you—may I just respond to the Christmas greetings that have been extended in this chamber in the valedictory addresses. This has been by any measure an eventful year. In fact, the last four sitting weeks have been a particularly eventful part of that year. Much has been made of what has happened this year, but the reality for all of us is that the 147 members of the House of Representatives are really like an iceberg—the piece that the nation sees. But supporting us and keeping us above water are myriad staff who make up this House and make our lives possible.I join other members in giving thanks and extending best wishes for the festive season to the staff of all the parliamentary departments: the staff of the House of Representatives and the Senate; John Templeton and the Library staff; the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, including the Sound and Vision Office, PISO and the User Support System; and Mike Bolton and the Joint House staff.I express my own appreciation to my Deputy Speaker, Garry Nehl; to the second Deputy Speaker, Harry Jenkins—I could not be served by a better team, as both sides of the House know; and to all of the members of the Speaker's Panel, with whom I am pleased to be associated.I join you too in expressing my appreciation to the Clerk and to the Deputy Clerk; to the Clerk's assistants; to the Table Office and the Chamber Research Office and their staff.The parliamentary committees have scarcely had time to come into being and function, but those of us who have been here for longer than the length of this parliament know how essential is the role of the parliamentary committees. Those who have joined the parliament in the last election are about to discover the important role of the parliamentary committee staff.I, too, am grateful to the whips on both sides and to their staff for the leadership that they give in the way in which the House is managed. I express my thanks, on that note, to the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Matt Minogue, and his staff; to the Serjeant-At-Arms, particularly the new Serjeant, Judy Middlebrook, and the team in the Serjeant's office. I thank the Corporate Services Office and the staff; the Parliamentary Relations Office and the staff for all that they do to host incoming delegations. As the Speaker I have become increasingly aware of the key role they play in projecting Australia's image overseas. I thank the messenger and security staff, the Transport Office, the Comcar drivers, the guides and the nurses, the gardeners and the maintenance staff—all of whom keep this building in pristine condition and make it a building that we are proud to show to our guests at any time.I of course have a special sense of indebtedness to the staff that I have, in a sense, acquired and, in one instance, appointed to the Speaker's office. They are an exceptional staff of fine people, who have made my task in this office so much easier than I imagined it would be. With that I must also express my appreciation to my Wakefield electorate staff for the support they give me in the electorate with the extended time that is now being spent here in Canberra. A merry Christmas and best wishes for the New Year to everyone who is part of this special community who work in this House on the hill.I extend Christmas greetings to the Parliamentary Education Office, the Art Section, the switchboard operators—who are patient with all of us—and those who make up, as it were, the partially private sector of the house: Jetset, AUSPIC, Hyatt and the AFS, the Health and Recreation Centre, the Parliament Shop, the Marketing Services, the physiotherapists, Audrey's Florist, Lizzie's hairdressing, the post office staff, Qantas, those who at Dom's offer us service on a daily basis— always with a friendly smile, and of course the Westpac staff.The Leader of the Opposition said that we are here at the pinnacle of democratic practice in Australia. I believe he is right. But I believe that we would also agree that while we are here at the pinnacle we are only here because of the support that we receive from all of those people. I doubt whether in my 15 years in this place—as I commented last night—I have seen my colleagues looking quite as tired or ready for a break as they are at the end of 1998. So I extend to all of you and your families my best wishes for a truly relaxing Christmas and for time to spend with your families in renewal.Christmas is for some of us a time of religious significance; for others of us it is a time to spend with our families. From my perspective, I expect that, with my family, at least on Christmas Day—in common with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—I will be at worship. Expecting that to be the case with the family, I intend on that occasion to offer three prayers. I intend to offer a prayer for peace and goodwill, which would be consistent with the hopes of everyone in this parliament, whether they see Christmas in a religious context of not. I intend to offer a prayer of gratitude, for I am grateful for the fact that in this chamber I face parties that are led by fundamentally decent and talented men in the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I will be grateful for that, and I would not in that comment exclude for a moment the Independent member for Calare. Finally, I will pray that all other Australians, regardless of their religious conviction, may feel the same sense of goodwill and gratitude.Consideration interrupted.Leave of Absence1934Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Special Adjournment1935Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That the House at its rising adjourn until Monday, 8 February 1999 at 12.30 p.m. unless the Speaker, or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Valedictory1935Consideration resumed.21:21:001935Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Just to cement the other formalities, there will be a motion in due course for an adjournment, but it will be an extended adjournment which provides a 10-minute speaking opportunity for members as we await the Senate.I thought I might take a different tack in the valedictory tonight by starting with the hard part, and in doing so to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution this year. I thank him for remaining the Leader of the Opposition in an election year. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I worked closely with him when he was Manager of Opposition Business prior to the election. I thank the Chief Opposition Whip for the role that he plays.I also thank the Manager of Opposition Business for the cooperation he has shown in the time that he has held this particular opposite number position since the election. He was, of course, my shadow in the previous parliament, so we have had a fair bit to do with each other through 1998. I have great hopes for the Manager of Opposition Business. It was very good to see him get this job. He can be very civilised and reasonable to deal with, and we have high hopes for him in the year ahead. As it is his birthday, I want to really try and make an impression on him how keen we are to have good working relations with the opposition. Whilst they do not often agree with what we propose by way of management of the House, I would have to say that I talk to him a hell of a lot more than my predecessor ever talked to me about operations in the House.I do have a small memento, which I will not table because it will end up in the ar chives, so I will pass it across the table. It is a very good photo of the Manager of Opposition Business from the Canberra Times. It is him driving a train—a toy train.UNKNOWNA government memberA government member—Going round in circles.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Yes, it would be going round in circles. It looks like the Labor front bench sitting behind him, I have to say. It says on the back, `Your job is to keep the Labor Party on track. Watch out for Simon and Leo on your back.' Happy birthday to Bob. I did not go to a lot of trouble for this photo, though, because one of my previous staff members gave it to me. He gave it to me because Montgomery always had a photo of Rommel with him. He reckoned it is a good idea to have a photo of your opponent so it can remind you to keep an eye on your opponent and always be thinking what they are thinking. I have known Bob for a while now and I reckon I don't need to have a photo to know what he is thinking, so predictable is it. Anyway, without any partisan comment, I thank him for his contribution.I take the opportunity while he is here to particularly thank the Prime Minister for his leadership through 1998. We certainly had some pretty tough issues, but one of his many characteristics is that he knows when to stick. He sticks by you, he gives you good advice and he is very good to deal with. I have appreciated the tremendous support he has given me personally during 1998. I thank him for that.I also pay tribute to him because I have absolutely no doubt that, when the history of Australian politics is written some years hence, 1998 will be seen as a very significant year. It is a great testament to the PM. In the whole time I have known him, he is one of those people who clearly is in politics because they want to achieve things. We are all in politics for different reasons, one thing or another, but there is no question that the PM has always had particular goals in mind. He has been resolute in the pursuit of those goals, and you need to be resolute to achieve. The resolution this year of the tax debate and the way in which he led the campaign and led the public advocacy for significant reform, in the interests of our country I think really will go down in the annals of Australian political history as one of the great episodes of policy leadership. I do pay tribute to him, and to Jeanette and the family as well for the support that they give you.Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your election. I also thank you for the time that we worked closely together as Leader of the House and Chief Government Whip and now in your role as Speaker. I must say I think you have had an excellent start and you are very widely respected, I am sure, on both sides of the House.You have been replaced by Michael Ronaldson as the Chief Government Whip. Ronno has walked into one of the tough jobs of the parliament but has done it with the aplomb and efficiency we would expect. He is a very good operator. I thank you for the work that you do there. I also thank the other whips, Stuart McArthur, Kay Elson, John Forrest and Paul Neville, who all do a first-class and professional job, which is what we aim to do in all that we do in government.I also thank the Deputy Leader of the House as he was for a period, Warren Truss, and, of course, the current Deputy Leader of the House, Peter McGauran. To the whip's staff, particularly to Geraldine, who has to deal with the diverse temperaments of members, your work is greatly appreciated. Let us face it, that can be a pretty hard job with a lot of members hassling you from time to time, so we do pay tribute to you and thank you very much.To the Liberal Party organisation at the federal secretariat I particularly thank Lynton Crosby and John Burston and the team. They do a very good job and it is appreciated. My thanks to the staff of the Parliamentary Liaison Office, who play a very key role from my point of view as Leader of the House. They manage the affairs of the House. Jeannie Hill was a very good PLO; she was the first PLO I had experience with. But I must say that Matt Minogue has really done a tremendous job. Matt, I pay tribute to your professionalism; you are a quality product out of the Australian Public Service, out of PM&C. You are a great ambassador for PM&C and for the quality of people who work in the Australian Public Service. I thank you, and I also thank Suzanne and Grant for the work they do.As I am talking about that role, I also particularly want to thank Cate Clunies-Ross, who manages the day-to-day work in my office. Cate is likewise very professional. She is dedicated, she is committed, and she really makes my life easy as the Leader of the House. Thank you, Cate, for a tremendous job; it is a very professional job that you do.I thank the clerks, Ian and his team and, of course, Bernard. We all appreciate the work you do. You provide good quality advice to all members of the House at all times of the day and night. As you have always done in the time I have known both of you and your fellow clerks, you do it very well and it is greatly appreciated. I particularly name David Elder, the Clerk Assistant—Procedure and the Assistant Secretary (Committees), Robyn McClelland, Jim Pender, Don Piper and Peter Mason, and all of the staff in the Table Office. You work very long hours. You have a wonderful capacity to keep a straight face, which is a necessary criterion for this job, and you manage the affairs of the House very well, and it is appreciated.To the Serjeant-at-Arms, Judy Middlebrook, and her deputy, Dalma Dixon, and all of the staff at the office of the Serjeant-at-Arms, I thank you for your work in this year. I also acknowledge and thank the staff at the Chamber Research Office for the unending amount of work they have done for my office during the year. Whenever we are having these debates about how long we should speak and what has happened in the past, there is a demand for a volume of statistics about who spoke when and for how long and the like, and they always produce that information. It is important information because the practice of the House does rely a lot on conventions and practices built up over the years, and it is good to have quality information.Similarly, that can be said of the staff of the Parliamentary Library, who have to deal with unreasonable requests not only from my office but from all members' offices. That is also a very important task in the work of all members. I thank Michael Bolton and the staff of the Joint House Department. I thank the Hansard staff, who have been thanked already, but that is very important.Of course, the telephone operators are the first point of contact for a lot of people ringing in to Parliament House looking for their local member and demanding some service. That is an important task that they perform, and it is important that we acknowledge the work they do. I also thank the gardeners, the cleaning staff and the people who carry out those services for us all—again, it is always done well and is much appreciated.I thank the many attendants, those in the chamber and around the parliament. I also add my thanks to Brian Walshe, who will be retiring from full-time work with the department in January next year. Brian, you have been here longer than I have and you have always been a very good person to say hello to and to do some of the things that need to be done. I personally appreciate that and wish you well in your retirement, although they tell me that there might be a bit of part-time work around next year or thereafter, so it will be good to see some more of you.I also want to thank the staff in the members dining room and the staff cafeteria, particularly Kate up there in the dining room. She is always a good person to talk to, and I appreciate her very good attention to our needs in the dining room. I also thank those at the transport office and the staff down at Aussies—always a good spot to take your shirts down for a launder at $2.50 a pop. That is a touch of homeliness, being away from home. Those things do count—Lizzie doing your hair, not something that the member for Fraser and I have to worry about, or others.I particularly mention the staff in my own department—Peter Shergold and all his team. They do a very good job and that is appreciated. Also, on a more personal level, I thank my ministerial staff: Peter Hendy; Peter Anderson; Ian Hanke, my media adviser; and Jackie Jurd, who is a great character. I was very lucky to get Jackie to come in and work in the office.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—She has a great corporate memory. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—She has a great corporate memory, but she is just a great person. I am very lucky with the people with whom I work, and I appreciate every last one of them and the work they do. So, Mr Speaker, Merry Christmas to one and all. It has been a good year, 1998, and let us have a good year in 1999.21:43:001937McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I recall my colleague and predecessor in this role, the member for Hotham, saying when he first spoke in these circumstances that being manager of opposition business was what he called `an interesting new role'. I have to say that I wish I had recalled that a little more starkly before I accepted it when the Leader of the Opposition offered it to me, because it is one of those things that you call interesting because it means it is going to give you a very hard time. But it is an important part of the function, and I am enjoying doing it.We in the opposition thought that the experience of losing all those seats would have been a chastening one and that we would have seen the government come back with a new resolve to be cooperative and to make the parliament work smoothly and harmoniously. It does not seem to have worked that way. Why am I not surprised? I have the vague feeling that a few people might say that when we used to be the government it was not very different. I am shocked that anybody would even contemplate that it could have been like that under the leadership of the House of the now member for Brand. It is just beyond belief that he would have behaved in such a manner. My only excuse and plea in mitigation is that, all the time we were the government, I was in the Senate. I was not responsible for any of those prior outrages, so I can take a suitably sanctimonious attitude towards them when they are perpetrated upon me.We never had the opportunity to do it when I was manager of government business in the Senate. The laws of arithmetic run very strongly in the Senate. There is a phrase about people having greatness thrust upon them, but in the Senate you have cooperativeness thrust upon you by the proliferation of minor parties with whom you have to deal. We see this place operating slightly differently. I cannot pretend to be amazed, but next year we are determined that we will make our impact upon this place and the way it works. We will seek to be as cooperative as possible, but we will not be cooperative in a way that sees our rights trammelled. It is our ambition to be an effective and cooperative opposition because the higher standing the parliament is held in, the better it is for our democracy and for all of us who work in it, but there is only so much that we are prepared to pay for it.I want to respond to this extraordinarily generous contribution to my art collection by the Leader of the House. I have not quite worked out in which room to hang it—or which way.WI4REITHMr Reith—A cupboard will do.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—There would not be room in my cupboard—and I know that Tim Fischer shares this experience—as, having been the Minister for Trade, it is absolutely full of things that you would never want to display but you cannot throw away because somebody who thought it was very important and valuable gave it to you somewhere and you cannot afford to have it turn up on the rubbish tip, so I have cupboards full of them. I do not know where I am going to put this, but I am, I suppose I should say, duly grateful.The Leader of the House is a very interesting person to work with. As he says, correctly, I was shadow minister for industrial relations from March 1996 until the last election, so we worked not exactly closely together, but on intersecting orbits. We therefore met often and it was, I have to say, on all of those occasions as fruitless as it has been in my time doing it as the Manager of Opposition Business. He is the only person I have ever known who found being described as `amiably useless' a compliment, but this is the way in which our negotiations go, and I suppose it is better than being antagonistically useless!It is that impervious part of his nature that I assume allowed him to survive the year that he has had and that will help him survive the year we have in mind for him. Nevertheless, I thank him for the fact that he and his office ring us and keep us informed. We do not very often agree about the things we are asked to do, but I appreciate him and Kate having that discourse with Bob Harlow from my office and with me, and we will continue to do that.I also want to thank the PLO. A lot has been said about him, and these are not occasions when the House wishes everybody—that is five in a row now—to say the same things about everybody, although each of the individuals probably do not mind, but the PLO does a good job in helping us all and he is a vital linchpin in the operation of the parliamentary process.As a new manager of opposition business, I particularly want to thank the clerks and their staff. I know that everybody has thanked them. We are all dependent on them in different ways. Leaders of the House are dependent upon them, Speakers are dependent upon them, leaders of the opposition and others are dependent upon them, but new managers of opposition business are very dependent on Ian, of course, but particularly on Bernard, who is of greater value to us. I thank him and all the people who work with him for making us look relatively sensible most of the time, and for making sure that the outrages we perform at least bear some tangential relationship to the standing orders. I am suitably grateful for that. Thank you very much—the quality of the advice is unfailingly high.All the other staff have been thanked by everybody else. I endorse the remarks that they have made about them all. I want to join everyone in talking about the attendants in general—about whom I want to say something in a moment—and about Brian in particular. His office was right next to mine for the period from March 1996 until the election, and they are close together now. He always seemed to be able to get a cup of tea out of my office more quickly and more often than I could. I never quite worked out how this happened, but it was unfailing. I think in everybody else's office it was the same. I do not quite know how this operates, but he is a very charming man who gives great service and great friendship. He has a great smile, and those who are interested in such things say that he also gives great racing tips, but this is a failing from which I have emerged unscathed—I do not intend to take even his good advice in that particular matter.I also want to thank the other attendants. They do a great job. They had a lot of extra work imposed upon them for a reason which we really enjoyed, which was that there were so many new people to bring into offices, and it caused a lot of work for the attendants. Those on the opposition side enjoyed it because so many of those new people were on our side. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I thank those new members for the injection of new ideas, enthusiasm and commitment which they have brought, which has been invigorating to us all.I thank all the other parliamentary departments that were listed by you, Mr Speaker. It was such a copious list that I simply endorse your remarks and thank them all. I particularly thank the volunteers who work in this building and the other people who tend to go unsung—and I am pleased you mentioned them—such as the cleaners, maintenance staff and others. I have to do this very carefully because, like the member for Canberra and, to a lesser extent, the member for Eden Monaro, a large number of these people are my constituents, so we need to be very careful and doubly on our best behaviour. I thank them all. If I could get a list of their names and read it into the Hansard it might put my margin up, but I am grateful to them all. From time to time they raise the odd constituency matter with me, and I am sure that the member for Canberra and the member for Eden Monaro have the same experiences. It is a pleasure to be able to return a small part of the service to them that they give to us.I hope the parliamentary staff will allow me to be as general as that. Everybody else has thanked them in detail, and I simply endorse that. I want in particular to thank two lots of people who have not had the recognition that they deserve. One group is the continuing and new opposition staff members. I endorse what the Leader of the Opposition said: we are enormously well served in the opposition by what is a very small staff relative to that supplied to the government. The ratio as it stands has not changed—and this is not a grievance, it is simply a fact of life—and we have a very small staff compared with the government. That staff performed herculean tasks during the election, for which I was duly grateful. Given that I was to some extent driving that bus, I suppose they blamed me for the herculean task which was imposed upon them, but I thank them for the way they discharged that—and I thank my own staff in particular.I want to thank our former members. I do not want to go through them individually, but I thank them all. Many of the people who retired were people who had made a tremendous contribution to the parliament, the party and the nation. A large number of them were former ministers. Others served for a long time on the backbench. Several of my colleagues asked me to particularly make reference to our national president, Barry Jones, a great servant of our party, who left the parliament after a distinguished parliamentary career. I am happy to do that. I think everyone in the House would accept that he made a singular contribution to our political life. He lifted the standing and the reputation of the political process, and that is something I hope we will all be able to say when we leave.On behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank one person whom the Leader of the Opposition failed to mention, and that is the Leader of the Opposition. I thank Kim for his fantastic leadership of the party in the last 12 months. Every member of the Labor Party and every supporter was proud of the role he played in the election campaign, of the principled leadership he provided during the year in some very difficult times and of the effective leadership he provided, particularly during the election. I suspect that the new members—those who won seats as a result of that leadership—are particularly grateful, but all of us are grateful not only because our margins are significantly larger but also for the morale and leadership which he gave.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Not as large as Kim's.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Mine is larger than Kim's, I am happy to tell you. But I did not get as big a swing. Leo and the staff in his office do a great job. All the members of the parliamentary Labor Party depend upon Leo's office—Joan and all the people who work there. We are enormously grateful for the good work that they do.To Rod Sawford, Bob Sercombe, all my colleagues—particularly the new ones—and all the government members: I join with everybody else in wishing you a very enjoyable Christmas and a recuperative new year so that we can come back in February armed to perform the functions for which the electors send us here with all the energy we can muster—so that we can try to leave them with a better impression of the parliament than they started with.Adjournment1940Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would allow each member speaking to the question for the adjournment of the House to terminate this sitting to speak for one period of 10 minutes.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.194021:56:001940Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The right to vote to elect representatives to parliaments, and indirectly to elect governments, is central to the Australian concept of democracy. Sadly for many voters, their vote is not counted for the reason that it is found to be informal. In the 1996 election, more than 350,000 informal votes were not counted in favour of the candidate to which they were directed. That represents the total number of voters in more than four electorates. Of concern was the increase in informal votes from three per cent of House of Representatives votes in 1993 to 3.2 per cent in 1996.While some cynics may see informal votes as a deliberate rejection of the political process, anyone who has spent time scrutineering at elections would agree that the bulk of informal votes occur through a lack of understanding of the requirements for making a formal vote. It is tragic to see so many people denied the opportunity to participate in the election of their government through simple errors in filling out the ballot paper.I am sure that one thing that all members of this House have in common is the experience of working on polling booths at elections. Like me they would have noticed that special pride and sense of responsibility on the faces of many voters. In electorates such as Fowler there is a special significance as many voters have fled from regimes where free elections are unheard of. Hundreds of these people will not have their vote counted. Through misunderstanding or misinformation, their vote will be informal.My electorate of Fowler held the dubious distinction of having one of the highest informal votes recorded in recent elections. Fowler has the highest number of residents born outside Australia and the highest number from countries with languages other than English. This double disadvantage, lack of knowledge of the voting system and lack of English language skills can be considered the most likely cause of the high informal vote.Aware of this situation, the Australian Electoral Commission undertook a television and newspaper campaign to inform voters in their own language of the voting procedure. This was assisted by candidates issuing how-to-vote cards with voting instructions in a range of community languages.In the Fowler electorate, the District Returning Officer, Mr Brian Peisley, undertook several initiatives to reduce the level of informal voting. One relatively inexpensive and apparently effective measure was to place video TV screens at a number of polling places where a high proportion of voters were known to have languages other than English. The TV sets were placed in the polling booths so that as voters queued to collect their ballot papers they were able to view the correct voting procedure. The videos shown were those produced for the Australian Electoral Commission but had the advantage of being seen immediately before the voter filled out the ballot paper.The results of these initiatives were most encouraging. In Fowler the overall informal vote dropped from 8.1 per cent to 5.8 per cent while for some individual booths the informal vote fell to as low as 3.5 per cent—a most successful step in ensuring that hundreds of voters would have their vote for their chosen candidate counted.The cost of achieving these results was relatively small. As the production costs of the videos had already been met by the Australian Electoral Commission, the additional cost was that of hiring video-TV players for the day—less than a few hundred dollars per electorate. I would like to congratulate Mr Peisley and his staff for this successful initiative and suggest that the Australian Electoral Commission consider using video voting instructions in other languages as a means of reducing the level of informal voting on a widespread basis at the next federal election.As I mentioned earlier, another important factor in reducing the informal vote is the issuing of how-to-vote instructions in languages other than English. At the 3 October election, my campaign team distributed how-to-votes which included instructions in 14 languages common in the Fowler electorate. I firmly believe that this measure assists greatly in reducing the number of informal votes. With regard to this I would like to thank a member of my campaign team, Clive Fitzgerald, for his tireless work in ensuring that this vital information was distributed prior to the election.On a different note regarding the conduct of the election, I should point out the difficulty faced by electoral staff, and indeed voters, caused by the government's decision to hold the election on what was a long weekend in New South Wales and within the school holiday period in a number of states, including New South Wales. Conducting elections in Australia is a massive logistical exercise. Hundreds of staff are required in each electorate and large amounts of equipment must be distributed and put in place for the election. This is a difficult exercise at any time, but the added inconvenience of attempting to do this when schools are closed created great stress on electoral staff.In the Fowler electorate, the number of absentee and pre-poll votes suggests the difficulty faced by voters and also electoral staff to meet the added demand for these services. As well, it was apparent from the large number of absentee votes that many electors faced difficulty in casting their vote at the 3 October election. Many were greatly inconvenienced and it is apparent that many were unable to cast a vote at all as a result of the government's decision to hold the election on a long weekend during school holidays. I would suggest that governments in future follow the advice of the noted Scottish psephologist, Professor Jock Paste, and avoid calling elections on long weekends or during school holidays.194122:02:001941Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—This being the festive season, I thought I might speak tonight about Bundaberg rum. In doing so, I hope that my colleagues and others will imbibe the product liberally but responsibly over the holidays. Those who do not might, if it is their wont, use it in the Christmas cake or in the plum pudding. There is a serious side to this and I thought tonight, being such an occasion, I might touch upon a few points.Honourable members know that I come from the city of Bundaberg and that I take a great interest in the local products, in particular Bundaberg rum—not just because of the pleasures of that product but because it is part of the economy of my district. In 1872 commercial sugar production began in Bundaberg and 16 years later—110 years ago last month—the Bundaberg Distilling Co. came into being and began producing its rich, dark rum the following year. The distillery was founded on the banks of Burnett River, adjoining the Millaquin Sugar Mill, which is now associated with the Bundaberg Sugar group. It also happens to be one of the two major shareholders of Bundaberg Rum.Bundaberg rum has been intertwined with our nation's history since Federation and it has played a very important part in our nation's coming of age. We are often asked where the little flask came from that many people put in their luggage to take on holidays. That little product came from the oldest squatters, graziers and stockmen, who used to put it in their saddlebags. Rum being one of the few products that you can enjoy with warm water—there were no ice buckets out there in the west, it was just what you got out of the local stream or the billabong—the flasks became a very important part of Australia's history. Bundaberg rum has grown up with Australia.Twice the distillery has been destroyed by fire—in 1907 and in 1936—and it played a very important part in two world wars as a tonic for our troops and our sailors. For many of our returned diggers, a Bundaberg rum and milk toddy on Anzac Day is an absolute essential. I am sure that many of those who have been to the dawn service know that Bundaberg rum and milk is standard fare on that day. They are called gunfire breakfasts in some areas. For many tourists who come to Australia, their visit is not complete without a bottle of the great Aussie spirit. Many go further and travel to Bundaberg to take the tour of the rum distillery. I can recommend it to honourable members. I have arranged for many who come up on parliamentary delegations to see the distillery.It is very interesting that Bundaberg rum is the largest selling spirit label in Australia, ahead of all the scotch whiskies, gins and other products. For this reason, we should not underestimate the ability of Bundaberg rum to earn revenue not only for the company and its shareholders but also for the local economy through its work force and the tourists it attracts, and for the Commonwealth itself through excise and taxes. It might surprise you that that one relatively small distillery on the banks of the Burnett River returns to Commonwealth revenue in income tax and excise $100 million a year. That is an extraordinary figure from one business.There are two policy initiatives of this government which go a long way toward providing a more level playing field for this great Australian icon. They are the equalisation of excise levels on boutique alcoholic beverages and the enshrining of the sealed duty-free shopping bag in the legislation for the new tax system. There was a great deal of inequity previously in excise levels between drinks derived from fermented and lowly taxed alcohols, that is, between drinks derived from fermentation as distinct from distillation.You might ask what does it matter what source they are derived from; it is still alcohol. Nevertheless, those two forms of alcohol were treated quite differently. It always seemed unfair to me that those longstanding distilled products like Bundaberg rum, the many whiskies, gins and other products that we sell in this country, when mixed with something like Bundaberg ginger beer or the various colas, attracted one level of excise while the more modern products, referred to sometimes as designer drinks—you are all familiar with those so I will not mention them by name: I am not being too pejorative when I say that some are little better than firewaters and are based on wine products while others are based on fermented alcohol—were taxed at a much lower rate. To me that seemed inequitable.The Bundaberg Distilling Co. and the various whisky companies in Australia were always very responsible with their mixed drinks and always kept them roughly to the level of a super-beer. However, many of these firewaters were quite excessive in the amount of alcohol they contained, bearing in mind that young people were the ones who drank these products. Under the government's legislation, all these drinks will be treated equally and fairly.The Bundaberg clause contained in the government's tax reform white paper—Not a new tax: a new tax system—brought all these products into one regime and in so doing did not give one product a government instigated advantage over another. I echo the Bundaberg Distilling Co. and the duty-free industry in their strong support for the government's decision to retain a GST and duty-free sealed bag from July 2000. Over 50 per cent of Bundaberg black—for those who are not initiated in this product, there is a black label Bundaberg rum now: it is a very high-quality rum that equates with the black label whiskies—the premium aged product, is sold in duty-free stores.Export sales of Bundaberg rum products through duty-free shops are in the order of $5 million to $10 million annually and growing. This is very important to the economy of my electorate of Hinkler and, for that matter, to employment. When you take a slice of $10 million out of the day-to-day operations of any company in your electorate, it will affect employment. I am pleased that the government responded by retaining the sealed bag system.It is also interesting that, under the GST regime, like most countries, we will refund the GST to people who come to our country and buy $300 worth of goods in a particular store, and so we should. That is an important part of tourism. But that is a fairly onerous, if not convoluted, task. People have to keep their dockets and front up to the window at the airport to get their GST or VAT back. I am not suggesting that we should do it any differently. Other countries do it that way and the Australian economy should benefit to the same extent.However, a person going overseas every once in a while, perhaps to Bali, New Zealand or Fiji—not the great international traveller, but probably the battler who has saved up for years to have a bit of an overseas fling—spends, on average, $41 at the duty-free stores buying a bottle of rum or whisky, a few smokes or some nice perfume. It would have been iniquitous to have deprived those people of the benefits, as part of their holiday, of being able to buy a bit of duty-free.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Especially when it's Bundy white.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Of course. I am indebted to the member for Brisbane for his support. It is the only time I have had it this year. Under the current sealed bag system, it is a very simple operation which allows the operator to pay sales tax and excise. It was hoped that under the new regime the government would retain that and apply the same method with the GST and the excise. Although we have not seen the detail of that—I hope to get the detail from the Treasurer in the near future—I understand that the same principle will apply. In other words, if the company does have the little green slip to produce, it pays the excise.As we move towards this GST system and remove some of the anomalies from the tax system, it would be appropriate that the treatment of alcohol and other products derived from Australian primary production be examined. I conclude by referring to brandy and rum. One is derived from grapes, a by-product of a primary industry, and the other is derived from sugarcane. I believe that, as we remove anomalies, those products should be brought closer together in their tax treatment. I wish everyone enough Bundaberg rum for the festive season.194322:12:001943Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise to draw the attention of the House to a major issue for my electorate, for the west of Melbourne and for Victoria generally—namely, the appalling condition of the Princes Freeway between Melbourne and Geelong, which is referred to in Melbourne as the Geelong road, and the complete failure of the current minister for transport to address the issue.In recent times, the Herald Sun newspaper has reflected the depth of community concern about this issue. In a three-week period starting from late October until mid-November, the Herald Sun carried articles about the issues as follows: `Our deadly highways' says one on 29 October; `Canberra rejects road funds plea' says another on 31 October; `Geelong road funds go north' says one on 2 November; `Crash adds to road fight'—referring to the Geelong road—says another on 3 November; and `Truckie blames road for carnage' says one on 12 November. Finally, on 14 November there was a picture of the minister for transport and an article entitled `Death road funds delay'.If I can refer members of the House particularly to the article on 12 November entitled `Truckie blames road for carnage', I think this article gives a particularly startling and grim view of the condition of the road. It refers to a truck driver called Joe Puglia, and it states:Joe Puglia has made more than 9500 round trips on the deadly Geelong road but has never had an accident.But what he's seen over the past 20 years and 1.5 million kilometres of travel on the deadly stretch of Princes Freeway would make your blood curdle. Mr Puglia, 58, estimates he's seen at least 50 accidents and eight deaths during his 20 years as a driver for Ford Motor Co.Later in the article, it states:Driving Geelong road with a man of Mr Puglia's experience and knowledge makes its dangers seem less tangible.Particularly when you are in the cabin of a $400,000 33-metre B-triple, a leviathan of the road. But despite the state-of-the-art transport, you feel every bump and dip, particularly approaching the Maltby Bypass.This, of course, is in my electorate. The article continues:There a severe dip precedes one of the road's blackest accident spots.`Even I get worried about that spot. Imagine what it's like for people who don't know the road and there are so many thousands who don't,' Mr Puglia said.`I've seen so much blood over the years I can't understand why the governments don't fix the road.'That is the response from a frequent user of the road as to its condition. In the same period as the Herald Sun carried these news articles, it also editorialised on the condition of the Geelong road on two occasions. One of those editorials was entitled `Minister out of touch'. In that editorial, the Herald Sun summarised the issues as follows:John Anderson must mend his ways—and Victoria's deadliest road—if he wants to win back support from the bush for the Howard Government.By refusing funds to rebuild the Melbourne-Geelong freeway, the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services ignores the fact that this narrow, overcrowded 50km stretch of bitumen has claimed 86 lives in the past eight years.Yet Mr Anderson shows callous indifference towards the families of the dead as well as others injured since 1990 in the 6000 crashes on this section of highway.The minister will not explain why his government refuses to provide the $100 million needed to match a similar contribution the Victorian Government would make to fix our worst killer highway.Instead, the people of Geelong and the commuters of Melbourne's outer west have been told by the minister's official spokesman that the Herald Sun 's Fix our Deadly Highway campaign is a `wonderful beat-up in true tabloid fashion'.Some beat-up, some spokesman, some minister, when 86 people are dead. Having just taken you to newspaper reports and editorials which indicate the depth of community concern about this issue, let me take you to some of the facts about this road. Fact 1: the freeway carries up to 132,000 vehicles a day, with traffic increasing by almost five per cent a year. Fact 2: it carries more than six million tonnes of freight a year and services more than 30 per cent of Australia's exports through the ports of Melbourne and Geelong. Fact 3: the freeway services one of Victoria's fastest growing population and economic regions and is the key link to export markets for primary producers throughout the western district and South Australia. Fact 4: it is the gateway to one of Australia's premier tourist attractions. Fact 5—and most important of all: it is Victoria's most deadly road with more smashes on its 63-kilometre length than were experienced on the 1,000 kilometres of Victoria's federally financed highway system in the same period.The statistics are chilling: 86 dead since 1990 with 6,000 crash victims in total and 1,000 of them injured. At the Maltby Bypass in my electorate, to which I have already referred—a severe accident black spot—we have suffered 11 deaths and 300 accidents in the past eight years. In the recent federal election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, and the leader of the Victorian opposition, John Brumby, gave this commitment on behalf of the Labor party: that a Beazley Labor government and a Brumby Labor government would each commit $100 million to fixing the Geelong road, Victoria's deadliest road, and then would include it as part of the national highway system so it would be kept up to a standard and would be the recipient of Commonwealth funds. Even Jeff Kennett, the Premier of Victoria, who is not known for his concern about the people of Melbourne's west, understood the argument and quickly matched—Government member interjecting—83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—This was the Premier who was trying to put a toxic dump in my electorate until he was defeated by a community campaign. So the Premier of Victoria, not known for his concern about the people of Melbourne's west, understood the argument and quickly matched John Brumby's promise for a $100 million commitment from Victoria.So now the only remaining obstacle to fixing this road is the uncaring and cavalier attitude of this government. The response of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to date has been to turn up for a photo opportunity with his state counterpart, Geoff Craige, and then to patronise the people of Victoria by saying, `There is no magic money tree available to me at the moment.'We know that money does not grow on trees, but the minister should also know that we understand that at the end of the day the allocation of road funding is a matter of political will and political priorities. The electors of Lalor demand that this be a priority and, on the basis of any of the statistics about numbers of vehicles, number of accidents, its exposure to export markets and the carrying of export goods, this road is a road of national importance and should be a priority.On 10 November I wrote to the minister for transport, given that he had refused to see me on his visit to Victoria to inspect the state of the road, and asked to meet him regarding this vital issue. The minister has not yet responded to this letter—perhaps I will have to send another one—but in raising this matter in the House today I am making this commitment on behalf of the people of Lalor: that this issue of upgrading the Princes Freeway will not go away. Indeed, the campaign to fix the road is growing.A business and community coalition called the Princes Freeway Action Committee is determined to keep the issue at the forefront of the minds of Victorians and also at the forefront of the minds of the members opposite. The Princes Freeway Action Committee involves the Melbourne City Council, the City of Hobson's Bay, the Wyndham City Council and the council of the City of Geelong, as well as many major business identities, including Lindsay Fox. This committee has already run community actions, including a postcard campaign to the Prime Minister raising safety and other concerns about the situation of the road, has provided members of parliament with information kits about the state of the road and has distributed bumper stickers and freeway signs raising the condition of the Geelong road. It is the intention of that committee to continue to pursue the issue in the coming year.In relation to the work of that committee, it is well supported as a community campaign by the people in my electorate. As I have said in this House previously, the people in my electorate have a good record in mounting community campaigns, having recently defeated the Kennett government's proposal to situate a toxic dump in Werribee. On the basis of that experience and working with the City of Wyndham as well as the other local councils involved in this campaign, it is my intention—and I would suggest the intention of the people of Lalor—to ensure that this issue remains before this House and before the members of the government until we get quite a simple commitment. That simple commitment is that the government matches the offer made by Kim Beazley in the recent election campaign to give $100 million to match Jeff Kennett's $10,000 million—or, hopefully, after the next state election, John Brumby's $100 million—to create a pool of $200 million, which is the amount necessary to upgrade the road and thereafter to treat it as a road of national importance and part of the national highway system.194510:22:001945Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—It is timely during this last sitting of parliament before 1999, and before we return in February next year, to raise with members of this House a very special event in the electorate of Gilmore. Every year throughout Australia hundreds of residents take the oath to be loyal citizens to this country and the Commonwealth. In Gilmore, we are no exception. Through the initiative of the Sussex Inlet Lions Club and my office, Australia Day 1999 will become Australian Citizenship Day for many of our local residents. On 26 January 1998, the Gilmore community welcomed 11 new citizens to our Australian family. At the same time four of our local residents were honoured with certificates of appreciation for their services to Australia during the Second World War.The inaugural Sussex Inlet Australian Citizenship Day in 1999 looks set to top the number of residents swearing allegiance to this country, indicating the importance and seriousness with which local residents view becoming Australian citizens. It is also an indication of the respect and regard which local residents have for the local branch of Lions International, and 1998 marked the 50th anniversary of the formation of Lions in Australia.Australian citizenship, and this year the Sussex Inlet Australia Day festival, were projects of the local Lions Club to promote the 50th anniversary of Lions in Australia, as well as encouraging all eligible local residents to obtain their citizenship. The event was a resounding success, not only for those who gained their citizenship, but also for our community, for it gave the opportunity to highlight the importance of the contribution of migrants to Australia's history.What better way to welcome new citizens to our Australian family than to coordinate a full day of Australiana activities—music, dance, barbeques, rides and the festival atmosphere—at Sussex Inlet? I am delighted that the Sussex Inlet Lions Club will be continuing this new ceremony with the Australian Citizenship Day on 26 January 1999 and commend the members and supporters of the club for their initiative and commitment to the philosophy and action of Australian citizenship.I am honoured to have been invited to officiate, as I did last year, to welcome our residents as Australian citizens. There will no doubt be many people in Gilmore and throughout Australia who will take up the opportunity of becoming Australian citizens on 26 January 1999. I urge all members of the House to look at the example set by the Sussex Inlet Lions Club as a model for local communities throughout Australia. I cannot begin to say how honoured I am to have been asked to conduct the naturalisation ceremony, as my family and I, 46 years ago, became Australian citizens. I well recall how proud I was to call Australia my home.I also rise to speak on an issue which I first raised in parliament some months ago but which is a continuing and escalating problem—that of child pornography and paedophile activity on the Internet. In September this year, it was revealed that Australian police have been working cooperatively with police in 13 other countries in a joint operation which resulted in raids on the homes of about 200 suspected paedophiles.The Australian Institute of Criminology recently conducted a study which found that paedophiles were using the World Wide Web pages to proclaim their lifestyle, to exchange information about their activities and to communicate with each other. The Internet, as members will know, provides a virtually anonymous cover for users. This is one of the greatest concerns facing our community and one which many local residents, particularly our local churches and I, have expressed anger and disgust at.According to the institute, the use of the Internet for criminal paedophile activity will pose a continuing challenge to Australian law enforcement. Indeed, our police need all our support to help stop crime in the community, particularly crime which is so dangerous for our children.Access for children to inappropriate sites on the Internet is also of major concern. It is frightening to see just how easily a child with even the remotest knowledge of computers can access pornography or violent sites on the home computer. Whilst I am the first to oppose censorship for the sake of it, there is an obligation on us as a society to ensure that our children are protected from inappropriate material and from predators. The community is asking what we as a government are doing about the problem.I was delighted to advise my constituents of a wonderful new initiative called the family web site. I wish to congratulate the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for his support for this vital project, which is being developed by the National Office for the Information Economy and the Australian Broadcasting Authority.Whilst we can combat paedophile activity on the Internet through increased resources from our police, particularly for monitoring the Internet, we can also act to give parents the tools to protect their own children at home. This family web site has been described as an Internet starter kit for parents. As a parent of two daughters and `Oma' to five grand-daughters, I share the concerns of our local residents.Coming from a generation which sent mail via Australia Post, used nets for fishing and keeping our hair tied back and for whom surfing was done at the beach in summer, I, too, have been wary of such new technology, as have many local parents. However, the Internet is well and truly here to stay. It is an important and exciting resource for our community, for business and even for our children's education and entertainment. Therefore, we must assist families in our electorates to cope with the changes and minimise the potential problems which are associated with it.The family web site will do just that. For families which are on the net, it provides a link to fun and educational sites for children, as well as tips for parents about how to help children get the best of the Internet. The site also helps parents and their children understand the best ways to find the information they are looking for, and importantly, the site explains some of the potential dangers and risks which are on-line for children and what to do about them.This site not only recognises the increasing importance of the Internet in the lives of all Australians, particularly for our children's education, but also offers a practical and positive response to the concerns which have been raised by local families. It needs to be made vitally clear that offensive or illegal activities and material will not be allowed to infiltrate or pollute our children's education, our homes and our workplaces.I acknowledge that there is only so much that governments can do for what is still a basic parents' role. However, through police crackdowns on illegal activity on the net and through working with service providers and web site owners, we can help stop this sort of material being made available at the source.As I said, it is also up to parents to monitor the sorts of material which their children are accessing and to act upon what is inappropriate for them. However, I am delighted that this government is supporting parents in doing just that, and the concerned families and residents are also very grateful.194722:30:001947Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—In a monumental triumph of insensitivity last week, the Hon. Peter Reith, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, swanned into this House, resplendent in a tuxedo and bow tie, knocking over Australian workers. Specifically, he entered this chamber at 10.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 December and proceeded to gag the debate on the very important Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 . Some 23 members of this House, who were scheduled to speak on the bill, were denied the opportunity by the minister. He knocked over the bill, he gagged debate, he denied democratic process, he insulted the working class—by both appearance and attitude—and his arrogance was as audible as it was visible. The whole repute of this House has been brought into disgrace by his unfair attitude to a very important bill for Australian workers. Little wonder they and their families are insecure; they are certainly not relaxed and comfortable.The proposed amendments contained in the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 fundamentally compromise the integrity of the Workplace Relations Act in two main respects: first, they seek to exclude new employees, other than apprentices and trainees of businesses with 15 or fewer employees, from federal unfair dismissal laws; and, second, they seek to establish a six-month qualifying period of employment for new employees, other than trainees or apprentices waiting to use the unfair dismissal regime.Let us not mince words: this bill demonstrates nothing less than an overt attempt by the federal government to follow a most disturbing trend in the administration of justice in the states and territories of Australia, namely, the reductionist tendency in their ever shrinking jurisdictional responsibilities; that is, the federal government has seen fit to sacrifice a significant percentage of unfairly dismissed workers from the most vulnerable sectors of the work force for the sake of cost reductions in the administration of justice within its industrial relations jurisdiction.Let us look at the impact of this legislation. First, figures supplied by Mr Reith's department for the period January to August 1998 show that about 46 per cent of a total of about 11,074 unfair dismissal claims were lodged in the federal system. Second, departmental figures also show that only about 35 per cent of federal claims lodged between December 1997 and September 1998 related to businesses employing 15 or fewer persons. Third, for 1998, if present trends continue, there will be about 16,000 unfair dismissal claims lodged nationally, of which about 7,500 will come before the federal tribunal. Of the likely 7,500 claims, about 2,500 will be made against employers employing fewer than 16 staff.In terms of the proposed six-month exemption, about 1.2 million of the 8.4 million persons in work, as at February 1998, had been in their current job for less than six months. The real intention of this legislation is simple: to reduce costs in the Federal Court and the Industrial Relations Commission through delimiting their jurisdictions. This trick has been applied in other state and federal jurisdictions. For example, similar reductionist methods were employed in both workers compensation and personal junior motor vehicle claims so as to delimit their jurisdiction. But at what cost? The above figures demonstrate the high percentage of persons who have held their present employment for less than six months. Further, those employees with firms employing fewer than 16 staff, 2,500 anticipated applicants, will not be eligible to lodge claims.These proposed exemptions are both inequitable and unnecessary. They are in conflict with Australia's obligations at international law. These proposed amendments are inequitable because they will leave a significant section of the work force without basic protections enjoyed by workers in medium and large firms. Further, it may be argued that the proposed changes will have only a marginal impact on the viability of small businesses. This bill assumes that the larger the firm, the greater the capacity to pay. This is simply untrue. With the significant percentage of workers in small firms, this bill unduly denies such employees rights afforded under the workplace relations legislation. The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business notes:Early figures from the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business comparing the period January-August 1997 (under the Reith law) with the January-August 1996 period (under the last version of the Keating law) showed a national decline of about 20 per cent in the number of unfair/unlawful dismissal applications lodged. Similarly, the number of applications in the federal jurisdiction fell from 9,864 in January-August 1996 to 4,492 in January-August 1997. Later figures, comparing the first six months of 1998 with the first six months of 1996, show that the general decline in applications in the federal system had been sustained with a fall of about 46 percent over the comparable period in 1996.Two reasons for these amendments stand out: first, cost cutting in the Federal Court and commission and, second, figures showing the number of unfair dismissal claims arbitrated on the merits between December 1996 and October 1998 showed that 75 per cent of the 722 matters determined were decided in favour of the employee applicant.It has been argued that a major justification for these amendments is the spurious nature of many of the unfair dismissal claims. I put it to this House that the fact that 75 per cent of the 722 claims went in favour of the employees strongly demonstrates that those claims are unjustified. There is also the issue of Australia's international obligations under the International Labour Organisation Convention on the Termination of Employment 1982. Australia ratified this treaty on 26 February 1993. I bring to this House's attention article 2(5), which states:In so far as necessary, measures may be taken by the competent authority or through the appropriate machinery in a country . . . to exclude from the application of this Convention or certain provisions thereof other limited categories of employed persons in respect of which special problems of a substantive nature exist. . . The broad exclusions contained in the proposed amendments go beyond the convention's provisions. The bill's amendments go too far. Given the large number of employees excluded by the proposed amendments, it is clear that this bill fundamentally compromises the spirit of article 2(5).I conclude that the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 are anathema to the equitable operation of industrial law as it applies to federal jurisdiction. The possibility of similar provisions following our lead in state jurisdictions means that there is increasing likelihood that the damage from this bill may be replicated in other jurisdictions. For the benefit of all Australian workers and their families, let us hope the Senate brings justice.194922:38:001949Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I rise tonight to speak in praise of a school and an educationalist in my electorate. I refer to the Tintern Girls Grammar School in Ringwood, a school that is over 100 years old and runs both a primary and a secondary campus. It is one of the oldest, continuously operating girls schools in the state of Victoria, having moved to Ringwood from its previous site in Hawthorn. It is a pre-eminent school in Melbourne, highly regarded by the community, not only in Deakin but also the community in the wider geographic area of Melbourne's east and in fact Melbourne itself. It is one of the few remaining schools that has not gone down the path of coeducation.One of the reasons Tintern Girls Grammar is highly regarded is its exceptional educational levels. Quite consistently, year after year, the students of Tintern achieve very high and remarkable grades in VCE; grades which would be the envy of most other schools within the state of Victoria. It is a school which has an international baccalaureate. It has a complement of teaching staff who are highly qualified, capable and highly respected within the wider community. They are led by people such as Elspeth Adamson and Lynne Henshaw. But, in particular, they are led by one individual, that is, the principal, Mrs Sylvia Walton, a lady with vision, a lady with leadership.Sylvia Walton has the type of vision which modern-day educationalists should be trying to attain. As an example, the Tintern school had a literacy and numeracy program long before it became in vogue to talk about literacy and numeracy. Its program is the envy of other areas. It has long had a civics program. In the last 12 months the school has embraced a boys campus which will open in 1999, a boys campus separate to the Tintern school, because Tintern realises that the path to coeducation which a lot of other schools have taken has not always worked to the advantage of the school.It is a credit to Sylvia Walton that this school has achieved such pre-eminent status. One of the reasons I want to talk about Tintern is that Sylvia Walton's vision and leadership has been recognised by the awarding of the Sir James Ralph Darling Medal. The award took place earlier this year.To give some background, the Sir James Ralph Darling Medal is named after a former headmaster of Geelong Grammar School. Sir James Darling helped found and/or lead the Headmasters Conference, the Marcus Oldham Agricultural College, the Australian College of Education and, in other public service, he was Chairman of the ABC from 1961 to 1967. He was knighted in 1988 for his efforts.The Victorian Chapter of the Australian College of Education established the Sir James Darling Medal in 1993 as the highest award it can bestow in honour of the founder of the college. One of the aims of bestowing this medal on an individual is to recognise outstanding contributions to education in Victoria at any level and in any field. The contribution may be singular and specific or wide ranging and multidimensional. It may be professional, academic or practical. The contribution may also be at any level of education from early childhood to tertiary. In commenting on the establishment of the medal in 1993, Sir James said:Education has become so large an industry today that there has been a danger of teachers losing sight of the essence of their vocation.The medal has been awarded to a number of recipients in the past: in 1993, to Sir Jeffrey Dunstan; in 1994, to Professor Kwong Lee Dow; in 1995, to Dr Francis Macnab; in 1996, to Dr Norman Curry; in 1997, to Mr Peter Kirby; and in 1998—it is with great pleasure that I say in this parliament—to Mrs Sylvia Walton, Principal of Tintern Girls Grammar and, next year, Southwood Boys Grammar School.I have had a strong relationship with Tintern school in the last three years. In fact, last year I sat on a steering committee investigating the possibility of setting up Southwood Boys Grammar on the site previously occupied by a state primary school which was merged with another school. Mrs Walton, through her vision, realised that the pre-eminent status that Tintern Girls Grammar has in the community could not be compromised—as has happened with some other schools that went down a coeducational path. She felt that it was far better to use the credibility and the reputation that Tintern Girls Grammar School has developed over the years to establish a separate boys school. Under her leadership, Tintern has expanded its enrolments and facilities and introduced a number of innovative curricula developments for its students.On the citation which was read out on the day she was awarded the medal—I think it is worth reading from the notes that were provided by the chairman of the Victorian chapter—it stated:Mrs Walton has been very active and influential in the educational community at both state and national levels. She is currently Deputy Chancellor of La Trobe University and Chairman of that university's Equity Access and personal Welfare Committee. She was a member and Acting Chair of the Victorian Board of Studies 1993-97, as well as a member of the Board's predecessor, the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board 1986-95. She has been a member of the Board of the Association of Independent Schools of Victoria since 1994, and active on several of its committees.There are so many committees that it is difficult for me to go through them all tonight. As a mark of the type of person that is Sylvia Walton, in her acceptance speech, the first thought was to acknowledge and to accept the award on behalf of teachers throughout the state, especially her colleagues at Tintern. Sylvia stated in her speech, and she has certainly mentioned to me on a number of occasions, that there is no greater calling in life than being a teacher. That is a noble sentiment. I do not know whether there would be too many teachers who would share it.We all go into our professions with various aims, objectives and reasons, but with Sylvia Walton you can tell that those sentiments come from the heart. Those sentiments not only are stated but also have lived through her work at Tintern. She mentioned that governments have a role to play in making sure that education continues to be relevant. In her speech Sylvia said:. . . the central purpose of our school is student learning and all the values that can be added to this as a young person moves through the primary and secondary area . . . I have often thought it would be extremely helpful and beneficial if our governments, of whatever persuasion, could come to an agreement about the development of primary and secondary schools and so in some sort of bi-partisan way assist us to continue this great task without too much politicising of curriculum, structures or development. . . . Some sort of joint philosophy related to schools would certainly go a long way . . .She went on to talk about how the amount of social capital that a community continues to set aside and use for development of young people and education is important. She continued:Society has no other real resource than the skill, intelligence and goodwill of its population. This can only develop when young hearts and minds and souls are captured and trained in positive and productive ways.Mrs Walton has certainly done all those things. It is important that as governments and as members of various parliamentary jurisdictions we respond in a very positive way. (Time expired) .195022:48:001950Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Like the member for Deakin, I too celebrate teachers and education, and I agree that education should be about student centredness. I proudly am a teacher who has been elected to this parliament. Tomorrow I will be celebrating my farewell with my former colleagues. I strongly support a state education system and a co-ed system. I think the job of teachers is very difficult, demanding and challenging but very rewarding. It was very good to hear a speaker celebrate a colleague and a teacher, certainly a principal who seems to have led with a great deal of vision and was very well respected.I continue a topic that I brought up today in the Main Committee which unfortunately was cut short but to me is very important. I have just returned from a celebration of Christmas, but I would like us to spare a thought for the isolated mining community of Queenstown on Tasmania's west coast. Over 200 miners and their families are facing uncertain futures after the announcement this week that an administrator will take control of the Mount Lyell copper mine. Plummeting commodity prices have reached historic lows and have brought one of Australia's oldest copper mines to its knees. Indeed, I believe today the commodity trade weighted index has been announced as the lowest in 20 years. There will be an anxious wait to see whether it is decided to continue on with the mine.There is a mood of uncertainty among the people of the west coast. Many, even the most optimistic, fear it could be the end. If this mine does close down, shock waves will be felt not only in my electorate of Braddon but also in Dick Adams's electorate of Lyons and around Tasmania. At a time when the state desperately needs jobs and investment, it can ill-afford a decision that puts the future of a major employer let alone an icon of the mining industry in doubt. It would be another very bitter pill to swallow for the north-west and west coasts, which have seen a gradual decline of the region's industrial base and the loss of hundreds of jobs.It is now an all too familiar scenario for many regional centres around Australia, but to see the flagship of Tasmania's proud mining industry in such trouble does little for the confidence of the community, the region and the state. Once regarded as the world's richest copper mine, Mount Lyell has had a chequered history, but the resilient mining community has always managed to triumph over adversity, and I for one am not writing it off just yet.One thing the miners and the community have no control over, as we are all aware, are world commodity prices. Mount Lyell is not the only mine at the crossroads. Prices for zinc, copper, tin and iron ore are so depressed that all the mines on the west coast of Tasmania are under pressure. It is a terribly unfair return for those who have poured tens of millions of dollars over the past decade into trying to access deeper ore bodies. The workers, their families and the communities that support them have played a major role in keeping things going. They have done their part.They have had to adjust to change, like most workers, like most communities. It has not been easy for them but they accepted the challenges and made things work. Yet the Renison mine, one of the world's largest underground tin mines, is today also in trouble. The Pasminco zinc-lead mine at Rosebery is also struggling, and it has been a tough initiation for the newest mine on the west coast, the Henty gold mine. The rejuvenated Savage River mine, two years after reopening, is going through difficult times, and only recently had to put its plans for expansion and downstream processing on hold.Add to all this the impending closure of the Hellyer mine and the 200 jobs that will be lost there when it shuts down in under two years, and it gives credence to those who suggest Tasmania's mining industry is in dire straits. It makes us wonder whether we will ever see a return to the glory days of mining. I know that for some people 200 workers do not seem a lot; in Tasmania it is an astronomical number.Right now all eyes are again on Queenstown on the west coast. In its heyday in the early 1950s, Mount Lyell had a work force of over 2,500, Queenstown was a thriving community and the west coast was hailed as one of the richest and most diverse mining regions in the world.The infamous hills and barren landscape surrounding Queenstown, with which I am sure you are all familiar—I notice that one member on the opposite side is familiar with Queenstown; the landscape is very much the same—is the legacy of century old mining practices but that landscape belies the enormous wealth generated from the plentiful copper bearing ore underneath. It is indeed a cruel irony that the mining operation at Mount Lyell is achieving world's best practice in production and, I might add, environmental standards.After struggling from crisis to crisis for much of its colourful 100 year-plus history, many believed Mount Lyell had finally turned the corner when new owners moved in four years ago. Sadly, we are now left to ponder again whether it will ever get back on its feet. Yesterday saw the first casualties in the latest upheaval of the mine's life. About 50 contract maintenance workers lost their jobs, and today Tasmanian Labor Premier, Jim Bacon, was flying to Queenstown to meet mine management and unions. No doubt, he will be asked for assistance to help keep the mine going, as successive Tasmanian governments of both political ilks have done in the past.The state Labor government's priority is to keep the mine open, to help it ride out the current crisis. It stands ready to assist. I urge the federal government to also become involved and to make the Prime Minister and Senator Nick Minchin aware of the dilemma facing the west coast mining community, if they do not already know. Indeed, it is an excellent opportunity for the Howard government to show Tasmanians it really does care about the state. Recent events suggest John Howard has hung Tasmania out to dry—that Mr Howard himself has given up on Tasmania.It is time, in Queenstown's hour of need, for Mr Howard to act. The Commonwealth should release the $20 million it has promised for the restoration of the historic ABT railway between Queenstown and Strahan as soon as is appropriate. In the meantime, let us hope the people of Queenstown get the Christmas present they all want: a decision to keep the mine going.195222:56:001952Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Last week this House and the nation were shocked and saddened to hear of the deaths of five brave firefighters in an inferno near Linton in south-west Victoria. This tragic event also sent shock waves through the people of my electorate of Hughes, because my electorate is also a bushland electorate, and we also know the terrible toll demanded for living in the Australian bush.Last week, five courageous Australians gave their lives in helping out their local communities. Their names should live forever. They were loving sons, husbands, and fathers, and they will be sadly missed by their families and their community—most particularly this Christmas. They were: Jason Thomas; Stuart Davidson; Matthew Armstrong—at only 17 the youngest crew member; Gary Vredeveldt, and Christopher Evans. I also read in the Australian that young Matthew Armstrong was a third generation volunteer and had wanted to become a professional firefighter. This is one of the significant traditions of Australian families who know and live in the Australian bush.There is a similar tradition in my electorate of Hughes. The electorate of Hughes lies to the south of Sydney, and includes much of Sutherland Shire, the northern Illawarra and the area to the east of Liverpool. The vast tracts of bushland and heath of the historic Royal National Park and the great gums of the Heathcote National Park cover much of the south-eastern region of the electorate. To the west lie the protected bushland, deep gorges and shaded gullies which make up the Holsworthy defence area, which stretches along the full length of the west of the electorate.The traditions of the Australian bush firefighter are very much part of the traditions and lore of my electorate. I am proud to record that there are 14 brigades across its length and breadth. From the tiny village communities of Darkes Forest, Otford, Stanwell Park and Waterfall in the southern end, to Sandy Point in the north-west, and Bundeena and Maianbar in the east, all have their own brigades, as does the town of Helensburgh. The bush suburbs of Loftus, Engadine, Heathcote, Woronora River, Menai, and Illawong all boast their own brigades. There is the fire control centre at Heathcote, as there is bush all around us in Hughes.Like many who love and share the beauty of our bush, we have lived for generations of summers and, like the cicadas who drum up the heat from December to February, the summer bushfires have always been very much part of our reality. I think that if you wanted to somehow depict the spirit of the electorate of Hughes, you would have to draw it as a flame. After all, it is that which unites our neighbours and our neighbourhoods and engenders such mateship and committed community spirit.Last Sunday, the Mayor of Sutherland Shire, Councillor Kevin Schreiber, held a special service of remembrance and dedication for the members of the firefighting community. Neighbours and friends, citizens and elected local representatives gathered in Peace Park in Sutherland for the moving service to pay tribute to our local heroes who gave their lives fighting the summer fires. Upon a rough cairn of bush rocks, carried from the locations where 11 of our local lads died in service since 1977, was placed a blackened yellow jacket and a firefighter's helmet. Thus was provided a poignant memorial for all of us gathered around there in the morning sunlight.The mayor gave a moving address and read the roll of honour, and I repeat their names here so that they too may be recorded upon the escutcheon of this nation. On 16 December 1977, Leslie Delardes from Menai Brigade died while fighting a fire near the Old Illawarra Road at Menai. On 3 November 1980, we also knew the shock of losing five men in one tragic instant. Five firefighters from Headquarters Brigade, Steven Crunkhorn, Vernon Stedman, William Cummings, David Marshall and Gregory Rolf, were burnt to death fighting a fire on the Ulloola Track in the Royal National Park near Waterfall. Three years later, on 9 January 1983, we lost another three good men, Keith Campbell, Thomas Bielecke and Gregory Moon from Heathcote Brigade. They were burnt to death in a fireball at Anana Hill near Angle Road, Grays Point in the Royal National Park. In this horrific event another five firefighters were also permanently disfigured by burns. Another five years on, on 16 October 1988, firefighter Allan Rendell from Illawong Brigade was crushed to death when a tree fell on his fire truck in Lady Carrington Drive, again in the Royal National Park near Waterfall. And only last year, young Peter Estcourt of Grays Point Brigade died four weeks before his 21st birthday in the Menai fires on 7 December at Still Creek Trail, near Beaumaris Drive, at Menai. As I read the newspaper reports, I am struck by the similarity between our young Peter Estcourt of Grays Point Brigade and young Matthew Armstrong of Geelong West. Both came from families where belonging to the local brigade was a strong tradition. Peter Estcourt's family had a special place amongst those who gathered at the moving ceremony in Peace Park last Sunday. The mayor referred to the Linton tragedy and said it had brought back into sharp focus the dangers faced by all bushfire volunteers as the summer months approach. Five wreaths were laid to represent each of the five brigades in our local area that had lost members of their crews. The mayor expressed the eternal gratitude of the local community to the bush firefighters who had given their lives in service, and publicly promised a fitting memorial in Peace Park to help demonstrate that gratitude and to remind all of us that `Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'My husband Bob and I were moving back to the car park after this ceremony when a young male voice called out my name. I turned to see a fine, strapping young man of about 20 years striding towards us. I recognised that he was one of the wreath party and had laid a wreath on behalf of the Headquarters Brigade. His eyes were bright and his face was alive with purpose. `Mrs Vale,' he said, `my name is Shannon Cummings. Is there any chance we can organise a medal or something for the firefighters who died fighting the fires?' Before I could answer, he went on to explain. `My dad was Bill Cummings. He died on the Ulloola Track in the Royal National Park in 1980.' I then learnt that Shannon was only one when his dad died with four of his mates in the crew that terrible day. He was an only son and grew up not knowing his dad, except that he was a firefighter and was proud of his brigade.Shannon is 19 and he was in uniform. He was also a firefighter, like the dad he never knew. Shannon is a crew member of the Engadine Brigade, and has been since he was 17. `They've been like a family to me,' he said of his mates in the brigade. `Yes, mum does worry. But she knows it's important to me and she knows where I am.' It was a moving experience to meet this lovely young Australian in his firefighter uniform, with his eyes shining with pride for his dad, and for his mates in the Engadine Brigade. I thought: this is what unites our local heroes. Whether they live in Geelong West or Sutherland Shire, it is the old Anzac spirit. It is alive and it is glowing in the new generation of our young firefighters. It is the great Aussie mateship shown by Matthew Armstrong from Geelong West and shown by Peter Estcourt from Grays Point Brigade, and it will be carried into the 21st century by young champions like Shannon Cummings whose dad died on the Ulloola Track. His dad must be very proud. I was; and I felt very humble.Now we approach Christmas, and I am very mindful that there are some very special families in Australia who are going to be without their loved ones who actually gave their lives for the rest of us. Last week in this place it was suggested that there should be a memorial in the national capital to record the great sacrifice of all volunteers who die in the service of their local communities. I applaud this suggestion, and for these wonderful young men, and for all those who have died as volunteers fighting fires, I will work to bring this about. For Christmas, this is perhaps the very least I can do.195423:05:001954O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Tonight I rise in the House to pay tribute to the five Geelong firefighters who perished tragically in a bushfire at Linton in Victoria last week. The firefighters, Matthew Armstrong, Chris Evans, Stuart Davidson, Gary Vredeveldt and Jason Thomas, were all volunteers with the Geelong West Fire Brigade who died in the service of their community. The people of Geelong have been devastated by the death of these five generous volunteers, but that overwhelming sadness felt by the community really pales when compared to the deep pain and sense of loss being felt by the families of our five brave volunteers.The funerals of the Linton five will be held over the next few days in Geelong, and it will be a very difficult time for the families and friends of those generous men who have given their lives in the service of their community. I know I speak for all members of this House when I extend to the families of those firefighters our deepest sympathies as they come to terms with the reality of the tragedy that has changed their lives forever. I was proud and grateful for the honour this House bestowed on the Linton five when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and all members acknowledged the great sacrifice of these brave men.Geelong is a community that has endured much in recent times, but it is a city with a proud history of volunteerism. Day in and day out, ordinary working people in Geelong give to their community through the generous commitment of their time and effort to better the lives and the lot of their fellow citizens. They are indeed the weavers of the fabric that has kept our community strong in the face of adversity. And it is for those volunteers that I speak tonight in offering our support to the families of the Linton five in their hour of need.When I returned to my electorate last Thursday, I went immediately to the Geelong West fire station, the home of these very special firefighting volunteers. It was there, in the deepest of sad times, that I witnessed first-hand the enduring bonds that have been forged within that brigade by those who have chosen to serve their community in this way. I also witnessed the spontaneous outpouring of support from the people in the Geelong community who had laid wreaths at the small fire station, which had overnight become the symbol of all that is good in the sacrifice of the Linton five.I felt very proud of the five firefighters and of the community that is now supporting the grieving relatives. The dimensions of this tragedy and the extent of the sacrifice involved can be gauged by the ages of the men who perished: Matthew Armstrong was only 17; Jason Thomas, only 18; Stuart Davidson, only 28; Chris Evans, only 23; and Gary Vredeveldt, only 45. They were young men with many years of dedicated service ahead of them, hence the deep sense of loss that is now felt at their passing.I hope the Prime Minister will act upon the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that a national monument be erected to honour the lives of those volunteers who have perished in the service of their communities. It would be a fitting way for all Australians to acknowledge the contribution made by volunteers to our society. I hope also that the government sees fit to look favourably on a request for funding for the Australasian Assembly of Volunteer Fire Brigade Associations so that they can attend standards safety committees on behalf of their members. I understand that the amount sought is only $15,000, and such a funding gesture would be an appropriate acknowledgment of the contribution of firefighters around Australia to the safety of their communities.I acknowledge the words of the member for Hughes in this House tonight in paying tribute to those firefighters who perished so tragically last week. One cannot gauge the depths of sadness within the families at the tragedy that has befallen them. But, as I expressed to the House when condolences were moved in the wake of their passing, as sure as night turns to day, there will be some warm memories within those families of the good times they spent with those firefighters, and they will be very proud, as the community of Geelong is proud, of the tremendous effort and sacrifice those men have made on behalf of their fellow human beings.I think it is important tonight to acknowledge the great contribution of volunteers throughout this nation, not only the volunteers in the Geelong community but also those in the electorate of the member for Hughes and the other members who sit in this place tonight, who represent all Australians. As I said, these are the weavers of the fabric of our society, the weavers of the community spirit that keeps these communities alive in the face of tragedy and in the face of the assaults that are now upon them by the pressures of the global community. My heart goes out tomorrow to the families of those five firefighters, and I express tonight the support of the total Geelong community for those families in their hour of need.195523:11:001955McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I would like to acknowledge the contributions to the parliament of Australia of two former members of this House: the Hon. Peter Morris, member of the Labor Party and the member for Shortland from 1972 to 1998, and the Hon. Chris Miles, the member for Braddon from 1984 to 1998.In the case of Peter Morris, who obviously was from the other side of the House, I wish to acknowledge his contribution as a person who contributed to policy and to the good workings of the House. He joined the parliament in 1972 during the hectic years of the Whitlam government, and he eventually became the Minister for Transport. His great knowledge of transport matters became known to me and members of the standing committee on transport. He was a very well-known and acknowledged transport minister in the Labor government. As members opposite would be aware, he lost that job—I guess in good Labor Party tradition—because the numbers in the factions did not go his way. I put on the public record that Peter Morris never once complained about the factional deals that were done that resulted in the loss of his job which, in my assessment and the assessment of others, he was executing very well on behalf of the then Labor government.I came to know Peter Morris very well in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, and it became obvious during my association with him that his vast knowledge of road funding, of transport by sea and, of course, of matters affecting the waterfront were second to none in this parliament, and probably second to none in Australia. I guess he came to international prominence with the report entitled Ships of Shame. That report was highly regarded in the city of London, in America and of course throughout Australia in bringing the plight of seafarers, especially those seafarers who lost their lives in those oil tankers in the Indian Ocean and other areas, to world attention. It was his dedication to that particular cause that brought world attention, and I think it could be quite truly said that it was his enthusiasm that has brought about a change of attitude that will ensure a better lifestyle and a better set of conditions for those seafarers on the international sea routes who nobody really cares very much about.Peter Morris came from a different background from mine, yet his life experience and his experience in this parliament always brought to bear an intelligent assessment of the politics and the factual matters relating to the areas with which he was familiar. He was a great supporter of the parliamentary system through his experience as a minister, on the back bench and in the parliamentary committee process. He quite often said that parliamentary committees could influence the outcomes of government like no minister could because they had a bipartisan approach and enjoyed the experience of getting to the factual matters behind the policy decisions. Peter Morris was a bipartisan participant. Whilst he had strongly held views about certain matters, he was always prepared to listen to expressions of opinion by witnesses and members of the other side of the political divide.His knowledge of transport matters was second to none, as I have said. As I said to one front bencher in the opposition, he was regarded by his peers in the transport area in Australia as being the most knowledgeable person in that area. No greater compliment could be paid to a member of this House than that he had a great store of knowledge. It was recognised that he had seen all the issues, he had heard the arguments about road funding and cabotage of shipping. He had heard the arguments about the waterfront and he had seen the difficulties in the movement of goods through the waterfront, the hold-ups prior to the waterfront, and the distribution of goods around the waterfront in the capital cities.He brought a very high-quality mind to debate in the parliament. He was dedicated to the democratic tradition that everyone was entitled to a fair go. Whilst I obviously would not agree with his policy position, I put on the public record that Peter Morris was prepared to listen and to debate the issue in the interests of Australia. I regard him as a good friend and, I put on the record, a very dedicated federal member who served the nation and his party, and served them without rancour or ill will. He leaves this parliament with my particular goodwill and, I think, the goodwill of all members who served with him on both the other side of the parliament and on this side.The second person I would like to acknowledge is Chris Miles, the former member for Braddon, who served this parliament with great distinction from 1984 for the electorate of Braddon. He was well known for his great knowledge of forestry matters and the debate on the RFA issues. No-one better understood those complex matters. Coming from Tasmania, he had a clear understanding of forestry issues, both as they affected the workers of his electorate and the Tasmanian electorate at large.He brought a very keen sense of policy to some of the debates in this parliament. I well recall the very strong debate on the Bill of Rights in 1988. It was Chris Miles who crystallised the then opposition's point of view in advocating a questioning of the proposition that was put forward by the then Labor government. It was his clear understanding of the morality of the basis of the Westminster system that was being challenged by the Bill of Rights. In his own quiet way, he advocated that the Bill of Rights was not the right way to go in Australia because we enjoyed a very open, sensible, democratic system, with the various courts interpreting the laws that were enacted in both state and federal parliaments.Chris Miles understood morality being the basis of political thinking. He always brought to bear in the Liberal Party the very sensible and powerful point of view that, in the longer run, the laws that were enacted by this parliament had a moral basis. Members would be aware that he was very greatly influenced by the importance of the family in the Australian context. His influence in this parliament, both public and private, was in advocating that the policies of the current government and of the opposition revolve around the importance of the family unit and the way that would influence the future of Australia.Chris Miles was politically aware in his own quiet way and he made a great contribution as the parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister John Howard. In my view, he was the unsung hero of John Howard's first term in government. He provided that link from the executive to the back bench. He was most efficient and he always had a very sensible view on political matters. He was sound in policy and always represented the views of those in the electorate, especially those of Tasmania. He was a man of honour, a man of absolute integrity, and someone who could be trusted absolutely with any point of view or any comment that was given to him.He was dedicated to the betterment of Australia and he came to this parliament to improve the lot of his fellow Australians, be they on this side of the parliament or the other. Unfortunately, the vagaries of politics brought about his defeat, but not for lack of activity at the local level or a dedication to the electors of the seat of Braddon. To his wife Roslyn and his family, on behalf of all members, I wish them well for the future. I hope that his accumulated skills are put to good use in the long active life ahead of him. I put on the public record that this parliament is poorer for the political defeat of the Hon. Chris Miles, the former member for Braddon.195723:21:001957Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—In the dying minutes of the adjournment debate last Tuesday I had commenced talking about the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of a constituent of mine in Greece in June this year. Regrettably, time got away and, given this opportunity, I would like to add some further particulars and details to that particular matter. The constituent, a 28-year-old man called George Karalis, was found dead with his cousin in horrific circumstances in a boat that was floating several kilometres off the coast of Greece in early June.The matter has been referred to the Victorian coroner, who has issued a coronial court order, with some 17 items of information being requested. The coroner, it would appear, has been guided in his actions in part by advice from the ministry of the Department of Foreign Affairs. To quote a cable from Athens from that department:We were informed by the Hellenic Ministry of Justice (Mrs Daphni) that an Australian court order will be valid in Greece under a reciprocal arrangements scheme . . . So it would appear that the Victorian coroner has an expectation that the Greek authorities will be forthcoming in providing the range of forensic material and other information he needs to carry out an inquest into the death of the Victorian citizen George Karalis in the horrific circumstances I have referred to. The Victorian Institute of Forensic Pathology, a world-class institution, has examined the remains of Mr Karalis and, no doubt, is wishing to present its findings on that pathological examination to the coroner when the opportunity arises.It is unacceptable to me that, some six months after the request has gone to the Greek authorities, there is still no response to the Victorian coroner's request for information. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Department of Foreign Affairs' consular services should, with some vigour, be pursuing this particular matter with the Greek authorities to ensure that the family of Mr Karalis and the family of his cousin who was killed in the same situation with him can have some sense of justice being done in these tragic circumstances.I would have thought that it would be in the interests of Greece generally for this matter to be clarified. Many thousands of Australians—many of Greek origin, as Mr Karalis was—travel to Greece every year and those people are entitled to have an expectation that due process and due justice will be done if, God forbid, they become the victims of criminal activity while they are there. Given the performance to date on this matter, one would have to raise queries about that.The circumstances in brief were that Karalis was found in a boat, with one end of a rope tied to the roll bar of the boat and the other tied loosely around his neck. His wrists had been slashed and knife gashes crisscrossed his chest. His cousin, who was also in the boat, had wounds that would appear to be consistent with having been repeatedly rammed against the propeller blades of the boat. So we are dealing here with particularly horrific deaths.I am advised by the family that the Greek police made a statement a couple of hours after the bodies were returned to shore, indicating that they believed they were dealing with a murder-suicide situation. That has absolutely outraged the families. These two cousins were particularly close and to suggest that that was the explanation for the circumstances is grossly offensive to the families. It has also been suggested to me that examination, including the examination carried out by the Victorian pathologists, will bear very much on providing some explanations or some comments on that particular observation.I am told by the family that the Greek police subsequently put forward some other view, and that was that the cousin, George Loizos, may have died while trying to fix the boat's propeller—that would explain the propeller wounds on his body—and his grief-stricken cousin Karalis responded to this by killing himself. The family also finds that particular explanation implausible and totally at odds with other evidence that time prevents me going into.The family wonders why it took the police several hours to get to the scene after appar ently being notified. They also wonder why material, including the dinghy in which the men were found, was left out in the elements for some considerable time after being towed to shore, thereby destroying vital forensic evidence that would have been associated with the boat when it was brought in.The family suspicions and concerns about the circumstances are exacerbated by other factors. The family tell me—and this particular matter has been reported in the Australian media—that a Greek television reporter who has worked on the story about the unexplained deaths of not only these gentlemen but other people in the area has received threatening phone calls, particularly after an anonymous caller to this television reporter's program said that they had seen police boarding the boat of the cousins before they died. The widow of Loizos has also claimed that she has received anonymous threatening phone calls telling her not to push the matter or the same thing would happen to her. I cannot authenticate those claims, but they have been made to me by members of the family and they have been published in the media.As I said, the coroner's court in Victoria has served papers through diplomatic channels in Greece. They have apparently been guided in that process by advice received from the Australian embassy in Athens that the Greek authorities would recognise the validity of an appropriately prepared court order from Australia. Yet, six months after these particularly horrific murders there has not been a response to the request that has been made.This is a matter which I will be vigorously urging the Australian government to take up with the Greek authorities and suggest that we are not going to accept undue continuing delays in relation to ensuring that the Karalis family benefits from the comfort of at least having an adequate explanation of the circumstances of the death of their son. That is also very much in the interests of Greece, with which Australia enjoys very warm and close relations. We all understand the magnificent contribution that Greek Australians have made to our community. When Greek Australians see one of their number, in this case George Karalis, the victim of a horrific crime, they are entitled to expect that something be done more rapidly. As I said, it would be in the interests of Greece, in terms of its image in Australia as a safe destination for tourists and its image as a place where justice will be done for people who have been the victims of crime, that the Greek authorities now cooperate fully with the authorities in Australia to ensure that justice is done in these matters.195923:30:001959Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Earlier this evening the member for Deakin made some comments about schools and teachers in his electorate. I would also like to pay tribute to many of the teachers throughout our schools in this country who are doing a great service to the young people in the community.A few weeks before the last election campaign, I attended a rally organised by a P&C organisation and the Teachers Federation in my electorate. I also attended a number of other meetings organised by the Teachers Federation in relation to funding for public schools. The parents and teachers who attended those meetings had a very genuine concern for their profession, a very real concern for our young people and a determination to do what they could to improve the lot of education in our country. Unfortunately, some of those involved were more interested in making political mileage out of the issue and were more determined to score a few political points. It was a real shame that this very significant and important issue was politicised by some in the way that it was in the light of a genuine concern by so many people. The effect of that was to create a degree of animosity, envy and competition that was unnecessary.Most teachers, be they in the public system or in the non-government system, are doing their very best for the future of our young people. Many of them put in enormously long hours and most of them are extraordinarily committed. Many of them give much of themselves and of their time, and make a personal sacrifice to bring quality to education both in our public education system and in our non-government education system. I was really quite concerned that during this campaign, which quite rightly focused on the need to raise education standards in our public schools, it was brought in a light of animosity and competition that did nothing to really create a more or appropriate awareness of the concerns regarding education.One of the areas of misunderstanding in this whole issue was the sense that it had to be one or the other—that it was all or nothing. There was a sense for some of those involved that funding for the non-government sector was very much at the expense of the government sector. There was a failure to understand that, by the government supporting the non-government sector and by the parents of those children sending them to non-government schools, they were actually subsidising the education of their children in a way that relieved the funding burden on our government schools.In fact, the figures in the New South Wales system showed very clearly that the funding, on average, for students in government schools was some $1,500 to $2,000 per capita higher than it was for students in non-government schools. Therefore, by parents subsidising the cost of education of their children in non-government schools, government funding was able to go further in the government schools system. What some of those political activists who had somehow captured that debate failed to recognise was that, in their attempts to remove all funding from the non-government system, they were going to jeopardise the public sector by putting an unsustainable strain on that sector.It is not a matter of competition. It is not a matter of public versus private. It is not a matter of one or the other. It is a matter of how we can work together for the sake of our young people and how we can, in both the public and the non-government system, do the best we can for the future of this country. It was a shame that this debate was captured in a way that created a feeling of division instead of unity in that common purpose.Schoolteachers in both systems are under increasing pressure, and they do a tremendous job in the face of that pressure. They face increasing challenges in the society that they are preparing our young people for. They face increasing problems dealing with children who are often subjected to family breakdown, family dislocation and dysfunctional families. These are children who really need the nurture and care that they lack in their families and often get in the school situation. Teachers face the challenge of increasing pressures associated with changing curricula and changing issues that need to be dealt with—issues of peer support programs and child protection programs—as well as the pressure to provide greater, more relevant and more demanding career guidance counselling and preparation for the work force. There is also the challenge of tertiary institutions placing increasing demands on these schools and on young people.The teachers in our schools in both the public system and the non-government system are facing increasing difficulties, increasing challenges and increasing complexities in their tasks all the time. In both systems they need to be supported, they need to be encouraged and they need to be built up. I do not think a debate that pitted one system against the other was helpful in this regard.This government is committed to choice in education. This government has funded choice in education. This government has increased funding for our public system; in fact, specific purpose grants increased over the past three years by $165 million to the public education system. But this government is also committed to choice—that is, that parents should have the right to choose whether their children are educated in the public system or in the non-government system.It is a government's role not to dictate where children should be educated but to support the choice made by parents. It is the government's role to support teachers and to encourage the teachers in the wonderful job they do for our young people. It is also the role of the community to encourage our teachers. I would like to pay tribute to the wonderful work that most of our teachers do, be they in the public school system or be they in the non-government system.Question resolved in the negative.Bills1960r6141960Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Page 4 (after line 21), after clause 9, insert:9A Prohibition on certain nuclear installations (1) Nothing in this Act is to be taken to authorise the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: (a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; (b) a nuclear power plant; (c) an enrichment plant; (d) a reprocessing facility. (2) The CEO must not issue a licence under section 31 in respect of any of the facilities mentioned in subsection (1).(2) Clause 12, page 8 (lines 14 to 22), omit the definition of nuclear installation , substitute: nuclear installation means any of the following: (a) a nuclear reactor for research or production of nuclear materials for industrial or medical use (including critical and sub-critical assemblies); (b) a plant for preparing or storing fuel for use in a nuclear reactor as described in paragraph (a);(c) a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section; (d) a facility for production of radioisotopes with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section.(3) Clause 14, page 10 (after line 21), after paragraph (e), insert: (ea) to monitor the operations of ARPANSA, the Council, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee; (eb) to report on the operations of ARPANSA, the Council, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee; (4) Clause 14, page 10 (after line 21), after paragraph (e), insert: (ec) to monitor compliance with Division 1 of Part 5 and make recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions;(5) Clause 19, page 12 (line 21), at the end of the clause, add: ; (f) to report to the CEO on matters relating to radiation protection and nuclear safety.(6) Clause 20, page 13 (after line 2), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) Before appointing a member, the Minister must consult such consumer groups and such environmental groups as the Minister considers appropriate.(7) Clause 22, page 13 (line 21), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (d) from time to time, to review national policies, codes and standards in relation to radiation protection to ensure that they continue to substantially reflect world best practice;(e) to consult publicly in the development and review of policies, codes and standards in relation to radiation protection.(8) Clause 23, page 14 (after line 8), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) Before appointing a member, the CEO must consult such consumer groups and such environmental groups as the CEO considers appropriate.(9) Clause 25, page 14 (line 27), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (d) to report to the CEO on matters relating to nuclear safety and the safety of controlled facilities.(10) Clause 26, page 15 (after line 15), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) Before appointing a member, the CEO must consult such consumer groups and such environmental groups as the CEO considers appropriate.(11) Clause 31, page 19 (line 11), at the end of subclause (3), add ", and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety".(12) Clause 32, page 19 (line 19), at the end of subclause (3), add ", and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety".(13) Clause 40, page 23 (after line 16), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) As soon as possible after giving directions under subsection (2), the CEO must provide a copy of the directions to the Minister. (3B) The Minister must cause a copy of the directions to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the directions have been given.(14) Clause 57, page 32 (lines 3 to 6), omit the clause, substitute:57 Staff and consultants (1) The staff necessary to assist the CEO are to be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 . (2) The CEO has all the powers of, or exercisable by, a Secretary under the Public Service Act 1922 , so far as those powers relate to the branch of the Australian Public Service comprising the staff referred to in subsection (1), as if that branch were a separate Department of the Australian Public Service. (3) The CEO, on behalf of the Commonwealth, may engage consultants to assist in the performance of any of the CEO's functions.(15) Clause 58, page 32 (lines 9 and 10), omit "the operations of the CEO during that year.", substitute:the operations during that year of: (a) the CEO; and (b) ARPANSA; and (c) the Council, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee.(16) Clause 58, page 32 (after line 12), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The report must include details of any breach of licence conditions by a licensee during the financial year, of which the CEO is aware. (2B) The report must include details of all reports received by the CEO during the financial year under paragraph 19(f) or 25(1)(d).(17) Clause 59, page 32 (lines 18 and 19), omit "the operations of the CEO during that quarter.", substitute:the operations during that quarter of: (a) the CEO; and (b) ARPANSA; and (c) the Council, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee.(18) Clause 59, page 32 (after line 19), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) The report must include details of directions given by the Minister during the quarter under section 15. (1B) The report must include details of any breach of licence conditions by a licensee during the quarter, of which the CEO is aware. (1C) The report must include details of all reports received by the CEO during the quarter under paragraph 19(f) or 25(1)(d). (1D) The report must include a list of all facilities licensed under Part 5 during the quarter.(19) Clause 60, page 33 (after line 3), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) If a serious accident or malfunction occurs at a nuclear installation, the CEO must cause a report about the incident to be tabled in each House of the Parliament no later than 3 sitting days after the incident occurs.23:38:001962Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.I am pleased to see this ARPANSA legislation returned from the Senate to become law. I believe the amendments agreed to by the Senate will strengthen this legislation. I thank the opposition for working with the government to come to a sensible outcome. The ARPANSA legislation fills a regulatory gap that has been the topic of intense debate. Australia now has a system of regulation for nuclear facilities. I am pleased to note that the coalition has, for the first time, put in place a strong regulatory framework to regulate the Commonwealth's nuclear and radiation activities, including Lucas Heights.I very much thank the member for Hughes for her interest, her activity and her help in seeing this legislation get through. She has been a strong and effective advocate for her constituents.23:39:001962Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—As the minister said, this legislation has had a long history, having been presented in the House twice before in earlier incarnations. I am pleased to say that every time it has come back here it has been improved significantly. The extensive amendments that have been made in the Senate are a demonstration of the valuable work that can be done by Senate committees which take the time and trouble to properly investigate the implications of legislation.The Community Affairs Legislation Committee held a one-day inquiry into this bill after it passed through the House earlier in the session. This hearing identified many issues that the government had not properly addressed. I am pleased that some active discussion with the government has resulted in a significant number of improvements being accepted.The three new committees will now have wider representation with a commitment that there will be consultation with consumer and environmental groups. The range of nuclear facilities that can be licensed has been considerably narrowed to include only those types of facilities which are required in Australia to support industrial and medical application of nuclear technologies and the safe use of radiation. Importantly, a list of major facilities has been inserted to clarify that they cannot be established within the ambit of this bill. This includes nuclear power stations, enrichment plants and fuel reprocessing.There are two matters, however, which I regret the government voted in the Senate to reject. The reasons for doing so are not clear and I would welcome the minister here tonight making a clear statement on his reasons. The first is the question of establishment of commercial waste disposal sites in Australia. Just this week we have discovered that a major consortium has been making soundings about whether a large international waste disposal facility could be established in Australia.The second issue I would appreciate the minister responding on is the desirability of holding a public inquiry prior to the establishment of a major new nuclear facility. The government has argued that this would normally occur but has refused to write a provi sion into the bill. Its reasoning seems to be tied to a desire to avoid a debate about the future replacement of the Lucas Heights reactor.I must say that I cannot see why the government is so shy of putting this matter in the public eye. I would appreciate it if the minister would make a commitment here that, although he has not allowed this matter to be written into the bill, he will support having some form of public inquiry if there is a proposal to build a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or anywhere else, or to approve any new waste disposal facilities. I think he knows as well as I do that the public would demand that such facilities be subject to careful scrutiny and that he should have accepted that if ARPANSA is to properly fulfil its role it should have been given this responsibility.All that said, Mr Speaker, the opposition welcomes the establishment of the new regulatory authority and looks forward to it being a successful and careful regulator of the nuclear industry in Australia.23:43:001963Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Just briefly in answer to the shadow minister, we have a very strong view that the issue of policy should be separate from the issue of regulation. ARPANSA is a regulatory body, not a policy making body. There has been no regulatory body for nuclear facilities in the broader sense, whether it be an X-ray machine or Lucas Heights. I have been happy to take that on in my portfolio.The issue of whether or not we should have such a facility is an issue for the minister for industry. We have tried to separate those two and we think that it would be quite wrong for the regulatory body to become involved in policy. That is not to say that we support a nuclear reprocessing facility or a nuclear waste facility: we do not. But the regulatory body should not be a policy body. We think that for the regulatory body to be most effective it should be completely separate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1963The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Bills1963r6401963Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 14-15, page 30 (line 5), omit "subsection (2)", substitute "subsections (2) and (3)".(2) Clause 14-15, page 30 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The Minister must not approve an application by a *health fund for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2000 or a later financial year unless the health fund provides its members with the choice of one or more of the following types of policies: (a) a *no gap policy; (b) a *known gap policy.(3) Clause 20-5, page 45 (after line 22), after the definition of hospital cover , insert: hospital treatment has the meaning given by section 3 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 .(4) Clause 20-5, page 45 (after line 25), after the definition of incentive payments scheme , insert: known gap policy means a private health insurance policy that covers all but a specified amount or percentage of the full cost of hospital treatment and associated professional attention for the person or persons insured.(5) Clause 20-5, page 45 (after line 28), after the definition of Managing Director , insert: no gap policy means a private health insurance policy that covers the full cost of hospital treatment and associated professional attention for the person or persons insured.(6) Clause 20-5, page 47 (after line 4), after the definition of private health insurance policy , insert: professional attention has the meaning given by section 3 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 .23:45:001964Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.This is a great day for the 5.8 million Australians who have private health insurance. This is a great day for commonsense over ideology. This is a great day because in three weeks time the price of private health insurance will be cut by 30 per cent, delivered in full, on time, as promised by this government.This is a great day because we are delivering balance to the Australian health insurance system. We have a commitment to the private health sector as well as to the public health system. It is a great day because you are seeing concrete deliveries by the Australian government, as distinct from the carping, whingeing, negative opposition-for-the-sake-of-it by the Labor Party. The fact is that the private sector is important in health. It is important if it is something you want for yourself but, even if you do not want it, it is important because without a strong viable private sector you cannot have a strong viable public sector.The fact is that the government believes in both. We have fought for it, and we have not been helped one inch of the way by the Labor Party. We have had a very substantial victory tonight delivering the first part of our tax reform package. In only three weeks, 5.3 million adult Australians will have a 30 per cent cut to the cost of private health insurance. This is something the Australian public wants.In an almost unprecedented poll in today's Herald Sun, Australia's largest circulating newspaper, 98 per cent of people who phoned in said they wanted this passed. Only two per cent of people supported the Labor Party. The fact is that the Labor Party is completely out of touch with the Australian public. They have shown they have not understood the lessons of having lost in October, and if they keep supporting the sort of policies they have now—the negative opposition, the carping and obstruction—this government is going to have a very, very long term in office.23:47:001964Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—What we have here tonight is the worst example of public policy ever seen in this parliament. The only justification for this policy has been public opinion polling done by the industries that are going to benefit from this huge waste of taxpayers' money. What we have had is public opinion polling and political threats from the minister. That is the sum total of the policy development of this government.This government is planning to spend $1.7 billion—to achieve what? The only piece of information that we have got from the government is that the government hopes that health insurance membership will go up to 33 per cent. What is the government trying to get from the funds in return from the taxpayers' largesse? Certainly no control over premiums. There has been no absolutely no requirement by this government that the funds control their costs, that the private hospitals control their costs or that the doctors control their costs. Quite the reverse. What the government has done is to provide a blank cheque, underwriting 30 per cent of all future premium rises. That is what the Australian taxpayer has just been signed up to by this government.What this means for those people who have private health insurance is that the value of this rebate will be very quickly gobbled up by premium rises. What else may we have hoped for from the funds? We would have hoped for a serious commitment to control the out-of-pocket costs—what are otherwise known as gaps.As we all know, this is a very serious problem. People are paying more in gaps. They are paying more out of their pockets than they even pay for the premiums. Just yesterday I had another example of a person who had to pay $3,000 in out-of-pocket costs—twice the amount that they had to pay in their premiums. As that person said to me, it is very hard to justify staying in a fund.The Senate amendments were cobbled together today by the Minister for Health and Aged Care, at the table, to get Senator Harradine's vote. Is that going to do anything to fix the problems of gaps? Absolutely not. Senator Harradine's amendment requires that the health funds offer a no gap or a known gap policy. Otherwise, the health funds do not get to keep the 30 per cent reduction in premiums.Government members interjecting—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—That all sounds all right, doesn't it? But have a look at the Prime Minister's letter to Senator Harradine, where it says that that might apply to the health funds but `the fund contributors will of course'—of course, as the Prime Minister said to Senator Harradine—`still be able to get the taxation or direct cash rebate'. So what effect will we see on gaps? Absolutely none. In other words, the health funds can keep having health insurance policies with whatever size gaps they like, the consumer will get the 30 per cent rebate anyway, so there will be no pressure on the funds whatsoever to deliver no gap policies.The idea that this amendment would do something about gaps by tying the 30 per cent rebate to a no gap policy is nothing more than a fraud. That is exactly what it is and that is what it will be seen to be. What will be the impact on premiums of any no gap agreements that might come into place? They will be underwritten by this 30 per cent rebate. It will mean that we will see doctors insisting that the funds pay them very high rates to make sure that they sign up to no gap policies. What will be the implications? (Time expired)23:52:001965Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—It is a great night for the government. In the spirit of that great night, I would be happy to invite the shadow minister to have another five minutes.Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (11.52 p.m.) Obviously, he does not have anything to say himself to defend his own policy, and that is exactly what we have seen from this minister over the last three weeks. He has not come in here with one piece of information to justify his scheme. All we have had is him quoting the opinion polling from the funds and from the private hospitals.Let us look at who benefits from this health insurance rebate. An amount of $900 million will go to people earning over $70,000 who already have private health insurance. The lowest benefit of all goes to those pensioners and low income families who are already getting a private health insurance rebate. And what those pensioners and low income families know is that within two short years the value of this rebate is going to be completely gobbled up by premium rises.The other thing that we have heard the minister claim as a reason for this rebate is that it is somehow magically going to help public hospital waiting lists. Has he provided any evidence whatsoever to justify this? Absolutely none. We know the government expects that about 500,000 people will take out private health insurance as a result of the government pouring money into rebates. According to those real independent experts, that figure will take about $120 million worth of pressure off the public hospital system. Will that have any effect on public hospital lists? Absolutely none. It will have no effect on public hospital waiting lists whatsoever.What the private funds, the private hospitals and the doctors hope is that somehow this is magically going to increase the level of private health insurance to 45 per cent. There is going to be a return to the nirvana that we know the Prime Minister is really hoping for—that we can return to a time when private health insurance is held by the majority and Medicare is just a safety net for the poor. That is what he is wanting to do.So what is really at stake tonight is that this government has got the target firmly set on Medicare. That is what this is all about. This government is not committed to Medicare. This Prime Minister has wanted to take the knife to Medicare, as he has said so many times, year in, year out. When they first came into office they took $800 million out of Medicare, out of public hospitals. That is exactly what they did. This minister has tried to justify the agreements that he has with the states.In actual fact, the annual increase in spending for our public hospitals is around $400 million. Compare that to what this minister is putting into private health insurance—$1.7 billion. That is the real comparison: $400 million into public hospitals, $1.7 billion into our private health insurance subsidies, for no effect whatsoever. They expect that hardly anybody extra will take out private health insurance. They do not really think the gaps are going to be addressed.They know that the premiums will keep rising. Most importantly of all, for the 13 million people who do not have private health insurance, waiting lists will get worse. That is the reality: for the 13 million people who do not have private health insurance, we will see waiting lists around this country lengthen as a result of this minister's ideological commitment. Let us face it: that is where the ideology is.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my right!PG6Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPMs MACKLIN—You have always been opposed to Medicare, and absolutely nothing has changed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1966The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 1998 Committees1966196619661966Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received a message form the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of Senators Boswell, Ferris and Murray to the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector.19661966Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Crowley has been discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and Senator Faulkner has been appointed a member of the committee and that Senator Murray has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.Motion (by Dr Wooldridge) agreed to:That the House do now adjourn.House adjourned at 11.59 p.m. until Monday, 8 February 1999, at 2.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this sitting.Documents1966The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 December 1998:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Part 82—Amendment 8 December 1998.Instrument—1998 No. CASA 487.Sales Tax Assessment Act—Ruling 1998 No. SST 15.Taxation Administration Act—Ruling 1998 No. PR 98/3.1998-12-10Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members1967196709:40:001967Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The government stands condemned for its blatant disregard for the natural and cultural heritage of Kakadu. Its decision to approve the Jabiluka uranium mine places the world heritage listing of the park under extreme pressure and endangers its natural and cultural heritage. The government's determination to push ahead with the construction phase of the mine even though the UN has not ruled out listing Kakadu on the endangered heritage list is despicable. Senator Hill and the government are flouting the UN's ruling, and Australia has a lot of work to do if it is to counter the UN-sponsored report that slams the government's approval of the mine.The government's environmental record is extremely poor. It has approved the development of Hinchinbrook and now, Kakadu. One of the most beautiful environmental areas in this country, Kakadu is now under threat. It is extremely sensitive. All that the mine will do is jeopardise a wonderful area. Senator Hill has said he is concerned that it could be listed. I am most concerned that it will not be listed.It is a blatant disregard for the Mirrar people, the traditional owners of the land, and for their culture, which is also very vulnerable and under threat from a mine of this type. As I have mentioned, the environment is extremely special and something that we, as Australians, should move to protect. The jobs that are provided by the mine are short term and do not outweigh the long-term jobs that the protection and preservation of Kakadu will provide—nor will it outweigh destroying an area of such beauty.I would like to mention three wonderful women from the Hunter region. Two live within the Shortland electorate, and they are all grandmothers: Mrs Jean Talbot, who is 61; Marion Armstrong, who is 64; and Dianna Mannigel of Eleebana. They were arrested and charged with trespassing in the uranium mine in Kakadu during a non-violent protest. They made a conscious decision to take this action as a symbolic gesture of support for the Mirrar people over the Kakadu mine. They wanted to preserve the area for their children and for future generations. I would like to congratulate them on their action and stand with them in saying that we should preserve this wonderful area. It is part of our environmental and cultural heritage that should be preserved for future generations.196709:43:001967Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The people in my electorate of Moreton are sick to death of the Labor opposition performing their constant daily mantra of opposition for opposition's sake. In fact, their continued opposition to the government's agenda, which was endorsed at the 3 October election—in particular, I mention the private health insurance rebate initiative—means that the people in my electorate will suffer as a result of the Australian Labor Party, and suffer even more than they did during the 13 years of the horrendous Hawke-Keating era.The people who want private health insurance and want the rebate will in fact put off taking out private health insurance, as a result of the opposition from the Labor Party. People who have private health insurance currently may in fact drop it as a result of the private health insurance rebate being opposed by the Australian Labor Party, and there will also be people who will sacrifice other things to maintain private health insurance because it is so important to them.The simple fact of the matter is that, with fewer people in the pool contributing towards private health insurance, we are going to find those who are maintaining private health insurance paying more and more. Each and every one of those people should feel a real hurt, a real sense of frustration and, in fact, a great deal of anger towards the Australian Labor Party, which is being deliberately obstructive of the government's agenda and is doing so for purely political reasons.If what the government has proposed on private health insurance and tax reform is so bad, I challenge all members opposite to pass the bill. If they are so confident that we are so wrong and they are so right, they should be able to earn a great deal of support at the next federal election by purely pointing to our performance. But of course those opposite realise that the government's private health insurance rebate initiative and tax reform proposals are so good for Australia and for all Australians that they are absolutely terrified about these initiatives getting up and seeing the light of day. They know it will prove those opposite to be the liars and the charlatans that they were during the most recent election campaign. Those opposite are capable of perpetuating those lies—VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Moreton is casting aspersions on members of this side of the House in terms of the word liar. It is unparliamentary, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I did not hear him say that. If he did, I ask him to withdraw it.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Don't debate it. Are you going to withdraw it or not?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—If they have taken great offence at my comments, I withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Don't debate it. Have you withdrawn?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I have. But, at the end of the day, those opposite know that during the last election campaign, Labor apparatchiks all around this country were perpetuating great lies against the government's agenda, and they should stand condemned. (Time expired)196809:46:001968Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise today to speak on the question of the Brisbane Airport Corporation. The Brisbane Airport Corporation is a matter of great concern to the residents of the south side of Brisbane. In the next three months, the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, will be making a determination on the acceptability or otherwise of a parallel runway proposal put to the minister by the Brisbane Airport Corporation. This is despite having received some 4,000 written objections from the local community and some 10,000 local residents having signed a petition against the runway.I went to see the chief executive of the Brisbane Airport Corporation in early November and asked him to explain to me, as the elected member for Griffith, the logical basis of his preference for a parallel runway. His enunciation to me of the logic was that he had received a consultancy report from Airservices Australia which indicated that, in terms of runway capacity analysis, only a western parallel runway could achieve the future throughput requirements of the airport. I then asked the chief executive of the Brisbane Airport Corporation to provide me with a copy of that report. He said he would. Two weeks later, he reneged on that undertaking to me. Why is that so? What has the Brisbane Airport Corporation got to hide?I have confirmed today that Airservices Australia did provide this consultancy report to the Brisbane Airport Corporation. The critical issue is that when the previous transport minister, Mr Vaile, rejected the first version of the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan, he did so explicitly on the basis of Airservices Australia's incapacity at a technical level to verify the ANEF maps—noise maps—produced as part of that master plan report. What we now discover is that the same organisation, Airservices Australia, is providing a private consultancy service to the Brisbane Airport Corporation. This represents a fundamental conflict of interest. How can we have a regulator on the one hand providing a for-profit commercial consultancy on the other?Specifically, we have the regulator, Airservices Australia, about to provide advice to the transport minister on whether the new ANEF maps provided by the Brisbane Airport Corporation are technically valid—the same Airservices Australia that has already provided a for-profit consultancy service to the Brisbane Airport Corporation. This is a conflict of interest writ large, and I believe it represents a fundamental breach of process in terms of that specified under the Airports Act. I call on the minister for transport to provide an explanation as to how his agency, for which he is ultimately responsible, could discharge a for-profit operation with the BAC, yet simultaneously expect that organisation to discharge an independent regulatory function. It is not sustainable.196909:49:001969Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to say a few brief words in support of the government's Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 . Firstly, over 42,000 people in my electorate of Makin, or 56 per cent, are currently privately insured. Many more have said to me that they would take out private health insurance if there was a reasonable incentive for them to do so.These are not wealthy people wanting subsidised tennis racquets, as the opposition has been wont to portray them. These are people who want choice when they have to go to hospital, who want choice in who treats them and who want choice when it comes to ancillary items such as dental and optical care. It is not good enough to say that these people are not entitled to a choice, that they should use the public health system whether they like it or not.My constituents of Makin have every right to expect that they should have the power to choose the best health care available in this country. That is what this government's Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 seeks to provide—choice for families in electorates such as Makin.As I said earlier, over 42,000 people in my electorate of Makin are privately insured. In 1984, shortly after the coalition left office, 50 per cent of the population had private health cover. Today that figure is at just 30.6 per cent. To oppose this new measure by the government is to consign the private health insurance sector to continued decline and, even more alarmingly, to increase the burden on our public hospital system.The government's bill was a sensible measure aimed at reinforcing the choices made by individuals and their families. To oppose this bill is to be opposed to choice, opposed to helping families and opposed to better health care. I support my constituents of Makin having a choice in the provision of their medical services, I support better health care and I wholeheartedly support the government's Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998.197009:52:001970Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I rise today to do a number of things—to combine my address-in-reply, my response to the employee relations bill, my response to the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 and, most probably, because of the way things are going in the chamber, my response to the GST legislation. I do not think I have much chance of achieving all that in the time that I have, but I will endeavour to do my best.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You can try.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—I will try, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you have often said, I can be trying at times! Firstly, on the question of the address-in-reply, what the government has done on this occasion in referring it to the Main Committee and then gagging it is to create a very poor precedent in terms of the operation of this parliament in terms of past experience, because it is not something that has been done previously by a government. When we look at the question of debate and the sorts of commitments that the Howard government has had to the question of better parliamentary procedures, it makes a joke, a mockery, of that sort of commitment and shows that there is not really a commitment there at all.The issue that has been one of major debate since the election campaign I would define as mandate politics. The argument—and you often hear it from the other side—is, `We won the election. Bad luck, you lost.' That is fair enough—and believe me when I assure you that it hurts—but let me also say that this is the fifth election since the Second World War where in fact the party which has attracted the majority of the popular vote, after preferences, has been defeated. It happened in 1954, 1961 and 1969 to the Labor Party; it happened in 1990 to Andrew Peacock, when he was leader of the Liberal Party; and now it has happened to us.Not only has it happened on this occasion, but members should note that this election was in fact the time when the largest vote against the government that actually won was received—just over 51 per cent. Previously it has been 50.1 per cent and 50.6 per cent but never as high as 51 per cent.That, I think, says one thing: this government has a majority, it has the right to govern—and there is no doubt about that, and I congratulate it on its victory—but it cannot claim a mandate for many of its policies. Those opposite have spoken about the private health insurance legislation. I note that the member for Bradfield mentioned the issue of the figures in my electorate in the House the other day. The member for Bradfield, as we all know, is the man who was the president of the AMA and the man who everyone thought would be a good politician.83TRUDDMr Rudd—The rat?VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—That is right. Then when he became a politician everyone thought he would make a good doctor. The fact is that he talked about the majority in my electorate and the number of people who have private health insurance. But he forgets one clear point: this was part of the government's program at the election. This is what they went to the people with. I took many questions in my electorate on private health insurance during the last election campaign, but the fact of the matter was that, at the end of the day, I had a swing of nearly six per cent to me. That, I think, says something about the question of the concerns people out there have.My three minutes are nearly up. I have not got to employee relations or to the GST legislation. It is because of the way this government is running this chamber; it is because of the way this government has no commitment to democracy in this chamber. (Time expired)197109:55:001971Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I would like to respond to the member for Bruce in a very simple way by reading to you a letter that I have received from Robyn Sticklen, an appeal to you and your colleagues to rethink your position. Mrs Sticklen says:I realise this may be too late for the vote on Private Health Insurance Rebate today, but I felt I had to let you know how we feel about the other parties trying to stop the Rebate.My husband is a Grader Driver and I work in an Office as a Sales/Administration Assistant and we have two teenage children and a seven-year-old. We have had private health insurance for approximately 12 years.Normally, we would not be considered to be high income workers, but due to the fact that Fred works (most weeks) 6 days a week, leaves home at 6 am and returns at 6 pm, we are now considered high income earners.So, each time this or that is `means tested' we miss out. I have had a gut-full of my husband out working the hours he does and we get penalised for it. Our night out is a $20/head buffet twice a year, so we are not a rich family. Please do not take this as a sob story. I am just trying to give you the facts.When my son was 5 years old, he developed a severe headache and constant vomiting. I took him to the out-patients department of the Mount Isa Hospital, and the young Doctor there examined him and told me he had a migraine. I had my doubts about this as he was getting weaker and the pain was worse. Next morning I took him to an old Scottish Doctor we had in the town at the time. She immediately diagnosed him with meningitis and we had to take him straight up to the hospital for a lungapuncture (I apologise for my spelling). By this time, he was like a limp rag. The inconsiderate treatment he received during his hospital stay from a member of the hospital staff left much to be desired. When he was released, I went into town the next day and joined up with a private health insurance fund.10 years ago my Father was extremely ill. He was in the public system. He could not see the visiting specialist for a couple of months. When it was his turn to see the specialist, do you know what the diagnosis was—I am sorry, but I can't do anything for him. He died the next day—after having to wait two months in the public hospital system—Whilst he was in hospital, I tried to check out everything he was treated with. Once I queried the `expired date' blood they were giving him. I was assured it wasn't pass the bad date and was quite okay. I have since learnt different.At various stages when I felt that we needed the money elsewhere and I thought of dropping out of the fund, I remember these times. Never again will I subject my family to the health care they received.Surely by more people joining the private health scheme, this will take the pressure off the public health system.I would appreciate you passing this on to Jenny Macklin, Meg Lees and Senator Brian Harradine. I will also be faxing a copy of this letter to Bob Katter as we have known him for many years and he knew my Father well. He knows we are a very average, middle income family who are just trying to give our family what we can and keep believing there is a light at the end of the tunnel.I appeal to the Labor Party to support this legislation.197209:58:001972Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I am on a roll. Responding to the member for Herbert, I am very happy to take a copy of that letter—if you would give me one afterwards—and pass it on to the shadow minister, as I am her parliamentary secretary with respect to this issue. I would be very happy to respond to the constituent involved. What you have outlined is a tragic case.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills1972r6481972Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:001972Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The Labor Party supports the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . It is pleasing that this bill is before the House. It will result in two hand backs to indigenous groups, and I will go through and give a bit of a history of that shortly. The other aspect of the legislation is that it also corrects an anomaly which presently requires the Aboriginal land commissioners, who are required to be judges under the act, to retire at age 65. This bill will enable them to perform their duties of office until the age of 70, as do all Supreme Court and Federal Court judges.The opposition is quite happy, I can say to the government, to expedite passage of this bill through the Senate. This is good news on how the land rights act is working in the Northern Territory; there should be more of this. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation, Mr Ruddock, in his second reading speech, points out that the act:. . . provides a mechanism whereby traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory referred to in schedule 1 of that act may be granted to Aboriginal land trusts to hold title on behalf of Aboriginal people. Since the act came into operation in 1977, a total of 59 separate parcels of land have been scheduled under the act. This amendment will bring the total to 61.It is significant that this act was brought in under the Fraser Liberal government. It was a watered-down act that derived from an act that was introduced by the then Whitlam Labor government. But credit must be given to Malcolm Fraser and his government: Aboriginal people see this as the best piece of legislation on the statute books in regards to their rights. It has resulted in substantial land being handed back. Indeed, a review into this act has been commissioned—the Reeves review—and there will be a parliamentary inquiry. As I understand it, the House of Representatives Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs will be receiving a reference to have a look at the Reeves review.I can telegraph at this point that the Labor Party will be participating actively in seeking the views of indigenous people in the Territory. We will not support any amendments to the land rights act that do diminish the rights of indigenous people that occur without their consent. Sunset clauses come into operation in relation to the land rights act in the Northern Territory. I find it staggering that this government would want to water down legislation that was introduced by a former conservative government. It shows that this government is moving away from things in the past that were embraced not only by Labor governments but by progressive conservative governments, and Malcolm Fraser has a good track record in this area.I just indicate that when that review comes on the Labor Party will be actively participating and seeking the views of indigenous people. It is also significant that the indigenous people voted against statehood for the Territory at the same time as the last election: they had reservations about the Territory government. The Reeves review is one of the reasons why we have now got Warren Snowdon back in the parliament as a Labor representative for the Northern Territory.There is genuine support across the parliament for the bill before the House. I think it is worth while putting on the record the land that is being handed back. The schedule in relation to Innesvale describes it as:All that piece of land in the Northern Territory of Australia containing an area of 283,700 hectares more or less, being Northern Territory Portion 5120 and being more particularly delineated on Survey Plans S97/172(A to E) lodged with the Surveyor-General, Darwin, but excluding two roads 100 metres wide and one road 50 metres wide as delineated on Survey Plan S97/172E.That is how it is described on the schedule. I am indebted to the Northern Land Council which has given me some history on the Innesvale land claim. I think it is worth while reading it into the record:Innesvale Pastoral Lease (PL710) an area of about 2820 square kilometres, is approximately 150 kms south west of Katherine. Road access to the property is via the Victoria Highway. On the south the station is bounded by Gregory National Park and Coolibah Crown Lease. The eastern and western boundaries abut several pastoral leases including Bradshaw, Wombungi, Willeroo, West Mathison and Scott Creek. Adjacent country on its northern boundary includes Dorisvale Pastoral Lease and the area of the Upper Daly Land Trust. The station is located on Wardaman country, of which seven Wardaman estates are located on Innesvale.Wardaman people are acutely aware of their history since White people first came to this region. Older claimants have had first-hand experience of the frequently harsh and punitive conditions on cattle stations in the area and there is a strong oral tradition relating to the often violent early frontier period which saw many Aboriginal people from this area killed, including close relations and immediate forebears.Despite this recent harsh history, the claimants have maintained strong traditional attachment to the area they are claiming. There is detailed knowledge of sites on Innesvale station, of the Dreamings and mythologies associated with them, and of the rights and responsibilities to the different area of Innesvale for which each descendent group has responsibility.Senior claimants continue to take active steps to ensure that younger claimants will themselves be in a position to pass on this knowledge to succeeding generations. They see the claim itself as providing the basis by which the younger generations will be able to maintain knowledge of, and affiliations with, at least this portion of Wardaman traditional lands. They emphasise too that they will be in a much stronger position to transmit knowledge on country that is traditionally theirs than currently is possible while they live in Katherine and its associated living areas where their authority is constrained and where there are large numbers of other, non-Wardaman, people as well as many other obviously negative distractions.The claim to Innesvale station is not the first step taken by Wardaman to regain control of their traditional country. The present claimants have been active in this regard over at least the last 15 years. A portion of the Wardaman Yubulyawun estate has been successfully regained through the Upper Daly Land Claim. Claimants have also persistently campaigned for the return of other traditional lands in the Delamere Station area. Wardaman people (claimant and non-claimant) have, as well, secured a number of small excisions including those known as Wugleni, Jarrang and Dilinyang on their traditional country. Innesvale, however, represents not only the most substantial parcel of Wardaman land to be claimed but more importantly it is one that has a high degree of cultural coherence and is of sufficient extent to provide a focus for a large number of Wardaman people.The present claim to Innesvale station complements steps Wardaman people as a whole have already been taking through forming the Wardaman Association to care for their country and to develop programs to ensure that succeeding generations have the requisite skills and knowledge to carry this task on into the future. The Association has made good progress in developing a cattle enterprise on Innesvale which is compatible with wider social, cultural and economic goals, including maintaining the integrity of the cultural landscape. Wardaman emphasise with pride the mythological richness of their country, including the rock art sites, which (apart from representations of historical events such as the paintings of horseman at Wiynbarr) are the images and manifestations of Dreamings. The area was described as "tribal country"—a reference to the persisting strong relationship between Law, land and people that is evident there.Innesvale station has an unsurpassed heritage, archaeologically significant rock art sites many of which have been extensively documented. The senior claimant from the Yubulyawin descent group has for several years now conducted tours round some of the more spectacular art sites on Innesvale and neighbouring stations, and the Wardaman Association and the Department of Employment, Education and Training are currently involved in training young Wardaman to work as tour guides.Should the claimants be granted title to Innesvale Station, advantage would flow directly to those approximately 200 claimants. In addition, it would provide security to another approximately 200 to 300 non-claimants—Wardaman claimants' children, their spouses as well as non-Wardaman relatives who would benefit both directly and indirectly through the grant of the station to their Wardaman claimant relatives.Innesvale station already offers a focal point for the Wardaman people in the Katherine region in its recently established operations as a cattle station. All Wardaman people fully intend that this should continue. However, while some of the more spectacular art sites on Innesvale are presently protected under Commonwealth and Northern Territory heritage legislation, holding freehold title would allow them to protect and maintain the values of Innesvale as a highly significant cultural landscape for succeeding generations with security not offered by a pastoral lease. Furthermore, much of Innesvale Station is not particularly suitable for cattle, being too rugged and inaccessible for the requirements of modern animal husbandry and agricultural economics. The cattle operations essentially use only the south-eastern, less rugged portion of the station. Wardaman have expressed the desire to develop and live on outstations on other parts of Innisfail, such as on the Flora River. Being granted title to their traditional lands would therefore be of fundamental benefit to Wardaman people in the maintenance of their culture and, in particular, their traditional relationship to their lands.I repeat that I am indebted to the Northern Land Council for that information.I think it is also important, before I move on to the next land, to point out that what we are dealing with today has been done by consent. Agreement has been reached on both these properties with the Northern Territory government, under the land rights act, with the traditional owners and their respective land councils. So what we have here is consent. This is not a dispute. This has not had to go to the courts in a knockdown, drag out fight. That is the signpost for the future. I think that too often we politicians and lawyers get involved in the process and that really, frankly, distorts the whole relationship. That is the beauty of this.I do not have much truck with the old Northern Territory government, I must say. We talk about accountability. It is about time they were made accountable in a whole range of areas. They have been dragged kicking and screaming on the land rights act, have lost every major challenge apart from one, and wasted some $20 million trying to challenge aspects of the act.But they should be given credit when they do the right thing. In this instance, they have sat down, and they should be given credit for coming to agreement with all concerned. This shows that there are benefits flowing. It takes time to break down the barriers, to break down the stereotypes and to reassure people that the sky is not going to fall in. I do give credit to all those that were involved in relation to this. We are talking about a significant parcel of land—283,700 hectares—and it is being done by consent. So I do congratulate those people who have amicably settled this claim.I understand that the anthropologists working in this area were Dr Jeannie Devitt and Dr David Martin. I think that it is appropriate that they be acknowledged as well.In relation to the second parcel of land, the Urrpantyenye—I do not know that my pronunciation is all that right—covers an area of 6,554 hectares in the Northern Territory of Australia, being more or less Northern Territory portion 1084 and being more particularly delineated on survey plan S98/203 lodged with the Surveyor-General at Darwin. This comes into the Central Land Council area. It is an agreement which settles the Urrpantyenye land claim and it was entered into between the Northern Territory government, the Central Land Council, the Todd River Pastoral Company and the claimants. I am also indebted to the Central Land Council for some information they have passed on to me in relation to this area.I understand that it is a block of land between Allambi and Horseshoe Bend stations, east of Maryvale. It was originally included in the north-west Simpson Desert land claim No. 126, but was not recommended for grant. In October 1991, the Northern Territory government purported to grant a Crown lease perpetual over the area to the Northern Territory Land Corporation. The Urrpantyenye (repeat) land claim No. 136 was lodged in December 1991.In September 1995, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Justice Gray, found that the grant of the crown lease perpetual was invalid under section 67A of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 because the earlier claim, No. 126, had not been `finally disposed of' as mentioned in that section. As I said earlier, following that finding, negotiations between the claimants—the Central Land Council, the Northern Territory government and the Todd River Pastoral Co., which is the lessee of Allambi—resulted in a settlement of the claim. All those parties deserve congratulations for coming to agreement.I cannot stress enough that these positive results that are coming through show that this act is working and that the best way to use it is to try and work through by consent. It will involve a little bit of give and take. The second reading speech of the minister shows that, when these go through, 61 separate parcels of land will have been handed back. That is a positive thing.I know that in relation to native title there are still people who want to deny the decisions in Mabo and Wik, the subsequent Native Title Act 1993 and the amended bill that went through. They want to wind back the clock. Frankly, they will be like King Canute trying to hold back the tide; they will not be successful. We are dealing here with people's property rights, people's association with land. What we have to do is to find a way through that is satisfactory to all parties concerned.There is a lot of misrepresentation in relation to the land rights act; there is a lot of misrepresentation in relation to native title. Frankly, I believe some politicians have been playing pretty low-grade politics. They have not let the facts interfere with a good story. What we have in the land rights act is the strongest piece of legislation on the statute books. It was introduced by a conservative government, and it has produced results. There were amendments: the sunset clause came in and so land claims under this act have ceased. They now just have to be processed. But European titles, titles that have been issued by government, are safe.We have a situation where Senator Lightfoot is condemning Justice Lee for his judgment in the Miriuwung Gajerrong case of a couple of weeks ago. That was always on the cards. Let us appreciate that, even if the Wik judgment had gone the other way by 4-3, there would still be some 300 different types of leases that have been issued over the country. In the development of this nation, as we moved from the east and headed west, in the later development from the Colonial Office, the mother country, there was more recognition that indigenous people were roaming the country and their rights at that time were acknowledged. The grazing lease that Justice Lee talked about had a reservation for continuing access by indigenous people for hunting, fishing and gathering, an acknowledgment that indigenous people were there.So even if Wik had gone 4-3 the other way because in the Wik case the High Court was dealing with a lease without reservations, there still would have been matters taken to the court in relation to other areas of land in Western Australia. When we look at the issuing of those titles, we see that there was no clear or plain intent to extinguish the native title; in the issuing of those leases there was an acknowledgment of the association with country of those indigenous people. What has happened here is that there has been a lot of misinformation. I hope that now that the 10-point plan has gone through—mostly intact, I might add—we can have a sane debate on both sides of the House. I hope that we can have the politics taken out of it.In relation to the Land Rights Act, the Labor Party is prepared to support amendments that improve the operation of the act. But we do not equate improvement with taking away indigenous people's rights. It is my view that, as a result of the Miriuwung Gajerrong case and its being appealed, when it eventually goes to the High Court, that will require amendments to the Native Title Act, probably in relation to procedure.But we need to get a reality check, because I would have thought it was the conservatives who value property rights and less interference by the state in relation to property rights—and that includes indigenous property rights—instead of having the state come in and having this massive acquisition of private property rights for the rights of third parties.I think the climate is ripe and that is why this bill is one which both sides can support, because it is producing benefits for the local community, for all concerned. Non-indigenous people will benefit as well because indigenous and non-indigenous people are, in my experience, in many respects, living comfortably in outback Australia and want to get on with their lives without the interference of the lawyers and the politicians.Benefits that flow to indigenous people will also flow to non-indigenous people in terms of regional development and infrastructure development. They both benefit. If indigenous people are done over then non-indigenous people will be done over. The development of the Northern Territory and the benefits that flow to indigenous people flow right through to non-indigenous people in the Northern Territory. That is why there was a massive vote of no confidence against Shane Stone on 3 October, when his statehood went down in a screaming heap. The Reeves review, in many respects, was pioneered by the Territory government to gut the land rights act and it acted as a focal point for indigenous people and that is why my colleague the member for the Northern Territory, Mr Snowdon, is here now.That is why we are pleased to support this bill through the parliament, because of the benefits that flow from it. It is the conservatives that should take credit for it because it is a conservative government in the Territory which has reached agreement with all the parties. And it is arising from, even though it is a watered down act from that introduced by the Whitlam government, a piece of Fraser government legislation.I will be interested to hear what the member for Page has to say. I know that in some respects we disagree but that, despite his barking and carrying on, we agree on other things; and we do agree on some things in relation to this area. As was the case with the former member for Kalgoorlie: as egocentric and eccentric as he was in some respects, some of his views—not all—had legitimacy because of the experience that he gained out in the country. That is why I benefit from the re-election of the member for the Northern Territory, my colleague Mr Snowdon, because he has worked in this area. The parliament will benefit from having people who have worked on the ground, who can contribute to the debate so that we as a parliament are not highjacked by sectional interests—particular interests that push their own barrows.I look forward to the member for Page lauding this bill for the benefits that flow as a result of what is consensual agreement reached between the parties. My only advice to the Northern Territory government is that they should be doing more of this. Instead of wasting money on their lawyers, going to court and trying to undermine the land rights act, accept it and work within the framework, and goodwill will be generated and will flow from that. They are there to represent not only non-indigenous members of the Northern Territory but also indigenous members of the Northern Territory. I think, on the latest statistics, it is around 25 per cent of the Northern Territory. The Labor Party is supporting every element of this bill wholeheartedly and we will facilitate for the government speedy passage of this through the Senate.10:25:001977Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I think my duties here probably clash with my duties in relieving you at the present time, so I will not speak for too long. This piece of legislation, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 , is really the national parliament doing its duty on behalf of its territory—in this instance, the Northern Territory—and particularly, as the member for Banks said, in terms of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.This brings the number of agreements of land transferred to Aboriginal people to 61. From memory—and this is not an accurate statistic—it brings the area of land in the Northern Territory that belongs to the Aboriginal people to something like 52 per cent of the Territory. While many of us are well aware that most of it is pretty poor and rugged country, it is a significant amount of land that is owned by the Aboriginal people.The member for Banks probably likes to vilify the government of the Northern Territory from time to time, but there must have been a fair amount of agreement over the years for that amount of land to have now been transferred to Aboriginal people. While the government do disagree from time to time with elements of the land councils, I think they genuinely do try to uphold the rights and the privileges of the Aboriginal people.One point that does come through, from my experience in my own area and in travelling around Australia, is that the act grants this land in fee simple, which is a freehold title to land, but there is a restriction on it that says that it cannot be sold but that it can be transferred to another Aboriginal land trust or surrendered to the Crown. Aboriginal people in my area do take some exception to the fact that, as individuals, they have very few rights in this particular area. I know that they are not in the Northern Territory but they are under a similar system. When I have been to the Northern Territory in my travels, I have spoken to individuals up there who express a similar concern.What it means is that, even though the land is handed over to a land trust, it is a communal title—it belongs to all the people in that particular area. They find that, even though there are some benefits accruing from it, they themselves do not own anything and they find difficulties at times with some of the leaders—not that that is new; it is nothing new to an Aboriginal community, and it is the same in all of our communities. They do have some differences from time to time about the way this land is managed and how the benefits that accrue from that are then divided amongst the people who benefit from them. I suppose, if you want to put it crudely, communal title did not work in the Soviet Republic and it certainly did not work in China—both of those countries had to change their thinking in this particular area to get the maximum benefit for the people. And I think it is something that in the future will probably come to the fore.In hearings that we had in the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, it was a matter of some disappointment that a number of stations that have been handed over to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory are now destocked. Some of these stations were pretty poor stations and the viability of them certainly was questionable. But, again, it brings home to me the fact that the land, if it is going to be handed over to these people, needs to be used for their benefit. While I do not honestly believe that the land is going to sustain them fully, it certainly needs to be able to provide some of the economic benefits that should accrue.We cannot just hand over these large areas of land and still sustain the population through the taxpayer. There has to be some development of the land. I know that tourism is being developed, and that is certainly laudable, but there needs to be some help in this area to see that the benefits, or some of the value of the land, can accrue to those people who are now having the land handed over to them.The other point of the bill is very simple really because all it does is amend the retiring age for the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. The commissioner has to be a judge of the Federal Court and at the present time judges retire at 70. So this is really only bringing the legislation into line with the retiring ages of judges in the Federal Court.As I said, the role of this government in Canberra is really only to endorse the agreement that has been reached between the Northern Territory government and the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. This bill brings that before the parliament to ensure that it is put into legislation. I certainly support the bill.10:31:001978Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It gives me great pleasure to support the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 this morning for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I know the people who will benefit directly from it.Before I go to the detail of the legislation I should comment briefly on some of the things that were said by the member for Page. I respect the fact that he comes from northern New South Wales and people up there may have a different perception of the world, but his views about the question of the fee simple title and the inalienability of that title do need to be commented upon.One needs to go back a long way, to the Woodward royal commission, to understand the basis of this question of inalienable freehold title, and one needs to be understanding of the fact also that it is a demand which Aboriginal people who have land rights universally acclaim. I have not met one Aboriginal person in the Northern Territory—and I have spent almost 25 years there—who has asked that they be able to sell their inalienable title, not one. However, I have met a lot of Aboriginal people who want to obtain some economic benefit out of it.I need to declare an interest here, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, to enable you to understand where I am coming from. I was the senior policy officer for the Central Land Council for three years. Subsequent to my losing my seat at the election in 1996 I, along with a management consultant and the Australian National Audit Office, did a review of the Central Land Council's operations. I know this act backwards; I know the way in which land rights applies in the Northern Territory and how it impacts upon the community.What I want to say to the member for Page is that in terms of this question of inalienability you need to understand what this is about. This is not about looking at land and land ownership through the glasses of a non-Aboriginal person, you need to look at land and land ownership in a different cultural context. You need to understand that, whilst we live in a contemporary Australian community which is subject to the constitutional laws of each state and territory, those laws, and in this particular case, this law, provide for acceptance of a view about land which is different from the view that it is simply a commodity.There has been a lot of debate during the last couple of years about the issue of native title and about its impact upon various elements and various parts of the Australian community. I have noted with interest the comments which have come out of sections of the pastoral industry about the relationship that pastoralists build up with the land over a period of time. But whilst I respect that relationship, I have to say that it is very different from the relationship that Aboriginal people have with that land.You need to understand and comprehend Aboriginal spirituality. You need to understand and comprehend what that means. It is very difficult; I do not understand it, and I do not know many non-Aboriginal Australians who do understand it. Even though we might accept that it is very difficult to comprehend and understand, I do not think that puts us in a position where we hold that our view of the world necessarily should be the one that prevails. And in this question of inalienability of land and title to land, what it means is that we have to respect the view which Aboriginal people have about that land and its importance to their being, to their soul in a contemporary sense.Frankly, I think it behoves us as legislators to come to terms with that. I worry that there are people in this parliament who are blind to that opportunity—because it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to learn something of great richness, an opportunity to value something of great richness, and an opportunity to understand and try to come to terms with a very different world view.Perhaps I should just make one other comment on the contribution from the honourable member for Page. You, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, talked about land which is being handed over and land being de-stocked. Frankly, as I think you alluded to, some of the land which has being handed over to Aboriginal people—which they have claimed, or purchased and then claimed—has been very marginal at best and, in some cases, been flogged to buggery by the previous pastoral management, to the point where it cannot sustain in ecological terms a viable pastoral industry. We have to accept that. There are good management principles for de-stocking much of this country and we need to comprehend why that is so.We should not also be blind to the fact that value in your eyes and my eyes may be different from value in someone else's eyes. Value in a social context, whilst you cannot put a monetary figure on it, is an important element of this process. Getting back country, getting back your being, getting back your heart is fundamental to this process. There are many pastoral leases which have been purchased in the Northern Territory and run as viable pastoral properties. I might just mention one in particular: Mistake Creek in the north-west of the Northern Territory, which over the last couple of years has turned off some of the best cattle in the Northern Territory. An Aboriginal owned pastoral property achieved the best prices at sales, so let us not have people believe that when this land is transferred it necessarily ought to be run as a pastoral lease or that when it is run as a pastoral lease by Aboriginal people it is not run profitably or managed well. That is not the case. That is simply not the case.I talked about the question of being, of heart. Just prior to the last election, a sunset clause came into being in terms of Aboriginal people purchasing pastoral leases and then claiming those pastoral leases under the Land Rights Act. I want to make mention of one particular lease, which came under the control of a particular non-Aboriginal family in 1948. That lease is Mount Doreen Station to the north-west of Alice Springs. It is Warlpiri country. My Warlpiri brothers and sisters see this as a very important place. There is a very significant—a very, very, very significant—sacred site on that property. It is called Pikalyi. Pikalyi is of vital importance to the maintenance of Warlpiri culture and heritage. When they sought to purchase that property, whilst it is run as a pastoral lease, their other major concern was to get back that soul and to be reunited with their being. Until we comprehend what this is about, then all the fine speeches in this parliament will come to nought. Whilst I respect the fact that in the electorate of the member Page Aboriginal people might have a different view, this is not the case in the Northern Territory. It is simply not true to make the sorts of assumptions which you have made. They are incorrect.I want to talk about these two leases. The first one, of course, that I will talk about is Urrpantyenye. Urrpantyenye is another very important place. You have seen the process that people had to go through and I know that the member for Banks went through in some detail this claim and how it was arrived at.Urrpantyenye is another very important place to Aboriginal people, just as Innesvale Station is important to Aboriginal people. Last week, I met with some of the Wardaman people, who are the traditional owners of that country at Innesvale, to understand their pride in the fact that this piece of legislation was passing through this parliament this week, that they would get back their country which would benefit hundreds of people—not one or two, not a small family, but hundreds of people. The same is true for Urrpantyenye.The member for Page also commented upon the fact that relationships must not have been too bad in the Northern Territory with the CLP and Aboriginal people because they acquired so much land. Let me tell you for the record, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, that, up until the last couple of years, the Northern Territory government systematically opposed every land claim. They systematically appealed matters to do with land claims in the Federal Court and the full High Court of Australia on at least 30-plus occasions. Do you know how many times they won? Once. These were people who campaigned vigorously against Aboriginal people getting their country back.These were people who went to election after election on the issue of land rights. They did it again at this last election. It is racist. But they do not apologise for it. They try to hide behind it. They use subterfuge and subtlety in the way in which they campaign, arguing they are not being racist, but they are. The truth of it is they are. It gives me no pride to say that. It hurts. It should hurt you. It should hurt every other member of this parliament because it is a shame on this country.In the last election, we had my opponent and predecessor going around to polling booths in the Northern Territory carrying a sign effectively saying, `If you want a smaller land council, if you want your own land council, vote for Nick Dondas.' They campaigned around the Northern Territory on this theme. They lambasted Aboriginal communities with this theme. This was, of course, following the Reeves report.What do you think happened? I can tell you what happened—80 per cent of those people voted for me, 80 per cent of those people in the bush rejected absolutely this nonsense coming from the CLP. They try to garner public opinion about the role of land councils in the Northern Territory—these strong organisations who have statutory responsibilities and functions to carry out the will of traditional owners of country. That is their job; that is their role. That is what they do and they do it effectively. The people who have most opposed them and fought them all the way, because they do not like this concept of land rights and of Aboriginal land ownership, have been the CLP. Thankfully, some enlightened elements of the CLP are coming to terms with the fact that this is not the way to behave.Indeed, I think one of the positive elements—if there are any—of the Northern Territory's vote on 3 October to reject absolutely the Northern Territory government's push for statehood is a recognition by the Northern Territory government and elements of the CLP that they have to come to terms with this reality. If they want to achieve statehood, as I do, for the Northern Territory, then statehood has to have the support of the whole community. It will not have the support of the whole community whilst ever the CLP campaigns in the way it has been doing, whilst ever it seeks to divide people on the basis of race. That is what it has done in the past.I want to make a couple of points about that particular thing. When we come to the position of the centenary of our Federation, we cannot in all consciousness look at ourselves and say we are truly a nation unless we have come to terms with our past and the reality of Aboriginal society, and unless we have had the heart and the gumption to say sorry for the things that have happened in the past which we, as a community and as a nation, have been responsible for.We have seen over the last couple of days yet another spiteful attack upon Aboriginal culture in the Northern Territory where last week the Northern Territory Minister for Education decided to can the bilingual education program. It has gone, according to him. The relationship between land and culture and language must be understood. This person does not understand—or, if he does, he is turning a blind eye to it or he is making a deliberate decision to override its importance. Bilingual education is as much about cultural maintenance as it is about literacy. These are twin objectives. Educationalists will tell you the value of these twin objectives and the value of the outcomes that are achieved as a result of them.I mentioned briefly the Reeves report. I am very disappointed in the Reeves report's outcomes. In fact, it is my very strong view that the recommendations of that report are not sustainable. One of the reasons that they are not sustainable is that they try to completely rewrite the anthropology of Aboriginal Australia. The strongest critics, if you like, in many respects of the Reeves report are those professionals who understand the intrinsic importance of the anthropology involved in land rights. The report does not understand it.I know I am just about out of time, but we will have this debate next year about the Reeves report. I put it on the record now that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the purpose of the Reeves report, the timing of the release of the report, the terms of reference of the report, the content of the report and the recommendations of the report are political because they express a fundamental error—a fundamental misunderstanding of what the issue of land rights is about.Let me give you one example. The Reeves report proposes to get rid of the permit system. The permit system, for your information, Mr Deputy Speaker, and for the information of other members of this parliament, is so that Aboriginal people have the right, under the Land Rights Act, either to provide or not provide access to their country. It is very much like the right of any freehold owner of title. The permit system provides a mechanism for Aboriginal people to give permits to people to travel on their land. It is a very important way of securing access to their country and of ensuring that important sites and sacred places are sustained in the way in which they want them sustained—that they are not soiled or despoiled in a way which would be inappropriate.The Reeves report suggests that the permit system should go and that the access should be subject to the trespass law. Any week in any Northern Territory newspaper you will see advertisements from pastoral lessees pointing out that the trespass laws apply to their properties and that people are not welcome to pass onto them. They are prepared to advertise to prevent people accessing their country. This means that gates have been locked and that Aboriginal people have not been able to traverse those bits of land. There have been court cases about this issue. They have even denied people access in the context of land rights claims and land rights hearings. They have been denied access, through the use of the trespass law, to sacred places for the purposes of the claim.Aboriginal people have made it resoundingly clear that they want the permit system to prevail. They want to control the movement of people on and off their land. They want to ensure that they have this power. They want to ensure that sacred sites are protected and that the strength which is involved in this Land Rights Act is maintained. That is not what is being proposed by the Reeves report and it is not what is being supported by the CLP government of the Northern Territory. It is just not being proposed.This legislation we are discussing this morning is very important. This parliament, through an act passed by the Fraser government and originally drafted by the Whitlam government, has given Aboriginal people some power in this country. It recognises, as a result of the Woodward royal commission, the importance of land and land matters to Aboriginal Australians. It provides for a process so that they can achieve ownership of their country in a way which is open to scrutiny and very transparent.What that process has delivered here today is title to two bits of country—scheduling two pieces of land which is very important to those people—and a provision for land commissioners to retire at the age of 70 instead of 65. That is important, but the most important element of this exercise is to give people back their land. That is what land rights is about: respect for Aboriginal people, respect for their culture, respect for the integrity of their community, respect for their desire of cultural maintenance and sustenance, and respect for their land rights.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.50 a.m. to 11.05 a.m.11:05:001982Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—As honourable members will recall, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was introduced by Malcolm Fraser's coalition government in 1976, as was alluded to by the member for Banks. He was complimentary in his comments and in his recognition of the veracity of the Fraser government and the good deeds it did. I thank him for those kind comments.The purpose of the act is to grant traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of Aboriginal people and for other purposes. The act establishes Aboriginal land councils in the Northern Territory. It also provides a regime whereby the land councils and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs can regulate mining on Aboriginal land. It establishes the Aboriginal benefits reserve whereby mining royalty equivalents are paid for the benefit of Aboriginals affected by mining and, in fact, for the benefit of Aboriginal people throughout the Northern Territory. It establishes Aboriginal land commissioners to hear claims to traditional land ownership over unalienated crown land.The process has been very successful at returning traditional lands to Aboriginal people. At 30 June 1998, 551,824 square kilometres, almost 41 per cent of the Northern Territory, were held in inalienable freehold title by traditional owners. Wherever possible, federal Liberal-National Party governments have encouraged parties to circumvent the expense, trauma and uncertainty of land claims hearings and to proceed to come to an agreement on ownership. For instance, in December 1997 the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs granted Brumby Plains to the Malgin 2 Land Trust, with the agreement of all interested parties. In May 1998 the minister granted Western Desert (North) to the Purta Aboriginal Land Trust.It is pleasing to report that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 also provides for the return of Aboriginal land to traditional owners, with the agreement of all interested parties and at the request of the Northern Territory Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment, the Hon. Mick Palmer. Land which is referred to in schedule 1 of the land rights act is available for transfer to Aboriginal land trusts for the purpose of holding title on behalf of Aboriginal people. The purpose of the amendment is to add two parcels of land in the Northern Territory to the schedule to enable two new land trusts to be established.Since the land rights act came into operation in 1977, a total of 59 separate parcels of land have been scheduled. The bill will schedule land at Innesvale and Urrpantyenye. The Innesvale land is situated, as the member for Banks pointed out, near the Gregory National Park, south-east of Port Keats. It consists of a pastoral lease which has been owned by the Wardaman Aboriginal Corporation since 1994. In 1996 the Northern Land Council lodged a land claim with the Aboriginal Land Commissioner on behalf of the traditional owners. The hearing was adjourned after agreement was reached in 1997 between the claimants, the Northern Territory government and the land council. The name of the land trust which will be established to hold the land on behalf of the traditional owners is the Yawed Aboriginal Land Trust.The Urrpantyenye land is situated in the north-west Simpson Desert and was originally included in a land claim which was lodged with the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in December 1989. The dreaming story and songs of this land are described in Justice Olney's 6 September 1991 report. The land was not then recommended for grant, but a lease was granted to the Northern Territory Lands Corporation. His Honour Justice Gray, on 14 September 1995, provided a decision that the applicants to the land claim are traditional Aboriginal owners of the Urrpantyenye land.After a repeat land claim was lodged, the claimants—the Northern Territory government, the Todd River Pastoral Company and the Central Land Council—reached a settlement agreement under which the land is to be transferred to a land trust. The Northern Territory Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment wrote to Senator Herron on 23 March 1998 and requested that he implement the agreement by a schedule in the land rights act. The name of the land trust which will be established for Urrpantyenye is the Kewulyi Aboriginal Land Trust.The bill will also raise the retiring age of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner from 65 years to 70 years. This rectifies an anomaly which presently exists between the retiring age of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner and that of other Federal Court and Supreme Court judges. It will also allow His Honour Justice Olney to complete his current three-year term as Aboriginal Land Commissioner. In summary, the bill is an example of this government's making progress by agreement. We hope to avoid the confrontation and litigation of the past where that has provided no tangible benefits to Aboriginal people.Before I conclude, I would like to comment on some of the remarks made by the member for the Northern Territory. He went on at great length about the desirability of the current situation with regard to lands being converted to native title. He also defended the fact that much of this land which has been deemed suitable for pastoral lease is unsuitable. I concede that in some situations he is right, and I accept also that I cannot speak with great authority for those lands within the Northern Territory. However, within the Kimberley region of Western Australia, I can speak with authority, having spent many years travelling through that area.The simple fact is that we once had a thriving cattle industry in the Kimberley, especially the western Kimberley area of Western Australia. With the allocation of much of those pastoral leases to Aboriginal land title, that viable cattle industry has been all but destroyed. Through a great deal of financial support, effort and involvement of professional people from the agricultural department, et cetera, we are now providing the management necessary on those stations under the control of native title and beginning to make inroads into establishing satisfactory animal husbandry. We have the potential to resurrect a live cattle export industry, to resurrect that turn-off production to the point where we may once again be able to establish a viable abattoir in the Kimberley area of Western Australia. This is possible. It is all in the future; it is not in existence at present.As I said, the bill is an example of this government's making progress by agreement. Too much money and time have been wasted in arriving at satisfactory outcomes for the Australian people at large. I commend the bill to the House for the support of all parties in this parliament.11:13:001984Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—in reply—I take this opportunity to thank the members for Banks, Page, the Northern Territory and Kalgoorlie for their contributions to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . It is pleasing that the bill has the support of both sides of the House, which I welcome. The member for Banks made it clear that the amendments are seen as an improvement to the workings of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and in that sense the comments are welcome.I have noticed the very constructive comments that have come from members supporting this particular bill and its proposals. They result in the inclusion of two new parcels of land. In schedule 1 of the land rights act, these two parcels have been the subject of land claims—the Innesvale land claim and the Urrpantyenye land claim. There are benefits that proceed, particularly for the Aboriginal people, from the inclusion in the schedule. They give secure title and, in addition, proceeding by way of scheduling eliminates the need for costly land claim additional hearings and reflects the commitment of parties in land claims to achieve settlements. In that sense, the bill is deserving of full support.I do not intend to go through the comments I made in the second reading speech, nor the comments outlining the circumstances in which these particular claims originated and were settled, save to say that in the speeches of my colleagues there was very considerable elaboration. I thank the member for Kalgoorlie particularly for his efforts in that regard.The bill does achieve some important administrative reforms. It brings the retiring age of land commissioners into line with the retiring age of other members of the judiciary and implements one of the recommendations of the recent review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act conducted by John Reeves QC.The bill ought to be seen as one reflecting the commitment of the government to achieving secure title for indigenous people wherever this is appropriate. It is a vital part of the process of reconciliation to which this government is unequivocally committed and in that sense I commend the bill to the committee and wish it a very speedy passage during the rest of this day.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Causley)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1985s190Consideration resumed from 8 December.198511:16:001985Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.IntroductionThe National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 is a further significant milestone in the development of environment protection in Australia. The bill represents a commitment of the Commonwealth and the states and territories to work cooperatively to develop and implement national environment protection measures, a commitment which was agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment in May 1992. The government made an election commitment to introduce legislation, as necessary, to implement the Commonwealth's obligations under the COAG agreement in relation to compliance with state environment legislation. Introduction of this bill fulfils the government's election commitment.It bears repeating that the objectives of national environment protection measures are to ensure that people, wherever they live in Australia, enjoy the benefit of equivalent protection from air, water and soil pollution and noise and, secondly, to ensure that decisions by business are not distorted and markets are not fragmented by variations between jurisdictions in relation to the adoption or implementation of major environment protection measures.On 12 March 1998 the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee presented its report on the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill. The committee recommended that the passage of the bill should proceed.However, passage of the bill was delayed due to proroguing of parliament. The bill was debated in the Senate over the period 30 November 1998 to 7 December 1998. During that time a number of amendments to the bill were made.The bill is the second part of a package of complementary state and Commonwealth legislation. It follows the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 which established the National Environment Protection Council and allowed for the development and application of national environment protection measures. National environment protection measures, which may be a combination of goals, guidelines, standards or protocols, will apply as valid law in each participating jurisdiction.Operation of the billThe purpose of the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill is to provide for the implementation of national environment protection measures in respect of activities by the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities.The bill provides the means by which the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities are able to implement national environment protection measures. These means consist of:. the application of provisions of state and territory environment laws;. the making of regulations;. the use of an existing law of the Commonwealth which can achieve the environmental outcome specified in the NEPM; and. the carrying out of an environmental audit and preparation of an environment management plan.Cooperation with states and territories in environmental managementThe bill is breaking new ground and will establish stronger cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in relation to environment protection initiatives.It is envisaged that the mechanism of application of state and territory laws will be the first option considered for the implementation of a national environment protection measure with regard to Commonwealth activities and sites.Compliance with national environment protection measuresThe Commonwealth and the states and territories will have to comply with any national environment protection measure developed by the National Environment Protection Council. This strong commitment by all governments ensures national harmonisation of approaches which aim to protect the environment. The National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill is the mechanism through which the Commonwealth will fulfil this important commitment.An exemption from implementing a particular measure through state and territory law at a certain Commonwealth place or with regard to a specific Commonwealth activity will only be given where there is an appropriate Commonwealth regime for implementation of the NEPM and where there are matters of national interest or administrative efficiency. A matter of `national interest' is confined to:(i) Australia's relations with another country or Australia's international obligations, national security, national defence or a national emergency; or(ii) a prescribed matter relating to telecommunications or the management of aviation airspace and airports, including aircraft emissions, aircraft noise and on-ground airport management, but not including matters specified by 1.04(2) of the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations; or(iii) any other matter agreed to between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories.In the case where state or territory law is not the mechanism for implementation of a particular national environment protection measure, there is an obligation on the part of Commonwealth authorities to implement the measure either through an existing Commonwealth law which will deliver the necessary environmental outcomes, through Commonwealth regulations or through development of an environment management plan.Details of any non-compliance with a national environment protection measure by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority will be publicly available through the annual report to parliament on implementation of the measures.Operation of the act in relation to Commonwealth employeesDuring debate in the Senate, subclause 10(2) of the original NEPM (Implementation) Bill was deleted by an amendment moved by the Democrats. Unfortunately, it appears that amendment was made in the mistaken belief that the clause in its original form had the effect of rendering Commonwealth employees, servants and agents who breached offence provisions in applied laws immune from prosecution.Commonwealth officers, servants and agents of the Crown, in fact, have no immunity from the ordinary criminal law (see, eg, Jacobsen v Rogers (1995) 182 CLR 572 at 587). The subclause did nothing to protect such persons from criminal liability.Further, the subclause did not provide any immunity to bodies (for example, government business enterprises) that are outside the shield of the Crown. They would be subject to criminal liability in the same manner as other corporations. Most, if not all , of the Commonwealth's trading and business activities are carried on by GBEs which will be subject to the criminal provisions of the applied laws.The purpose of the subclause was to make it clear that, although under subclause 10(1) the act binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, it did not purport to render the Crown liable to be prosecuted for a criminal offence.Such a provision appears in many acts simply for the sake of clarity. However, even without such a provision (that is, if the subclause had never existed) it is unlikely that clause 10 would have been interpreted as imposing criminal liability upon the Crown. There is a long tradition of Crown immunity from criminal liability and relevant case law supports that immunity and would require clear displacement of a strong presumption against any intention to render the Crown criminally liable (Cain v Doyle; Bropho v. WA (1990) 93 ALR 207 esp at 218-219; 171 CLR 1, esp at 23).There are a number of reasons for preserving the immunity of the abstract entity known as `the Crown' from criminal prosecution. They include the difficulty of applying the fault or mental elements of criminal offences to such an entity—far more difficult than corporate criminal responsibility because it involves a body politic—and the incongruity of the Crown prosecuting itself. Where the legislation binds the Crown, but does not remove its immunity from criminal prosecution, injunctions and declaratory relief would be available with which the government must comply.I mention these facts in case it should arise for consideration in some future litigation whether the removal of the original subclause 10(2) indicated that the parliament intended to reverse the long-held policy that the Crown itself, as opposed to its emanations, in the form of officials, servants and agents, and corporate entities, should be subject to criminal prosecution.That was not the intention. Rather, the amendment, unnecessary though it was in the government's view, was intended to ensure that criminal responsibility existed in relation to the conduct of persons and entities acting for or on behalf of the Commonwealth. As I have previously stated, that was already the case prior to the amendment, and remains the case following the removal of subclause 10(2).Rigorous development of the measuresIn developing a national environment protection measure, regional environmental differences must be taken into account, as must the environmental, economic and social impacts of the measure. The council must also take into account whether the measure is the most effective means of achieving the desired environmental outcome, and whether the measure can be simply and effectively administered.The National Environment Protection Council has finalised measures for the National Pollutant Inventory, the movement of controlled wastes across state and territory borders and ambient air quality. These measures aim to address issues of national significance.The government made an election commitment to continue its support of the National Environment Protection Council and promote measures that address ambient standards for marine and estuarine water quality; packaging waste; the rehabilitation of contaminated sites; and diesel fuel emissions.Non-government involvement in the development of measuresPublic consultation is an important component of the process to develop national environment protection measures. Draft measures are published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and submissions regarding the draft measures are invited over a minimum of two months.Non-government advisory groups, with membership relevant to the various national environment protection measures, have been involved in the development of those measures. Membership of these groups has included representatives of groups as diverse as the Australian Institute of Petroleum, the Minerals Council of Australia, the ACTU, Greenpeace Australia and the Queensland Conservation Council. Non-government representatives have also participated in the technical advisory panels for national environment protection measures.Further, the community will have an opportunity to examine each draft measure and to provide submissions during the consultation period following publication of the draft measure in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. It is very likely that changes will be made to the national environment protection measures after receiving important feedback from various sources during the public consultation phase.Harmonisation of environmental outcomes across AustraliaAn outcome of the adoption of national environment protection measures will be greater certainty for business, and a greater capacity for industry to manage environmental issues which cross state borders.While implementation strategies may vary somewhat across states and territories, it is likely that information will be shared between jurisdictions in relation to implementation of measures and that, over time, the implementation strategies themselves will have a tendency to become uniform nationally.ConclusionThe passage of the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill is a landmark event for environmental management in Australia. The legislation will provide the implementation vehicle for the development of national environment protection measures on, as I have mentioned previously, a range of issues including ambient marine and estuarine water quality, packaging waste, the rehabilitation of contaminated sites and diesel fuel emissions.Cooperation between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments in the development of measures represents a major benefit not only to the people of Australia and to the environment, but also to Australian industry.There will be benefits to the environment through the close attention given to the specific environment issues and to identifying an effective environmental outcome in development of national environment protection measures. The Australian people will benefit through having access to equivalent protection from pollutants wherever they live in Australia, and industry will benefit from ensuring competitive neutrality in relation to their activities throughout Australia.I commend the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill to the House as an important achievement in environmental management for Australia and all Australians.11:29:001989Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 was introduced in 1996 by the then Labor government. It lapsed as a result of the March 1996 election. On 21 October 1997, the bill was reintroduced by the Howard government, to the Senate, in quite extensively amended form. It was then referred to a Senate committee which received 12 submissions. Labor and Democrat senators produced dissenting reports, and the committee reported in March of this year. The bill lapsed once again because of the 1998 election and was reintroduced to the Senate, post-election, on 25 November. The Senate agreed that it ought to be exempted from the cut-off rules so it is now able to be proceeded with before Christmas.It ought to be noted also that there is other legislation with which this legislation runs essentially in parallel. Those bills are the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (No. 2) , which amends five of the most significant Commonwealth environmental laws, and also the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , which largely removes the RFA regions from the operation of Commonwealth environmental laws.The environmental performance of the Commonwealth and its agencies, and the extent to which it ought to be bound by state environmental laws where there are no applicable Commonwealth laws in existence, is an important issue. It has been around for quite some time. This bill raises a number of significant questions of environmental protection for Australia's largest property holder and developer: the Commonwealth and all its agencies.Essentially, the bill raises questions of, first, how state environmental laws affect the Commonwealth and its agencies; second, objectives of national uniformity; and, third, conformity with environmental legislation elsewhere. The key question which the House confronts is not just whether this bill provides the necessary level of uniformity amongst Australia's environmental laws, but also whether it provides an adequate framework for the achievement of that objective.Notwithstanding our view that the bill ought to be supported and to pass, we note with some concern that the bill before us is different from the version presented by the previous Labor government and has distorted the original intent. The amendments that we supported in the Senate, therefore, addressed two main concerns: first, transparency of government action and, secondly, accountability and review of government action.The bill provides for the application of certain state and territory environmental protection laws to the Commonwealth and its agencies, in an attempt to create and implement a scheme of uniform national standards. These standards are known as NEPMs, national environment protection measures. The bill is the second chapter in a legislative approach characterised by the cooperative Commonwealth-state standards setting which was commenced by the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994.This bill provides five different methods for the implementation of NEPMs which are made pursuant to that National Environment Protection Council Act 1994. It therefore provides several methods by which the Commonwealth can implement the NEPMs so that they apply to the Commonwealth—that is to say, by applying certain state laws to Commonwealth places, applying certain state and territory laws to Commonwealth activities, by the making of regulations, through environmental audits or environmental management plans and also by the use of existing Commonwealth laws.The NEPC Act provides for the making of these measures related to seven particular environmental issues: air quality, water quality, noise standards, site contamination, hazardous waste, recycling and motor vehicle emissions. This bill is designed to apply those measures to the Commonwealth once they have been finalised. This is really part of a bigger picture. The vision of legislative responsibility between the Commonwealth and states set out in the constitution has long caused some difficulty in securing effective or uniform environment protection outcomes. According to the Bills Digest produced by the Parliamentary Library, such difficulties were most recently alluded to in the 1996 Commonwealth state of the environment report, where the independent advisory panel commented:The national ability to manage the environment is continually hamstrung by structural problems between different areas of government. Standards vary from State to State, and State and Commonwealth governments frequently battle over environmental issues.It is indeed a source of Commonwealth-state tension. Not only have we seen Commonwealth-state tensions arising over issues such as protection of Australia's world heritage properties, such as Kakadu and the western Tasmania wilderness, but the issue of the environmental management of the Commonwealth has sometimes caused its own share of low level intergovernmental friction. Indeed, I can recall an incoming Victorian government, the Kennett government, back in 1993 establishing a parliamentary committee or at least giving that committee a reference to inquire into the liability of the Commonwealth to state environmental laws. That did strike me as something of an excuse on the part of that government for doing nothing itself in the area of environmental protection; nevertheless, it reflected some concern on the part of that state government. I know there have been others as well.The adoption of a policy of national uniformity in environmental protection standards in the 1990s appears to have been motivated by factors, including a realisation by Australian governments that environmental problems cross state borders and need to be addressed on a nation wide basis. It is not just a matter of taking national responsibility. There is also a need to recognise the fact that, in 1998, it is highly desirable that players in a national marketplace face only one set of rules rather than many.This bill presents itself as a decision to bind the Commonwealth to NEPMs found in state laws. We need to examine whether the bill in its present form meets that objective. The idea of the Commonwealth meeting environmental standards found in state laws through the NEPM scheme makes sense for two main reasons. The first is the need for consistency among national pollution control and environment protection laws. This scheme of national uniformity would hardly be a truly national scheme unless the Commonwealth itself were bound.The second reason, speaking candidly, is that the Commonwealth must act to address concerns about the environmental impact of Commonwealth activities. It is a fact that the activities of the Commonwealth and its authorities can have significant environmental impact. The Commonwealth is a major landowner. It also operates a wide range of facilities which involve a number of land uses with the potential to contaminate land with toxic and hazardous waste. For example, according to the Bills Digest, the National Transmission Authority in 1996 was storing over 33 tonnes of highly toxic, polychlorinated biphenyl or PCB material at its 500 sites throughout Australia posing significant health and environment risks.This example of problems with toxic waste storage was reported by the Australian National Audit Office in its 1996 report entitled, The environmental management of Commonwealth land, site contamination and pollution prevention—that is, report No. 31 of 1996. We have also had other reports pointing to problems involving land contamination as well as air, noise and water pollution arising from Commonwealth activities and places.In my own electorate, the Commonwealth-owned facility of Essendon airport from time to time generates environmental issues, which are a matter of concern to local people and local government. The issue of the capacity of the local planning laws, the local environmental laws, to apply to the Commonwealth comes up. There have been environmental concerns about aviation issues and about the airport providing a lease for waste recycling facilities.Where we have the issue of legal uncertainty over the application of state laws to the Commonwealth, the question before us here is: does this bill adequately resolve the existing legal uncertainties surrounding the question of Commonwealth environmental responsibilities under state laws? This issue was the subject of a report in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 June 1997 entitled, `State pushes to end exemptions on prosecutions for polluting'. The report stated that New South Wales was seeking a test case to break the long held perception of a standing exemption of Commonwealth agencies from state pollution control laws. It said:All Commonwealth agencies in New South Wales are believed to be the subject of examination by the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority. These include military bases, including the Australian Defence Industries at Garden Island, the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, Sydney Airport and telecommunications facilities. If successful the EPA action would open a new chapter in the legal relations between the Commonwealth and the states particularly where federal government activities do not enjoy immunity specified in legislation. The report continued:Commonwealth agencies suspected of breaching environmental protection standards set by States have often played both gamekeeper and poacher.The EPA may still be looking for such a test case. But, in 1997, the High Court, in the Henderson case, revisited the difficult question of the application of state laws to the Commonwealth and its agencies. The Henderson case, according to the Bills Digest , stated—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.40 a.m. to 12.01 p.m.According to the Bills Digest:The High Court's decision of August 1997 in Henderson has considerably reduced the extent to which the Commonwealth and its agents can claim a broad Constitutional immunity from State laws. The Court found that New South Wales residential tenancy laws applied to the activities of the Defence Housing Authority. A 6:1 majority rejected the broad proposition that the Commonwealth cannot be bound by State legislation.I think two points are applicable here. Firstly, it always remains open to the Commonwealth to legislate to waive any relevant immunity that they have from state law. Secondly, it is open to the Commonwealth to exclude the application of state law by means of the section 109 inconsistency provisions of the Commonwealth constitution.The bill before us does seek in some limited circumstances to apply state environmental laws to the Commonwealth but only in nominated and declared circumstances. This approach has the potential to generate confusion. As was stated by Senator Schacht in Labor's submission to the Senate ERCA committee, the bill:. . . rather than clarifying State/Commonwealth responsibilities, by its unnecessary complexity, further blurs and confuses these responsibilities.The New South Wales government submission argued:The Bill appears to reflect a Commonwealth decision not to allow state laws to apply of their own force, in accordance with Henderson's case, but rather to set up an inconsistency between those laws and Commonwealth law that will ensure, subject to Commonwealth law, that Commonwealth law prevails.Clause 9 is an example. According to the Victorian government's EPA, in its submission to the ERCA committee inquiry on the bill:Clause 9 expressly excludes the application of State laws to Commonwealth places or activities, unless they are applied by the Environment Minister under the Bill. This is a significant step backwards . . . Passage of the Bill in its current form would leave States in the clearly unacceptable position where none of their environment laws apply to the Commonwealth, with no guarantee, or even presumption that those laws will be applied.The New South Wales government also stated:The Bill's various exclusions of and qualifications on the application of State laws to Commonwealth activities give the Commonwealth great scope to `pick and choose' which, if any, State laws it will apply to Commonwealth activities. There is a risk that this will result in a piecemeal Commonwealth approach to implementation of NEPMs.The government's response to these criticisms has been adequate, as it appears determined to evade and avoid the principal objectives of the legislation—that is, the objective of nationally uniform environmental standards.The response of Environment Australia to the committee was as follows:The inclusion of the present clause 9 does not purport to suspend all State environmental provisions, only those implementing a NEPM. Clause 9, for example, would not suspend a whole piece of legislation, only the provisions of it that implemented the NEPM in question.However, this response in our view fails to resolve the uncertainties. It is a recipe for ad hoc decision making. It is not immediately clear which parts of state legislation are implementing NEPMs. Victorian EPA representatives have stated that it would not be necessary to enact additional legislation in Victoria in order to implement NEPMs, as reliance upon existing legislation would suffice. Similar comments were made by the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, which stated that New South Wales has significant concerns about the bill.It is a bill where we see some significant defects. We think it focuses more on exemption of the Commonwealth from the application of state and territory laws than it does on compliance. We think it provides the environment minister with virtually unfettered discretions as to the application of such exemptions on what might be described or perceived as spurious or indefensible grounds. We think it contains inadequate accountability measures. An elaborate and overly bureaucratic and convoluted reporting mechanism takes the place of any strong and publicly accessible reporting and enforcement mechanisms. We think the bill fails the accountability and transparency tests. It expressly exempts the Commonwealth from prosecution for an offence, and indeed the heaviest penalties of the bill fall upon whistleblowers rather than polluters.As a result of this and noting that this bill has been through the Senate before it came here, there have been a number of amendments made in the Senate, either sponsored or supported by Labor. The impact of those has been to insert improved public notification measures and to limit the ambit of ministerial discretions to exempt Commonwealth agencies and activities from the provisions of the proposed legislation.It might save the time of the House if I were to just make some observations about the amendments that were made in the Senate and that might help in terms of getting through the legislative process more quickly. Let me say a few words about the amendments that have come via the Senate. In clause 3 we see an expanded objects clause where amendments have expanded the range of objects of the legislation. Subclause (b) provides for decision making in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and it also provides for greater public access to information.In clause 5, in the definitions clause, in the range of matters of national interest, a Labor Party amendment, the insertion of the word `prescribed' into the range of matters of national interest required that only telecommunications and aviation matters prescribed by regulation would gain the national interest exemption from the provisions of the proposed law.With subclause 10(2) of the bill this subclause was deleted in accordance with a Democrat amendment. The minister in his second reading speech made some reference to the significance of deletion of that subclause. I want to make a few observations about that. As contained in the bill originally presented by the government, it read:Nothing in this Act renders the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth liable to be prosecuted for an offence.We supported an amendment to delete the clause from that bill, and in the Senate, Senator Bolkus, Labor's environment spokesman, said:We believe an integral part of this legislation should be to allow the operation to its full effect of state law that is deemed to apply in the circumstances . . . . we do say very strongly that [this amendment] needs to be supported because all it really does is allow the continued application of state criminal law.The bill seeks to apply selected state environmental laws to the Commonwealth. This could involve the application of the criminal offence provisions. I wish to reiterate the comments made by Senator Bolkus and hope that this amendment will go some way towards improving the environmental performance of the Commonwealth.The bill contains a definition of a Commonwealth authority that includes government business enterprises and statutory authorities. It is clear from the explanatory memorandum that the government intended that the GBEs be bound and that the so-called shield of the crown not be available to them. In recent years we have seen a winding back of the concept of the shield of the crown, starting with the Bropho case in 1990, where the High Court considered the question of whether the Aboriginal Heritage Act of Western Australia bound the Crown in Western Australia. The High Court held that it did, deciding that a statute will be held to apply to and bind the Crown if its purpose, policy and subject matter disclose an intention that the Crown be bound.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.11 p.m. to 12.26 p.m.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I might be third time lucky, or I might try to get the rest of my speech incorporated in Hansard . There is a rebuttable presumption that the Crown is not liable for criminal offences. Removal of the clause explicitly stating that the Crown is not liable does not significantly alter the position, as it merely serves to weaken the presumption of Crown immunity. We also note that the Crown is already subject to civil law, so you can seek an injunction against the Crown in right of the Commonwealth; therefore it seems to us to be inconsistent not to have both apply. Why shouldn't it be subject to the criminal laws?The existing position runs counter to broader principles articulated in the High Court in Sankey v. Whitlam and the Hayden case in which the court held that membership of the government was no excuse in relation to the commission of criminal offences, that is, that ministers of the Crown were subject to criminal law. The old arguments put forward in the High Court's 1946 decision of Cain v. Doyle were that the Crown cannot be gaoled and the Crown cannot prosecute itself. However, similar arguments could be put forward theoretically in relation to corporations, but no-one takes such arguments seriously. If the directors and managers of corporations are subject to penalties, why not directors and managers of Commonwealth departments? So, if the private sector is subject to penalties, why not the Crown? If Commonwealth servants, agents and GBEs are subject to criminal liability, then why not also Commonwealth departments and agencies?I turn briefly to clause 11, the issue of restriction on range of national interest exemption. This clause was amended in the Senate in several respects to fetter ministerial discretion. The first amendment restricted subclause (a) to ensure that environmental outcomes contained in the relevant NEPM were addressed, rather than a more general phrase of `appropriate environmental outcomes'. The second amendment reduced the scope of the administrative efficiency exemption contained in subclause (b) so that in this context the objects of the acts and the principles of ESD must also be considered.There were amendments in relation to the tabling of ministerial declarations which made provision to require the tabling of ministerial declarations. There were also amendments to clause 25, concerning environmental auditors, which made provision for the appointment of environmental auditors by the relevant minister. Clause 27, concerning environmental auditors, ensures that only fit and proper persons are appointed as environmental auditors. Finally, clause 43, on provision for review of the operation of the act, provides that a review of the operation of the act must be undertaken within five years of the commencement of the act.12:29:001995Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Congratulations to the member for Lyne and the member for Wills for their contributions. What we are talking about today is a proposal that extends some good work that I believe was commenced under the Labor government, and I congratulate them for it. It is an example of how successive governments of different brands can continue to work constructively on things that are clearly in the best interests of the nation. Some of the member for Wills's comments also point to things that we can look at over time. But today it is a matter of moving on with a framework that recognises that environmental problems and management strategies do not stop at borders; they do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries.With the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 there was a recognition that things could and needed to be done across jurisdictions to address some of the environmental concerns facing our nation. That National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 had a number of focuses in its initial phase protecting Australians from air, water and soil pollution.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—The national environment protection framework, whether it be the measure or the council, both of which are instruments that implement this framework, is an example of a cooperative approach between the Commonwealth and the states in the interests of better environmental outcomes for all Australians. That is to be commended and supported, which it is. I also make the point that the Labor Party is supporting this measure today.The passage of the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 fulfils another coalition government election promise to the Australian people. It signals a continued commitment to the protection of the environment through a cooperative and inclusive national process. The member for Wills outlined that process so I will not go over that again.The bill required by the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 is essential to enable the Commonwealth to implement the national environment protection measures in relation to its own places and activities. More specifically, the bill is required for the Commonwealth to implement three national environment protection measures which have already been made by the National Environment Protection Council. These are the national pollutant inventory, the national environment protection measure, the ambient air quality, NEPM, and the movement of controlled waste between states and territories. Given the situation we are faced with here today I will not talk further about those NEPMs unless there is a requirement to continue while we wait for the minister to arrive.This bill is evidence of good environmental practice and evidence of what can be done when jurisdictions get together and address mutual concerns about our environment. The process through which national environment protection measures are developed is comprehensive and gives all stakeholders an opportunity for input.The process is a new opportunity for industry, government and non-government organisations to contribute to the development of NEPMs. That is important, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you would agree. Just look at the national pollutant inventory measure where there was some transportation of chemicals from one jurisdiction to another, or the way in which they are omitted in coastal areas where perhaps state borders and the like were concerned. You would hate to have different standards.This is also a micro-economic reform measure because it is saying to industry, `Come and work with governments. Come and work with non-government organisations.' We will come up with regulatory frameworks that achieve better environmental outcomes but we will take into account the sorts of constraints that those working with these measures have to deal with.Here is an example that avoids having different controls, different standards between different states which all aim to achieve much the same thing but go about them in different ways. You would see industry adapting to one jurisdiction's standards and then going to another jurisdiction to do something different. You can see quite clearly how that would be a disincentive for industry to work with those standards and to ensure that they are fully complied with. This framework acknowledges that a close working relationship between industry, the Commonwealth, the states and non-government organisations is the way to get better outcomes for our environment.There were some issues raised by the member for Wills about compliance and I just remind the Committee that the exemptions available to the Commonwealth are quite narrow and only available under limited circumstances. An exemption for implementing a particular measure at a certain Commonwealth place, or in regard to a certain Commonwealth activity, will only be given on the ground of a matter of national interest. That definition of a matter of national interest is quite limited and has been outlined earlier by the member for Lyne's contribution. It is quite constrained in terms of where the Commonwealth has a mechanism not to fully participate with these NEPMs.The good thing is that I think the Commonwealth has shown its bona fides, with the support of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, by saying that the Commonwealth is a land manager, that it does carry out activities that impact on others and that it should, wherever possible, uphold the standards and the environmental protection requirements that everybody else has to deal with. From a former life in local government—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.35 p.m. to 1.26 p.m.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Thank you.12:28:001996Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—in reply—I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 and commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment1997Motion (by Mr Vaile) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.199713:29:001997Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—As we all prepare for Christmas we should spare a thought for the isolated mining community of Queenstown, on Tasmania's west coast. Over 200 miners and their families are facing uncertain futures after the announcement this week that an administrator will take control of the Mount Lyell copper mine.Plummeting commodity prices have reached historic lows and brought one of Australia's oldest copper mines to its knees. Indeed, today the commodity trade weighted index is the lowest in 20 years. It will be an anxious wait to see whether it is decided to continue. There is a mood of uncertainty among the people of the west coast of Tasmania. Many, even the most optimistic, fear it could be the end.If the mine does close down shock waves will be felt not only in my electorate of Braddon and Dick Adams's electorate of Lyons but around Tasmania. At a time when the state desperately needs jobs and investment, it can ill afford a decision that puts the future of a major employer, let alone an icon of the mining industry, in doubt. It would be another very bitter pill to swallow for the north-west and west coasts, which have seen a gradual decline of the region's industrial base and a loss of hundreds of jobs. It is now an all too familiar scenario for many regional centres around Australia, but to see the flagship of Tasmania's proud mining industry in such trouble does little for the confidence of the community, the region and the state.Once regarded as the world's richest copper mine, Mount Lyell has had a chequered history, but the resilient mining community has always managed to triumph over adversity and I for one am not writing it off just yet. But one thing the miners and the community have no control over is world commodity prices.I might add that Mount Lyell is not the only mine at the crossroads. Prices for zinc, copper, tin and iron ore are so depressed that all the mines of the west coast are under pressure. It is a terribly unfair return for those who, over the past decade, have poured tens of millions of dollars into trying to access deeper ore bodies—and for the workers who have played a major role in keeping things going. They have done their part. They have had to adjust to change. It has not been easy for them but they accepted the challenges and made things work. Yet the Renison mine, one of the world's largest—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The time allowed for debate has expired.Main Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m., until Wednesday, 8 February 1999 at 10 a.m., unless in accordance with standing order 273 an alternative date or time is fixedAnswers to Questions in Writing1998The following answers to questions were circulated:1998(Question No. 17)171998Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) How many Job Network agencies accepted the Government's Job Network $10,000 business marketing plan bonus offered before the 1998 federal general election.(2) Did any agencies refuse to accept the offer; if so, (a) on what basis did each refuse, (b) what are the implications for an agency who has refused the offer and (c) is his Department involved in a legal dispute over the offer in a federal court or tribunal.(3) Is his Department involved in a legal dispute over Freedom of Information interpretations to do with the tendering for the first round of the Job Network in a federal court or tribunal.1998Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 238 Job Network members accepted the offer of Market Development Funding.(2) Yes. Three agencies did not accept the offer of Market Development Funding.(a) Two did not accept as they had withdrawn, or intended to, from the Job Network. The third did not accept the offer for reasons which, due to commercial confidentiality, cannot be disclosed.(b) None other than the Job Network member not receiving Market Development Funding.(c) No.(3) One unsuccessful tenderer has appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) against the Department's decision to refuse access to some documentation about the tender process and other tender information. The right of appeal to the AAT is provided for in the Freedom of Information Act 1982. No date for hearing has been set. 1998(Question No. 33)331998Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 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 case1998Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia (AFFA) has in place a number of initiatives to meet the needs of a diverse workforce which will, in turn, assist the Department in the provision of services to a diverse client base. AFFA is also implementing its Workplace Diversity Program which will assist the Department to create an inclusive environment that values and utilises the contributions of all people from different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives.(2) Details and funding commitments are as follows:• Workplace English Tutor Scheme (WETS)—This scheme operates in AFFA on a voluntary basis with staff members offering to become tutors to assist staff from non English speaking backgrounds to improve their written and spoken language skills in a non threatening environment. AFFA does not allocate funds to this scheme other than the time spent by both the tutor and student (no more than one hour a week).• Speakout Program—AFFA has funded a program for staff of non English speaking backgrounds to undertake more advanced development of their communication and presentation skills in order to serve the needs of clients, the Department and the individuals concerned. This program is being carried out over a period of 12 weeks at a total cost of $5400. • In 1996 the government made the decision to `mainstream' funding support for women's non-government organisations (NGO's). Accordingly funding for many NGO's, from the Office of the Status of Women, ceased in June 1998 AFFA's response to this decision has been to establish a small grant program to provide operational funding for eligible national rural women's organisations. The grants are aimed at supporting rural women's organisations to improve their representation and participation in policy development and decision-making in the agricultural and resource management sector.Grants of $50,000 were given to Australian Women in Agriculture and the Foundation for Australian Agricultural Women for the 1998/99 financial year with the option to reapply for further finding in the 1999/2000 financial year. The program has a `sunset clause' of three years after which the organisation is required to take action to secure alternative funding.In addition, AFFA provides funding for a scholarship for a rural woman to participate in the Australian Rural Leadership Program. In 1997 the scholarship was awarded to a pork producer from Queensland, and in 1998 to a wool grower from Victoria.• In recognition of the traditionally high number of staff from non English speaking backgrounds within the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE), the Bureau will provide funds for those staff to access communication skills training.Timing and availability of training will be negotiated between individual employees and their immediate managers but funding will be provided at the corporate level. For the 1998/99 financial year, this commitment has been set at $3000 but managers may request a modification to this on the basis of business needs.• As part of ABARE's Certified Agreement and Australian Workplace Agreements the Bureau has agreed to the introduction of a specific provision recognising the importance of cultural/religious occasions to its multicultural work forceEmployees will have the opportunity, subject to operational requirements and the availability of measurable and productive work, to substitute a day of religious/cultural significance for a gazetted public holiday. These arrangements are to be subject to negotiation between the employee concerned and his/her immediate manager.• AFFA and Environment Australia have established a national network of 12 Indigenous Land Management Facilitators to promote sustainable natural resource management and nature conservation activities by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.This portfolio has allocated from the National Landcare Program $1.725 million to the project for the period 1998-99 to 2000-01. The project will give equal attention to achieving sustainable agriculture and protecting our unique biodiversity.1999(Question No. 38)381999Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2630 (Hansard , 28 May 1998, page 4225), will he ensure that any proposed rail link route between Glenfield, NSW, and the proposed second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek will not involve land covering the Hurlstone Agricultural High School site at Glenfield.1999Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:My answer to the question is unchanged. However, as pointed out in the answer to question No. 2630 of 28 May 1998, responsibility for acquisition of land for the expansion of Sydney's metropolitan rail network rests with the NSW Government and as a consequence I can give no assurances that the rail track will not go through the Hurlstone Agricultural High School site at Glenfield.1999(Question No. 60)601999Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) How many staff were employed at the (a) Fairfield and (b) Cabramatta offices of the Commonwealth Employment Agency (CES) on 2 March 1996.(2) How many staff were employed at the (a) Fairfield and (b) Cabramatta offices of the CES (i) immediately before and (ii) following the restructuring of the offices into the Employment National network.(3) How many staff are employed at the (a) Fairfield and (b) Cabramatta offices of Employment National.1999Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Job Network commenced on 1 May 1998. On that day 311 organisations across Australia began operating as Job Network members. Employment National Limited is one of those organisations. Employment National Limited did not take over the responsibilities and workload of the CES. Job Network, as well as Centrelink, now undertakes the work of the CES.(1) (a) 61.(b) 41.(2) (a) (i) 21.(b) (i) 24.(a) and (b) (ii) The CES offices were not restructured into offices of Employment National. In response to business levels Employment National Limited won under the Government's employment services contract in South West Sydney, the company established a new business centre in Fairfield and a new subsidiary business centre in Cabramatta. These are Employment National offices, sized and configured in layout and staffing to meet its contracted business levels. On 1 May 1998, the first day the employment services market came into operation Employment National had 11 members of staff available to service job seekers and employers at these two locations. There are no site allocations of employees. (a) and (b) Employees of Employment National Limited are not employed at individual sites or locations, but rather to an operating region to be able to respond to business fluctuations and demands. There are no specific employee allocations to Fairfield and Cabramatta. Based on the current business volumes at these offices, as at 11 November 1998, Employment National Limited had 12 staff deployed between these two business centres.