1999-02-183912REPS314501999-02-18Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous3145314509:31:003145Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith:That the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business be condemned for concealing a deceptive plan to break undertakings that no worker would be worse off under the Government's industrial relations reforms and for his efforts to destroy the Living Wage for ordinary Australian families.It is necessary for us to give consideration to this at this time because this is not the future that the Australian people want. We do not want a low wage, low skilled future of transient jobs. We want a high wage, high skilled, secure work force. We do not want families intimidated by constant threats to their job security in the workplace. We want a community happy and secure and confident that they can support their families through their lives. That is what we want on this side of the House, but this is not what the government wants.We want people confident that, when you go to them during the election campaign and you tell them that no family is going to be worse off, no worker is going to be worse off as a result of the industrial relations changes—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, we are quite happy to have a sustained and robust debate on this, but we will have it at the usual time after question time.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [9.37 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.09:42:003145Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Look what we have found under the oil slick: a grubby little un-Australian proposal aimed at penalising Australian workers.Motion (by Mr Reith) put: That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [9.43 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.09:45:003145McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I support the motion.Motion (by Mr Reith) put: That the question be now put.The House divided. [9.46 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Original question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to. The House divided. [9.49 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the negative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Bills3146r7323146Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.314609:52:003146McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to make various, unrelated minor amendments which have been requested by the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) and its predecessors, in consultation with the telecommunications industry and consumers. These amendments are largely unrelated to each other, but all of them will aid the provision of telecommunications services. Now I turn to the details contained in the bill.(a) The current act allows the ACA to regulate communications only with designated satellites. The modern telecommunications space industry will utilise a range of space objects. Companies which intend to invest in the launch and operation of space objects need to be assured that radiocommunications signals to and from their space objects are not interfered with. This bill will allow the ACA to regulate communications with space objects.(b) The bill will allow the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority to make written agreements allowing the ACA to issue radiocommunications licences in the broadcasting services bands.(c) The current Radiocommunications Act 1992, subsection 60(5), allows the minister to limit the amount of spectrum specified persons may acquire. To limit is not generally understood as zero. This bill will allow the minister the flexibility of limiting to zero, the amount of spectrum that a specified person could acquire and thus possibly better aid the introduction of new players to the telecommunications industry, and consequently greater competition.(d) The act, at subsection 100(4A), currently requires the ACA, when deciding on whether or not to issue apparatus licences, to have regard to frequency assignment certificates which state that the apparatus in question will not cause `unacceptable' interference. This is an unrealistic requirement. The bill will replace the term `unacceptable' with a more workable statement to the effect that the correct frequency coordination procedures, as determined by the ACA, have been followed.(e) Subsection 266A(1) of the act provides that the ACA may determine conditions that apply to the issuing of a frequency assignment certificate under the act. It is doubtful, however, that this gives the ACA the power to ensure that accredited persons maintain professional indemnity insurance for a reasonable period after they issue frequency assignment certificates. To protect persons in the telecommunications industry this bill will correct this deficiency.(f) In connection with section 315 of the act, the bill will simplify and reduce the penalties payable in lieu of prosecution for offences committed under the act. The current penalties are complex and excessive. Simplifying and reducing penalties is likely to lead to them being more readily applied and the industry being better regulated.(g) Under current legislative arrangements for licence renewal a licensee may renew a licence up to six months before the licence expires. Failure to renew by the expiration of the licence means that the licensee must apply for a new licence. However, between the expiration of the licence and the issue of a new licence, licensees generally continue to operate but pay nothing to the ACA during this period. The bill will ensure that, if a licence is renewed, it will commence from the time of expiry, ensuring that licences are not used without appropriate fees being paid. (h) Currently, the Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act 1983, the Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act 1983, and the Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act 1983 provide that licence tax instalments are due on the anniversary of the date of issue of a licence, not the date the licence commenced. It is inappropriate that a tax on a licence used for a particular period not relate to the particular period concerned. The bill will correct this deficiency in relation to the Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act 1983. The Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999 and the Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999 will correct this deficiency in the Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act 1983 and the Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act 1983 respectively.(i) In the event that the ACA and Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) are unable to concur in revoking an agreement regarding communications services, which are licensed by the ACA, operating in the broadcasting bands, an impasse results. This amendment will provide a mechanism for cancelling agreements for communications services to operate in broadcasting bands that will give certainty to the marketplace by providing specific criteria under which an agreement may be revoked.(j) Section 23 of the act currently states that the act does not apply to foreign satellites, vessels or aircraft. Section 195 of the act, however, purports to regulate transmissions from foreign vessels and aircraft. This is a problem that arose from the way the act was originally drafted. The proposed amendment will remove the problem and make it clear that the ACA may regulate transmissions from foreign vessels and aircraft in Australian territory. (k) Some devices used in telecommunications are neither transmitters nor receivers but reflectors. The act only covers transmitters and receivers. Reflectors are a low cost way of extending the coverage of transmitters and receivers. They are widely used but companies which do use them cannot seek the protection of the act in relation to interference that may occur with reflectors they use. The proposed amendment will extend the coverage of the act to reflectors.(l) Under section 187A, if the ACA wishes to pursue manufacturers or importers for failing to retain appropriate records concerning a device covered by mandatory ACA standards appropriate records, it must go to the expense of prosecuting them because that is the only penalty allowed by the legislation. This is expensive, time consuming and draconian. The proposed amendment will allow such persons to be fined, specifically $220 for individuals and $1,100 for companies.(m) The ACA enforces compliance with product standards by auditing the compliance documentation assembled by manufacturers or importers. Paragraph 279(1)(e) of the act, however, requires that only `quality assurance program records' need to be produced. Other relevant records are kept by manufacturers and importers but the ACA has no right to see them. The proposed amendment will give the ACA the power to require for inspection all records relevant to products' standards. This will ensure that Australian consumers of telecommunications devices can be assured that devices that they purchase are fit for the purpose they intend.(n) Under the act the ACA may create accreditation bodies, but the act does not allow these bodies to charge for all the services they provide under the act. The policy aim regarding accreditation bodies is that private individuals or companies would form such bodies, under the auspices of the ACA, and provide services to the radiocommunications industry. Current charging arrangements make accreditation bodies economically unviable. The proposed amendment will allow accredited bodies to charge for the services they provide under the act. This should see more accreditation bodies established and more services provided to industry.(o) Certain radiocommunications devices may be lawfully operated only by `qualified' persons. The ACA has the power, under section 263 of the act, to devolve the examination and assessment process persons must undergo in order to become `qualified'. The ACA does not, however, have the power to devolve the issuing of certificates of proficiency to persons who have become `qualified'. Thus the ACA will retain a considerable administrative burden for no apparent reason. The proposed amendment will allow the ACA to devolve the issuing of certificates along with the examination and assessment processes.(p) There is no existing measure to ensure that Australia is able to assert a taxing right over income derived from the use of spectrum licences in cases where such licences are held by non-residents. This is a potential tax loophole which the proposed amendment will close before it can be used.I thank the House for its forbearance in this technical recitation of the major aspects of the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. However, I am sure the House will agree that these are issues which, although highly technical at first glance, are extremely important to both the flourishing of a competitive industry and to the protection and guidance of consumers. I therefore commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill. The explanatory memorandum that I am presenting in regard to the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill also covers the next two bills which I will introduce on behalf of the government.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills3148r7293148Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.314810:04:003148McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move: That the bill be now read a second time.Currently the Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act 1983 and the Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act 1983 provide that licence tax instalments are due on the anniversary of the date of issue of a licence, not the date the licence commenced. It is inappropriate that a tax on a licence used for a particular period not relate to the particular period concerned. The bill will correct this deficiency in relation to the Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act 1983. The deficiency in relation to the Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act 1983 will be corrected in the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills3148r7313148Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.314810:05:003148McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move: That the bill be now read a second time.Currently the Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act 1983 and the Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act 1983 provide that licence tax instalments are due on the anniversary of the date of issue of a licence, not the date the licence commenced. It is inappropriate that a tax on a licence used for a particular period not relate to the particular period concerned. The Bill will correct this deficiency in relation to the Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act 1983. The deficiency in relation to the Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act 1983 will be corrected in the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills3149r6613149Debate resumed from 10 December, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.10:07:003149Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The debate on this bill, A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998, is an important one, but there is a more important debate that this House should be having, that is, the secret strategy of the Howard government to turn this economy into a low wage, low skills economy.Released last night was this secret document of Peter Reith—pennings from the penthouse. He couldn't write a book, but he could write a rambling letter. He couldn't get it published, so he published it himself. But what is the content of this secret agenda? It is a hidden agenda to turn Australia into a low wage, low skills economy based on confrontation. That is not what this nation wants.This nation has to advance itself in forward thinking ways, not in the class division of the past, not in turning worker against employer, forcing us to the low wage end of the scale. We can only be a competitive, growth nation, able to hold our head up high, if what we are prepared to do is embrace policies that advance skills and innovation, that open up the economy and make us more productive. They are the sorts of policies we want and we will get those policies only from the Labor Party.What is very interesting about this hidden document is that where the minister actually proposes some sensible suggestions they are all really Labor suggestions. The trouble is, as a government they are not prepared to commit resources to them, whether it is the tax credits or the extra money for labour market programs, the skilling of the nation or the introduction of mechanisms to get people from welfare into work—all Labor initiatives, all worthy of consideration but too hard for the government. Peter Reith comes to the conclusion that these are worthy of consideration but, because we are not going to commit the resources, what do we do? We will cut workers' wages; that is the solution. We will find every mechanism possible by which we can cut workers' wages. We will reduce this economy to a low wage, low skill economy.What we need in this place is not just a bit of forward thinking but also a sense of bipartisanship. There is a debate about tax reform beyond the GST, but we are not getting it from the government. It seems to us that there are many areas—particularly if you look at this document—around which we could sensibly development reform, but not if we head down the path that this secret document concludes we should. So there is an important challenge to the government here today, important because what has come before the parliament are some musings of a minister, some considerations that, when he takes account of Labor policies, he thinks are not bad ideas `but we cannot implement them because we cannot acknowledge ownership, and anyway we are not prepared to commit the resources.' What we really need is a government which is prepared to embrace the initiatives which the Labor Party has been proposing and do something to get unemployment down in this nation.The bill before the House in many ways exemplifies the government's approach to tax reform. It is basically all about smoke and mirrors. It is about assertions without substance and promises without follow-up. None of the promises made before the election about all the advantages of this great tax package have been borne out in the inquiry which was insisted on by Labor senators. On each of the counts where we set the markers—on fairness and the impact of the GST upon the economy—the government's assertions have been found wanting. We have found that the compensation package is inadequate because the inflation impact of a GST has been hugely underestimated. We therefore know that people will be much worse off than the government has been asserting. Similarly, despite the assertions that this tax is good for the economy, in all the evidence before the Senate inquiry there was no evidence from the government to back it up, but evidence produced by witnesses proves quite to the contrary: there will be job losses, there could actually be a cutback in GDP, there will be no benefit for the economy and there was no evidence, again as the Treasurer asserts, that the revenue base is broken. The difficulty with this package—which they took to the election—is that the more you put it under scrutiny, the more it falls apart.This is the bill which the government said was going to be the means by which they ensured that the benefits of abolishing 10 taxes would be fully passed on to consumers. What they have done is introduce a new 10 per cent tax on almost everything and they have abolished a number of other taxes: the wholesale sales tax, diesel fuel in part and a number of other taxes. We have asserted—and this has been borne out in evidence to the Senate inquiry—that we will not see the full benefit of those 10 abolished taxes being passed on. Yet the government's assumption in its tax package is that there will be 100 per cent pass-on. And in the election campaign they said that they would ensure that there would be strengthened monitoring powers and penalties to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ensure this 100 per cent pass-on. That, supposedly, is the purpose of this bill. But like all the assertions made, it falls short of what was promised.This bill is intended to prohibit the charging of unreasonably high prices for the supply of goods, having regard to the new tax system, and to empower the ACCC to monitor prices over three years from 1 July this year. In essence, it is about preventing price exploitation, exploitation that would hurt consumers and cause the inflationary impact of the tax package to rise. It is important to understand this. The government said that the inflationary impact of a GST would be 1.9 per cent. Already in the Senate inquiry Treasury has admitted it will be 3.1 per cent.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is, Joe. Have a look at the evidence. The public needs to know that because you hid it from them. It will be 3.1 per cent, not 1.9 per cent.Have a look at Treasury's own evidence. It is staggering if you do not know that. It is staggering for a minister of the government, promoting this bold new tax plan, to not even know what his own department is saying the impact of inflation will be. It will not be 1.9 but 3.1 per cent. That assumes 100 per cent pass-on as a result of the other taxes being abolished. No-one believes 100 per cent will be passed on. Why? Because, at the moment, in many cases you cannot identify what the tax components are.Mr Billson interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—There is an acknowledgment over there from the backbench that you do not know. If you do not know, how can you say they are being passed on? How can consumers be aware of what should be passed on? That is the very point. It will not just be 3.1 per cent that we are talking about by the time the Senate inquiry is finished; the inflation impact will end up being between four and five per cent—not 1.9 but something three times higher than that. Your compensation package will erode before people's eyes because you have underestimated the inflation effect.Not only have you underestimated the inflation effect and not only will that have implications for compensation—because older people, people on pensions and people on fixed incomes will not be compensated enough—but you will erode the low inflation environ that the policies of the Labor government underpinned. We have just enjoyed almost three years of inflation below two per cent. This one measure alone is going to add another four to five per cent on top of that. Why would you do it? Is it because we have low interest rates in the economy at the moment and because we have beaten inflation?Why would you want to introduce a piece of policy madness that in one swoop will drive up the inflation rate another four to five per cent? What will be the implications for interest rates? What will be the implications for people's purchasing power? What does it mean in terms of the compensation packages that are on offer? They will be slashed. If those compensation packages are offered on the basis of 1.9 per cent inflation, when the true impact is four or five per cent, the compensation package is going to be woefully inadequate. Where are you going to find the difference?We heard the Treasurer saying that tax cuts will be passed on in full. If he is going to give the full amount of compensation based on the inflation rate, he is going to have to dip further into the surplus. What does that mean in terms of fiscal responsibility? What does that mean in relation to where the markets rate this economy in terms of fiscal responsibility? This is an ill thought out package. As I said, the government's assertion—and this is what this bill is about: trying to back up the assertion that there will be a full pass-on of the benefits of the other taxes cut—is just not borne out by any of the evidence that the Senate inquiry has heard.The ACCC will be able to formulate guidelines about when prices may be regarded as unreasonably high. It will be able to issue notices specifying the maximum price, it will be able to impose fines of up to $10 million against corporations and half a million for individuals in relation to price exploitation, and it will have to provide a written report quarterly to the government. Labor considers that, given the important role the ACCC needs to play—though it has not been given sufficient resources to do it—in attempting to restrain the inflationary impact of this GST, if it gets up, the reporting requirements should be more stringent. We will be proposing an amendment to that effect in the consideration in detail stage.The bill is supposed to be about protecting consumers, making sure that every last cent of every last saving that was delivered as part of the Treasurer's tax package is actually passed on to the consumer—at least that is what they led us to believe. The Treasurer said, on 24 September 1998, in relation to the new 10 per cent tax on almost everything:It's important when we abolish [existing] taxes that prices come down for consumers and we're going to have the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ensuring that the reduction in prices from the 10 taxes being abolished is passed on. But does the action match the rhetoric? To put it simply—so that even Minister Hockey, who did not seem to know about the inflation impact, can understand it—the bill is limited in scope and period of application. The ACCC simply does not have enough resources to do its job.I will be foreshadowing several amendments to the bill, but at this stage I move the following second reading amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House, while noting that price monitoring will be necessary to avoid confusion and exploitation during the implementation of the government's New Tax System:(1) condemns the Government for seeking to introduce a GST which is an unfair, job destroying new tax;(2) condemns the Government for its failure to provide adequate resources to the ACCC for its new role and for the limited scope and time period of application of the monitoring; and(3) condemns the Government for misleading the Australian people prior to the 1998 federal election with its assumption that the inflationary effect of the New Tax System will be only 1.9%, given that this is based on a 100% pass-through of savings which the limited pass-through monitoring mechanism contained in this Bill is unlikely to ensure".I will go into some of those issues in detail. The government has allocated $27 million over three years for the ACCC to carry out its role under this bill. The ACCC has indicated publicly that it will employee a maximum of 40 extra staff—2V5SWANMr Swan—40?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Only 40 extra staff for a new 10 per cent tax on everything people buy. And what has the government done? It sourced 40 new people to ensure 100 per cent impact of the pass-through.Does anyone seriously believe that 40 people are going to be able to do that? This government does. And, if this government thinks that, it either shows it is naive and stupid or it knows that the promise it made of full pass-through simply will not be delivered, so it has hidden again from the Australian public the full inflation effect of this GST. If it has hidden the full inflation effect, what else has it hidden? The inflation effect is bad enough, because if inflation goes up the economy suffers: people suffer, purchasing power suffers. Yet this government would have you believe otherwise. It is important to understand, just to get some idea of the magnitude, that, if every one of the 40 extra staff the ACCC is taking on for its role works a 40-hour week and for the full three-year monitoring period, each of the 1.4 million businesses that the Treasurer wants to make as his GST tax collectors will be visited by the ACCC for an average of just over ten minutes over the whole three years. That is 4.1 seconds a week. Do we really think we are going to do some monitoring with 4.1 seconds a week? That is 4.1 seconds a week to ensure that we get 100 per cent pass-on. Give us a break. The public are not mugs. They know that you are not serious. This bill demonstrates that you are not committed to ensuring the full pass-on of the drop in the other taxes.How can Australians possibly believe the Treasurer's assurances that the savings will be passed on? I hope the minister can give us an enlightened answer to this. Certainly the witnesses before the Senate inquiry into this do not believe him. Professor Ann Harding said:Speaking as an ordinary person, it seems a little unlikely.Something of an understatement! The National Farmers Federation said that the full savings would not be passed on. We hear the National Farmers Federation quoted in this place, including by the minister at the table, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, often enough when it suits. The federation do not believe the pass-on is there. Mr Higginson of the Road Transport Forum said that people `will try to hold on to some of the savings'. What are the industry and academic views? What about the ACCC itself? This is where it starts to get really interesting. Last week before the Senate inquiry, Mr Hank Spier, the general manager of the ACCC, said:There's no way we can police every business.Where are the resources, Minister? How are you going to deliver on your promise? He said there was no way the ACCC could police every business.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—There is the $10 million sanction.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Ah, he says there is the $10 million sanction, the fine. How can you impose a fine unless you investigate, you fool?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—There are 10 million policemen.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We have got 10 million policemen now. Is this the job creation policy of the government, 10 million GST police, Minister? That is an interesting revelation.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—The consumers.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The consumers are now going to be GST police. How can they be if they do not know what the tax component parts are? How can they be? What a joke. In what realm of reality do these people operate?2V5SWANMr Swan—The North Shore.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The North Shore. I am sure there are a lot of people there monitoring the prices at the Gucci store, the Armani store and the caviar store. They would be monitoring those prices; I am sure they would. They would have a real idea of it, but it would not matter to a lot of them. What you are really talking about is ordinary people who cannot unravel the price of the existing taxes, who would not have a clue as to what the existing tax component was, who would not be able to be one of your 10 million police because they would not know what they had to police. Yet you said during the election campaign that you were going to commit resources to ensure that this happened. So what we have got is 40 people incapable of carrying out the government's promise.The Treasury inflation estimates I have touched on before, but I think it is important to reiterate this point. The inability to monitor prices by the ACCC in every business across Australia and the sheer complexity of calculating the effect of the removal of existing embedded wholesale sales tax will result in a less than 100 per cent pass-through to consumers of any savings generated through the removal of that tax. This will force up the inflationary effect on the new tax system, again calling into question the adequacy of the Treasurer's compensation measures. He has been touting the coalition's tax cuts around the chamber and beyond in recent weeks, but when we look at them they are not as rosy as he wants to make out. A single income family on $40,000 a year would, on Treasury's assumption, receive $29.90 as a result of the coalition's tax package. That is a figure based on 1.9 per cent inflation. But if the inflationary impact is higher, and let us just do it on the four per cent figure, the benefit is halved to $16.80 a week. That is the effect of the inflation impact. And, if you are not monitoring, inflation is going to go higher.We know that Labor's tax credit is an idea that has now been picked up by the Leader of the House. The pennings from the penthouse have identified the tax credit as an initiative worthy of consideration. I will tell you why it is worthy of consideration: compared with the tax that you have offered, $29.90, which will be halved under the four per cent mechanism, Labor's tax credit to that same family offered $66.90 a week, and without a GST.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Rubbery figures.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Rubbery figures, the minister says. I will tell you where the rubbery figures are, brother—they are in your tax package, which is being unravelled by the hour in the Senate. Rubbery figures indeed. These were figures costed by the very witness that has been before the Senate. Peter Reith knows the benefits of Labor's tax credit but he has not got the courage to force it through the cabinet.2V5SWANMr Swan—So he leaks it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He likes to have it leaked. He likes to self-publish his document to try and pretend he is a thinking man, a man of ideas, a man with an agenda. But whose agenda is it? It's our's—our agenda. The only decent idea coming from that side of the parliament comes from us.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He is a plagiarist.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—If you read his document—I'll tell you he is plagiarising.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Because in his own letter he says:The proposal—this is in his letter about tax credits; this is good—in the letter has similarities with the earned income tax credits suggested by the ALP.So he has plagiarised it, Minister.2V5SWANMr Swan—It's his job application.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—No, I think the shadow minister behind me is correct. This is more than a letter; this is a job application for the vacancy when the Prime Minister decides to step down—getting out of that nice, comfortable leather chair if it ever suits him—or when there is a decided move against him. This is one Peter positioning against the other Peter. These are the two Peters. These are the pieces from Peter: a tax piece and—what have we got?—a wage cut piece. Peter Costello, who wants to put a 10 per cent tax on everyone—that is his policy for the nation—and Peter Reith, who wants to cut people's wages; that is his policy for the nation. What a pack of dullards!When you look through this letter, the only decent proposals that you ever come across are those that have been advocated by the Labor Party—but the government will not commit the resources to them and they have not got the courage to implement them. The truth of it is: if people want genuine reform, give the authors of the initiatives the opportunity to implement them. We will commit the resources. We believe in these things. We believe in a tax system that gets people from welfare to work. We believe in a tax system that reduces the high effective marginal tax rates. That is why we have proposed the tax credit—we believe in a tax system that drives the direction for job creation.You are not getting any of that here; you have only a cobbled together piece of junk from the minister for employment and industrial relations trying to outdo the other pre tender to the throne—the two pretending Petes. You have got them trying to outdo each other for policy ideas; one is to tax the public, the other is to cut their wages. This is not a direction in which this nation needs to go. The other point I want to go to in terms of this bill is that the policing does not extend across the full implementation period.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Let us go to it. The GST input tax credits for motor vehicles will be phased in over two years from 1 July, Minister. Right? Clause 12 of the bill provides for, in certain circumstances, GST-free supply up to or beyond 1 July 2005. Hence the full effect of the implementation of the new tax system will not be in place until the ACCC ceases its monitoring activities. This is a brilliant piece of monitoring!As we have seen with the debacle over the government's treatment of prepaid funerals, which the member for Lilley and the member for Newcastle have outlined, elements of the GST system are starting up already. You are getting the GST charged for funerals before you are dead—paid in advance—and the tax is not even in. What a great system! Where is the ACCC monitoring that?Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Why don't we pass the package? We won't pass the package because we do not believe in it, and it is unfair. This is an example of where it is unfair: the tax reform hotline is telling people that funeral directors should put their prices up for prepaid funerals entered into after 2 December in anticipation of the GST applying. They cannot wait for this tax—it is not even legislated and they are slugging you before you're dead. Talk about a death tax paid in advance! Then, after people are told, `Go and find out what the amount is,' they say, `See an accountant.' I thought this was supposed to be a simple system, Minister.What about the inadequacy of the powers? Another glaring inadequacy in this bill is that it does not give express power in relation to other changes to be implemented. The only express power goes to the relationship of the wholesale sales tax abolition. Where is the reference to the diesel fuel credit scheme, Minister?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—It's covered.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It's covered, is it? I would like to hear that in your response. Where is the reference to bank taxes and stamp duties? In relation to the state charges, we have not yet seen the legislation implementing the abolition of these charges. It is therefore difficult to see yet if the ACCC's powers will be extended.This is part of the problem: you will not reveal the full details of your package. There is still more hidden. But the explanatory memorandum indicates that these changes can be included by way of regulation. So now we are going to have the parliament not overseeing the monitoring power; it will be left to the bureaucracy, left to be hidden again, left to be buried away. So we have to take this government on trust—trust in relation to a tax they said they would never ever introduce. They now want you to believe there will never, ever be increases as a result of the taxes that they have abolished.We heard the Deputy Prime Minister promise to resign if he did not deliver on the $3½ billion cut in fuel taxes. He said on the 7.30 Report on 9 September:As part of [the] Coalition package, we will empower the ACCC to see that [fuel savings will] flow right across Australia.Where is the empowerment? It is not in the bill, Minister. This is a Deputy Prime Minister who has deceived the Australian public in terms of the rural constituency over what he says is the single most important dimension of their tax package—cuts to diesel fuel. He has deceived them. He told them that he was going to give the ACCC powers and yet the bill that comes before the House does not contain those powers. The ACCC has not got that power. The minister should show where it has. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10:37:003154Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I always enjoy following and even listening to the contribution from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He seems to think that this place must be a branch meeting of the ALP, where he can substitute reasoned argument and thoughtful, sober comment on public issues with vitriol, verbal diarrhoea, gum flapping and name-calling. Fortunately, most people in this place are not persuaded by that sort of behaviour, and the member for Hotham does himself no credit at all by carrying on in that way so consistently and so predictably.The significant thing about what he had to say is that there was nothing in it. It was a rerun of the election campaign arguments that the Australian people heard, digested and realised were more of the ALP's overblown rhetoric about tax, because the ALP has form on tax. We had the l-a-w that went in the b-i-n. We have a side of politics that could not stick with its commitment to hold taxes. We had the infamous Dawkins budget in the glory days, which the member for Hotham seems to want to go back to.Remember those glory days when the Dawkins budget was being talked about? I met a proprietor of a home maintenance business in a group of about 150 people at a meeting I attended during the election campaign. I am not quite sure what his objective was in being there, but he shared with me his frustration during the Dawkins budget era as a wholesaler in the confectionery industry. He told me that, in the course of about three days, as he was trying to liaise with the suppliers and retailers of the confectionery products he was selling, he had no idea what was going on with the tax changes. He would get a phone call from the manufacturer who would say, `The taxes are going up. Labor is going to whip up this slippery, hidden wholesale sales tax on confectionery products. We don't know quite what they are going to do, but stay tuned.' He was saying, `What do I tell my customers?' They said, `We don't know what to tell your customers because we don't know what the Labor Party is going to do.'He reported to the public meeting that I attended that he then got another phone call saying, `They are having a bit of a rethink about it. There are problems with the definition of confectionery and other supposedly more staple food items. It's a bit clouded. They are worried about the politics of it. Hold the phone, we'll be back to you again.' Then another phone call came. `It's back on the agenda as one of a raft of wholesale sales tax increases that will apply to an enormous range of products that are purchased by the Australian community.'It was back on the agenda and up it went again. That is the very same tax that the member for Hotham must have been talking about when he was referring, in his speech on his amendment, to the hidden taxes, the confusion, the exploitation. That must have been the tax system he was referring to, because that is the tax system we want to overturn for that very simple reason that it is hidden, it is confusing, it can be manipulated by those in government—as evidenced by the ALP continually and by the continual flip-flap during the Dawkins budget era. That is why we want to change it. People do not know what it applies to, they do not know the rate of it, and they certainly do not have a feel for what component of the price they are paying for goods is tax. That is why we want to make those changes.He was talking about the Australian people not being mugs. I wholeheartedly endorse that. He was suggesting, though, that Australians, in not being mugs, would somehow have difficulty with this plan the government has put forward. The Australian people are not mugs; that is why they threw Labor out in 1996. The Australian people are not mugs; that is why they have supported the Howard government on this reformation of our tax system. And, above all, Australians are not mugs because if they think they are getting ripped off they act.What is the thesis of the Crean argument? What is the slippery Simon picture on tax reform? He has three key points. The first is that consumers are mugs because they are not able to discern between suppliers of goods and services—you need a bureaucracy in Canberra or somewhere ticking off every price that is put on a product or service. Why is he saying that consumers are mugs? The people I know, the electors of Dunkley, will, if they feel they are being asked to pay too much for a good or service, go somewhere else and check out the price. Simple Simon believes that this economy is just one little individual surrounded by all these hostile influences with no capacity to make choices about the things they do in their own lives. That is his thesis: that the Australian people are mugs. The member for Hotham believes Australians are mugs because they do not know how to engage in the sensible use of the funds they have available to them. That is his first thesis.His second thesis is that we run in some sort of controlled economy, that we have to report back to Canberra with every price because if we do not do that people will be taken advantage of. There is a great thing about the Australian community—if you are not happy with something that is going on, you shop with your feet, you hop up and you go somewhere else. If you feel someone is taking you for a ride you go and check with another supplier or provider of the service or another retailer and you check it out. That is called negotiation. I do that in my family. We are a single income family. I have done that right throughout my life because we want to make sure we are getting value for money.What is the Crean thesis? That people are not interested in value for money? That they will just, in some helpless way, wander up to these nasty people who are the backbone of our economy and be taken advantage of? That is the second part of the Crean thesis.I like the third part of the Crean thesis best of all. He is saying that the economy is fine. He is saying that the economy is humming along and going so well, why would you want to change it? What a great endorsement of the Howard government's program that the member for Hotham, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the supposed pre-eminent economic spokesperson of those opposite—excluding those who are writing their books—believes the economy is fine.We think the economy is much improved on what it was in the Labor years, but we want to keep working on the economy, we want to keep making sure that there are more job opportunities out there and that there are increases in real wages. So when the member for Hotham says that the economy is fine, I think that is an endorsement of what the government has done and it gives us confidence in the other measures the government is proposing to bring about even further improvement in the economy. The member for Hotham, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the pre-eminent economic spokesperson of the opposition says the economy is fine. I think it is much improved on what it was but I would like to see it a lot better.What is significant about the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that he did not land a punch on the bill that is before the House. He could not find a problem with it, even though he has had difficulty coming to grips with the contents of it. For his benefit I will refer to some comments by Simon Blake from Clayton Utz which appeared in the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association newsletter. He said:Price exploitation as it's defined for the purposes of this bill in section 75AV as occurring if the `price for supply of goods or services is unreasonably high having regard alone to the New Tax System changes'.He was trying to say that they were not including all the issues in the tax system. I would encourage him to apprise himself of the contents of the bill. I imagine he has been working on that preselection speech, or whatever it was he delivered in this House, and has not had the opportunity to apprise himself of the contents.What is significant about today is that A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 is before the House and it is the delivery of another element of the coalition's tax reform plan, endorsed by the Australian community. It is probably one of the reasons why tax reform was a positive influence on the outcome of the last election. The government has delivered—on time, in full, on budget and within the context of a responsible fiscal agenda—all the tax commitments that it went to the Australian people with. They have been delivered. What a vivid contrast to the tax reform era of the ALP.The problem we are working with is that for 13 years under Labor tax reform meant new taxes, more taxes and a bigger hand of the government in your pocket. We are trying to work through the static that has been created by those opposite and put forward a tax plan that leaves more money in people's pockets. We know that is a difficult task, but we are studiously taking up that challenge. It is further evidence that the Howard government is getting on with the job, despite the obstructionist approach of the Labor opposition and the minor parties.In the policy document, `Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system,' the Howard government laid out its comprehensive tax reform proposal. On pages 15 and 16, it said:A transitional price oversight regime will be established under special legislation which will give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) special powers to ensure that price changes by business are consistent with changes in tax rates.Page 22 of the tax reform plan document went on to explain that the legislation would provide the ACCC with powers to formally monitor retail prices and:. . . to take action including imposing penalties up to $10 million against businesses that adjust prices in a way that is inconsistent with changes in tax rates.The abolition of a range of state and federal taxes is a key part of the government's tax reform agenda and is why the cost of living impact has been confidently estimated to be just 1.9 per cent. The member for Hotham was talking about some other form of analysis, but in the sober, clear light of a new day I think he would accept the fact that the economic modelling done by the government on the price impact is quite extensive. A well-founded argument underpins that assessment of a 1.9 per cent price impact and not the rhetoric or overblown statements which Mr Crean wants to substitute for sound argument.With many of the taxes which are to be abolished, hidden or buried in the final retail price of goods and services, the government has acted to address community concern about possible price exploitation and excessive profiteering. Treasurer Costello and the Howard government have delivered continu ing low rates of inflation at an average of one per cent per annum under the coalition, compared with a 5.2 per cent annual inflation rate under the former Labor government.Six cuts in official interest rates since the coalition was swept into office in 1996 and a growth rate of five per cent point to a strongly performing economy—or a miracle economy, if you accept the assessment of Fortune magazine. Workers are benefiting from the 400,000 new jobs created since the Howard government was elected in March 1996 and real wages growth at five times the rate Labor could deliver in its 13 years. The member for Hotham thinks the coalition government is somehow hostile to working people, but the coalition government—Prime Minister Howard, Treasurer Costello and the whole Liberal-National Party team—has delivered the goods for wage and salary earners in this country.These are prosperous but competitive times for our much admired Australians who apply their expertise, wit and skill to create the wealth and employment that benefits all of our community. But the very same conditions that have supported sustained growth, improved standards of living and new and secure employment opportunities are testing times for business proprietors and decision makers. There are no loose and sloppy profits about, simply there for the taking. Business success needs to be worked for.I am reminded of a conversation with a local business person who, like me, was buying some of the magnificent barbecued chicken available from the Playne Street chicken shop in Frankston. He was lamenting the passing of the time when high inflation made for easier times for him as a business person. His worry was that now he had to trade his way out of any business mistake he might make and could not simply sit back and let inflation deliver him a counterfeit business growth figure at the end of the year in his profit and loss sheets. He told me how, in the past, he had simply put up his prices a little faster than inflation to hide any bad call he might have made within his business.His customers did little about this as they were conditioned to inflationary price increases being a natural and unfortunate conse quence of economic growth under the Labor government. The key to profitability was simply to stay ahead of wealth-eroding inflation—and so was born the prices spiral that damage so many businesses in the Dunkley community during those 13 dark years of Labor. The coalition has broken that growth-inflation nexus by sound economic policy. This is behind us. We might not have dampened the taste for sloppy profits in all people operating businesses in this new environment. While the strengthened competitive pressures that are in our new robust, motoring-along and internationally admired economy will deliver the benefits of the abolition of many state and federal taxes, there is a chance that nostalgic tendencies may stand in the way of reduced retail prices.Market forces and the risk of cavalier profiteers losing market share will contribute to ensuring that consumers enjoy the benefits of the abolition and reduction of state and federal taxes. This has been proven to be the case in other jurisdictions where an outdated tax system has been reformed or extensively renovated. I note that nothing in what the member for Hotham had to say pointed to evidence that what the government was doing would not work. Nothing he pointed to suggested that in other countries where similar tax changes have been made there was runaway profiteering and helplessness within the consumer community—or, as the member for Hotham would rather represent them, the Australian mugs, but I do not believe they are mugs as he seems to think they are. There is no evidence of that happening in other countries where tax changes have been made.In the recent industry newsletter that I mentioned earlier from the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, Simon Blake from Clayton Utz overviews this bill under the headline `Government provides ACCC with GST teeth'. Mr Blake makes the point:Given the intense competition between various players in the telecommunications industry, it would not appear likely that price exploitation would be a factor. Nevertheless, Clayton Utz goes on to advise that businesses should be aware of the provisions of the bill we are debating today and:. . . ensure that in setting price structures in the post GST regime, that all prices are justifiable on normal commercial bases.This is the very clear message circulating around one of the key sectors of our economy and business community. This is a message that is going through all sectors of our economy—that competition will play an important part in the implementation of these reforms.This is good news for consumers when we consider this advice alongside the estimated $1.3 billion or 4.9 per cent in savings anticipated in the costs in the communications services industry as a result of indirect taxation. That is just one sector—4.9 per cent savings. In that comprehensive plan that the government has released you will see table after table of areas of our economy where savings are expected. I would encourage consumers to have a look at those tables, and that will give you a sense of what sort of savings and what sort of negotiating stance you should take when you are going to buy goods and services.My research suggests that there is little evidence of specific examples of consumer exploitation or excessive profiteering in international experiences similar to the coalition's tax reform plan. While in the national interest there is a moral obligation on all of us to play a part in the successful introduction of the new tax system, we need to be mindful of our own culture, which sees beating the tax system as sport for many.Australian business exhibits an aggressive attitude to taxation issues by international standards, so it is not surprising that material released as guides to business are indicating that there may be `appreciable GST opportunities' due to the scale and newness of the tax. CCH Australia Ltd's Handy GST guide does, thankfully, add to such an assessment that the bill before the House `give(s) the business community some encouragement' not to profit-take through the exploitation of consumers during the transitional period. Moreover, businesses themselves need to be aware of cost reductions available to them. In the transition period, it will not help businesses to secure input cost savings if they are not mindful of, and prepared for, the savings that will arise from the abolition and reduction of other taxes.Businesses need to be alert to these cost reductions, and the relationship between those reductions and prices, if they are to stay competitive with more astute players within their industries and markets and, above all, to stay competitive in the eyes of discerning consumers. Planning is important. The CCH Handy GST guide adds that the provisions of the bill:. . . will come into effect on 1 July 1999 and thus business will need to take this into account in developing price strategies to cope with the impact of the GST.We need some insurance against the odd example of someone chasing a quick and easy buck under the cover of changes in our taxation system not only for the sake of supporting the successful implementation of the new taxation system, but also because the potential negative impact on the positive macro-economic conditions that the Howard government has created are too important to lose. They have been achieved through hard work, not through wishing, not through lecturing, not through posturing, as the member for Hotham went on about. They have been achieved through hard work, and they are too important to lose.The tax abolition or reduction that is an integral part of the tax reform plan needs to be allowed to act to reduce prices. This is part of the consumer dividend of the tax changes and will ensure that maximum benefits are derived from increased disposable income borne out of the income tax reductions that are another part of this comprehensive plan.International experience suggests that transitional integrity plays a significant role in the bedding down of tax reform. The astute and clinical implementation of the New Zealand tax reform is credited with contributing to the general public acceptance of these changes. In contrast, the cumbersome and unresponsive implementation of similar changes in Canada is credited with generating some lingering hostility to their tax reform. So there are some broader issues here about underwriting and supporting the excellent macro-economic conditions that the Howard government has created for business and employment growth within this community, in addition to getting the tax system bedded down properly.The A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 will play a role in ensuring that the Australian community enjoys the full value of tax reform benefits. The bill will also support the general positive economic environment that is delivering growth, more employment and business opportunities. The bill will also act to underwrite the integrity of the transition from the old tax system to the new. It is a great proposal and I encourage the House to support it. (Time expired)10:57:003159Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I was entertained to hear the member for Dunkley refer in his closing remarks to `lingering hostility' to the GST in Canada. It is certainly my recollection that it was a conservative government in Canada that introduced the GST and that the electorate responded to this by reducing that government from, I think, 160 seats or thereabouts—certainly a majority of their parliament—to just two seats; talk about an election drubbing!Mr Hockey interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The answer to the interjection is that we have an obligation to look after the Australian people which transcends consideration of our own electoral wellbeing. On behalf of the Australian people who voted for us, over 50 per cent of the Australian people who voted against the GST, we have an obligation to do everything we possibly can to make sure that this country is not saddled with a GST. Indeed, it is the government which displays contempt for the Australian people by still pressing ahead with this legislation, knowing that at the last election over 50 per cent voted against a GST.Since the election we have seen many revelations about the way in which the GST will operate, and I intend to go through just a few of those. But first we need to expose just what a mickey mouse arrangement this government is proposing to put in place to monitor prices and to try to prevent the GST being exploited. The first of those that I want to talk about relates to fuel prices. The Deputy Prime Minister on The 7:30 Report on 9 September last year promised:. . . as part of [the] Coalition package, we will empower the ACCC to see that [fuel savings will] flow right across Australia.I invite members opposite, and I invite the Australian electorate, to have a look at this legislation and see where is the provision in this legislation that will empower the ACCC to monitor the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme. Where is the power for the ACCC to have a look at fuel prices? If that power is not in the legislation, how is the ACCC to ensure that fuel savings will be passed on?We asked this question of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, and he had no adequate response whatsoever. Even worse, in the Senate estimates hearings last week, Mr Hank Spier, General Manager of the ACCC, said that it was his understanding that the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme was not specifically defined in the legislation as coming within the ACCC's powers. With no specific role for the ACCC prescribed in the bill concerning the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme, there is simply no guarantee that any savings from this scheme will be passed on to consumers. So we cannot look forward to those lower fuel prices that the Deputy Prime Minister assured us would happen prior to the election. We see a government which is not fair dinkum about this area.The other evidence from the Senate select committee I want to refer to at the outset concerns the issue of itemising the GST separately on retail receipts. We have had the Treasurer describing the sales tax as a secret tax and saying, `Now we are going to move to a GST as a transparent tax.' But when we ask him, `Is it to be itemised separately on retail receipts so that customers can see just what the GST is?' the answer is no.In evidence on 21 January this year before the Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System, Mr Greg Smith, a senior Treasury official, conceded:Consumers by definition cannot give you the answer of the tax implicit in the price. I will not expect any consumer, high or low income, to know the answer to that.So there it is. How are consumers to understand just what is the GST component of any given price? The bill before the House is a bill which the Labor Party will support. We are absolutely opposed to the imposition of a 10 per cent GST on nearly everything, but we will support this bill because we do not want to see Australian consumers suffer as a result of the implementation of the GST. It is a bill which has wide-ranging and far-reaching powers, some of which are close to those which were rejected by the Australian public in the 1948 referendum on price and rent controls. In some respects, it is interesting that the Right of politics is advancing these ideas. If a bill like this had been introduced by the Left of politics, I am sure it would have been characterised as some kind of Marxist plot. It does point out double standards in the area of price monitoring.When we talk about bank fees and charges or when we talk about petrol prices, the government always says, `We have faith in the markets; you should let the markets determine these things,' and, `Informed consumers will ensure the lowest possible prices.' This bill shows that members opposite in government do not actually believe that. It shows, when they are concerned about the GST issue, what they want to do is then give the ACCC the power to monitor prices, to impose fines and to issue injunctions and so on. It shows that they have no faith in market forces when it comes down to it.This bill gives the ACCC control over any price that is affected by the implementation of the GST—that 10 per cent tax on nearly everything. It gives the ACCC powers to prevent price exploitation and to prosecute organisations or individuals engaging in price exploitation. It allows the ACCC to prevent price rises due to the GST, and gives it the ability to set a maximum price for any item or service that may be affected by the GST. It allows the ACCC to monitor these prices.But, while we support this bill on that basis, there are serious problems with it. The first is that it accompanies and is part of that job destroying, regressive tax package which will result in consumers being slugged with a GST on nearly everything. Secondly, when we look at the detail of the bill, we find a government which is not serious about actually monitoring prices and about actually ensuring that profiteering does not arise as a result of the GST.I say this because, firstly, the government has only committed $27 million over a period of three years for the ACCC to monitor those prices. That is a grand total of $9 million a year to monitor the imposition of this tax. We need to contrast this with the money the government spent advertising the GST in flagrant breach of the caretaker guidelines. The government spent some $19 million in two months advertising the GST. So we have $27 million over a period of three years for policing and $19 million over two months for advertising. What a lamentable set of priorities.Indeed, the bill will allow for only some 40 staff in the ACCC to monitor prices. That means that, over the three years of policing every business affected by the GST, there will be a grand total of 10.7 minutes devoted to checking. I think all Australians will realise just how ineffectual such an arrangement will be. That paucity of funds devoted to the monitoring of the effects of the 10 per cent tax looks even more absurd when you consider the government's pre-election promise that the total maximum rise in CPI due to the implementation of the GST will 1.9 per cent.As we have seen through the Senate, that estimate assumes a 100 per cent pass-through of savings; so it is absolutely critical, for this government's figuring to work out, that every business which has any kind of reduction in its costs as a result of sales taxes or other taxes being dropped passes that through to consumers. It is not our belief that that will happen.Indeed, the 1.9 per cent is not an estimate of the impact on inflation when the GST is introduced in the year 2000-01, if the government gets its way; the Treasury has admitted to the Senate that that figure will be 3.1 per cent. We believe that estimate is far too low because it does not take into account the billions of dollars in compliance costs which will be faced by businesses and inevitably passed on to consumers. It does not take into account the transitional provisions which deny tax relief for motor vehicles. It does not take into account that the abolition of indirect taxes will not be fully passed on to consumers and certainly will not be fully passed on in year one.Access Economics has also said that there will be an inflation impact estimated to be around 0.5 per cent when the income tax cuts are introduced but which the Treasury has not factored into its inflation estimate. So, in reality, the first year inflation impact of the GST will be in the order of five per cent or higher, not 1.9 per cent. The GST will add to ongoing inflation by introducing a price and wage spiral. What is the evidence about this 100 per cent pass-through which the government is depending on in its inflation estimates and in its estimates of the adequacy of the compensation package? Professor Harding from the ANU said:Speaking as a professional economist, I do not know because I have not studied it. Just speaking as an ordinary person, it seems a little unlikely.I think she is right on the money there. Robert Douglas from the NFF said:If a GST is introduced, it will be practically impossible to determine how much subsequent commodity price changes will be due to the GST and how much due to other factors.Associate Professor Neil Warren from the University of New South Wales, concerning this assumption of 100 per cent pass-through, said:As an immediate assumption, it is a brave assumption.That is absolutely right: all the evidence coming through to the Senate committee suggests it is a very brave assumption indeed. I did indicate earlier that I thought this legislation exposed some of the government's double standards and poor priorities. I want to come back to this theme: it is something that Labor has been pursuing for some time on behalf of consumers—in particular, the issue of bank fees and charges and the issue of petrol pricing.In May 1997 our then shadow Treasurer, Gareth Evans, asked the Prime Minister whether or not the government would `direct the commission to formally monitor all retail bank fees and charges to ensure that bank customers get a genuinely fair deal'. The Prime Minister described this sort of question as technical nitpicking. In my electorate, people have a very different view of this. We have been greeted with a spate of bank branch closures, in particular by the Commonwealth Bank. When it closed its Strathmore branch I got a letter from Mrs Patricia Walsh, who in particular expressed concern about the use by the bank of the phrase `due to declining customer usage' which, as she pointed out, only added insult to injury. She said:Perhaps a more accurate version would be "Due to the outrageous charges recently introduced we find our customer numbers declining". Surely any enterprising organisation would see `declining customer usage' as a challenge to improve the product rather than see it as a reason to pack up, move on and ignore many loyal, local customers.I think Mrs Walsh has made a very interesting comment, that the banks blame the need for branch closures on a declining number of customers when in fact their policies, including the jacking up of fees and charges, drive customers away. It seems to me that if bank fees and charges were being monitored by the ACCC we would have a whole range of benefits, including fewer bank branch closures.We have seen the banks move to increase their fees and charges in an extraordinary way, massively increasing their fee income over the course of the last two or three years. It does seem to us that this is an area where there is a role for the ACCC. Regrettably, however, we have a government that is not prepared to act in this area. It does seem to us that we are not getting competition in this area. In fact, what we are getting is a race to the top: when one bank raises its fees, all the others follow suit. This was the subject of a study that has been conducted by the Sydney based Financial Services Consumer Policy Centre. Their director, Chris Connolly, said:We are keen for the ACCC to investigate the conduct of banks in setting fees and charges, particularly in light of the dramatic spiral in the last couple of years.So when the Treasurer and the Prime Minister talk about the red-hot competition which is supposed to exist in the banking sector what we really get in the area of bank fees and charges is red-hot competition to see who can get away with the highest fees and charges.I know the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who is at the table, is a great defender of the banks. I think we would not be too far wrong if we described him as a spokesman for the banks. In December last year, the Commonwealth raised many bank fees. Over-the-counter withdrawal fees were raised from $1.50 to $2, cash withdrawals from an ATM fee went from 45c to 60c—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What did you do about it? You had one, two, three, four, five—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—This was immediately after—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Minister!DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What year?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The increase in bank fees and charges has risen massively in the last two or three years during the period in which this government has been in office.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Oh, massively!UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Absolutely. That is where bank fees and charges have been coming from. We proposed in opposition that these things ought to be formally monitored—Mr Hockey interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat. Minister, I have asked to you restrain yourself. Try not to be a windmill with your arms, and I ask the member for Wills to please address your remarks through the chair and totally ignore any interjection by the minister.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was being provoked. The increase in fees and charges has occurred during the last couple of years. In the 12 months to November 1998, Australia's five biggest banks raised over $10 billion from customer fees, charges and commissions. That raised their combined non-interest income by more than 17 per cent. That is not red-hot competition. What this government needs to do is to protect the people of Australia from these sorts of bank fees and charges which simply cannot be justified. We have a similar example existing in the petroleum market. In the second reading speech on the confused and, I sense, doomed Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 , the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources promised that by removing the impediments to competition downward pressure would be placed on petrol prices, particularly in country areas. This is simply not the case. In an article in the Age on 16 February, Ben Mitchelle wrote:The predicted benefits from the deregulation of the oil industry have yet to materialise . . . The national petrol price figures for January show that petrol in an urban region costs on average 66.8c per litre while in rural areas it costs 74.4c a litre. This is after the famed petrol deregulation that is supposed to deliver a decrease in country petrol prices compared with city petrol prices. The Service Station Association has described the deregulation as a failure. They blame the changes that the government have introduced for squeezing out smaller service station operators. They have also pointed out that the ACCC has been doing very little to endeavour to bring those petrol prices down and use its influence over the industry.In conclusion, we are going to support this legislation. We hope that it has some impact on kerbing price rises in the event that a GST is introduced. Our amendments point out that this is only necessary because of the government's unfair and job destroying GST. We point out that there are absolutely inadequate financial resources to do the job—a mere $27 million dollars over three years—a mere 40 staff to police GST base price rises right across the nation, limited scope of application and a limited time period for application. Indeed, we have already seen prices go up in the area of pre-paid funerals, and so on. There is some anecdotal evidence that retailers are getting in early and jacking up their prices.What is the ACCC doing about these problems right now? This legislation is not scheduled to take effect until later on. There is a whole series of inadequacies in this bill which we will endeavour to address through amendments. But, clearly, the best thing for this nation to do is to avoid the GST altogether. (Time expired)11:17:003163Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—It has been quite amusing sitting here listening to the rantings of the member for Wills and, before him, the member for Hotham. Particularly amusing were the comments of the member for Wills about Labor's supposed intention to do something about bank fees and charges. I remind those opposite that for 13 years Labor had the opportunity to do something about bank fees and charges. Did they do it in year one? No. Did they do it in year 2? No. Did they do it in year 3? No. Did they do it in year 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13? No. One week before the 1996 election the then Treasurer, Ralph Willis, came out with a press release saying that if they were re-elected in their 14th year they would do something about bank fees and charges. It is the old Labor line: `We couldn't do it in year one, we couldn't do it in year 2, we couldn't do it in any of our 13 years, but give us another go in our 14th year and maybe we'll get around to doing something about it.'This morning's rantings by those opposite are typical. We had from the member for Wills the same tired, hypocritical line about the supposed 10 per cent tax on everything. The member for Wills failed to mention Labor's 12 per cent hidden tax, Labor's 22 per cent hidden tax, Labor's 32 per cent hidden tax, Labor's 37 per cent hidden tax, Labor's 41 per cent hidden tax or Labor's 45 five percent hidden tax. If the rantings of the member for Wills were amusing, the member for Hotham who spoke before him really takes the cake. I was particularly interested when the member for Hotham had the gall to mention fiscal responsibility. The member for Hotham mentioning fiscal responsibility! He was a member of the frontbench of the former government that in its last five years blew out Commonwealth government debt from $30 billion to $97 billion, a government that more than trebled Commonwealth government debt in its last five years, a government that left us with a $10 billion deficit that this government has already, in the last two years, turned into a surplus. The member for Hotham also had the gall to talk about interest rates. His government gave us the highest interest rates we had had for decades, home loan rates up to 18 per cent and small business loan rates close to 25 per cent. In just one term this government, the coalition government, has delivered the lowest interest rates in 30 years. Home loan rates are at about 6½ per cent, saving the average home buyer $300 a month, and business rates are down to less than 10 per cent.The member for Hotham had to the gall to talk about inflation when Labor's inflation over its 13 years averaged 5.2 per cent. This government has already, in the last three years, brought inflation down to an average of one per cent. I could go on. Under Labor real wage growth averaged 0.5 per cent. Under the coalition it has already averaged 2½ per cent. Under Labor for 13 years unemployment averaged 8.7 per cent. Under this government unemployment is already down to 7.5 per cent. Under Labor for 13 years productivity growth averaged 1.5 per cent. Under the coalition it is already averaging three per cent.When it comes to managing the economy, when it comes to reducing unemployment, when it comes to jobs growth, when it comes to reducing interest rates, when it comes to getting inflation down, when it comes to strong GDP growth, when it comes to good productivity growth and when it comes to ensuring real wage growth the coalition has the runs on the board. Labor was out for a duck. They were in the dressing-room pacing up and down, ranting and raving, trying to tell us that they knew better how to run the economy. We have the runs on the board. They were out for a duck because they could not keep their eyes on the ball.This bill before the House is an essential part of this government's tax reform package; an essential part of tax reform which will continue this strong economic management, which will continue strong GDP growth, which will continue employment growth, which will continue to put downward pressure on interest rates, which will continue to give our exporters a fair go and a competitive edge and which will continue to give our families and our workers a fairer tax system that they need and that they deserve. It is this government's determination to provide an equitable, efficient, transparent and workable tax system—something that we did not see under 13 years of Labor and something that Labor is trying to prevent us introducing.This bill ensures protection for consumers. It is part of the government's commitment to introducing a tax package which will ensure that consumers in this country, buyers of goods and services, are adequately protected and are not affected unduly by the tax changes. This measure is in addition to the other benefits that this tax package will introduce: benefits that will reduce marginal tax rates significantly so that 80 per cent of Australian workers will be on marginal tax rates of 30 per cent or less; measures which will bring about income tax cuts of $13 billion for Australian workers; tax reforms which remove some of the many tax loopholes that Labor wants to keep, that will remove many of the anomalies at the interface between welfare and work.These tax reforms will remove Labor's hidden wholesale sales tax that has rates of 12 per cent, 22 per cent, 32 per cent, 37 per cent, 41 per cent and 45 per cent that they do not want you to know about. This tax package will reduce compliance costs for small business. It will remove totally that iniquitous provisional tax, remove the PPS tax, remove the RPS tax, and will give small business a fair go. This tax package will remove the unfair competitive disadvantage that importers have over Australian producers and it will give a fair go to our export industries.This bill ensures that prices are controlled. It ensures that consumers are protected, that any price rises as a result of the introduction of these tax changes will be limited and that the removal of the 12 per cent, the 22 per cent, the 32 per cent and the 45 per cent indirect taxes will actually have a downward pressure on prices.This bill commits $27 million to the ACCC to monitor prices over the next three years, starting in July this year. It gives the ACCC the power to monitor prices. It gives them the power to ensure that there are no excess price increases and to ensure that appropriate price reductions occur because of the removal of Labor's hidden wholesale sales tax. It gives the ACCC power to issue notices to corporations specifying maximum prices which can be charged and it gives the ACCC, significantly, powers to impose fines for breaches of those instructions—fines of up to $500,000 for non-corporations and up to $10 million for corporations. The government is serious about protecting consumers. The government is serious about introducing a fair, workable and transparent tax system. The government is taking no chances here. The government is absolutely committed to delivering a fair system.I point out the comparison between this government's honesty and determination in this matter compared with Labor's dishonesty and deceit after the 1993 election. Straight after that election, despite campaigning against indirect taxes, they added two per cent to every indirect tax in the country. The 10 per cent rate went up to 12 per cent. The 20 per cent rate went up to 22 per cent. The 33 per cent rate went up to 35 per cent. And what did they do in terms of compensation? Nothing. What did they do to ensure that that did not flow through to prices? Nothing. They did nothing to protect consumers. They snuck in those extra taxes with no compensation and no protection. What did they give us instead? Instead of giving any protection, they took away their promised l-a-w tax cuts. That is typical of Labor's deceit and Labor's track record on the whole issue of taxation.This bill is part of an essential tax reform measure which will provide $13 billion in income tax cuts to Australians, which will simplify the indirect tax base, which will remove 10 of Labor's hidden indirect taxes—a tax reform which will deliver fairness, simplicity, transparency, efficiency and incentive to Australian workers.I am appalled, as most Australians are, at the obstructionism by Labor and at the obstructionism by the Democrats in the Senate, at their refusal to allow us to introduce a tax system that we took to the electorate, and a tax system that will bring about these much needed changes in Australia. And I am not the only one. I suggest that those opposite might like to look at yesterday's comments in the media about their obstructionism. The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, for instance, says this about the obstructionism by Labor and the Democrats in the Senate. Yesterday's editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald said:Tax reform, including the introduction of a broad-based goods and services tax (GST), was a central plank of the Government's 1998 election campaign platform. Voters knew the options and decided in favour of the Government's package. For the Democrats to obstruct a vote on the tax reform legislation—and can I add, for Labor to obstruct a vote on the tax reform legislation—until after July 1 is nothing more than an attempt to impose the tyranny of the minority on the popularly elected government of the day.This is the Sydney Morning Herald speaking about the dishonest tyranny of obstruction by the Democrats, aided and abetted by the Labor Party in the Senate. This editorial went on to say:Most academic economists, both major parties, all States, business groups and even the welfare lobby agree that a fundamental overhaul of the tax system is overdue. Delaying it now will make it even less likely to be achieved after July 1.The editorial then went on to say:Has he—Mr Beazley—forgotten that he lost the last election? It is time for the Opposition and the Democrats to stop insulting the electorate and for the Senate to wind up its inquiry and allow the tax reform package to be passed.I think that editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald says it all about Labor's and the Democrats' obstruction. I add a comment that was in the Financial Review yesterday from Angela Ryan, the Director, Taxation, of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants. This comment is about the impact that such a delay might have on small business. Angela Ryan talks about the submission that their association made to the Senate inquiry. She said:We made it plain in our submission and in evidence presented to the Senate Committee that there needs to be a smooth and orderly transition to the GST—A smooth and orderly transition; that is what this government wants. That is what the Democrats and the Labor Party are opposed to. Angela Ryan goes on to say:This requires that the GST Bills attain passage according to the announced timetable of June 30, 1999, to allow business to prepare for the GST.. . . . . . . . .If that transition is elongated because of a delay in the passage of the legislation, this could literally mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy for many businesses.I repeat: the difference between survival and bankruptcy for many businesses. She goes on to say:It is critical that passage of the legislation occurs as soon as possible to allow for 12 months between the passing of the legislation and its implementation—an absolute minimum based on overseas experience.She concludes by saying:In short, it is essential for the survival of many businesses that the GST receives passage by June 30, and that the tax take effect from July 1, 2000.She says it is essential for the survival of many businesses. It is an indictment of Labor and the Democrats that they do not care about the survival of small business. They are willing to pursue their own hypocritical, political, obstructionist agenda which jeopardises the survival of small businesses in this country, and which therefore jeopardises the job opportunities of thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of Australians. It is shameful for Labor and the Democrats to take this approach which will so jeopardise small business and job opportunities.Labor's approach, and the approach of the Democrats, is pure, superficial, hypocritical point scoring. If they were concerned about taxpayers in this country, they would want to allow a tax cut package which would deliver $13 billion to Australian workers. They would want to stand aside from those hidden taxes, oncosts and burdens that so impede our exporters and small businesses. They would want to stand aside and allow us to change those indirect taxes that are such a burden on ordinary Australian families.This tax package which the coalition is putting forward is the only way ahead for this country. It will address the problem of a shrinking tax base. It will address the problem of ordinary income earners being pushed into higher and higher income tax brackets. It will address the burdens on small business. It will promote GDP growth and jobs growth. It is the only answer for a stable, secure economy.The coalition government has the runs on the board when it comes to managing the economy. The coalition government wants to get on with the job of managing the economy for the good of all Australians. It is time that Labor and the Democrats stood aside, listened to the will of the Australian people and let us get on with the job.11:32:003166Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The issue of profiteering, when and if the GST comes into effect, is one which needs a watchdog—a watchdog with good teeth and who is well fed, because we have a very large backyard. The ACCC is best able to watch, to report, and to condemn unfair trading practices, to educate business and consumers and to enter into public debate about competitive prices or abuses. What the ACCC does not have, as a Commonwealth agency, is control over prices. A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 gives the ACCC the power to enforce fairly hefty fines against businesses and individuals caught taking advantage of the shemozzle in the period when the GST starts to bite. If we did not have the GST, we would not be facing what amounts to an anticipated rush into dishonesty. When retailers and service providers should be simply adjusting prices to accommodate the new tax, we automatically assume they are going to get greedy. That is a sorry reflection on our private sector, much of which is involved in setting up complex business structures in the name of tax-effective accounting.The GST changeover provides an opportunity for an outbreak of price collusion. Unless the consumer has a spreadsheet mind, the sorts of confusing `deals' you get with mobile phones, cable TV, cars, computers or banking services—where you cannot get a straight answer on a basic price which you can match up with a competitor's product—are going to provide a cover for a complex set of price manoeuvres. This is where the price goes up across the board but no-one can figure out which part of the price was the part that rose. It is like who owns what under the Prime Minister's revised code of conduct.It is my opinion that the ACCC will not be doing simple arithmetic in sorting out whether a retailer has a case to answer. I am sure they know how complex the task will be. The government, however, wants us to believe that the scrutiny of price movements—when and if they introduce the GST—will be a 10-finger exercise. Perhaps they are not giving enough thought to the role of the ACCC because some of them believe that the glow of that distant sunset is how their fabulous GST will look not too many moons from now.They were the ones who forgot the undertaking by the Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, to include a reference to the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme. It is going to be outside the scope of the ACCC's powers. That will not please the farming industry. That was just an oversight, we assume. How many more oversights, exceptions or special cases are there to be? What else is buried at the bottom of the yard? Maybe a bone that someone else wants to pick? Because if the ACCC takes on the job, they know they will have to move with care. Business reputations will be at stake. Profiteering is almost as bad as looting. It is generally considered repugnant. It is certainly a taint to be avoided because, as the banks know, a bad reputation takes a lot of shaking.It will need a great concentration of mind and talent for the ACCC to avoid any wrongful imposition of penalties. Their focus is on almost 1½ million traders in our own back yard, and possibly some outside the country. It is a big ask. But they will have an extra $27 million over three years to work on it and report back to the Treasurer. That will go on a public education campaign—probably something a little more modest than the metric conversion campaign—and, we are advised, the funds will provide for an additional 40 staff.Not that the ACCC has not got a big enough bone to chew on. They have the newsagents. They have wine industry mergers and takeovers. They have bread price battles. They have grocers against supermarkets. They have electricity power surge and brown-out damage issues to deal with. They have whitegoods mergers, the docks, a landlord and tenant case in Adelaide, telecommunications and soft drink and oil company merger questions. That is a quick review of press reporting on the dog's breakfast they have had over the past two or three weeks. Only the last two or three weeks! They could probably do with a few extra staff.When it is operational—12 months before the new tax on everything—the `price police', as they have been dubbed, will have the job of tracking down offenders and issuing notices on what the correct price should be. That will not be easy, and accountants are hostile to the idea. Accountants spend a lot of time writing rude letters to the tax office. I imagine they will be happy to expand their list of penfriends to include the ACCC, but it will mean more work for the watchdog.We on this side of the House support an expanded role for the ACCC. Their work is quality work. Their brief should be more comprehensive. Nevertheless, the commission is the appropriate means by which to check that 100 per cent of any savings brought about by the abolition of the wholesale sales tax will be passed on to the consumer. This legislation would not be before us if there were no doubt that this would happen.The government has worked on the assumption of a 100 per cent pass-on. It told us that the inflation resulting from the GST will be `just a little'. Of course, if we do not get the full benefit of the pass-on, the inflation impact will be just a little more than a little— it will be all the way to a lot. This tax spreads over everything. Take motor vehicles. These days you do not buy a car; you buy an accessory package. You buy different combinations of options. So if you want dual airbags, you have to take something else in addition. And, of course, it is a different combination from a competitor's package. It is promoted as choice, but it is about muddying any comparative shopping.Although the marketing and complicated price options for cars are similar to a number of products, motor vehicles have their own special place. The full effect of motor vehicle pricing will not have worked its way through the system until after the ACCC's transitional powers are over. The GST is all embracing, but the effects are only to be selectively monitored.Still, the government has made its assumptions on a 100 per cent pass-through. We will have an additional 40 staff to make sure it is 100 per cent and that there will be no profiteering. What if it is not enough? What if monitoring this turns out to be a dog of a job? What if the news from the ACCC is bad and it needs more resources to be accurate on how bad it is? Will the government provide additional resources? If indications are that the pass-on is less than 100 per cent, this government will not want to know about it. A little bad information is better than a lot, especially when it comes to the GST.There is another problem which the government has to put on an adequate length of leash—proper price enforcement. The proposed price exploitation code to be adopted by the states will amount to price control if it is going to be more effective than the `Dog and Goat Act'. Why do we need such a bold instrument? Not for any good reason of responsible government. It is because of the GST—it's a fix, it's a gamble. Will the states all fall into line? Who knows. Is the ACCC adequately resourced to properly monitor the changeover to the GST? No. That is the only certainty. It's a big backyard. It is a good dog, an excellent watchdog, but we all know the leash is far too short.11:42:003168Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—We are having this debate today because this government showed determination, leadership and courage in going to the Australian people at the last election with what I think every commentator in this country described as a very bold plan. This government showed leadership and courage because it believed that this is what is needed to provide relief for very hard working, average Australians and to provide relief for business, whether it be small, medium or large business.This stands in very stark contrast to the previous government which had 13 years to do something about this tax system, but they did absolutely nothing. In fact, they frittered away opportunities for tax reform for 13 years by merely talking about it. We all remember the tax summits where the former Prime Minister got rolled on his very good option C by members of other ideological factions within his party. We had various promises made over the years, but all of that amounted to a great heap of rhetoric. There was absolutely nothing delivered on the ground to provide relief for people.This government stands in stark contrast; we listen to people. Let me give an example. Some months ago, I attended a function in my electorate at a very small area of great disadvantage, that is, King Lake, at the King Lake country fair. A man came up to me and firstly asked whether I was the local member and I said yes. He said, `I have got a real complaint. Do you realise that I can't support my own family on what I earn?' On questioning him, he told me that he had three children, all attending primary school.That man was working overtime. He had a very good job. But the reason that he was complaining to me and the reason why he could not look after his own family was that he was losing so much of what he was earning in tax. Most of what he earned for the hours of overtime that he put in went to the tax man.Unfortunately, that man's story is not a story in isolation. It is a story shared by hundreds of thousands of hardworking Australians. That is exactly why we are standing in this chamber today and having this debate. This government—unlike the previous government, which frittered away all of those opportunities for 13 years—at great risk, as many acknowledge and as I acknowledge from personal past experience, went to the Australian people and said, `We understand. We have listened to you and we understand what is needed.' This debate we are having today is about implementing change. It is about changing a tax system that has penalised people. Previous speakers, whom I have listened to with great interest in this debate, in particular the member for Wills, had the audacity to talk about what is happening in regional areas of this country. The legacy of the previous government in not addressing this very issue can still be seen today. You have only to drive through small towns, like many of the towns in my electorate of McEwen, to still see what was once a thriving small family business now a vacant shop, the family forced to leave the district. The local employment that it provided no longer exists. Why? Because that previous government frittered away those opportunities.Previous speakers have spoken about a number of economic indicators. Let us just look at a few of those. In contrast to what happened over those previous 13 years, when all of those opportunities were frittered away, let us look at what is happening today. Let us look at what has been achieved by a government that is prepared to show leadership, determination and courage.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And get a mandate.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—And get a mandate for it, most importantly. The previous speaker talked about the costs built into motor vehicles. She may be interested to have a look at the number of car registrations, which are on the increase throughout the country. Look at the level of consumer confidence. Look at the building rates. They are all on the increase. Look at the level of unemployment: it is still too high, and certainly far too high in our regional areas, but it is starting to come down. Look at the level of investment that is at long last happening in this country. Look at the level of inflation and at the level of interest rates. They are the lowest that they have been in 30 years. Look at how this government has set about the task of reducing debt.Instead of merely talking about these issues, as the previous government did for 13 years, this government has actually got in and started to do something. We are starting to get those runs on the board, and the Australian public appreciates and understands that. That is why we are in government and that lot are still in opposition.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—We won and they lost.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—That is absolutely right. In particular, this legislation that we are debating today is about providing protection for consumers. In addition, this government listened to people and said, `We understand that you have to have relief from these high levels of taxation.' Let us not forget that those opposite are effectively saying to the Australian people, including to all of those people like that man who came to me at Kinglake, `We do not support you getting a tax cut. We want you to continue to work and to work your hours of overtime, but we are not going to reward you for your effort—we are going to penalise you for that.'This government has listened. We are going to provide the relief for individuals. We are also going to provide relief to help small business to thrive. For those 13 years of Labor government, small business was merely in survival mode. They were on their knees. This government is doing everything that it can by providing an economic environment with the lowest interest rates and low inflation—a good environment for investment. This is generating interest and growth in small business, allowing small business to provide those much needed jobs.Let me turn briefly to some of the details of the legislation we are debating here today. I want to go into some of this detail, emphasising that it is all designed to protect the consumers and to protect those small businesses. This bill amends the Trade Practices Act 1974 by inserting a very important new section, to be known as part VB. This section will deal with price exploitation in relation to a new tax system—the system that hardworking Australians have been crying out for for so long. It specifically provides the ACCC with the power to monitor prices in order to protect consumers from any price exploitation. Im portantly, it will also provide protection for small business from being exploited by any large suppliers. The ACCC will have this authority during the transition period leading up to the implementation of the GST and for a period of two years from the date of implementation.In this monitoring role the ACCC will have the ability to assess the general effect of the new tax system changes on prices charged by corporations for supplies during this transition period and for that two-year period. It will have the power to require a person to provide the commission in writing with specific information relating to possible exploitation, prices and the setting of prices. The person or company must not fail to provide that information required by the ACCC and neither can that person provide false or misleading information. If it is found that an unreasonably high price has been charged by a corporation or person and that price is not attributable to the supplier's costs or supply and demand conditions, the ACCC will have the power under this legislation to impose penalties of up to $10 million for a company and up to $500,000 for an individual. The ACCC will take action to have these penalties imposed by the Federal Court.As well as this course of action, the ACCC will have the authority, as an alternative to this Federal Court action, to seek injunctions to restrain conduct that is or could be considered to be exploiting prices. Further, the commission will have the power to accept voluntary undertakings by those individuals or companies who have transgressed. This power already exists for the ACCC in section 87B of the Trade Practices Act, but I mention this power today to further illustrate that the government is determined to ensure that the ACCC has every means at its disposal to monitor any examples of price exploitation and to use appropriate measures to change irresponsible corporate behaviour. This measure, as well as the measure whereby the ACCC will have the power to issue a notice to any corporation where the ACCC believes there has been a breach of the prohibition, represents a range of measures the government is placing at the disposal of the ACCC.As well as issuing a notice on a corporation that may be the first step in leading towards legal action and penalties, the ACCC can use its discretion by issuing a notice on a corporation as a means of prevention. In such cases the ACCC would need to specify a maximum price that it believes could be charged for specific supplies in specific circumstances and for a specified period. In other words, the ACCC would be putting a company or individual on notice and in effect would be saying that any price charged above the designated maximum price would constitute price exploitation. Both supplier companies and those businesses reliant on the suppliers will be well aware of the position taken by the ACCC because the ACCC will publish guidelines giving details of when a price may be regarded as contravening the prohibition on price exploitation.As well as all these measures, the ACCC will be required to report within 28 days after the end of each quarter to the government on all actions it has taken under this new part VB provided for in this legislation. This report will be comprehensive and will detail all actions, whether they be issuing notices, imposing penalties or proposed further legal action. Further, this report to government will be made public, and this I believe will act as a further deterrent to any rogue individual or company. It will ensure that those involved in supplying goods and services do not breach the prohibition on price exploitation.In summary, this legislation honours an election promise to ensure responsible corporate behaviour during the transition period leading up to the introduction of the GST as well as during the period following its introduction. This legislation places both individuals and corporations on notice that this government is simply not prepared to tolerate any exploitation of prices and has introduced a range of measures to ensure that the ACCC has the authority to monitor, prevent and if necessary penalise any price exploitation. There will be some who say that the powers contained in this legislation giving the ACCC extended powers are draconian and too punitive. I certainly do not subscribe to that view. We gave an undertaking to protect Australian consumers and those businesses dependent on others for goods and services, and this legislation delivers on that undertaking. This legislation also delivers on the undertaking given by this government to the Australian people to provide tax relief at an individual level, to provide protection to the consumers and to start rewarding people for their own individual efforts rather than penalising them.I want to emphasise in closing that the opposition stands starkly opposed to these commitments given by government. What it is standing for is opposition to any forward thinking and opposition to providing relief to average hardworking Australians. It is denying them the opportunity of real reward for their efforts.11:58:003171Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I had great pleasure in seconding the Labor second reading amendment to A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 . I must say I am somewhat perplexed as to why we are debating this legislation at all if the government is to be believed. I really do question the need for this bill if the government is to be believed. The bill itself gives new powers to the ACCC to police the passing on of savings from indirect tax reductions. You may recall that in the lead-up to the election campaign, Mr Deputy Speaker, every household in Australia received a booklet, courtesy of the taxpayers, from the government setting out its tax proposals. In that booklet it described the position of various types of households. Predictably, it said they would all be better off. The government indicated that the cost of living increases associated with the goods and services tax, a 10 per cent goods and services tax, would be only 1.9 per cent.On the first day of the hearings of the Senate GST inquiry, Treasury officials let the cat out of the bag. They revealed that the true impact of the government's tax package on the cost of living would be 3.1 per cent. The Treasury officials let the cat out of the bag—and what a dirty, smelly animal it was—because they told the Australian people that the inflationary impact of the government's tax package was much greater than the government had told the Australian people in the lead-up to the 3 October election.The first day of the hearings of the Senate GST inquiry was a bad day for the government and it has not gotten any better. The 3.1 per cent assumes that there is a full and immediate passing on of the savings from the indirect tax reductions, including those from the abolition of the wholesale sales tax, by businesses to consumers. However, a delay in the passing on of the indirect tax reductions—and, of course, there will be a delay; that is why we are here debating this bill, because the government has to acknowledge that there will be a delay—will mean the cost of living increase in the initial years of the tax package, instead of being 3.1 per cent, will be in the range of four to five per cent. The government went to the election saying it would be 1.9 per cent; in reality it will be four to five per cent.The Prime Minister's modeller of choice, Mr Chris Murphy, told the Senate inquiry on 5 February that Professor Dixon's Monash base case scenario in which he modelled the economic impacts of the tax package was `under the most plausible assumptions'. So what are the assumptions for this base case? The first assumption is no wage response to the cost of living increases associated with the goods and services tax. We have just heard that the true impact on the cost of living is going to be in the range of four to five per cent, not 1.9 per cent. Of course, wage earners will seek to recover some of that cost of living increase through wage rises. This is the only reasonable thing that they can do to protect their living standards and those of their families. So that is an absurd assumption, and Professor Dixon goes on to relax that assumption to do some real world modelling.The second assumption in this base case is no GST paperwork burden. We have actually heard previous speakers try to tell this House that the paperwork burden from the GST will be smaller than that from the existing wholesale sales tax. What a ludicrous proposition! There are 75,000 businesses in Australia paying the wholesale sales tax. When the GST comes in—if it does pass the Senate, and I hope it does not—there will be 1,500,000 businesses caught in the GST net, bearing the paperwork burden of complying with this tax. So that is going to make things a lot worse in the real world.The third assumption, which is highly relevant to the discussion here, is this instantaneous passing on to consumers on Saturday, 1 July 2000 of all the cost reductions from the abolition of the wholesale sales tax. As I said, Professor Dixon from Monash, who was commissioned by the inquiry, created that base case to form a basis for modelling the real world scenarios. What did he find? That if in fact wage earners do seek to recover the increased cost of living from the GST in the form of higher wages—which is a reasonable thing to do—there will be up to 100,000 jobs lost as a result of the goods and services tax. Professor Dixon went on to have a look at the situation where there is a delay in the passing-on of indirect tax reductions to consumers. With half of the indirect tax reductions, if the savings are delayed by just one year there will be 15,000 jobs lost.Yet the Prime Minister's modeller of choice told the Senate GST inquiry that this instantaneous passing-through to consumers of the indirect tax reductions was the most plausible assumption. So what are we going to see? According to the Prime Minister's modeller of choice and the government, on Saturday, 1 July 2000 every business in Australia will have staff working overtime. They will be busily marking prices for new stock to reflect the abolition of the wholesale sales tax on that Saturday. On the same Saturday—1 July 2000—every plumber, every gardener, every repairman and every hairdresser in Australia will have calculated how much wholesale sales tax is embedded in the price of their services and will have deducted that before adding on the cost of the 10 per cent GST to their clients on that Saturday. Who is the Prime Minister's modeller of choice kidding?Why do we need this bill if Mr Murphy and the government are right? Of course, Mr Murphy contradicts himself in his pre-election paper released on 29 September, at page 5, where he says his model is a long-run model which:. . . implies that changes in taxes are passed on fully by business. In reality, tax changes may not be passed on fully in the short run, leading to changes in profitability. However, such changes in profitability will affect the pattern of investment until rates of return are ultimately restored to the rates required on world capital markets, so that taxes are passed on fully.So the Prime Minister's modeller of choice is saying, `Yes, there will be a delay in the passing-on.' This is just another example of the Prime Minister's modeller of choice altering his conclusions to suit the Prime Minister's needs. Between 29 September 1998 and when he appeared before the Senate GST inquiry, he said, `No, the most plausible assumption is instantaneous passing-on on 1 July 2000.' That is quite revealing.Not even the Prime Minister believes Mr Murphy on this full passing-through. The Prime Minister was in full flight at the South Australian Liberal Party State Council on 15 August 1998 when a series of dorothy dixers were bowled up to him by Liberals. This is how he handled one of the dorothy dixers from someone who said, `Well, you know, of course, there will be price reductions from the abolition of the wholesale sales tax.' The Prime Minister's answer was:We certainly will. And the point that has to be made again, and again, is that the GST will replace existing taxes. I mean there are many services that will be cheaper. Medical services will be cheaper because they are GST free, and the people who provide them will be able to deduct, get back the taxes paid on their inputs. Same with dental services. The same with child care. Three very critical things where the costs of those services ought to fall. Fall. Not just relatively but in absolute terms ought to fall.He finished by saying:And if there is enough competitive pressure that will happen.Obviously the Prime Minister has doubts about this instantaneous passing-through, as revealed in his answer to a dorothy dix question.But the Prime Minister's preferred modeller continues to aid and abet the PM in his deception of the Australian people. In his critique of Professor Dixon's work, Mr Murphy downgraded his own estimate of the benefits of the GST package by 40 per cent. How did that happen? He was criticising Professor Dixon for changing the elasticities in his model without advising the people. He described this as `disturbing'. Yet Professor Dixon did in fact write and provide a paper advising of the changes to the elasticities that he made. When Mr Murphy was questioned on how he managed to downgrade his own estimate by 40 per cent from $1 billion to $607 million, he said that he had been talking to the Minerals Council. That is why he changed his own elasticities to produce a result of just 65 cents a week per person from the government's tax package. Mr Murphy did not publish that. He did not mention that. It was only under questioning by Labor senators that it was revealed.The Prime Minister's modeller of choice did a paper for the Housing Industry Association showing job losses in the housing industry, yet he told the Senate inquiry on 5 February that that was just because sectors such as housing `have paid less than their share of tax in the past'. So he has shafted the housing industry to explain away job losses in that industry. He has shafted his client who commissioned him to do the work.The next example of changing the story to suit their needs was in tourism. Mr Murphy told Radio National on 8 February this year:. . . but I would agree with Peter that with respect to overseas tourism, there is a case for zero rating because it is an export. So in principle at least, it should be GST-free along with other exports.Just six days later he reported to the Senate GST inquiry the opposite conclusion. He said:Also, while there is debate on the precise value of the price elasticity of demand for tourism exports, everyone agrees that this elasticity is not particularly high. According to the Monash Model it is 3, while according to MM303 it is 2. Using these values in the above formula, gives optimal tax rates for tourism exports of 50 per cent for the Monash Model and 100 per cent for MM303.The latter being Mr Murphy's model.These optimal rates are well in excess of a GST of 10 per cent. This means that making inbound tourist packages GST-free, instead of taxing them at a rate of 10 per cent, would be a step in the wrong direction from the viewpoint of maximising economic efficiency.So here we have the Prime Minister's modeller of choice again changing his story to suit the circumstances. He now believes that the optimal policy is to apply 100 per cent tax to tourism, but 10 per cent will do for starters. The tourism industry should be very worried about what the Prime Minister's preferred modeller is advising him.In his critique of Professor Dixon's report to the Senate GST inquiry Mr Murphy, on page 24, chastises Professor Dixon for daring to suggest that there will be any losers at all from the government's tax package. He says:Chart 3.9 of the Monash Report adopts the misplaced populist notion that there are winners and losers from ANTS.So here we have Mr Murphy falling over himself again to support the Prime Minister's absurd claim that apart from tax cheats everyone is a winner from the tax package. This is despite the fact that Mr Murphy himself has done modelling that completely refutes his own claim.He refers to job losses in the housing industry in his evidence on 5 February, where he said:Sectors such as housing which have paid less than their share of tax in the past may experience lower levels of employment, other sectors exactly offsetting higher levels of employment.In secret advice to Treasury before the tax package was released, he reported job losses in 12 out of 18 industry sectors. In the evidence he provided to the Senate GST inquiry he said that there would be job losses in Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT. No wonder this man is the Prime Minister's modeller of choice. On the one hand he says it is ridiculous for Professor Dixon to assert that there would be any losers, and then he contradicts himself by pointing to thousands of losers from the government's tax package. It is no wonder that the coalition senators insisted that Mr Murphy do the critique of Professor Dixon's work.Flying in the face of Mr Murphy's `most plausible assumption' that every cent of saving from abolishing the wholesale sales tax will flow on to consumers on Saturday, 1 July, was a litany of evidence from the business community and consumer groups that businesses will not behave in this accommodating manner. This includes evidence from the ACCC itself, which is the subject of this legislation, which could not identify one industry that was perfectly competitive but could identify plenty of industries that had engaged in anticompetitive conduct. That is why the legislation is necessary.But the legislation is manifestly inadequate. It provides just $27 million over three years of extra funding for the role of the ACCC in ensuring that indirect tax reductions are passed on to consumers. The legislation provides only 40 extra staff who would have 4.1 seconds a week to monitor the pricing behaviour of each business. I can see exactly what is going to happen with their staff. The phone call to each business will go something like this: `Hello, I'm from the ACCC. Goodbye.' I have timed that; it takes about 4.1 seconds. So they will be ringing up every business in Australia saying, `Hello, I'm from the ACCC. Goodbye.'That is the extent of the government's commitment to enforcing the savings from the indirect tax reductions being passed on to consumers. Interestingly, the bill does not give the ACCC more power in relation to bank taxes, stamp duties and diesel fuel. We have seen the anti-competitive behaviour of the banks. The Prime Minister was asked about the four-pillars policy and he said, `Oh well, we do not know if we could move on that because we are waiting for red-hot competition.' The Prime Minister knows that there is nothing like red-hot competition in bank behaviour.This bill exposes the government's fraudulent claims in its $19 million GST propaganda campaign leading up to the election on 3 October that the cost of living increase from a 10 per cent GST will be only 1.9 per cent and that, as a consequence, everyone will be a winner from the tax package. Interestingly, the bill relates to the wholesale sales tax. We have heard the Treasurer and the Prime Minister say that the wholesale sales tax system is broken. Last night, Access Economics released a document, which I have here. It shows wholesale sales tax revenue projections as a proportion of GDP.That document projects that, for the entire wholesale sales tax system, including cars, over a 10-year period there might be an erosion of $1.1 billion, or $100 million a year. If we take out cars and look at the balance of the wholesale sales tax system, the erosion would be in the order of less than $500 million in total, or less than $50 million a year. What are we getting? We are getting a $32 billion GST sledgehammer to crack a $100 million nut. Interestingly, Access Economics did not do any projections of the revenue raising capacity of the proposed GST system. That is a stunning omission from my point of view.Someone else has done that work—Professor Dixon. The other night, I sought leave to have Professor Dixon's graphs incorporated in Hansard. I was unsuccessful on that occasion. The minister said that the reason why he did not agree was that the legislation we were debating was not strictly about the goods and services tax. This legislation today is strictly and absolutely about the goods and services tax, so I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Professor Dixon's graphs entitled `Forecasts: no change indirect tax rates (percentage growth rates)' and `Forecasts: tax package adopted (percentage growth rates)'. They are the same graphs that I showed the minister the other night. They were censored then and I think it only reasonable that they be incorporated this time.Leave granted.The graphs read as follows—83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—We are left in a position where we have a job destroying GST that the Prime Minister told the Australian people would produce an increase in the cost of living of 1.9 per cent. He told them that before the election. Treasury officials have now admitted that, even with the immediate passing on of all those indirect tax reductions, the inflationary impact will be 3.1 per cent. If any delay occurs in that passing-on, the impact will be four per cent to five per cent, in which case, as Professor Dixon advised the Senate GST inquiry, we are looking at massive job losses from the proposed goods and services tax. We should reject the goods and services tax. An inquiry report is coming out today and I am sure that it will make fascinating reading because the government has completely failed to make its case. (Time expired)12:18:003177Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I am pleased to talk on the A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 . The question I am probably asked most about tax reform implementation—and have been asked as far back as the 1998 campaign—is, `How are you going to make them pass on the savings?' `Them' invariably refers to the three major supermarket chains in particular and business in general. I am not being at all disparaging of business—although I do have a very strong view on the centralisation of ownership of supermarkets, but that is not the question we are looking at here today. We are simply stating the fears of ordinary people as they express them to their members of parliament.Naturally, I did what I could to explain how the government would achieve what it desired. Hence, I am delighted to see this bill introduced. The integrity of the GST system could well depend on the effectiveness of this scheme. However, I do not think it is reasonable, as the member for Rankin said, that because $27 million is being spent that necessarily reduces it to dividing that by every business in Australia. Obviously, other factors will determine whether or not there are complaints.Not every business in Australia is shonky. A lot of businesses will act on a sectoral basis rather than on an individual basis and, if it is found that $27 million is not enough, then no doubt we will do something about it. But it is true to say that people are worried and concerned that, although the tax reform package sounds good in theory, the flow-on of price reductions could be diverted during the transitional period by businesses acting to distort the benefits, and thus increase their profits. We have heard that the figure of 1.9 per cent is the likely increase. We also had evidence from Treasury that it could be as low as 1.8 per cent.In this legislation, we are putting the concerns of ordinary Australians to rest. We are going to make sure that no business or entity can profiteer at the expense of the rest of the community. It is about time a government came along that was prepared to do more than just put measures in place and expect the market to act fairly. While most people in the market act fairly and most people react to competition, I recognise that there are some who will not. It raises the question of just how moral the market really is. I may be cynical, but neither I nor the government is naive enough to think that all the participants in the market will act in the best interests of consumers in my electorate or, more broadly, across Australia.That is where the Labor Party went wrong with its reform program in previous parliaments when it was in power. It caused a lot of hurt and damage in the bush. Regional and rural Australia is still hurting from many of its policies. In fact, the ALP itself actually participated in the system of hurt when the Keating government raised sales taxes by one per cent across the board for all wholesale sales taxes, not once but twice, during its 1993-96 term of office, to say nothing of the five per cent loaded onto cars.Let me remind the member for Rankin—and I am sorry he is not here to hear this—that there was no one-off compensation for pensioners at that time. There was no compensation for low income earners. There was no assistance for people whose car prices went up by five per cent. Those people, I might add, were already being hit by increased excise. As we know, the same Labor government increased excise by two per cent on leaded petrol, supposedly for environmental purposes, but there was not a person in Australia who did not believe that that was just a revenue raising matter. In fact, when the increase was first introduced it was 5c a litre, but the Labor government backbench almost revolted on the issue and that is why it was brought back to 2c a litre.We are talking about pensioners and low income earners and, when you think about it, they were the people who had the cars that used leaded fuel. There was no one-off compensation for the pensioners in that package. There was no one-off compensation for the low income earners. The people who were most affected were those who were least able to buy the new cars. So don't let us have all this pious nonsense that you are concerned about the low income earners and the pensioners. When you were in office, your own track record does not bear examination.I believe the new tax system will impact in a much fairer way on consumers if there is a carrot and stick system adopted. The carrots for business are the inherent benefits of the new scheme which will cut red tape and taxes on production and create a level playing field for Australian business, primary producers and exporters, while the stick is the power and resources that the bill gives to the ACCC to discipline exploiters and rorters.We promised to protect the community at large from unprincipled business operators that might seek to engage in profiteering and exploitation during the transitional period of the new tax scheme. This government has always taken its duty of care for Australian people seriously, and this matter will not be any exception.We recognise that the concerns of people are legitimate. This is a very complex and muddied area, and we do not want to degenerate into the populist scaremongering that occurs when some new measure is introduced to the Australian community. It is very interesting that the member for Werriwa talked about the `scab-lifting' of the ALP. It refuses at times to look at these things in a positive way, but lifts the scab on its own performance in past eras. I repeat: we recognise that the concerns that people have are legitimate, and we intend to ensure that the weak are protected from the strong.Treasury's economic modelling of the CPI effect on the removal of 10 indirect taxes and the introduction of the GST assumes that all participants in the chain will pass on the savings on their costs and prices. In order to arrest the concerns that this will not be done, the ACCC will have sweeping new powers vested in it and significant additional resources to draw on during the transitional period of the three years from July 1999 to July 2002. It is not a tame measure, as the member for Rankin has suggested. Businesses will face the prospect of public exposure and severe financial penalties of up to $10 million for corporations and $500,000 for individuals if they use the transitional period as a cover for taking advantage of customers.The best way for business to avoid public exposure in the Treasurer's foreshadowed quarterly reports and the relegation to `shame files', with a consequent nasty hit on the hip pocket, is, of course, to do the right thing. It is the only way to treat them. The ACCC will name names to ensure that unscrupulous operators receive the maximum negative publicity for their actions. Here is where the media organisations, whether they be national, metropolitan or provincial, can play a crucial role in the success of the new tax reform regime and, at the same time, do an invaluable service to their readers, watchers and listeners. There would be nothing worse for businesses in provincial centres like Bundaberg, Gladstone and Rockhampton and, indeed, in the smaller towns in and around my electorate than to be publicly named and shamed by the local media in such a way.I would envisage that newspapers could run columns such as `GST watch'. Talkback radio programs could have a GST watch segment. The local television could carry regular GST enforcement items in their news bulletins. The media have generally played a very negative role in this whole debate because it is in their nature to be rather reactionary. In this particular instance, they could take a positive proactive role and see that the measures that the government and the ACCC will implement are enforced to the full. However, the consumer interest and feature pages contain advice on investment and money management and have provided excellent services of good information for people thirsting for real explanations, and I applaud their efforts in this field. I therefore ask them that, with columns such as `GST watch', they carry out a similar activity.Having said that, this is not to be a Spanish Inquisition. We recognise that many factors affect prices and any genuine price increases will not be prosecuted, although there will be an onus of proof on the various retailers and businesses to demonstrate that the increase is not exploitative and is a reflection of a genuine increase in costs. The ACCC will set guidelines about when prices may be regarded as exploitation. The methods that will be particularly harmful to those who want to exploit this period of transition are these: failing to reduce the price of an item on which the amount of tax falls because the GST payable is less than the total wholesale price previously paid in respect of that item, and increasing the price of an item by more than the actual price effect of the GST on that item.The ACCC will also have the power to prosecute and seek court injunctions or accept voluntary undertakings in relation to the price settings. That is quite an extreme power, and I hope it is exercised. It goes further because the ACCC will also be empowered to issue a notice to a business specifying the maximum that may be charged for the supply of a particular product. This will act as a warning to a business that, if it charges a price in excess of the maximum, it will be engaging in exploitation. That is very important because it means the ACCC can be proactive and not simply reactive.I urge the states and territories to apply the new tax system price exploitation code outlined in the bill to their own legislation as soon as possible and without any fiddling at the margins. Perhaps a Labor government might be tempted to have a go at this just to muddy the waters of the GST scheme, although I hope that will not be the case, but I believe if any state government did that for purely exploitative political purposes they would be judged very harshly by their citizens.In conclusion, I am sure all members will agree that there are substantial penalties and sanctions outlined in the bill. The powers this bill will vest in the ACCC are a first for Australia. We are indeed handing them a very heavy stick to wield, and I am sure that this will place in the minds of people in my electorate and in other parts of Australia the sort of confidence they need to embark on a very interesting period in Australia's political history, one which I think will make us world competitive. It will go a long way to job creation. There is no stronger evidence than this bill of the government's absolute and resolute determination that all Australians share in the full benefits of this revolutionary—and, we trust, very positive—tax system for the Australian people.12:33:003179Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—The A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 before us today is part of the complex policy and administrative architecture underpinning the government's proposed 10 per cent consumption tax. The problem we have before us is that both the policy and the associated administrative arrangements are fundamentally flawed.The policy logic does not exist, particularly once we remove ourselves from the hoopla of the post-election triumphalism of those opposite and soberly subject the proposition to rational analysis in the cold light of day. Because the policy logic does not exist, because there is no compelling macro-economic rationale for this entire consumption tax enterprise, because there is no persuasive evidence that the tax package will result in greater economic growth than otherwise would be the case, because there is no persuasive evidence that this package will result in more jobs and less unemployment, and because there is no evidence that the existing tax structure is incapable of delivering sufficient public finance for the Commonwealth to meet its future needs, it follows that any administrative or institutional arrangements built on so unstable a policy foundation will also be fundamentally flawed.That is what we have before us today in this piece of legislation to amend the Trade Practices Act. So what precisely are we looking at? It is based on the most transparent of logical contradictions. On the one hand, the economic and public finance assumptions of the entire package are further predicated on the assumption there will be both 100 per cent compliance by business and 100 per cent pass-through to consumers. On the other hand, the proposed augmentation of the ACCC contained in this bill rests on the assumption that there is going to be a truckload of people out there whose concept of a pass through will be somewhat less than 100 per cent.In fact, before the ongoing Senate inquiry into the GST, we have seen the delightfully candid admission from no less than the NFF that:Farmers are no different to any other businessmen. If there is a possibility that they can claim some profits in the system, then no doubt they will.Even the head of the Treasury task force, Dr Ken Henry, when asked whether some of the WST reduction would be consumed as profit, said:I am not saying that will not happen.So, as a consequence, what we have before us in this bill is a classic case of a bob each way bet that is destined to fail.So in this brave new world of the all-singing and all-dancing GST, what is the ACCC now supposed to do? It is supposed to determine guidelines on the circumstances under which prices may be deemed to be too high. It is supposed to monitor prices. It also is supposed to have the power now to determine a maximum price. It has the power to determine corporate breaches of price exploitation. It has a compulsion power for corporations to produce documents to substantiate prices. It has the power to impose injunctions, it has the power to impose fines and, in the officers' spare time, during the afternoon tea-break, they are supposed also to monitor the general impact of the GST, whatever that happens to mean. Furthermore, in terms of constitutional reach, we add a price exploitation code for adoption by the states, with corporations being governed by the Commonwealth act, sole traders and partnerships by the states.So what are the problems with all this? The first and most basic problem is that of resources. The ACCC is to be granted the princely addition of 40 further staff, the princely additional budget of $27 million over three years and, with that amount of extra staff and with that amount of extra money, Felsy and the competition coppers out there on Northbourne Avenue are going to take out their binoculars, observe the economy at large—the 1.4 million businesses subject to its scrutiny. If you think about it, with about 12 million adult consumers in this country, each, say, on average engaging in 10 economic transactions a day, they would be making something like 120 million economic transactions each day. Felsy and the boys out there on Northbourne Avenue, the extra 40 of them, are going to keep their eyes on all of that.I suggest that this is nothing more than the most extraordinary public relations exercise. The entire Fels hit squad would fit into a single ACTION bus, yet their charge is to somehow ensure, through the ACCC, that full pass-through occurs for the benefit of consumers. The only benefit that I can conceive of from this legislation, in terms of the proposed additional resource to the ACCC, is that it would be probably the first time since 1996 that there would be some addition to one branch of the Commonwealth Public Service here in Canberra, particularly since the reign of Max the Axe.A second problem arises with this whole proposition, in terms of the scope of the ACCC. We read that it covers the WST and the GST only. It does not cover the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme, bank taxes and stamp duty. On that basis alone, irrespective of how it performed its functions in relation to the WST and the GST, it could not achieve 100 per cent pass- through. That is simply a palpable nonsense. The resources are inadequate, even to achieve this narrow brief, let alone a broad one, were it to be given it.Third, we have the time line—three years—one year before the full operational effect of the tax package and two years after. Let us examine the evidence of the Prime Minister's economic modeller of choice, Chris Murphy. He has said that we will not see the full impact of the total tax package for some seven years, yet these powers extended to the ACCC disappear into the sand in three years time. There is nothing in the documentation provided to suggest that there is any likelihood that these powers, or these minuscule resources, would then be extended.One can assume that the logic underpinning what the government has in mind here is that, somehow, at about that three-year point, after we have picked up a few reports here and there, after the 40 competition coppers in the ACTION bus actually bust a few people around the country then, at that point, Adam Smith and the invisible hand kick in, market forces and competition take over and we shake any possible corruption out of the system. I think that is not credible.The fourth problem that is evident in this piece of legislation relates to its methodology. I just take one example, the task of formulating guidelines on price exploitation. I would ask experts in this field, including advisers in the box, how you would go about disaggregating normal market changes in supply and demand, supplier costs and so on, from a plain old rort. It is a logical impossibility.You have a related problem of timing. At the point at which this package is introduced and becomes operational, in July 2000, it is possible that you can make a calculation as to what constituted a cost structure to a business prior to that date and what constituted its cost structure just after that date. But what happens two or three months down the track? It becomes very difficult on any comparative basis to analyse what other factors may have entered into the cost calculus of a firm. They could always claim, for example, that the overall supply and demand situation within their business had changed. I again come back to the fundamental methodological flaw and the flick pass to the ACCC to somehow magically develop these guidelines on price exploitation. I await with eagerness their publication. The fifth problem that arises from this legislation, dare I say it, is that of ideology. Here we have a government made up of free marketeers not really believing in what Ronnie Reagan used to call the magic of the market, not really believing that Adam Smith, after all, had got it right, not believing that the invisible hand was doing its task—thinking, in fact, that the invisible hand might be just a bit too invisible—and instead constructing for themselves a price fixing machinery that would make the first ministry of machine building in the old Soviet Union quite proud. The intellectual contradictions of all this are breathtaking. On the one hand, bob's your uncle, competition is okay; on the other, competition is going to fail as will, in step, the price regulators.So what do we do? We set up, on paper at least, something akin to an instrument of Soviet pricing policy from the new economic period then disembowel it by not giving it any resources. This is not policy, it is a public relations exercise—and the officials in the advisers box probably know it—like the multimillion dollar public relations exercise that we had prior to the last election. This ACCC exercise is a comparable stunt of the first order. The only benefit is, as I said before, that it will possibly provide a slight jag up in public sector employment in the ACT.The bottom line is that there will not be anything like a 100 per cent pass-through from this tax package. This is the evidence of the expert witnesses. It is also clear from the inability of this legislation to structure, empower or resource the ACCC to perform this function. And, because this is so, because there is less than a 100 per cent pass-through, a raft of macro-economic consequences flow from it.The first impact is inflation. The inflation figures associated with the debate on this entire tax package are bouncing all over the place. We have Chris Murphy's 0.9 per cent. We have the tax package: 1.9 per cent—long run effects, but not until 2001 when the package is implemented. Then we had a bit of fessing up during the Senate inquiry and it is rounded up to 3.1 per cent. If you aggregate the rest of the evidence before the Senate inquiry, suddenly 0.9 per cent lurches from four to five per cent. What is the impact of all this? Apart from the obvious problem of compensation for low income earners, the real problem is its capacity to engender a wages break-out.This leads to the second impact—the macro-economic impact of this package on jobs. Professor Dixon, who gave evidence to the Senate inquiry, has provided us with a range of employment scenarios, the most optimistic of which assumes that there will be a short run addition of 30,000 jobs, assuming the most benign of economic circumstances, and the most benign of labour market circumstances in particular. At the other end of the spectrum, he says the nation could lose 100,000 jobs in the short term under an alternative scenario—a not unreasonable alternative scenario given the statement of the trade unions, in particular, that they will be seeking wages claims in order to make up for the bracket creep impact on their members, not to mention the price surge which will accompany the implementation of this package. So, on jobs, the GST—as Professor Dixon so eloquently summed it up—is a job destroyer.The third impact goes to economic growth. The tax package produced in the election period stated almost ex cathedra—as one of the Borgia popes would have done—that it would be good for growth. We searched for the data to substantiate that. Treasury—again, before the Senate inquiry—admitted they had done no modelling of the growth impact of the package. Through the Senate inquiry it was also admitted that the so-called `growth dividend' referred to by the government publicly is based on guesswork. Professor Dixon, in his work for the Senate inquiry, found:The government's proposed tax changes will have little impact on Australia's long-run macroeconomic performance . . . any modest impact on growth would be as a result of fiscal stimulus, not the consumption tax.I find it astounding that we could be contemplating a change of this order of magnitude, the largest single change in the taxation arrangements of the Commonwealth since the war, when those charged with the professional responsibility for predicting its impact on the economy in terms of growth have not done that work. As an Australian community we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke: `Just trust us. It'll all be okay in the morning.'The fourth impact is the underlying assumption—the one that we are harangued with on a daily basis by the Treasurer opposite—that the existing taxation system is broken. Again, I ask the humble and empirical question: where is the evidence? Treasury has not provided us with any. Treasury said before the Senate inquiry that they had done no such modelling in terms of the current taxation system's capacity to deliver sufficient revenue for the future to fund Australia's expenditure responsibilities. Again, we have to turn to Professor Dixon to do the work. Professor Dixon said:The tax package implies that a major change in indirect taxation is necessary because without increases in tax rates the present array of indirect taxes will raise insufficient revenue in relation to Australia's future public sector requirements. However the tax package includes no explicit forecasts. We find no evidence to support the tax package's proposition.As with growth, as with the other key macro-economic factors involved in this debate, we are asked to take this statement that the existing tax system is broken on blind faith.Where is the overwhelming empirical case that the nation needs this package? We turn to long-term economic welfare. As with everything else in this debate, the evidence—to the extent that it exists—is bouncing around like a yoyo. Chris Murphy, the Prime Minister's economic modeller of choice, said last September that the economic welfare effect would be $850 million. In December that number had been rounded up to $1 billion. But—surprise, surprise!—in February the number had collapsed to $600 million. However, the point is primarily this: the $600 million represents 0.2 per cent of GDP. It raises the fundamental question: if that is the overall economic welfare gain for the people of Australia, why is this exercise worth undertaking in the first place? So, if it fails on all the fundamental tests—if it fails on inflation, if it fails on employment, if it fails on growth, if it fails on living standards—why are we doing it?I think there are two reasons we are doing it. The first is a political accident. We all remember the nursing homes fiasco. We had an agenda-less government drifting nowhere, overcome with political problems of its own making, and suddenly out of the blue, out of right field rather than left field, we had the consumption tax, the tax that Australia would never have. Members of the government were, I am sure, as surprised as members of the opposition at that stage when it suddenly reappeared on the agenda.The second reason, however, if there is a logical reason underpinning why this tax has been brought into the Australian policy debate, is that it is a redistribution tax. It is a tax which redistributes Australian wealth from poorer people to richer people. There is a great similarity between the policy postures of our Treasurer, Peter Costello, and the minister for workplace relations, Peter Reith—P1 and P2. P1 is about maximising inequality of the tax system. P2 is about maximising inequality of the wages system.The impact of all this on the Australian community will be profound. When this package was announced, the Treasurer was found to be missing in action. However, once the election had been won, he became its champion. I suspect it is part and parcel of the ongoing leadership battle between P1 and P2. The victims, however, are the citizens of Australia. (Time expired)12:53:003183McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted to assist in this debate on the A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 and to add my support for the new system to ensure that the introduction of the government's tax reform measures is carried out in an equitable and sensible way. The amendment to the Trade Practices Act will ensure that those people who are using the goods and services tax, traders and proprietary companies, will do it in a fair and equitable manner, and it will ensure proper monitoring.Whilst the previous speaker was attacking the tax reform proposals of the government, let me assure him that this measure will ensure that they will be fair and that they will be monitored. In the case of New Zealand, where I had a look at the introduction of that new system, people assured me that the introduction of the goods and services tax had worked well. They wondered why there was a debate back in 1992-93 here in Australia, because they saw the system working very well. We found no evidence in New Zealand that there was any exploitation in the changeover from the former system to the new system of a GST.This amendment will ensure that all those people who have to implement the new system over the two-year period that is referred to in the bill will be forced to do the right thing. There will be $27 million allocated to cover this period and there will be considerable penalties for those people who do not implement the new reformed taxation system: $10 million for a corporate body and up to $500,000 for a person other than a corporate body if it can be proved that they had misrepresented the GST and its implementation, especially in their pricing mechanism.From this debate on the introduction of the new tax system—which is how those of us on this side of the House like to refer to it rather than as a GST—we can see that the government have done everything possible to prepare the ground to make sure that the transition from the current system to the new system will be done in a manner that Australians will understand, to make sure that Australians act in a fair manner and that traders and shopkeepers obey the new regime.The minister at the table would be aware of the Trade Practices Act in relation to other activities in Australia, as he readily acknowledges the case of the newsagents and other people who have enjoyed certain protection. I am confident that the Senate will eventually agree to the introduction of the new system, especially when they see this part of the program which will ensure the smooth transition. It has always been part of their argument—that, when we move from the current arrangements of wholesale sales tax to a new set of arrangements where a new GST will be applied to a number of goods which did not have a tax on them, there was always the possibility that some unscrupulous traders might add more than the 10 per cent in their pricing mechanisms.The government is quite confident that this measure will assist in the transition and that after that there will be a competitive pressure on people to provide a price that includes the GST, which has happened in every other nation around the world. I notice that the opposition spokesman at the table is showing some scepticism about that. But he has travelled the world and he understands that these indirect tax mechanisms have worked well and the marketplace over time has taken them into account in setting the price.I suggest that this bill will be part of the government's total position in the transition, making sure that the new tax regime is bedded down and comes into effect, especially in view of the experience of New Zealand, of Europe, and of other nations which have encountered the transitionary arrangements. I commend the bill to the House.12:59:003184Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to speak in this debate on A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 and to speak about the GST. I am also pleased to be supporting the opposition amendments before the House today. This is quite extraordinary legislation. The big question that has to be asked is: why are we having this debate at all? The GST inquiry, in all its hearings so far, has failed to provide any evidence of the benefits of this new tax for Australia in terms of new job creation, inflationary impact and economic growth, so we have to ask ourselves why we would go through this debate to introduce a new tax on everything we buy and everything we do.The reason is that this is an ideologically motivated tax. For the last 20 years, John Howard and the conservatives opposite have raved about two issues: the introduction of a broad based consumption tax, and the second obsession is about labour market deregulation, the cutting of wages and the lowering of living standards. We have seen evidence of this today and I am sure we will hear further debate. There is no doubt that there is a link between the two. There is no doubt that the implementation of the GST will lead to a redistribution of wealth away from those who can least afford it and will lead to the regressive reform which the GST represents.Why is it that this government has failed to score a single hit with the inquiry? It has had its own modellers appear before the GST inquiry, and still there has not been one day of positive news. This bill is almost a declaration of defeat—before the GST is even implemented. On the one hand, you have a government introducing a new tax, and, at the same time, it is introducing legislation, saying, `We need to amend the Trade Practices Act because we believe—we know—that there will be attempts by unscrupulous corporations and individuals to profiteer. This is a one-off opportunity for those people to make a profit at the expense of ordinary consumers.'This bill is necessary because the government's plans for tax reform are so flawed that damage control is needed even before the legislation is put in place. This is why the opposition is not objecting to the basic premise of this legislation. The amendments we have moved today are over issues such as resources. If you accept that there are going to be attempts to rort the system, you then have to accept that there is an obligation to properly resource the ACCC to ensure that the legislation is not just a public relations exercise. Frankly, 40 extra staff at the ACCC is just a farce, and the government knows that is the case.The government does not know what the impact of the GST will be in a whole range of areas—in particular in the housing sector, which I want to address this morning. If you want hard proof of this lack of research, you only have to look at the Hansard of the GST inquiry from 2 February. Senator Chris Evans asked:What about the flow on to the cost of rents? Has the department done any work on that?The head of the housing section of the family and community services department, Dr Ogborn, said:We have not done any modelling of the impact of the GST.Senator Chris Evans said:What about the flow on to public housing?The answer from Dr Ogborn:Again, we have not done any work.That is the problem with this legislation, and that is the problem with the GST. We are asked as an article of faith to believe that this nirvana of a GST is going to somehow fix problems, but when we ask for the evidence and the research, we are told, `Well, we haven't done any work. We haven't done any modelling. Whether it be on inflationary impact, whether it be on the creation of jobs, whether it be on economic growth, we haven't done any modelling.'I now want to take the House through the details of how this will impact on a couple of areas. One is in the area of private rentals. The GST will apply right across the board. It will apply to new home building, land development, renovations, additions, repairs and maintenance. Right across the board, the GST will be applicable. If you are buying a new home, the Housing Industry Association has estimated there will be at least a $400 increase in house and land packages as a result of this GST. So, if you are buying a house, you will be hit.Secondly, if you are a renter, the 2.3 per cent estimated increase in private rentals relies again on articles of faith. For all those people in the private rental market who are faced with one-off rent increases, particularly in areas like Sydney and Melbourne, we all know what will occur. Renters will be told, `We have to increase your rent by 10 per cent because that's the fact of the GST.' It is extraordinary to believe that there will be a limit of 2.3 per cent. I do not believe that that will be the case.One of the factors that occurs with rents is that, when they go up, there is often a rounding up as well. As has been pointed out by the National Association of Tenants Organisations, chances are that people will not put their rents up by $7.80; they will choose a figure like $10. Again, you will have a one-off gain with no watchdog except for the ACCC, which will have to look after every facet of economic activity in this country. We are going to have 40 people overseeing this process. Once again, I think that is extraordinarily inadequate.The shadow minister, Wayne Swan, has very effectively raised the issue of individuals who are forced to live long term in caravan parks, mobile homes and in what would not normally be classified as short-term accommodation. The minister is confused about this. When the minister was asked a question, he went on about tourists not being affected, but there is a minimum of 100,000 people living in these sorts of housing. The Minister for Community Services—Mr Hockey interjecting—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation dissociates himself from his colleague, and I do not blame him. If he had performed as badly in question time as that particular minister, then he would not last long on the frontbench. He does not benefit from the Queensland positive discrimination program, which is the only possible justification for that minister staying on the frontbench.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member for Grayndler is straying well away from the bill before the House, and I ask you to please bring him back to the substance of the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—The member for Grayndler, you have digressed. Please come back to the subject.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly will. I was talking about the issue that the government does not want to talk about—the effect of the GST on people who live in mobile homes, caravan parks and those forms of accommodation. We have had before the Senate committee some quite extraordinary debates. Questions have been asked, as a result of which we find that there is a two-tiered system. The GST will apply fully to those people for the first 27 days they are in that accommodation. After 27 days, it will apply at the five per cent rate. That shows the sorts of difficulties which will come up when the GST is fully applied at that time and not half applied. It relies upon an article of faith. The minister himself is confused about the impact on the housing sector, which ensures that consumers will suffer even more.This legislation highlights that the government must know that their figure of 1.9 per cent inflation is a gross underestimation. The reason why this legislation is being introduced is that they simply do not know what the inflationary impact will be, because it relies upon an article of faith. There are two sides to the inflationary impact. Firstly, it relies upon people who do not have to charge the full 10 per cent GST on items to not charge it. Secondly, it relies upon the fact that some people will charge more than 10 per cent GST—they will round up—and therefore have an inflationary impact. Thirdly, it relies upon those taxes which will go down as a result of the government's tax package being passed on to the consumer: for example, bank taxes such as BAD—a 100 per cent flowthrough. For those people who have looked at bank charges over recent years, I think there is a great deal of scepticism out there about the timelags and about whether those reductions in prices will flow through.To conclude my speech before the House this afternoon, I want to say that if the government was fair dinkum about this legislation—if it was something other than simply a public relations exercise—it would be adequately resourcing it. It would be fair dinkum about it. But once again we have a half-baked scheme to try to rescue a package which has been half thought up, in which there are no projections on jobs, no projections on economic growth and no projections on inflationary impact.No wonder the Treasurer wants to get the GST inquiry out of the way and wants quick votes on this tax package—because the greater the examination of this tax package, the more the flaws and the impact on individual consumers are exposed and the more this government has to concede defeat on this legislation. I urge the House to give full consideration to this bill. We will certainly continue to pursue through the GST inquiry all these questions, and we will continue to express our concern about the impact of this unfair `greed and suffering tax'.13:13:003186Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to summarise the debate and respond to the amendment moved by the member for Hotham. Anyone who listened to this entire debate could not help but be confused about the position of the Labor Party on this bill. On the one hand, some members of the opposition questioned why we needed to have this bill, given the large amount of competition in many consumer services related areas, and, on the other hand, some members of the opposition said it was not going far enough. This bill puts in place procedures that can clamp down on any attempts at price exploitation during the three-year transitional period of the introduction of the new tax system.I remind the House that 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 corporates and $500,000 for a person other than a corporate. So the fines are significant. But, as with the current taxation system, the most significant prices surveillance resource that our nation has is the consumers. Consumers are currently the price monitors out there. It begs the question: if there is to be this huge attempt to gain a windfall by some corporates or individuals during the transitional period of the GST, why don't corporates and individuals do that now? Why don't they exploit consumers now? The answer is: competition. Competition is about consumer sovereignty. It is about giving consumers choice and giving them the opportunity to shop around for their goods.Some people have had the gall to suggest that people in country towns may be disadvantaged because they have only got one supplier. Well, that one supplier would be ripping them off now under the current taxation arrangements. If that supplier is involved in exploitative conduct, then we urge consumers to contact the ACCC so that they can move forward to prosecute that supplier. As I said, in the case of corporates that is up to $10 million and in the case of individuals that is up to $500,000.The amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition focuses on everything but consumers. Not once in the amendment put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is there reference to consumers. There is nothing about consumer protection, nothing about enhancement of consumer sovereignty; it is just the same old bile and political rhetoric that we are hearing at the moment from a policy dysfunctional Labor Party.Even though no part of the amendment moved by the Labor Party deals with the substance of the bill, I will address the three key points that it refers to. The first one is: is the GST job destroying? The same old rickety mantra that they used unsuccessfully in the last election they choose to repeat in the amendment before the House. My response is simple: look at the facts. Whatever model you use, every model depends on the inputs. If you put garbage into a modelling machine, garbage will come out. If you put facts into a modelling machine, facts will come out.Professor Peter Dixon pointed out in relation to jobs that employment will be stimulated in the short run by about 30,000 jobs. This was supported by Access Economics, which has the unemployment rate falling 0.9 of one percentage point in 2000-01, while Chris Murphy's Econtech has it falling by 0.6 of a percentage point. Access Economics in their December 1998 AEM forecast report say:The good news is that the tax cuts sweetening the GST are expected to stimulate renewed job growth, perhaps sending unemployment down to seven per cent in 2001.They further state:In the long run, the impact of the tax package raises national output by 2.5 per cent and there is an additional 190,000 jobs.That is our response to point (1). In point (2) the opposition says that we are not spending enough. We are increasing the ACCC's budget by 25 per cent. That is $27 million over three years. They will be employing 40 supervisors. At the end of the day, as the general manager of the ACCC pointed out to the Senate, there are 10 to 12 million prices surveillance individuals and they are the consumers of Australia.We believe that the competitive pressures that result in consumer sovereignty are going to deliver a fair passing-on of the benefits of the tax package. An important part of the ACCC's role under this bill is to educate the public and inform the public about the guidelines which, under proposed section 75AV, will be used to advise consumers about how much prices should change as a result of the introduction of the new tax system. So not only are we saying to consumers that they have sovereignty and choice in this but also we are giving them a guide as to what the prices should be so that they have something to measure and compare prices at the local grocery store or the work done by the plumber with. They actually have greater power over the supplier of goods than ever before because we are providing them with the information, the recommended prices.I am advised that the ACCC has already said that it will be relying on the public to report examples where price changes are not consistent with the tax changes. That is a basis upon which we will be supporting the current arrangements.The third point relates to CPI modelling. I come back to the point I made earlier: the opposition has chosen to put garbage into their modelling machines and, predictably, they are getting garbage out. The government stands by its prediction, its estimation, based on all of the appropriate assumptions that the CPI increase in consumer prices, over what they would have normally been, will be 1.9 per cent in 2001-2002. You can have lots of variations in the assumptions, but that is the bottom line in the tax package. We will be moving a technical amendment later at the consideration in detail stage.There is one further point that I wish to refer to. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has chosen to make a mountain out of a molehill on changes relating to diesel fuel. I am advised that proposed section 75AV prohibits price exploitation in relation to the new tax system. That is the focus of this bill. These tax changes include the abolition of wholesale sales tax and the imposition of the GST. That is the primary focus of the bill: federal taxes, federal focus. There is also a regulation making power to specify other changes that must be passed on to consumers. All of the other state taxes are going to be focused as they come under the power of the Commonwealth. We fully intend to specify the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme to ensure that consumers gain the full benefit of this change.We will be doing that by regulation once the state and territory taxes fall into the GST package, which should occur on the final signing off by Premiers and Chief Ministers in early April at a Premiers Conference. Once that occurs, we will be in a position where those regulations—contrary to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has suggested, those regulations will be disallowable, they will be subject to parliamentary review, as with other regulations—will cover some of the other taxes which are not specified in this bill. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [1.28 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J. Gash) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Bill read a second time.3188Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:33:003188Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—by leave—I move amendments Nos 1 to 4:(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 19), omit paragraph (c), substitute:(c) the imposition of GST and other measures as provided for in (i) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1998 ; (ii) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition —Excise) Act 1998 ; (iii) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition —Customs) Act 1998 ; (iv) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Act 1998 ; (v) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Act1998 ; (iv) the A New Tax System (Goods and Service Tax Transition) Act 1998;(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 10 (after line 13), after subsection (4), insert:(4A) The Minister must cause a copy of each report received under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.(4B) On presentation of a copy of each report in the House of Representatives under subsection (4A), the report shall stand referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration.(4C) As soon as practicable after the report has been received by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration under subsection (4B), an officer representing the Commission must appear before the Committee at a public hearing, in accordance with arrangements agreed to by the Committee, to give evidence in connection with the report.(3) Schedule 1, item 19, page 16 (line 24) omit paragraph (c), substitute:(c) the imposition of GST and other measures as provided for in (i) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1998; (ii) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition —Excise) Act 1998; (iii) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition —Customs) Act 1998; (iv) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Act 1998; (v) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Act 1998; (vi) the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 1998;(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 22 (after line 16), after subsection (4), insert :(4A) The Minister must cause a copy of each report received under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.(4B) On presentation of a copy of each Report in the House of Representatives under subsection (4A), the report shall stand referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration.(4C) As soon as practicable after the report has been received by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration under subsection (4B), an officer representing the Commission must appear before the Committee at a public hearing, in accordance with arrangements agreed to by the Committee, to give evidence in connection with the report.It was most interesting to hear the member for Hinkler in the debate earlier saying that we ought to have GST watch columns and spots on talkback radio and television to monitor the GST based price increases. That is how much confidence the member for Hinkler has in the operation of the markets and in how they are going to keep the prices down and make sure there is no profiteering and price gouging. That is how much confidence the member for Hinkler has in this bill and the measures that the government is suggesting if this bill is carried. He has so much confidence that he is saying, `What we actually need out there is a price watch, a media watch, to keep companies honest and make sure that there is no profiteering as a result of the GST.'In the consideration in detail stage of this debate, I want to ask the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation a couple of questions about the government's intentions concerning the way this legislation will operate. The first area is the need to look at the situation prior to the introduction of a GST. The point here is whether there is going to be some kind of direction from the Treasurer or the government for the ACCC to set a maximum price for sensitive base commodities, such as petrol or rural products. That is something that we would like to hear from the minister about.The second area is what sort of monitoring is going to be done of these base commodities so that we know what the price is now and what a fair thing is now. I mention to the House that already there is concern being expressed about what has happened in the pre-paid funerals area and about retailers putting up prices in anticipation of a GST. The question of what sort of pre-monitoring will go on ahead of the introduction of the GST—if that occurs—is an important area, and we want to hear about the government's intentions and plans for it.We also want to know what kinds of instructions the government is giving the ACCC concerning the way in which this legislation will be monitored. We had a discussion about diesel fuel. Has the government informed the ACCC of its intentions concerning the diesel fuel excise area? It certainly was not the indication we got from the Senate estimates that there had been this kind of communication with the ACCC.The member for Hinkler suggests that the public ought to report instances of price gouging or profiteering and dob in those who take advantage of the GST to unjustifiably put up their prices. That theme is supported by the government as well, where the minister in his closing remark said that the ACCC says it is relying on the public to report rorts. Our response is that that is all very well, but how are the people who have this responsibility placed on them to know what is a fair thing in terms of pricing and what is not, when there is to be no separate line item for the GST?As I said in my second reading remarks, the Treasurer says that the sales tax was a secret tax and that the GST is to be transparent but in the next breath he tells us that there will be no separate line item for the GST, so a member of the public is simply not in a position to know what is a fair thing in terms of post-GST mark-ups. There is to be no opportunity for members of the public to actually understand what level of price increase might be due to GST or whether sales taxes have been cut from an item and so they are entitled to expect a reduction in price for that particular item. We are concerned that in practice this will not work at all. I want to get some responses from the minister on those questions.Paragraphs (1) and (3) of the opposition's proposed amendments to the bill deal with what is an apparently extraordinary omission by the government. (Extension of time granted) Prior to the election, both the deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer assured Australians that the ACCC would be given powers to ensure that all savings resulting from the new tax system would be passed on. The Treasurer said on 24 September last year, in relation to this 10 per cent tax on almost everything, `It is important when we abolish existing taxes that prices come down for consumers, and we are going to have the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ensuring that the reduction in prices from the 10 taxes being abolished is being passed on.'The Deputy Prime Minister said on the 7.30 Report on 9 September last year that, as part of the coalition package, `we will empower the ACCC to see that fuel savings will flow right across Australia'. Having studied the bill, I find there is no specific reference to the ACCC having the power to monitor price changes as a result of the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme. There is a power relating to the imposition of GST, but the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme is, as its name suggests, a credit to be offset or credited against GST imposed. Even the ACCC itself does not think it has the power.Last week in evidence before both the estimates and the GST select committee, Mr Hank Spier, General Manager of the ACCC, indicated that it was his understanding that the scheme was not specifically defined in the legislation as coming within the ACCC's powers and would probably have to be covered by regulation. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Deputy Prime Minister in question time yesterday to explain how the ACCC had the power in relation to diesel fuel. No explanation was forthcoming. On this basis, we are moving that the scope of the ACCC's powers be widened to explicitly cover the imposition of the GST and other measures imposed by the government's GST bills. This is in no way indicative of Labor softening its stance on the GST. It is still an unfair tax; it is still a job destroyer; it is still bad for the economy.The minister said in his closing remarks that this was something that the government could take care of by regulation. He talked about the capacity of regulations to be disallowed; he said they were disallowable. But there is nothing that enables us to force the government to enact a regulation if it chooses not to. If he comes into the House and says, `It is all very well; we are going to do a regulation on diesel fuel prices,' and then afterwards the government does not stick to its word, this parliament is in no position to enforce such a piece of regulation. So let us keep the government honest by supporting the idea of an expressed power for the ACCC to monitor diesel prices. I might say that we are very suspicious of the government in this area, given that, concerning petrol prices generally, it has acted to take away the maximum wholesale price and has been expressing the view generally that it does not want to engage in petrol price monitoring.Even this amendment is inadequate to give the ACCC power to monitor price changes flowing from the tax system change. That is because we have not seen all the changes yet. Who knows what the actual price impact of the abolition of bank fees and charges and stamp duty will be or when it will occur? The explanatory memorandum to this bill is effectively saying, `Take us on trust. When those changes are made, we are going to whack through some regulations to give the ACCC power.' In other words, while the government is stating that any savings from the changes that occur are going to be passed on 100 per cent, it has not yet set in place a monitoring regime which will ensure that this occurs.The second part of Labor's amendments, sections (2) and (4), impose more stringent reporting requirements on the ACCC. Under the bill, the ACCC has to provide a written report quarterly to the government. However, it is imperative to ensure that the price polic ing and education are occurring as effectively as can be throughout the whole period. Labor considers that it would be assisted by the ACCC appearing before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration to be examined on presentation of each quarterly report. I commend Labor's amendments to the House.13:43:003191Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We will be rejecting these amendments primarily because they are a stunt. The attempt by the opposition to put in place a whole range of procedural changes to the bill is nothing more than a stunt and an attempt to bypass what is already a fairly clearly described scheme of arrangement in relation to the bill.In the first place, we have undertaken that the regulator, the ACCC, will report back to me on a quarterly basis. The ACCC quarterly reports will be disclosed as and when may be appropriate. The ACCC already appears before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration on an irregular basis. I am very confident that that would be an appropriate forum for questioning of the commissioner and the assistant commissioners in relation to this matter.The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration has already asked the commissioner a vast number of questions on a range of areas. I cannot see that that range of questioning will be curtailed in any way, especially in relation to the GST package.The remaining amendments proposed by the opposition are rejected because they restrict the flexibility of the government to respond, through regulation, to various issues as they arise. The Labor Party is trying to get us to put into legislation what we can do adequately by regulation. The Labor Party has good form on delaying legislation. After all, together with the Democrats, they are saying that seven months is not a long enough period to discuss the taxation legislation; therefore, let us put everything into legislation instead of into regulation which provides some flexibility in relation to these matters. We are providing a real alternative to the nothingness that has been dropped by the ALP since the last election and their tax package proposal, the response to our tax package. Our proposal is that we retain some flexibility in relation to regulation and, therefore, we will be rejecting these amendments.Question put:That the amendments (Mr Kelvin Thomson's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [1.51 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the negative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.13:55:003191Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos. 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (lines 1 to 5), omit paragraph (c), substitute:(c) the price for the supply is unreasonably high even if the following other matters are also taken into account: (i) the supplier's costs; (ii) supply and demand conditions; (iii) any other relevant matter.(2) Schedule 1, item 19, page 18 (lines 10 to 14), omit paragraph (c), substitute:(c) the price for the supply is unreasonably high even if the following other matters are also taken into account: (i) the supplier's costs; (ii) supply and demand conditions; (iii) any other relevant matter.Upon advice from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, amendments are proposed to paragraph (c), subsection 2 of clause 75AU in schedule 1, item 5; and clause 75AU in schedule 1, item 19 of the A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998.These are technical amendments intended to remove the possibility of an unintended interpretation of paragraph (c) and clarify the relationship between paragraphs (b) and (c). The subsequent subparagraphs, which specify matters that may be taken into account when determining whether the price for the supplier is unreasonably high, are not changed by these amendments. I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum which covers the information obtained in the government's amendments.13:56:003192Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—It is our understanding that these are simply technical and drafting amendments and therefore we are happy to accept them. We were discussing the issue of the diesel fuel rebate. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that yesterday, in answer to a question concerning this issue, the Deputy Prime Minister said:In fact, the ACCC has full power . . . We were advised by the minister at the table during the course of the previous discussion that it will require regulation. So, in fact, it does not have full power and the Deputy Prime Minister ought to apologise for misleading the House yesterday in question time concerning this matter.13:57:003192Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—Mr Speaker, we reject the proposal made by the member for Wills in relation to the diesel fuel rebate. The ACCC does have power in relation to that matter, as I am advised, and it will have further power in relation to that matter once the states and territories have signed up to the GST package at the Special Premiers Conference in April and the appropriate regulations are put in place.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.3192Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Ministerial Arrangements31923192Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Treas urer will be absent from question time today and the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation will be very happy to answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice319231923192Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns his ministerial statement on the second Sherman report when he said:. . . the government has remained concerned for the next of kin. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have provided copies of the report to the journalists' relatives and invited their questions and comments on it.Minister, why did you say this, when a number of the relatives only received their copies long after your statement in this House? Why have you added to the distress of the families and why have you so clearly misled this House?3192Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I begin by saying that I think the question is seriously pathetic. It is absolutely pathetic. This government, more than any other government since 1975, has been completely transparent on this issue of the Balibo Five. You would have thought that the opposition, which had 13 years in government to address this issue, would at least have the decency to congratulate us on our integrity over this difficult issue.For 13 years, you covered up this issue, then we continued an inquiry set up by the man condemned by the member for Holt. We have a further inquiry and we allow intelligence material to be examined, and you have the audacity to ask a question like that. The answer to the question is that we did endeavour to get all the reports to the relatives of those who died by the time the statement was made. Because of a courier company, which I think is called DHL, in one case in Melbourne—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—More outsourcing, eh? Why didn't you use Australia Post?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks!4G4Mr DOWNER—You see, it is just pathetic. People die, you spend 13 years in government and do nothing about it, then you make the sort of childish interjections you are making now. DHL failed to deliver to a gentleman in Melbourne and failed on one other occasion. We have taken this matter up with DHL. We are obviously profoundly disappointed. These people have been contacted by my department.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! The member for Kingsford-Smith!4G4Mr DOWNER—I was determined that the families would get the copies. It is disappointing that in a couple of cases they did not, but they are perfectly free to make any remarks they like. But you stand condemned because you were part of that cabinet and you did nothing about it for 13 years, so let us not have any more cheek from you—Mr Beazley interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—or from this person here who was the defence minister through part of that time.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the member for Brisbane will stop their cross-chamber interchange. The member for Aston has the call.31933193Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of recent analysis outlining the need for major increases in tax rates over the next decade if the current taxation framework is maintained?3193Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question, which goes right to the heart of the tax debate. It goes right to the heart of any findings by Senate committees. It puts into sharp relief the attitude taken by the Labor Party and the minor parties on the issue of taxation reform. Indeed, a recent analysis released yesterday, I believe, by Access Economics into Australia's indirect taxation system has found that a severe erosion of indirect tax revenue is in prospect over the next decade under the present system. Without fundamental change now, Access finds that a $7 billion shortfall will emerge by the first decade of the next century.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!ZD4Mr HOWARD—It says:This shortfall will continue to rise thereafter as growth in services continues to outstrip that of goods, ensuring the indirect tax base continues to erode.It goes on to say:To keep revenue at its current share of the national cake, Access says that increases in tax rates would be required over the next decade.That analysis, of course, is in accord with the field evidence, as I might call it, that we had in 1993. The former government found it necessary, after the 1993 election, having won re-election on the basis of opposing a goods and services tax, to increase a whole range of indirect taxes.The reality is that, unless the fundamental reform put forward by the government is adopted in its entirety, there will be a further erosion of the indirect tax base. We will see pressure for increases in indirect taxes similar to what occurred in 1993. In the eyes of some, that would be no bad thing. Senator Lees, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, in an interview this morning, indicated that she is in favour of increased taxation. In answer to the question, `Does that mean we have to collect more tax?', she said:Well, that is a very good question. Indeed, the argument goes that the answer is if we want to keep the standard of services we enjoy now, the answer is yes.There is only one policy on offer that can guarantee to the states of Australia the capacity to provide the services that they need into the future, without imposing a massively increased tax burden on the Australian people, and that is the policy that I took on behalf of the government to the last election.I say again to those in the Senate who are delaying this taxation package, to those who would seek to defeat the verdict of the Australian people: listen to what the Australian people said; understand that unless we reform the Australian taxation system, root and branch, we are condemned to an inadequate, second-rate solution that is going to deny to the Australian economy the full measure of the esteem that it should occupy, even above what it has now, in the eyes of the rest of the world.31943194Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, can you assure the House that no changes or excisions have been sought or made to the yet to be tabled full report of the Skehill inquiry into last year's seaplane crash in order to protect Mr Dick Smith, the board of CASA or CASA itself from adverse reflections upon their performance? If changes or excisions were sought, when and by whom were they sought?3194Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I have to say that I am completely, genuinely and absolutely unaware of any such requests and have no reason whatsoever to believe that they might either have been made or acted upon.31943194Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the government's top priority in relation to our nation's future? Is the coalition government sparing any effort in seeking ways to create jobs for Australians?3194Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can inform the House that the top priority of this government is to maintain the magnificent economic performance of Australia over the last three years and, in particular, to ensure that the full benefit of that economic performance is allowed to flow through to the Australian labour market. In terms of an individual policy, our top priority is to reduce unemployment. That is why, within less than a month of being appointed as the new minister responsible for employment, the honourable member for Flinders, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business had written me a letter of some 19 or 20 pages outlining new ideas to tackle unemployment.I notice that the opposition thinks there is something wrong about this. I can say that I am proud to have a minister who cares about reducing unemployment. I am proud to lead a government that has policies to reduce unemployment. I am absolutely ashamed that we have an opposition which is prepared to destroy 50,000 Australian jobs by defeating the unfair dismissal laws and is going to vote against 230,000 jobs for young Australians.Let me make it very clear that there will be no retreat by this government from policies to reduce unemployment. We are about examining all of the proposals that are relevant to reducing unemployment. Of course those proposals will be assessed against the election undertakings that we gave both in 1996 and in 1998, particularly those undertakings in relation to entitlements under Australian workplace agreements being the same as under the relevant award. They will be maintained.Unlike those opposite, we are not afraid to have policies to reduce unemployment. We are determined, despite your obstruction, to further reduce unemployment. The benefit of the magnificent economic growth of the Australian economy should be allowed, without obstruction, to flow through to the men and women of Australia who want work but cannot get it. You will do Australia a great service if you join the government in fighting unemployment instead of engaging in your tactics of obstruction, delay and blind negative opposition.31943194Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, you promised that no Australian worker would be worse off under your industrial relations changes. Why did you secretly commence planning, within weeks of last year's election, to break that promise for the two million Australians who start a new job each year?3194Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, the answer is I—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I issue a general warning to members in this House. As I indicated when I became Speaker, I think it would be the ultimate indignity for a member of the House to find themselves suspended from the service of the House for one hour or one day. Our electors expect us, having elected us here, to be here, but I will take action under standing orders 304A or 303 if necessary. The electors of those people so named might bear in mind the fact that their members have chosen to leave the service of the House.31953195Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, given the widespread support from mainstream Australia for the coalition government's employment initiatives, what is the government doing to further the creation of jobs in Australia?3195Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. The good news is that this government is absolutely determined to press on, to do absolutely everything within our power to support people—and they can wave that letter around as much as they like. I encourage it. I tell you what: more people are going to read my letter than will ever read the books from the frontbench of the other side.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will not encourage disruptive behaviour.WI4Mr REITH—While this government adopts an optimistic view about what can be done by way of constructive policy to help those people who are unemployed, as to what we can do to build the Australian economy, we had a very interesting glimpse into the negative `opposition for the sake of opposition' attitude of the Leader of the Opposition this morning on AM. He was asked, `What is the Labor Party's attitude to try to boost productivity?' and he uttered these most incredible words. He said, `You know, I think we have gone as far as we can go, I think sensibly, in getting productivity out of contestability.' In other words, what he is saying is that, as far as the reform agenda is concerned, the oppo sition went as far as it could by the time it lost office in March 1996.We know that because members opposite have opposed every sensible measure to boost productivity that we have introduced in the meantime. What an indictment on the Labor Party when it comes to major reform. It is a confirmation of the statement that he made before Christmas—his promise to the unions for their funding of his campaign back in 1998—namely, that he would not change the industrial relations policy of the Labor Party by one jot or tittle as a result of the demands on him by not just the Labor movement but also the 52 per cent of the ex-trade union officials who sit on his frontbench.The fact is that productivity has been surging under us, and that is good. It is good for employees and it is good for our businesses. It means higher living wages and it means that we have been able to make inroads into the problem of unemployment.This week the Labor Party showed their true colours when they voted against yet another measure to try and create jobs—the unfair dismissal laws. I call on every small business in the country, every person who is unemployed and those people who are concerned about unemployment, to write to the Labor Party. They should write to Kim Beazley, care of Parliament House, Canberra, and tell him what they think of his obstructionist policies.I conclude by noting that the letters seem to have started coming in. One letter written to the Leader of the Opposition and copied to me was from a gentleman who said to Mr Beazley:Rather than firms such as ours employing more people, which we won't currently because of the threat of the draconian law you are defending, you seem to prefer to keep people, including the young, on the dole, unproductive and in a hopeless government-induced vacuum which says little for the future of this country and even less for yourselves.31953195Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall saying, in your secret plan in relation to Labor's tax credit idea, that `providing compensation through tax credits allows more targeted compensation than income tax cuts and increased family payments'? Do you also recall saying that there may be more that we could do in terms of lowering effective marginal tax rates further? Minister, have you discussed these ideas with the Treasurer and does he agree that this flaw in the tax package will need to be repaired?3196Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I have not discussed the matter with the Treasurer, but if you read the letter you will see that it was attempting to put together in a succinct way—Mr Beazley interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—Good. You should read it a few times and maybe you would learn something from it. The letter said that this was an idea that had been floated around some time ago. In fact, the letter said that that particular measure had gone to the government's tax reform task force back in 1997 and it was decided not to proceed with it. So rather than it being your idea, we had considered it and discarded it. We did not proceed with it—end of story.31963196Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. The Work for the Dole scheme has been an enormous success in my electorate of Cowper. Is the minister aware of proposals to expand the Work for the Dole scheme? Can the minister outline any alternative proposals that have been advocated and explain why some members of this House support different approaches to assist the unemployed?3196Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Cowper for his question. Mr Speaker, I am aware of proposals to expand the Work for the Dole program and to extend the mutual obligation principle. They are based on the fundamental attitude that you do not help people by pretending that the world owes them a living. Why shouldn't this government or any other government aim over time to eliminate sit-down money from the Australian way of life?The difference between the government and the opposition is that we are discussing the pros and cons of policy amongst colleagues while opposition members are shouting at each other in public. The difference is that we do not use ideas as weapons in the leadership struggle; we do not think of ideas as daggers to plunge into the back of the party leader.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—You're joking; ha, ha!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I have been asked about alternative proposals. This morning the Leader of the Opposition called for a return to the Working Nation program policies that his colleagues know were expensive failures. The member for Melbourne wrote, in his recent book:Labor MPs regularly encountered people who had done several courses and still had little chance of finding a job.I was curious about who these Labor MPs might have been who were honest in private but not in public. In his book, the member for Melbourne acknowledges a number of people for their comments, including the member for Grayndler, the member for Kingsford-Smith, the member for Rankin, the member for Jagajaga and the member for Perth. I am looking forward to their own honesty in future publications.I have also been asked to explain why there are these different approaches, and the explanation is not far to find. The truth is that members opposite are slaves to the trade union movement. If any proof is necessary, it comes in the form of a press release dated Tuesday from the member for Hunter, which says:The Caucus unanimously supported a motion of support for the CFMEU . . . The caucus unanimously supported the socialist aristocracy that believes in hereditary jobs for coalminers. It is very clear that this is a government of innovation and ideas and that that is an opposition dominated by party hacks and fading trade union dynasties.Distinguished Visitors319610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the South African Minister for Public Enterprises, Ms Stella Sigcau. On behalf of the House, I extend to her a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice319731973197Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, isn't it a fact that your senior minister's secret plan recognises that the long-term unemployed—now over 34 per cent of the unemployed—are not helped by your Work for the Dole Program but need a wage subsidy coupled with genuine training? Isn't this the same scheme which your government slashed in the 1996 budget and which has now been shown to be twice as effective as Work for the Dole across 50 times the number of unemployed people covered by Work for the Dole?3197Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The fact is that the numbers of long-term unemployed have been falling over recent months, thanks to the policies of this government. The fact is that Work for the Dole is proving to be far more effective in helping the unemployed than the Working Nation policies pursued by the trade union hacks and heavies opposite. As I was able to tell the House yesterday, the Work for the Dole Program has a 32 per cent outcome rate at the price of $3,900 per success. The New Work Opportunities Program, which was the flagship of Working Nation, had a 21 per cent success rate at the cost of $52,000. So these people ought to stop criticising the Work for the Dole Program. They should stop treating these fine young Australians who are participating in it as a political football. They should stop treating people who are trying to better themselves as lepers. Most of all, they should give up their allegiance to the trade union movement.31973197Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform the House how poor literacy and numeracy levels affect youth unemployment? What action is the government taking to encourage unemployed young people, particularly those in my electorate of Deakin, to address their literacy difficulties? How does this compare with previous policies?3197Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. As the member for Deakin is aware, numerous research studies have shown that many job seekers have literacy and numeracy problems which prevent them from getting the jobs that they are seeking. For example, males with very poor literacy and numeracy skills have been twice as likely to be unemployed in their late teens compared with those with average or better skills.One of the lasting scars of the 13 years of the previous Labor government was that one-third of young Australians were coming out of school without adequate literacy skills. They could not read and write properly. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, who was education minister for some years under the previous government, is personally accountable for this massive failure which lies at the heart of youth unemployment today. He not only left Australia with a deficit of $10.3 billion but he left 30 per cent of young Australians with inadequate literacy skills. He more than anyone else should take responsibility for this failure. The member for Melbourne must have been very ashamed when he wrote in his book, reflecting on those years of Labor government:One in five have not attained appropriate literacy and numeracy standards by the time they leave primary school.He said, quite correctly:These children are already struggling to participate in the day-to-day life of their schools. The struggle will be intensified when they leave school and look for work.The Labor Party abandoned a generation of young Australians. They did this because they are nothing more in the end than the mouthpiece of the bosses of the education unions, who fought for years to prevent literacy standards being established and who still oppose the testing of young Australians and the accountability of schools and teachers to parents. We have over there a party in which every member is a member of the trade union movement, where 52 per cent of the frontbench have been officials in the trade union movement and where no policy can be adopt ed unless that policy is compatible with the ideology of the unions behind the party. That is why we have so many young Australians today who cannot read and write adequately. It has been up to this government to emphasise the proper values of mutual obligation in this community and to provide young Australians with the opportunity to pick up these literacy and numeracy skills.31983198Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. It refers to his earlier answer to me and to the reference by him of the tax credits issue to his employment committee. Minister, your letter, the secret document, refers on page 11 to the fact that, following the reference of the tax credits issue to this committee:. . . no decision was reached at that time.Minister, you have just told the House that the tax credit was discarded by your government. Were you telling the truth in your letter or have you just misled the parliament?3198Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—It must be a continuing disappointment for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that an idea which he thought was worth having was not adopted by the government.Mr Beazley interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—Well, we understand his disappointment. But the fact of the matter is this government has got a tax policy and we are in the process of implementing that tax policy. And what do you do? You are doing absolutely everything within your power to prevent the implementation of a policy which would create real jobs.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: he was asked a very specific question as to whether or not the answer that he had given was at variance with the answer that was in his letter—a simple question—and yet he is diverting the argument far afield from that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the minister and call him to be relevant to the question.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, not much further needs to be said. The letter says:In my view, while such a proposal has some merit, it would be more appropriate—while it has some merit—to consider it in the context of an examination of the so-called Five Economists' Proposal—which I have already referred to. If you look at the five economists' proposal and my analysis of it, what I basically conclude is that in my view it was not—DT4CREANMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will hear the deputy leader. I must say I was obviously following the leader's interjection and I felt that the minister had been relevant. But I will hear the deputy leader.DT4CREANMr Crean—I was too. My point, Mr Speaker, is: are they considering it or have they discarded it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question has been asked and the minister is responding to it. I call the minister.WI4Mr REITH—I would conclude by saying we obviously had an analysis of the five economists' proposal, we were not enamoured by it and that was the end of the matter.DT4CREANMr Crean—So it is discarded?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition forgets just how thin the ice everyone is skating on this afternoon is.31983198Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, I understand you travelled to Far North Queensland yesterday with the members for Kennedy, Leichhardt and Corio, as did Minister Anderson travel to Gympie and Maryborough last week with Minister Truss, the member for Dickson and me. Could you advise the House of the findings of your inspection of cyclone damaged crops in Queensland?3198Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. Yes, yesterday I did travel to Far North Queensland to inspect particularly the crop damage as a result of Cyclone Rona in that part of Australia in recent times. As part of that process, we took the local members—the member for Kennedy and the member for Leichhardt—with us and, in a gesture of bipartisanship, the member for Corio.We had a rather extensive and exhausting day, but the people of North Queensland were certainly appreciative of the fact that we took the opportunity to go and have a look at the devastation that has been caused by Cyclone Rona to the crops in the area concerned. We saw extensive damage to the sugarcane industry in the Far North Queensland area. From 20 to 40 per cent of the crop has been damaged. Seventy per cent of the banana crop has been damaged and about 80 per cent of the pawpaw crop.We have maintained all along that we are providing assistance through the Natural Disaster Relief Fund from the Commonwealth. There were obviously a number of suggestions made by local growers in the areas that we visited yesterday which I will take up with my ministerial colleagues in discussions. Whilst we were there, there were also issues raised about comments from the Premier of Queensland. He has been making some suggestions on what the Commonwealth should and should not do with regard to disaster relief. We stick by the arrangements that we have in place—and the Prime Minister enunciated those last weekend—with the Natural Disaster Relief Fund. But we might also make some suggestions to the Queensland government that, if they want to be constructive, they might replace the $58 million that they took out of their budget, after winning government, from their emergency relief fund. They cut it from $158 million to $99 million. So Mr Beattie might just have a look at that area.There is an interesting point, which I should inform the House about, that arose yesterday. I have been speaking a fair bit around Australia about the prospects of improving access to insurance products for farmers generally in Australia so they can better manage their risks. And we found yesterday some innovative farmers in North Queensland, particularly the banana growers, who had actually insured their crops in a cyclone area against cyclone damage—an expensive exercise where one grower had indicated that it cost him $40,000 in a premium to cover his crop for $500,000. But the telling point that was made was that they have to pay an 8½ per cent stamp duty on that insurance.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—How much?SU5Mr VAILE—8½ per cent stamp duty. So on that $40,000 premium he is paying $3,400 to the Queensland government for stamp duty. Another suggestion for Premier Beattie: he might consider reducing or removing that stamp duty on that policy. I think the honourable members who travelled with me yesterday—the members for Kennedy, Leichhardt and Corio—and certainly the farmers in North Queensland were appreciative of the interest and concerns of the Commonwealth in the plight that the farmers find themselves in at the moment.31993199Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Do you recall stating in your secret plan:Couching Work for the Dole . . . in terms of an employment relationship would also directly reduce recorded levels of unemployment . . .and `there is not necessarily a case for dealing with "mature aged" unemployment other than with' existing programs; but: That will not prevent us from `badging' some of these programs in such a way as to acknowledge the genuine issue of mature age unemployment.Minister, don't the unemployed deserve real solutions to unemployment, not fiddling figures to hide it?3199Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thought that part of the letter was a fair and reasonable statement. It is surprising that the Labor Party seems so infected by outrage at the statement.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Confected.WI4Mr REITH—Confected, thank you, Prime Minister. This was simply another one of many ideas floated which can be considered. It refers to the fact that the way the ABS collects statistics could potentially result in that. Why would we raise that matter? Firstly to be up-front about it in our own consideration of it and, secondly, because when you were in office for years you had a deliberate policy to hide the unemployed on make work programs that did nothing for this economy. You spent billions of dollars. The $2 billion dollar man, the former ex-ACTU president, spent billions of dollars of taxpayers' money hiding the unemployed and providing no solutions to Australia's long-term unemployment. You talk about long-term unemployment. Do you know what worries us on this side? We inherited a lot of people who are long-term unemployed. We on this side are genuinely concerned at the way this economy is structured. As we have had a downturn the number of long-term unemployed has been ratcheting up and up and up.When you fairly read my letter you will note that I start by saying that Australia has an unemployment problem which we inherited from Labor but within that problem there are particular components which are of concern to us—young people, that is why we are doing something about junior wage rates; the long-term unemployed, which is the reason I raise it; and indigenous Australians, where I believe the level of unemployment is too high and we need to have a specific further consideration of what we can do to improve those circumstances. Don't you come in here and talk to us about concerns for the long-term unemployed. The Labor Party in office punished the long-term unemployed by running a system at the dictates of the ex-ACTU presidents which denied those people a chance of a job.We do not accept a censure of a government which is prepared to look at ideas. We say, proudly, that this government is prepared to look at any idea, to leave no stone unturned, to do the right thing by the unemployed—long-term or otherwise.32003200Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House about the aims of his forthcoming visit to Indonesia, the meetings he intends to hold and in particular the discussions he intends to have on East Timor?3200Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his sensible and constructive question. It stands in stark contrast to the smut we get from the other side.I will be visiting Indonesia from 23 to 25 February—that is next week—partly to participate in the Australia-Indonesia ministerial forum in Bali and also to hold a number of key meetings in Jakarta. I will be meeting with President Habibie and I also intend to meet General Wiranto, the Minister for Defence and Security and Chief of ABRI, and Amien Rais. I will also visit Xanana Gusmao under his new detention arrangements in Jakarta on 25 February. I have made clear to the House before, and I have made clear elsewhere, that Xanana Gusmao is a crucial figure in the resolution of the problems of East Timor. We have had considerable contact with him through our ambassador in Jakarta and I think it is appropriate that I call on him myself and discuss the future of East Timor, which is such an important issue to this government.So this visit will allow me while I am in Indonesia to canvass a wide variety of opinion on the future of East Timor and to advocate in person the necessity of ensuring an ordered, stable and non-violent process of transition in East Timor, whether the outcome is autonomy or independence.From Jakarta I propose to travel to Lisbon where I will discuss the future of East Timor with Portugal's Foreign Minister, Mr Jaime Gama, on 27 February. Given the quick evolution of events affecting the future of East Timor, Australia gives its full support to an ordered, peaceful and fair settlement of the East Timor issue. It is with this goal in mind that I have been meeting, and I continue to meet, a wide range of participants in the East Timor issue, including key East Timorese figures.32003200Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall writing to the Prime Minister saying that the minimum wage safety net for the poorest wage earners is too generous and that it should be replaced by a new less generous rate? Isn't your proposal in that letter to have that rate set by a new tribunal, to include the Productivity Commission, the Reserve Bank and the Treasury, just a way of nobbling the industrial relations umpire because it does not agree with your political agenda?3201Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—We did put the letter out last night, as the member knows, and on that basis there is no reason for him to be paraphrasing it the way he did.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—That was not a quote, was it? No. In respect of the panel idea, the commission has had panels for many years. The idea of a panel to draw together expertise for a particular issue is not a new concept. The idea of ensuring that the commission has available to it economic expertise is not new, either. In fact, that has been discussed and acted upon for many years. It was one of a number of ideas. I do not think it is a bad idea.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You want to sack the umpire.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!WI4Mr REITH—I advanced the idea because it is an option. It is very important that the commission, in making decisions, has regard to the economic consequences of those decisions. I would have thought anybody—even an ex-trade union official like yourself—might appreciate the point that when the decision is handed down by the commission it would add authority to that decision if people can see in a transparent way that it has been deliberated upon by those who have specific expertise in the area.32013201Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I direct my question to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, what is the government doing to support nursing homes in rural and regional areas like those in my electorate of McEwen? How are they responding to the challenges of accreditation?3201Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question because I know the concern that she has for older Australians in her own electorate, as indeed this government has for those right across the country. We inherited an appalling situation from the Labor Party, with 10,000 places short and an acceptance by the Labor Party of the substandard care given in various facilities across Australia. Quite frankly, we had to fix it up.Basically, we have introduced increased capital and recurrent funding for rural and remote facilities. We have introduced a system of accreditation which will no longer tolerate substandard—and, indeed, appalling in some circumstances—nursing homes for older Australians. I have seen a number of criticisms that have come forward from some quarters which tend to indicate that it is going to be all too hard for people to meet the new standards. I say this: we fund the 135,000 people who need residential care to the tune of $3 billion a year—that is $3 billion dollars a year on 135,000 people. We fund those individuals in order that they may get the care that they require. Providers are the means of giving that care, but our business is not to prop up providers who do not provide proper care.So that people can see how well it is working, I would like to quote some comments from a letter from the director of nursing at a stand-alone rural facility—a 40-bed community run organisation in Deniliquin—which was published by the Aged Care Standards Agency. The director of nursing, Jean Booth, writes:Let me tell you what accreditation has meant for us. Staff have formed working parties and become committed to the process, seeking positive outcomes for their efforts—for example, a reduction in skin tears and falls; a reduction in back injuries due to a no-lift policy; a reduction in our workers compensation premiums; regular maintenance programs for equipment; and introduction of specialty areas for nurses, i.e. we have specially trained nurses responsible for a particular area, such as palliative care, pain management and dementia care.They did not employ a consultant. At the end of her letter, she says:It is important that other nursing home and hostel proprietors, especially those in the country, be aware that accreditation can benefit all concerned and the process of preparing for accreditation can be a rewarding and positive exercise.Those reforms that we have put in place, and in which the Prime Minister was so much involved, are proving to have a very positive outcome but, most importantly, they will get rid of people who are providing substandard care and will mean that the taxpayer is getting a good outcome for the dollar expended.32023202Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that Minister Reith's secret plan requires that social security payments be cut following cuts in wages? Do you agree with Mr Reith's proposal to cut wages even further in regional and rural Australia? Do you support cutting pensions and other benefits there too? Will you start in Boree Creek—or do you have any other ideas?3202Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I have been too busy boosting our export effort to the world to read the letter, but I am assured by the Prime Minister's response, which I have read, that what you propose is absolute nonsense and will not be part of government policy.32023202Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of calls for a bipartisan approach to reducing unemployment? Is the minister aware of recently expressed views that might provide the basis for this approach? What are the obstacles to such a bipartisan approach?3202Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Pearce for her question. I am aware of calls for a bipartisan approach to reducing unemployment, most particularly the calls made by the member for Batman yesterday and by the member for Hotham this morning. How can members opposite seek unity between the government and the opposition when there is no unity inside the ALP? I have been asked about published views on which a bipartisan approach might be possible. I have a published view here from the member for Werriwa, who says:Unless the disadvantaged are willing to make an effort to develop new skills and take new opportunities, governments are wasting their time. Without effort—Says the member for Werriwa—there can be no achievement. That is the kind of view on which a bipartisan approach might be possible. I have another statement of the member for Werriwa, who said last year:I think what government needs to do is provide in-kind assistance to the unemployed and then basically have a system whereby after six months on the dole people are moved into a community based form of work.That is the kind of statement on which the government might be prepared to offer bipartisanship. I have a statement here from the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr. He said of the Labor Party:I have had a gutful, I have had enough of the Labor organisation, I have had enough of head office, I have had enough of the trade unions. If I could press a button and get—Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The member for Charlton is aware, as all members are, that I have issued a general warning. Were it not for the fact that she is here as a new member, she would be leaving the chamber at this point in time. The member for Dobell.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to the fact that, previously, you have told us that we do not have to take points of order on relevance, that you will rule. When will you rule on this minister being irrelevant and bring him back to the question?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. The minister will return to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. If Bob Carr had any strength, he would act on this statement.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am going to rule on the minister. I did not think it was fair to cut him off in mid-sentence when he had not indicated precisely what statement he was making.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Bob Carr would act on that statement and he would end the kind of mindless allegiance to the union movement that the Labor Party has shown. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is not being relevant to the question. The minister will resume his seat.83TRUDDMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order in relation to standing order 85. The minister is plainly being tedious and repetitious.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith will resume his seat. The minister clearly understands the ruling and is responding to the question. I have ruled that the minister must be relevant to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The first requirement for bipartisanship is honesty, and what we need from members opposite is an honest appraisal of policies rather than cheap populism. The second requirement for bipartisanship is a bit of give and take. You cannot demand bipartisanship unless you are prepared to give it. Mr Speaker, if those opposite want bipartisanship, they have three opportunities to prove that they are serious: they can pass the Telstra bill, before the Senate; they can pass the unfair dismissal laws, before the Senate; and they can pass the tax package. If they are not prepared to offer bipartisanship, they cannot demand it. The fact is that, unless they are prepared to do something like this, their call for bipartisanship is a cheap populist stunt.32033203Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the report of Mark Textor which suggests that the government loses sight of its proper role when it takes sides in industrial disputes? Will you take note of these concerns and act in an impartial manner, or will you continue to permit your minister the balaclavas and guard dogs as you turn your attention to new industries such as the car industry?3203Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I assume that the advice of Mark Textor to which the Leader of the Opposition is referring is the research that was appended to the letter that was written to me by the newly appointed Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business outlining a whole menu of proposals to be looked at for tackling the ongoing problem of unemployment. Can I again take the opportunity of congratulating the minister for writing to me. Less than a month after he has the responsibility he is in there with 20 pages of ideas, and this mob over here are attacking him. I could be so lucky to have a minister who is so determined to do something about unemployment.I want to say to the House that you want ministers who care, you want ministers who are dedicated, and I am lucky that I have a whole frontbench of ministers who are prepared. I have a Treasurer who is prepared to overturn a budget deficit of $10½ billion; I have an education minister who is prepared to tackle the problem of literacy and numeracy; I have a foreign minister who has been responsible for bringing about a historic change in policy by both Indonesia and Australia towards East Timor—I have a foreign minister who was prepared to do it; I have a magnificent health minister over here on the left; and I also have some magnificent marginal seat winners on the frontbench.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat.Mr McMullan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business does not have the call and will wait for it—the sort of courtesy that everyone is expected to extend to the chair, regardless of who occupies it.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I am raising a point of order under standing order 145 as it relates to relevance. As I said, we were reluctant to do so because we were enjoying the answer and we were waiting to hear about the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. But you know it is clear that this is not the slightest bit relevant to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call and I was making a reasonable presumption that, while I may not have applauded as loudly as others, he was in fact planning to come to the Minister Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business as part of the response to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I certainly am coming to that. Of all the things that I am indebted to in this House, I am indebted to the opposition. I really am indebted because I am asked a question about double standards. I am asked a question about taking sides in industrial disputes. The whole of the opposition personifies taking sides in industrial disputes because of their irretrievable links to the Australian trade union movement.They talk about nobbling the Industrial Relations Commission. I remember 1991 when Bob Hawke was still the Prime Minister of Australia and Bill Kelty, of course—and it seems he has been forever—was the secretary of the ACTU. Talk about heredity; he has a lifetime peerage with the ACTU. In April or May 1991, when the Industrial Relations Commission brought down a finding that was unacceptable to the then Labor government, both the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, and the then secretary of the ACTU bitterly attacked that decision. They said it was unacceptable to the trade union movement. They not only nobbled the commission; they also nobbled the Hawke government of the time into defying that particular decision.The Labor Party comes into this parliament and talks about partisanship, but you supported the nobbling of the Industrial Relations Commission.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Could I take a point of order on relevance? It is an irrelevant rant, and it is time he was brought to order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition by his interjection allows me to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order on relevance, and I invite you to come back to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, the question was about partisanship in industrial disputes. It invited me to respond to some research by Mr Mark Textor. Can I say that I have some experience with Mr Textor's research. I will tell you what: his research is not too bad, either. He has a reasonable track record, Mr Textor, and there are a few people around here who rather like it.I have also had experience with something else—that is, I never rely on quotations of somebody else delivered from the other side, so I will go and have a look at what he actually had to say before I accept the Leader of the Opposition's version.If ever a party had no authority to talk about partisanship in industrial relations, it is the Australian Labor Party. They personify one side of the argument. They personify a blind commitment to class warfare. They personify a political party that is bound hand and foot to the dying trade union movement of Australia.32043204Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Building on the government's successful launch of the Trade Outcomes and Objectives statement last week, could the minister inform the House of steps he is taking to open up new trade and investment opportunities for Australian businesses.3204Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Speaker, at the end of a good fortnight for the government, it is a pleasure to announce, in response to the question by the member for Mallee, that, in addition to several ministers going to Indonesia and Singapore early next week, I will go on to make important bilateral visits to India, Iran and elsewhere.Why is it important? It is important because South Asia has been a particular priority of mine. As Minister for Trade, I have helped facilitate trade, investment and tourism over the last 2½ years in that direction. Australia's 11th largest export market today is India. Our second largest market for coking coal is India. Therefore, I am very pleased to say I will be co-chairing the Australia-India Joint Ministerial Commission in New Delhi at the end of next week.We will reflect on recent marketing openings for exporters of citrus, pears and peaches, which I know are major priorities for the member for Mallee and other members, including the member for Hinkler, and on expanding and diversifying our export efforts to the world and increasing jobs as a consequence.In Iran, of course, it will be a case of being the first Australian cabinet minister to visit there since 1992. It will provide a priority and focus to building bilateral relations between Australia and Iran. It will build on the grain exports and also wool, dairy products and other breakthroughs which have been secured in recent times, and ensure further expansion in that trade effort.The Australian export effort today is a very diversified one. Full marks to our exporters ranging across services from information technology to the aviation arena with a focus on the `airshow downunder'—an excellent exhibition of Australian product which is taking place over these few days. I hope to get there on Friday. As Minister for Trade, why would I not go to this magnificent exhibition of Australian product?I simply want to say at the end of this fortnight, dominated by headlines of `ALP at war'—especially in proximity to Avalon up the road from Melbourne—we finish with the case that Bob Carr wobbles, Brumby giggles, Beazley blusters, and we get on with the job.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, on that note I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous3205320515:05:003205Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I wish to add briefly to an answer I gave in response to a question from the member for Dickson in relation to assertions that perhaps something not quite correct in relation to the Skehill report had taken place.My office has spoken to the writer of that report, Mr Skehill, regarding the member for Dickson's assertions. Mr Skehill advises that there have been no changes to the report. He said he stood by the report's finding that the director and board of CASA had acted with propriety. He said there was no substance to the member for Dickson's claims. He has indicated he will put that in writing, and I will table that at the first opportunity.In the meantime, I take the opportunity to table a related letter from Mr Skehill in response to a matter referred to him by the Director of Aviation Safety. Really, it is about time we had some novel, new, fresh and decent contributions to the debate on aviation safety in Australia from the member for Dickson.Miscellaneous3205320515:07:003205Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Prime Minister:(1) for his instruction to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to develop a secret plan which would break the Government's undertaking that no worker would be worse off under its workplace reforms and undermine the living wage for ordinary Australian families; and(2) for his undermining of Australians' desire for high-wage, high-skill, secure jobs and not low-wage, low-skill and transient jobs.What we on this side of the House want is Australian families to enjoy decent, high skilled jobs in a high wage economy with decent security and decent standards of living. What this government is about is attempting bogusly to solve unemployment problems by a low wage economy with low skilled jobs, with no security of tenure and with the consequent deprivation of families of the sort of security they need to survive in the sort of community they will confront in the future.We are about hope for ordinary Australian families. We are not about the decimation of their living standards, we are not about doing it in secret plans, we are not about breaching solemn undertakings to the Australian people while we do it. The Prime Minister is deserving of censure here for the very reason that he has broken solemn undertakings to the Australian people in seeking this set of propositions from his minister.Mr Reith interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The minister says he has 101 ideas on this, but he has one idea on this—one only—and that is to attack the wages of the least well-off in our community. When he gets in there and attacks the social safety net, as he does, the living wage safety net, as he does, and expresses objection through his letter to the determinations made by the IRC, what he is attacking is the living standards of Australian families who live on less than his travel allowance claims every year. We are talking here about attacking the standards of families who live on $20,000 to $28,000 a year, depriving them of the social safety net and undermining the capacity of the Industrial Relations Commission to consider their matters.What an absolute farce it was, what a deceit, when the minister stood up in this place and said that often things are referred to panels of the Industrial Relations Commission. They are, but they are panels of the Industrial Relations Commission, not a couple of selected members of the Reserve Bank board. In undermining them he does the double act. I think it is terribly important for people in regional Australia to comprehend this, because it goes to the heart of a problem that this government confronts or, more particularly, the people of this country confront. The problem is that when you attack the poor-but-earning you increase the burden on the budget. That is in fact how the social security system operates. Having done so, you discourage folk in those positions from getting out there and earning a bit extra. That is what you do.The minister, in comprehending the logic of what he has done, in comprehending the logic of his assault on wages in regional Australia and his assault on the incomes of the poor earning in metropolitan Australia as well, realises it is no good doing this unless you attack their social safety net as well—lowering their pensions, lowering their supporting parents benefits and lowering their family incomes. You have to do that if you are going to get, from their point of view, bang for your buck from cutting wages.This is an extraordinary proposition by a government that said it was devoted to a belief in its workplace reforms and to the proposition that no person should be worse off. Let us take that a point further and look at the question of awards. It is insufficient for the government that it has collapsed awards down to 20 allowable matters, that a whole range of health and safety issues have been incorporated within awards, and a whole set of good public purposes removed—like time off to be able to be members of the Australian armed services reserves. When the government removes all that from awards and collapses them to 20 allowable matters, that is not enough. It has to go further, according to it, and many people, particularly those who change their employment—some two million a year—ought then to be subject to an attack on awards and all effect.What you place yourself at risk of experiencing, under this set of propositions, is that when you change your job you will find an employer saying to you, `You can forget any of the allowable matters in the award you are now covered by. You are now subject to a single benchmark award; take it or leave it.' That is their proposition. This ruthless assault on the ordinary families in Australia is an assault done by deception and secrecy. It is all very well for this minister to get out there now and say, `I am open about this and these are brilliant ideas I just want to fling out like confetti. More people are going to read this than read the books written by members of the Labor Party.' Well, Minister, you can count on it: more will; we will make absolutely certain of that. You can count on that proposition.The minister knows darned well this was meant to be a covert exercise that had many motivations behind it, not least the advancing of his position in the succession. Jealous of the attention the Treasurer's got, he said, `I want to take over the agenda after the Treasurer has finished in relation to his tax package and, while I am taking over that agenda, I will take the Labor Party's tax proposals with me, thank you very much,' though he seems to have repudiated them during the course of today.Having said in his paper `what a good set of ideas they are' to support the situation of low income and middle income people in the work force, as in the Labor Party's proposition, he has abandoned that today. Having done all this in secrecy, he has the absolute hide to come out and say, `It was obviously meant for some sort of public floating at some point of time.' Half the problem with this deception is its intention that it be secret, an intention blown by the diligent work of my spokesperson in this regard. There is a great deal that is interesting in this set of propositions as far as we are concerned, and I will get onto that a little bit later.Given the cynicism with which this whole exercise has been approached, it is not surprising to find some incredibly cynical propositions in the document itself. This document says that middle aged unemployed people do not matter—that they are not a real problem. It says, `We'll get a few employment programs and badge them.' The folk who happen to be in their 30s, 40s and 50s and who are about to become unemployed as a result of the closure of BHP Steel in Newcastle, the folk who will become unemployed as a result of the closure of textile factories, the folk who will become unemployed as a result of downsizing in just about any industry that you care to name—folk who are finding themselves in difficulty with employment now—are not a real problem but they will be badged. `None shall sleep but all should be badged' as far as this government is concerned.The ultimate cynicism of these propositions is shining in these papers for all to see. It is an extraordinary statement, but it is one which many in this community have come to believe is possible of this minister and this Prime Minister, particularly when more of their activities were exposed during the waterfront dispute last year. In other words, this is Howard and Reith in continuation as far as a tax on the ordinary workers of this country is concerned.They defend themselves here by criticising the Labor Party for not supporting their unfair dismissal proposals. What they have failed to tell the population is that the legislation that they are affecting to uphold is theirs. It is not ours—it is theirs. It is their unfair dismissal legislation. They said when they introduced it that there would not be a ripple of change to it if there was no need because it was perfection. This proposition is about two things. It is about class war and it is about alibis. It is not about solutions to problems like unemployment. It is about class war, it is about alibis but it is not about solutions. That is what that proposition is about.They fling about that ridiculous assertion by Mr Bastian that somehow or other 50,000 jobs will be created if it goes through. When Bastian was questioned in the Senate about all this we learned the real social basis of those statistics. It is a best guess—a best guess based on nothing. What we do know is that a result of it going through would be that a very large number of people would have additional job insecurity added to their many other woes. That we do know. It will not create employment, but it will destroy security as far as they are concerned. That is one piece of cynicism that is contained within this document. There are other pieces of cynicism within this document.They have been standing before the public saying that their Work for the Dole program is a terrific new initiative. After three years, 16,000 people in this country have been through their Work for the Dole program: 16,000 out of 800,000 unemployed have been through their Work for the Dole program.Read between the lines of this particular document and you will discover this: the assumption underpinning the Work for the Dole program is that all you need is a bit of job experience and that you will get a good outcome as a result of that. That is specifically denied and repudiated. What do they cynically say? They say, `What you've got to do is produce programs that combine wage subsidies with training.' Where have I heard that before? I guess I heard it when my deputy leader stood up in this parliament and introduced Working Nation. That is where I last heard that proposition. Hundreds of thousands went through the wage subsidy program and the training programs associated with it and their outcomes in employment and training were twice the level of their paltry 16,000 in work for the dole. They have exposed their cynicism in that regard. You could bet your bottom dollar there would never have been a paper voluntarily emanate from the Liberal Party which so exposed their principal program that they have used to deceive the Australian people; the program that they ponce about in public saying is the solution to that particular problem. You can bet your bottom dollar they have never produced a public document that undermined it like this public document undermines it. Another piece of cynicism.Let me take a further piece of cynicism. Having come to the Australian people saying, `We have a tax package which the Senate must pass, which the Australian people have endorsed, which will create growth, which will create jobs; this is the solution to unemployment,' what do we find in this document? We find that it is not the solution to unemployment. We find that it is a wise thing, as far as this document is concerned, to proceed down the road of looking at earned income tax credits. Where have we heard those things before? From the Labor Party at the last election. He got up in parliament today and tried to say that this had been rejected at the time that their employment committee considered it. That is another thing that is in the document, Mr Minister.It says in the document that it had not been rejected. In other words, a massive change to the taxation system was out there, floating free, despite the fact that they said to the Australian people that it was supposed to have been comprehensively covered in the tax package they put out. Why wouldn't they have it floating around for consideration? We know from all the evidence that has been presented to the Senate that a GST is a job killer. We know that, but not on the Labor Party's say-so. You can forget the Labor Party's argument on that. We would say that, wouldn't we? Go to a Conservative modeller—including their modellers of choice—and what you will find is this: if there are any jobs in it, they will only come from spending the surplus. But that is more than offset by the consequences of the destruction of the employment of those who are in the service sector, which is the fastest growth area in jobs provision in this country now. Those people will, for the first time, find themselves heavily taxed and have a substantial administrative burden.This is a wonderful document in terms of what it exposes of the poverty of the thinking of the Liberal Party and in terms of the arguments we have put forward for some substantial period of time about appropriate wage subsidies and training programs. If anyone is going to have any chance of getting into a decent skilled job and an opportunity for some permanency in the work force, an opportunity to support a family in the work force, an opportunity to save for retirement in the work force, they will not get it from anything that is being argued by this government.I do not mind seeing Labor Party policy pinched, and I do not mind seeing undermined the government's argument that somehow we are out of ideas, when they have none other than ours. The thing I find hardest to take is what they want to do with that to conceal. They want to use our tax package and our proposals to support the unemployed to conceal the fact that they intend an assault on low income Australian families. That is what I hate about the deception here—that they want to use Labor Party policy as the carrot, the sweetener, the sugar coating to conceal their real intentions.Their real intentions have nothing to do with solving problems. Their real intentions are about Liberal Party ideology and prejudice. In case you do not believe that, I strongly recommend that you read Mr Textor's research. I have had my road to Damascus about Mr Textor. I have had the opportunity now to read his research which would not have been there before. He is of course a well-known and notorious push poller. But there was not any push polling here.Mr Reith interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Well, we did not have the opportunity to read it, did we? Now we have had the opportunity to read it. What a fool you were to release it. You have released it and now we know. What Mr Textor reveals is this. When they mount their attacks on the trade unions, when they mount their attacks on the fact that some members of my frontbench have served the 2½ million to three million people in this community who are proud to call themselves members of trade unions—as opposed to the 100,000 in this community who are joined by the majority of the Liberal Party in obtaining and owning family trusts in order to avoid their fair share of tax—what they know from Mr Textor is that just about everybody in the work force likes them, including people who are not members of unions.What they also know from Mr Textor is that with regard to the sort of behaviour you engaged in which was part of your deception of last year—as opposed to your deception of this year—they do not expect you to play the sorts of roles you have been playing, they do not expect you to come after their work force and slash it. That is what they do not expect of you. They do not expect you to get out there and take sides against the poorest members of this community—and, if they are not the poorest members, they are the middle income Australians. They do not expect that of you.And what they expect from governments and from employment is not to be rendered more insecure, not to have their awards removed. What they are looking for is a relief from anxiety. What they are looking for is an opportunity to improve their skills. What they are looking for is a satisfaction from life. They are not looking for the sorts of heavy deception that this government is engaging in, which is another reason that it was a secret paper. Australians did not anticipate from this government—which went into the last election campaign with a load of baloney as far as the tax system was concerned plus a promise that no worker in this community would be worse off as a result of decisions they took in the industrial relations area—that within weeks of that election being completed the minister would be out there with his ambition on his sleeve, seeking to take over an agenda from his rival, Mr Costello—two strutting peacocks without a feather to fly, their feathers having been plucked from them and put in the hat of the Prime Minister to wear at the opening of the Olympics. That is what has happened with these two.The ambition of Mr Reith is to ride on the backs of the poorest people in our community, the weakest at industrial bargaining, and launch an attack on decent servants of the public associated with the trade union movement. But these people in the government have been exposed and, having been exposed, they should now be censured. If the numbers determine that you are not censured now, let me tell you: you will be by the time we next get to grips with you at the polls. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I second the motion and reserve the right to speak.15:27:003209Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government will of course reject the censure motion. We treat it with the contempt it deserves. We have witnessed a pathetic performance from the Leader of the Opposition, whose speech amounts to nothing more than unadulterated drivel from a man whose leadership is drowning in a sea of verbosity in front of our very eyes, from a Leader of the Opposition who has no capacity whatsoever to break out from the manacles on each arm put there by the trade union movement and the former trade union bosses who sit behind him and dictate policy, from a Leader of the Opposition who has no capacity to look to the national interest and bring together the unruly factions within his own side to deliver a policy which is relevant and meaningful to Australia in this decade, let alone in the next millennium.This man talks of cynicism. No greater cynicism can there be than the record of Labor's 13 years in office, whose policies for the low paid and for the unemployed punished them for their unemployment by failing to ever provide a system that would have given people the dignity of work. The Labor Party talks about human rights. What about the human rights of people to have a job? What incredible cynicism it is for the Labor Party to attack the government for simply canvassing within the highest echelons of government what we need to do about unemployment. Not only do we reject this censure motion, but I move the following amendment to the motion:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "this House condemns the Leader of the Opposition for his: (a) failure to support the employment creation policies of the Coalition Government which were endorsed by the Australian people at the last election, including Labor's direct rejection of the Government's unfair dismissal laws and regulations which has denied up to 50,000 people a job;(b) failure to support the preservation of junior rates of pay which could result in up to 240,000 young people losing their jobs; and(c) failure to detail to the Australian people any meaningful policies which would lead to a reduction in unemployment in this country.The Leader of the Opposition deserves to have his motion turned upon him because he, in his opposition for the sake of opposition approach, is standing in the way of literally tens of thousands of Australians getting a job. And his policy of obstruction in the Senate is today threatening the jobs of 200,000-odd young Australians who today have jobs and would be denied those jobs if we are unable to secure our legislative program.Labor had 13 years to do something about unemployment. When we came into office we had a high level of unemployment, a legacy of Labor; a $10½ billion deficit, a legacy particularly of the now Leader of the Opposition, who is a former Minister for Finance; and we had a legacy of an Australian economy that simply was not able to provide the job opportunities that we believe it ought to provide.For all the negativism that comes from the Labor Party, I say to members on the other side that they should, for once, put their opposition for the sake of opposition attitude to one side. They ought to genuinely ask themselves what they are going to do as parliamentarians to advance constructive suggestions to deal with the problem of unemployment.I think my letter is a good one. In fact, I am proud to have been able to write such a letter as the employment minister in this government. I think it is about time that letters like that were written. I am very happy to have released that letter last night, along with all the accompanying attachments. It is true that some of the research that Mark Textor did does not suit some of the arguments that we are putting. That is a challenge for us to mount our argument. Why shouldn't we be up-front about that and try to garner political support for what needs to be done?As I say in my letter, when it comes to the management of a modern economy, it is clear that there is a lot more common ground about what needs to be done to create jobs. There is a lot more common ground than the opposition would have you believe. They are opposed to absolutely everything that we are doing. But, if you fairly put aside politics, the truth is that there are a lot of things that we could do in Australia that would genuinely give people a chance of a job, which they do not have today.In my letter, I said to the PM that, whilst there is a lot of debate about the details, one of the real problems in Australia is not so much one of knowing what to do; the problem in Australia is gathering the political support to actually do it. It is an obvious statement of fact, for anybody who is genuine and objective about it, that we do need a better tax system. Even the Leader of the Opposition, back in those dim, dark days of 1985, was supporting option C. Why was he supporting Mr Keating's then consumption tax or GST proposal? Because that, as part of a broader package of reforms, is actually a good idea.I do not mind mixing it with the Labor Party on a bit of politics. In fact, I reckon I could fairly say that I give as good as I take, and we enjoy our work. But the truth of the matter is that that is part of the atmospherics of politics. In the end, we are all elected to actually tackle these problems.It should hardly be a surprise to anybody that, after an election, the Prime Minister, having made his appointments and having appointed me, in this case, as the minister for employment, should write to me and say, `What are we as a country going to do about unemployment, not just now, for the short term, but over the longer term?' So I set about writing a whole list of ideas, some of which were new, some of which have been talked about for years, in order to put together a comprehensive, articulated strategy as a discussion point for the future.I took the OECD's 10-point plan for job creation and said, `Let's take those 10 points. We can perhaps concertina that down to five headlines.' I methodically went through each and every one of those five topics identified by the OECD as providing solutions to the problem of unemployment and discussed that within an Australian context.They say that this is a secret, cynical, nasty, diabolical plan. I say: I am paid to do this. This is my job. I am elected as a member of this parliament to be concerned about unemployment. I am asked by the Prime Minister to advance a few ideas for discussion and they say that this is a shocking indictment of the government. I say: this is a government doing what governments ought to do. This is something that never happened when Labor was in office. Labor would be elected and the Prime Minister would write a letter to the ACTU and say, `What will you let me do during this term?'The point I make at the beginning of this letter is that it is a genuine problem. I have spelt out the details of the problem. One of the good things that has happened in the last three years is that we as a government have through the better management of the Australian economy made inroads into these problems. When you look at the rate of unemployment, it is down. That is a good thing. You would never hear the Labor Party saying, `It's good that it has gone as far as it has.' But it is a step in the right direction.If you look at the circumstances for small business, they are much better today than they were. So they are being encouraged to go out and give somebody a job. We are not, for example, running programs like Working Nation, which spent billions of dollars, under a Labor government, giving people pretend jobs or training them for jobs that did not exist, and then pretending that the problem was fixed. We have certainly cut expenditure, but in the Job Network we have set up a much better system which is genuinely helping people. So we have advanced the cause.My colleague the Minister for Employment Services, who is also going to speak on this motion, has done a great job in the time that he has been the minister. He probably got a letter from the Prime Minister saying, `You're now in charge of Job Network. What are we going to do to make it a better system?' That, for the Labor Party, again, is a secret, cynical, diabolical plan. I actually think that that is a fair question to ask the minister, and he has done a great job and deserves credit for doing that. What we as a government want to do is to build on those reforms.There are options in the paper for looking at what you do for people who are unemployed and at the inflexibilities of the award system. That is a fact of life. The Labor Party likes to say that this government is against the interests of people who are low paid—the old defence `offence is the best form of defence'. When you look at what happened to people on low incomes at the bottom of the award scale when Labor was in office over 13 years, they actually lost purchasing value in their wage packets. Labor is always saying, `We're going to look after the low paid.' As that very interesting book called Out of the Rut describes in its opening paragraph, the consequences of Labor's policies over those 13 years was that people at the bottom end of the scale were worse off.We are attacked for having ideas, but we have had more than ideas; we actually have a few runs on the board. Not only have we got unemployment down, but if you look at the circumstances of the low paid the increase in wages after inflation—in other words, the purchasing value of those wage packets—has actually gone up by five per cent. That is a tremendous result.What I say to people who are genuinely concerned about this—instead of people just wanting to make political points—is that, if you look at our record in the first three years, that ought to give people some reassurance that sensible reform really does give people an advantage. It really does start to address the problems. So in the paper I have presented, I have looked at expanding on that. Obviously we have a clear policy for implementation and we introduced that during the election. People have voted for that and since the election the Labor Party has spent a lot of time trying to prevent us implementing that policy. I have also said to the Prime Minister, `This is an intractable problem and we need to have a medium-term strategy.' I think that is something which should be encouraged from politicians. Too often people say, `The trouble with politics is they just look at the next two or three years.' I have said, `Why don't we think longer term?' It is a big problem. We are going to have to be very determined and resolute to really get this down. So we should also be thinking about our policies for the next election.The opposition say that this is a secret plan. The letter envisages the idea that we would present a policy to put to people before the next election and they would vote on it. Is that a secret plan? I think that is a first-class way to go. In the letter I say to the Prime Minister, `You have finally given this country leadership by what you did in the lead-up to the 1998 campaign because you outlined a plan. You told people in advance.' There were some parts that people did not like—the GST—and some parts they did like—the $13 billion income tax cuts; that's a great idea—and cutting the costs for regional Australia in reducing the cost of diesel fuel.The great thing about it was that we had a plan, we were up-front, we told people what it was and they supported us. That is a big change in the way Australian politics has been managed in recent years. I think it is an approach to be encouraged. What my letter to the Prime Minister says is, `You've done it once, what about thinking about doing it again on the question of unemployment?' That is not a secret, cynical plan; that is a tremendous approach, a frank and honest approach to dealing with a significant and difficult problem for the country.The sad thing for the Labor Party is that they had 13 years to do something about it and when the Leader of the Opposition was asked today what is his sort of approach, on the question of productivity he said that basically that is it; that is as far as you can go. That is the most nonsensical, stupid thing I have heard him say for a long time, and he has said a lot of things.`Productivity' is an economists' term, but let us put it in laymen's terms. What produc tivity is all about is simply trying to encourage people to do things better at work. That makes their businesses more efficient, that is good for business and it will encourage business to invest more and to create more jobs. If we can do that, if our businesses are more productive, then the people who work in those businesses can enjoy higher pay. It is a simple statement but it is an important statement. But the Labor Party says, `No, we've gone as far as we can.' They were not just holding up my letter today during question time; they were holding up a white flag. They are saying, `No more ideas. We can't do any more. What we should do is go back and do what we did when we were in office.' We reject that. The Australian people have rejected that.We are proud of this letter. We are proud that this is a government which has ideas and is prepared to discuss them. We are prepared to start with a clean sheet and genuinely concern ourselves about people who are unemployed. The unemployed in this country have been punished enough by Labor and the politics of Labor. It is about time they were given a fair go. We are absolutely determined that we are going to press on. Unemployed people will get a fairer go under this government. That motion deserves to be thrown out and I look forward to having the numbers for its amendment.15:42:003212Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and to speak against the amendment moved by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. In doing so, I also point out that the failure of the Prime Minister to respond to a very serious motion going to censure reflects what I think is the arrogance that now permeates the Howard government in its second term.Since the last election, slowly but surely we have seen a sense of arrogance and contempt for the Australian public become part and parcel of the operation of the Howard government. I say that in the context of a very firm view in my mind that any sense of a veil of decency that the Prime Minister has sought to cloak himself with following his election in March 1996 has been torn apart and thrown out the window since the election of October 1998.If you have any doubts about that sense of inclusiveness, and the desire to rule and to represent all Australians as one Australian, then I need only refer in passing to a decision of the Prime Minister this week to put himself above all citizens of Australia in the jubilee year of Australian citizenship—the 50th year since the Chifley Labor government brought in the Migration Act, which was so central to the building of Australia and so central to our sense of decency and inclusiveness. I refer not to the contemptuous action of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business alone but to what I regard as a disgraceful endeavour by the Prime Minister to impose his own will on the whole Australian community. I refer to the fact that the Prime Minister, despite undertakings about inclusiveness, has instructed the Australian community that he alone will draft a new preamble to the Constitution that all Australians are supposed to identify with, that all Australians are supposed to stand up and defend and that all Australians ought to have a sense of ownership about. That is a disgrace.That action really reflects the nature of this government. We have here today a government caught out in a game of duplicity. It is a government going back on its election promises to the people of Australia. It is a government that is prepared to further squeeze the less fortunate in the Australian community.I think it is about time that, as a result of our actions in exposing the dead hand of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, we have a constructive debate about the major problem confronting the Australian community at the moment. I want to deal with the facts. Let us deal with the bleak picture that confronts Australia's unemployed and, more importantly, their families at this particular point in time. Let us go to the real, hard edge of unemployment—the issue of long-term unemployment. Let us deal with the facts as they stand today.Today the long-term unemployment figures were released. What do they show? They show the biggest proportionate increase in long-term unemployment, up to 34 per cent, which is more than one in three, since January 1995. That is a bleak picture. Long-term unemployment in one month has jumped by almost 11,000. We now have in Australia almost 240,000 Australians—men and women who want to work, who know their responsibilities and who accept their reciprocal obligation—who are confronting a situation where the government's only action is to inflict pain and punishment.It gets worse. It is not only about the raw figures relating to unemployment of a long-term nature for men and women; it also goes to the duration of long-term unemployment. These figures show that the ranks of those who have been unemployed for between 52 and 104 weeks have also risen by 6,100. More importantly, and I suppose the really distressing feature, is that between July 1996—just after Working Nation was slashed by the Howard government in its first budget—and July 1998 the duration of unemployment of a long-term nature has increased by seven weeks.What we require on the basis of those figures and the failure of this government to match our jobs growth is action now. I do not mean what the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business suggests today, in his defence of the indefensible, in saying that this is the third-term agenda; we require action now. We require concerted action by a government that is prepared to listen to the Australian community, to take advice and to base its approach to a long-term strategy for making significant inroads into reducing unemployment in Australia on a sense of cooperation and partnership. That is what it is about: a sense of cooperation and partnership. That is exceptionally important because the facts spell out in no uncertain terms that this government has failed the Australian community. It has failed the working men and women of this great country on the employment front.Total jobs growth in the Howard government's first 35 months was 54 per cent of that achieved by the Labor Party in its last 35 months of government. Full-time jobs growth in the first 35 months of a Howard government was 40 per cent of what the Labor Party achieved in its last 35 months of government. Part-time jobs growth—and these are decent jobs; I do not question the importance of part-time employment—has been slightly better at 74 per cent of what we achieved in the last 35 months of government.I think the Australian community understands its responsibilities. The serious question that the Australian community is looking for an answer to goes to the capacity to lead, to involve all of the Australian community and to come up with decent programs based on a sense of cooperation, partnership and leadership. That is what is missing from this secret document that we forced the Australian government to release yesterday. I say that because it is a secret document that flies in the face of the very principle that I have spoken about: the sense of the Australian way of life, which means a fair go for all of the Australians who know their responsibilities and who are prepared to pull their weight.Let us go to the issue of industrial relations. Strangely, unlike the other side of the House, I actually respect the independence of the judiciary. As a trade union official of 20 years, there were many decisions that I did not like, but I had to cop them on the chin. We now have a proposal by this government to dismantle the Industrial Relations Commission and to appoint friends from the Productivity Commission, from Treasury and from the Reserve Bank board to make decisions about how the less well off in this community—the low paid workers—ought to be looked after.The problem is that, when you look at the appointments by this government to a range of boards, there is no impartiality. There is no sense of people being appointed to those boards on the basis of what they offer to the boards. More importantly, they were appointed on the basis of what they offered in donations to the coalition government. We are now expected to cop a situation in which this government is suggesting to the low paid in this community that the safety net wage increases ought to be determined by their mates—people like Hugh Morgan. I know his approach to industrial relations from my experience as a trade union official.Let us make a comparison between what is acceptable to this government when it comes to looking after the low paid and what is acceptable when it comes to looking after their mates whom they have appointed on a political basis in an unfortunate endeavour to politicise the independence of the Australian Public Service. That is what it is about. We have had the politicisation of the Australian Public Service, and now we are going to have mates determining wage increases for the low paid in the Australian community.I want to touch in passing on the question of safety net wage increases. In the decision of 1996-97, the living wage case, the commission awarded $10 per week. The Howard government supported $8 per week. In the living wage case of 1997-98 what we got was an increase of $14 per week. In the current wage case the government is supporting $8 per week. I believe in a little bit of equity. In doing so I also raise the new approach to looking after Australian workers. When I listened to the minister for workplace relations today on the question of industrial relations and employment, all I could hear him talking about was the wage packet. I suppose that really reflects the view of those stuck in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s—the period up to the election of the Hawke Labor government in March 1983. What the union movement learned from that period is that you can actually influence the standard of living of the people you represent by more than just direct negotiations with employers and by more than just direct argument in the Industrial Relations Commission.That is why we, in our approach to genuine tax reform, in rejecting the dead hand of the job destroying GST, actually sought to revolutionise employment and the incentives to get the unemployed back to work as we move towards the 21st century. We wanted to build on our leadership of our 13 years in government: the way we completely reformed the social security system in Australia, the way we completely reformed the health care system in Australia, and the way we completely reformed the industrial relations system in Australia. We threw out of the window the industrial war of the Fraser years, when the current Prime Minister of Australia was one of the driving forces of industrial war in Australia as the Treasurer of this great nation. That is why I say to the Australian community, `Examine this document, but think about what Australia really deserves as we approach the 21st century.' We as a community do not believe in inflicting pain and punishment on the disadvantaged in the community. We actually believe in a fair go. That is why we support an industrial relations system that says that for a fair day's work you get a fair day's pay.That is why we suggest to the government of the day that, having acknowledged it in this document, you ought to embrace and develop the Labor Party's tax credit proposal, because it is about putting genuine incentives into the community to attract people back to work. It is about trying to improve the standard of living of Australian workers by something more than the total focus by the minister for workplace relations on the wage packet. It is about a new approach to a sense of decency in Australia. It is about the Australian government saying, yes, it will use all its arms of government not just to develop an employment strategy across all portfolios but, more importantly, in association with that dedication and decisiveness, to actually create the incentives that encourage and attract Australia's unemployed back to work.I very much agree with that particular approach because it builds on what we sought to develop in our last 13 years of government. It really is about trying to say to the Australian community, `Look, we are a government of the 21st century. We are not a government based on class war and divisiveness. We want to try to make serious inroads into creating an employment strategy that involves the Australian community and basically says to that community, "Thank you for accepting your side of the bargain. It is now for us to face up to our responsibilities to deliver on our side of the bargain."'When you talk about an employment strategy, there are a couple of key aspects that the minister for employment ought to be talking about rather than attacking those in the community who need help. We ought to be talking about higher economic growth, selling Australia's exports overseas in places such as Asia, supporting industry in regional Australia, making sure that we skill the Australian work force and making sure that we have an ongoing process that ensures that, if someone loses their job, we have a transitional program based on education and training that guarantees the opportunity right throughout their whole working life to move from one job to another. That is the nature of the labour force today. The days of being employed by one employer have long gone, and we have to make sure that we build into a new vision for Australia a capacity to look after people when they lose their job. (Time expired)15:57:003215Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—If the member for Batman and shadow minister for employment wants bipartisanship, if he wants generosity, if he wants national unity, why does he constantly accuse the government of a complete lack of goodwill? The two things simply do not go together.The member for Batman made a much better speech yesterday before he had actually read Peter Reith's letter to the Prime Minister. Obviously the problem is that, on reading the letter of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to the Prime Minister, he has lost nearly all of his points of attack. His case was so weak that he had hardly gone 2½ minutes when he started to criticise the government over the preamble to the Constitution. If the member for Batman has a problem with the Prime Minister's draftsmanship of the preamble, he is quite welcome to make a submission. If members opposite would like to make a contribution to the preamble, make a submission to the Prime Minister. Members opposite believe that any president, under their preferred model of an Australian republic, will be nominated and members of the public can make nominations to this star chamber committee. Why doesn't he make a submission on the preamble, as he suggests the general public should when it comes to nominating a president?I am very proud to support my senior colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, I am very proud to support the Prime Minister, on this motion because the fact is that this is a government of ideas and innovation. This is a government which is prepared to slaughter the sacred cows of employment policy. This is a government which is not mindlessly adopting the orthodoxy that the way to boost employment is to cut wages or to madly increase government spending. This is a government which believes in increasing the wages of workers and it also believes in intelligently redirecting government spending.The difference between the government and the opposition on this is quite clear. We have an orderly policy development process. Why shouldn't the Prime Minister ask the minister for employment to come up with ideas? Why shouldn't the minister for employment write at length to the Prime Minister outlining a wide range of policies, all of which should be given serious consideration? Why shouldn't the Prime Minister then respond by saying, `Let's bring some of them forward urgently and let's give others further consideration'?There is a sharp difference between this government—which knows how to create policy, which knows how to actually get policy from the idea stage into practice—and members opposite, who are incapable of having an idea without rushing off to the publishers. The truth is that the constant flow of books and articles from members opposite is a sign of the seething tension inside the Labor Party and the fact that members opposite are now openly contemptuous of the weak and pathetic leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, a man who they know bends with every breeze, a man who constantly goes to the book launches of his colleagues and is left in Ros Kelly's unfortunate position of having to endorse the cover but not the contents.The problem with members opposite is not that they believe in nothing but that they believe in everything. For every loony tune idea that is put up, there is someone opposite who is prepared to say, `Yes, I support that.' On Telstra, we have the member for Melbourne, who wants to sell it, and other members who want to keep it in public ownership. We have the member for Batman sneering at McJobs; we have the member for Melbourne quite rightly saying that these can build a realistic career.We have the member for Werriwa saying that Work for the Dole is a good idea and then we have the Leader of the Opposition saying, `No, no, we can't do this.' We have the member for Melbourne saying the Labor Party needs to cut its links with the union movement and then we have the rest of them supinely echoing the call of the trade union heavies to simply do what they want.Opposition members interjecting—EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—The members opposite should be judged on their record. I do not say for a second that there were not some good things that the former government did.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. This is the first time I have had to interrupt a minister in the process of this debate. I remind members of the general warning I issued. I will not again issue a warning to the member for the Northern Territory. The minister has the call.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—There were some good things that the Labor government did. I suppose, if you are in government for 13 years, you are bound to get something right. We will concede that, and what we expect of members opposite is some skerrick of generosity towards the policies that this government is putting into place.Members opposite should be judged not on their words but on their record. What was Labor's record? Eleven per cent unemployment—the highest unemployment since the Great Depression. In 13 years the disposable income of average families dropped by $100 a week. This is a pretty pathetic record for people who say they want to support the battler, people who say they want to support the little man. Under the former government, the rich got richer and the poor got less poor but they got more locked into their poverty. That was the tragedy of 13 years of Labor government and that is what the minister for employment, the Prime Minister and the rest of the government are trying to change.For all their protestations of care and concern for the long-term unemployed, the Working Nation program was an expensive failure. It was a treadmill. It was a turnstile. The long-term unemployed went in these programs, they clocked on, they clocked off at the end of six months, and the only change was that the statistician no longer called them long-term unemployed. It was a con. I do not deny for a second that members opposite had good intentions, but the fact is their programs failed and our programs should be given a chance to succeed.Why are members opposite so locked into this culture of carping criticism and complaint? They are simply taking yet again the messages from Trades Hall. They are simply demonstrating in opposition what they demonstrated in government time and time again—that when it came to a fight with the trade unions they lacked ticker. It is easy to understand why. As members of the government have pointed out, 52 per cent of that frontbench are former trade union officials; 100 per cent of the parliamentary Labor Party are members of a union.We have had this week the Labor caucus unanimously endorsing the actions of the CFMEU, the socialist aristocrats who believe in hereditary jobs in the coal industry. This is a disgraceful thing for people who believe in employment growth, who say they want to help the battler to get a job, to do, because the CFMEU is trying to stop decent Queenslanders from working. It is disgraceful that members opposite cannot see behind the union facade and the union rhetoric.This government has a good story to tell. This government has a proud record. Over the last 2½ years we have created nearly 400,000 jobs. Productivity has increased three per cent a year on average under this government; it increased by a mere 1.5 per cent a year under the former government. Inflation has averaged one per cent under this government; it averaged five per cent under the former government. And this is the figure that most gives the lie to their protestations: under this government wages have increased an average of 2.5 per cent a year. Under the former government average wages went up by less than half a per cent. So wages for the little man, for the average Australian, have increased five times as fast under this government than under the government that claimed to be the battler's friend.I do not want to engage in sterile statistical argument, but the fact is that members opposite know that Working Nation was a failure. They know that Working Nation programs cost tens of thousands of dollars for every successful outcome. Work for the Dole, by contrast, is an effective policy, an effective program, good for the people who participate in it and good value for the taxpayer who funds it.Work for the Dole is just one of a suite of policies that this government is implementing to bring down unemployment. There are three broad strands that we are pursuing. The first is to have a buoyant economy and that is why we cut $10 billion out of the bloated spending program that we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition. Did we get any help? Was there any support from members opposite when we tried to pare back government spending, when we tried to ensure that interest rates came down so that the economy would boom and job seekers would have a chance? Not at all.The second thing we are doing is that we are trying to produce a more productive work force. That means industrial relations reform so that workers can work smarter and earn more. Was there any cooperation from members opposite? None at all.WI4REITHMr Reith—Except the member for Dickson.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—The member for Dickson provided some last minute cooperation. We have the education and training reforms championed by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Has there been any support for him? Has there been any acknowledgment of the fact that apprenticeships and traineeships are at an all-time record—the highest in Australia's history? Of course there has not. Has there been any support for the Job Network—that network of 300 community based organisations like Mission Australia, the Salvation Army, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Anglicare, Centrecare? Has there been any acknowledgment of the good work that they have done? Nothing at all.The final and perhaps most important arm of our policy is to create a culture of work in this country. We have to end the idea that the world owes people a living. We must end this notion that we are doing good for people by telling them that they do not have to help themselves. That is why mutual obligation is perhaps the signature principle of this government. Mutual obligation could be described as mutual commitment. It is about empowering people so that they can make the most of their lives.It must have been very difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to deliver that tirade we have just heard from him. He attacked the GST, but he knows the GST is right and good and necessary for Australia—otherwise he was lying in 1985. He attacked industrial relations flexibility and he knows that we need more flexibility in the workplace—otherwise he was fibbing when the former government made tentative steps in this direction. He attacked education reform. I suppose you can understand that because he was such a weak and embarrassingly ineffective employment and education minister. He has attacked welfare reform in his speech today—even though he knows that too is absolutely necessary.But most of all he has attacked the sincerity and the decency of every member of this government. That is the thing which must have stuck most in his throat, because the Leader of the Opposition grew up in the tradition of the Moral Rearmament movement, a worthy and a decent movement, which believes in building bridges and networks and in working with people to create a better world. Why isn't the Leader of the Opposition prepared to start that process in this parliament by attributing the same decency and sincerity to us that he claims for himself?It must have been embarrassing and humiliating for the Leader of the Opposition to go through that performance of quivering self-righteousness when he knows that the accusations he has made are simply untrue. This government has not cut wages; we have increased wages. We have not cut pensions; we have maintained them at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We are the first government to enshrine in legislation that commitment. He said that we were harassing the disadvantaged. We are helping the disadvantaged by making the changes which are necessary to give them a fair go.I was not intending to use this but, given the self-righteousness opposite, given the battlers' friend's prattle that we got opposite, let me simply read from the Daily Telegraph of Friday, 11 December an article titled `A story to dine out on':Spotted dining in Canberra's most exclusive restaurant, the Oak Room, were Labor Party stalwarts and former union heavies, hereditary peers, Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean, accompanied by two lobbyists. The pair—this is the member for Batman and the member for Hotham—both of whom have built a considerable reputation and fairly hefty salaries by fighting for the battlers, spent almost five hours on Wednesday night leaning back in the padded armchairs.Armchairs that no doubt bore a distinct resemblance to those which they criticised so much for appearing in the Prime Minister's office. The article continued:The pair left their establishment with their guests well fed.The total bill: $1,524—just the way the battlers eat. The member for Batman and the member for Hotham are entitled to a good feed, but they are not entitled to the sanctimony, the hypocrisy and the cant which has marked their approach to this government.The opposition accuse this government of having ideas. I am proud to plead guilty. The opposition accuse this government of having a serious policy making process. Of course I plead guilty. And I move:That the question be now put.(Time expired)Question put.The House divided. [4.16 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question put:That the amendment (Mr Reith's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [4.23 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question put:That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.The House divided. [4.25 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Questions to the Speaker321932193219McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, you might recall that the House was informed on 8 February this year that you had received advice from the Prime Minister nominating Mr McArthur, Mr Nehl, Mr Jull and me to be members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Will you write to the Prime Minister and advise him that section 92B (7) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act provides that Mr Nehl is unable to be a member of that committee? Will you further seek advice as to whether the Prime Minister has breached the ASIO Act or that Jackie Kelly, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, by moving that Mr Nehl be a member of the committee, has breached the ASIO Act?3219Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I would report to the House that I am conscious of the matter raised by the member for Watson and in fact action will be taken and I will report back to the House at its next sitting.Miscellaneous321916:27:003219Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence on a matter that I raised with you earlier.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham may proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Mr Speaker, I will not take much time. My attention has been drawn to a comment made yesterday by the Treasurer in relation to me and a number of other people in which he said, `Get born in the back of a Comcar.' My parents, in particular my mother, found this comment deeply offensive. It is another example of the Treasurer going too far. He, more than anyone, should be aware of the people whose feelings are hurt as a consequence of stupid statements.Auditor-General's Reports3219321910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the following Auditor-General's audit reports for 1998-99—No. 21—Financial control and administration audit—costing of services and No. 31—Performance audit—The management of performance information for Special Purposes Payments—The state of play .Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents322016:29:003220Reith, 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 .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Review of the Regulation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Aquatic Air Pty Ltd. trading as South Pacific Seaplanes—prepared by Mr Stephen Skehill;CASA Actions Arising From The Skehill Report;Bureau of Air Safety Investigation—Investigation Report 9802830—Cessna 1 85E Floatplane, VH-HTS Calabash Bay NSW; andAustralian Hearing—Annual Report 1998.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Committees322032203220Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That Mr Nugent and Mr Jenkins be appointed supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into indigenous health.Matters of Public Importance3220322010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Batman proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's employment strategy which will result in a low wage, low skill economy for Australia.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—16:32:003220Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Mr Speaker, this is about the lowbrow approach of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to industrial relations—Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Personal Explanations322016:33:003220Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Cowper claim to have been misrepresented?AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—I do, and I am quite offended by it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—You will recall that the member for Watson raised the question of my eligibility to be a member of the ASIO committee. The reality is that the act precludes me or the Deputy President from occupying a place on that committee. When the matter was being discussed by the member for Watson, the member for Banks called out quite loudly—and was heard by other members as well—that I had failed the security clearance. I take deep offence at that, Mr Speaker.16:34:003220Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—On indulgence, Mr Speaker, in view of the mocking comments that I made about failing the security test, I withdraw. I did not say them to offend the member. They were said in a mocking manner, and if he takes offence I unreservedly withdraw those comments.Miscellaneous32203220Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—In accordance with standing order 329, on behalf of the Committee of Members' Interests, I present the Report on the Operations of the Committee for 1998.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees32203220322016:35:003220Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the second 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.Bills3221r6693221Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3221Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3221r6683221Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3221Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3221r6803221Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3221Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3221r7253221Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 8), after the definition of data storage device , insert: electronic communication of speech means a communication of speech by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy (for example, a telephone call or a radio broadcast).(2) Clause 9, page 6 (line 28), omit "or reproduction", substitute ", reproduction, recital or reading aloud".(3) Clause 9, page 7 (lines 1 to 7), omit paragraph (c), substitute:(c) is made: (i) orally; or (ii) in writing; or (iii) in a data storage device; or (iv) by way of an electronic communication of writing; or (v) by way of an electronic communication of speech.(4) Clause 12, page 12 (after line 22), at the end of paragraph (g), add: (iii) by way of an electronic communication of speech; or(5) Page 20 (after line 12), after clause 19, insert:19A Quarterly reports about Year 2000 processing issues relating to Commonwealth agencies(1) At least once each quarter, the Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a report about the progress of Commonwealth agencies in detecting, preventing and remedying problems relating to Year 2000 processing.(2) If the report has already been made available to the public, the Minister must cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report was made available to the public.(3) In this section: Commonwealth agency means: (a) a Department; or (b) an authority or instrumentality of the Commonwealth, except where the functions of the authority or instrumentality are wholly or primarily commercial functions. quarter means: (a) the period of 3 months beginning on the date of commencement of this section; and (b) each subsequent period of 3 months, being a period that begins before 1 July 2001.16:39:003222McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.I should thank the member for Canberra, who has charge of this issue and legislation on behalf of the opposition, for his cooperation in ensuring an expedited hearing of this very important and crucially needed legislation through the parliament.The year 2000 amendments that have returned from the Senate are agreed to by both the government and the opposition. The government amendments provide oral republications of disclosure statements in the electronic media with the same protection as written republications. Its effect is to allow the makers of statements to reiterate those statements in full in the electronic media, for example in radio or television interviews. It was included in the legislation after receiving representations from industry, specifically the Bankers Association, and will assist in the sharing and disclosure of information.In the same vein, the opposition amendment requires the minister to table in both houses of parliament the quarterly reports on the progress of Commonwealth departments and agencies in complying with the year 2000 problem. Earlier this week, the government announced that it would move to agency by agency reporting in line with international best practice, commencing with the sixth quarterly report which will initially be released at the portfolio level and then disaggregated to the agency level. For the information of honourable members I table a press release and letters detailing the government's approach, as agreed to by the opposition. I commend the amendments to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3222r6533222Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills3222s1953222Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills3222The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 Miscellaneous3222322216:43:003222Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I table a letter that was alluded to during question time this afternoon and following question time. I ask the member for Dickson to consider carefully the contents of the letter and consider whether or not, in the circumstances, an apology to Mr Skehill might be appropriate.Bills3222r704Billsr705Billsr706BillsBills3222Debate resumed.16:44:003223Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—The member for Banks interjected when the member for Corangamite shook hands with the Prime Minister that he should count his fingers after the encounter. We might extend that and say that all those people in the Australian electorate who metaphorically shook hands with the Prime Minister during the last election should, on two counts, count their fingers.Yesterday I spoke in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99. That bill provides for $19,443,000 to be appropriated—if this bill goes through—for the purposes of a community education and information program in relation to the new tax system. That was, in fact, first advanced in the $10 million advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration. As I indicated previously, by the end of the 1997-98 tax year only about $250,000 of that $10 million had been brought forward; in fact, only about $57,000 had been spent. The minister's fund is to be used for `urgent and unforeseen circumstances'. It was certainly urgent in a party-political sense to expend not $10 million but almost $20 million on this advertising campaign, but it certainly was not unforeseen.The Auditor-General pointed out that surely the Treasury could have foreseen that these funds were to be expended in the next year and that, therefore, in the last budget proper appropriation should have been made. It is my contention that this is an expropriation of funds—they were used for an illegitimate purpose. Labor has been criticised by the government in the past for spending money on information programs. I make two points. Firstly, there generally was a $5 million cap on those education programs. Secondly, the education programs came into being only after the legislation had been passed through the parliament, and only at the proper and appropriate time. So, after the legislation was passed, the community was able to be informed of the details of that legislation. In contradistinction, this set of information programs went out prior to the last election and were used as a party-political tool by the coalition. So it is indeed true that in relation to the $19,443,000 people should at that time have counted their fingers because it is money that was spent for party-political purposes.The Prime Minister has, in days gone by, accused the Labor Party of running campaigns where they spent moneys. In fact, this occurred in 1986 in relation to Labor's program which had already been legislated and been put into practice. The present Prime Minister said in relation to the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke:. . . he will undoubtedly fail to tell the House in the outrageously misleading advertising on taxation which is being paid for by the Australian taxpayer and not being paid, as it should, by the Australian Labor Party . . . The key points I make are, firstly, that we had a cap on those programs. Secondly, we had actually legislated for them—it was through—and then there was a properly run education program. This massive program, a lot of which was deceiving, was used as a party-political tool. Therefore, rather than seeing this as being an appropriation of these moneys, I see it as being an expropriation of the moneys.I also point out in relation to these matters of what is proper in the use of public moneys for advertising by a government that, in 1995, the Prime Minister spoke of a need to have some kind of control. I quote from a background brief. The Prime Minister said:Today's Shadow Cabinet meeting in Gladstone decided that, in Government, we will ask the Auditor-General to draw up new guidelines on what is an appropriate use of taxpayers' money in this area.Note the timing: 1995, before he was in government. It was probably part of his so-called headland speech program. He said that there would be new guidelines drawn up by the Auditor-General. It is now, as we well know, 1999. There have been no guidelines drawn up by the Auditor-General because the Prime Minister did not keep this promise. This is obviously another non-core promise. This is the difference between what he said in opposition and what he has done in government. The Auditor-General, in looking at this expenditure, indicated:. . . in the interests of public accountability and confidence, it is necessary to establish . . . Parliamentary review of government information and advertising arrangements to assist in determining appropriate guidelines for taxpayer funded programs.Given the extraordinary way in which public moneys were effectively expropriated to be used in a way they should not have been before the last election, I think it is utterly appropriate that that parliamentary review take place. It is utterly appropriate that strong and strict guidelines, in conformity with what operated whilst we were in power for 13 years, be incorporated in order to stop this government expropriating even more moneys prior to the next election.I indicate that, because I was not able to speak in the debate on the GST or in the address-in-reply, I will deal with the GST in some simple detail now in the time left to me. I will start by quoting from a general background paper on this vast ream of bills before us. The background paper indicates that Dr Neil Warren, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of New South Wales, is an acknowledged expert—acknowledged by the government and the community—and gives a useful definition of the GST. It is useful because it is very simple, very clear and very direct. Professor Warren said:A GST is a tax which is levied on goods and services consumed by domestic households. While the tax is collected at each stage in the production and distribution process, a credit is given for the GST on inputs and refunds are given for GST on exports. As a result, only households bear the tax.It is very simple, very clear and very stark, and the last point is a key point that the Labor Party has underlined.This is a regressive tax on Australian families and Australian households. The coalition is firmly in support of the GST because it takes virtually all input tax off all business in Australia. It puts the entire burden of the indirect tax system almost uniformly on Australian households.This proposal has had a long history. The Treasurer presented the 16 or so bills abbreviated as ANTS—A New Tax System for Australia—and he stressed that this was a new and supposedly vital way of going about things. In fact, this is a return to the past, a return to the European Economic Community, a return to the models that were operative in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed in 1975 the Asprey committee report recommended that a value added tax of 10 per cent be brought in. They also recommended a range of other things such as capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax. They said there should be a European style value added tax at 10 per cent. That was back in 1975—24 years the Treasurer has cast back into history for the preferred model. A lot has happened in the interim. That was not taken up by the Whitlam government. It was looked at by the Fraser government.In 1977 the Fraser government launched their fistful of dollars campaign, where massive tax cuts were promised to the Australian people. Just as I started this speech by saying that if you metaphorically shook hands with the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong, you would have to be careful and count your fingers after it, the Australian electorate discovered in 1978 when the budget was brought down when John Howard was Treasurer that all of those tax cuts were taken away—they disappeared into the ether. I do not think they were meant in the first place but they helped to gull the electorate.In 1981 the then Treasurer, who never could get anything substantial through cabinet and who is now acting retrospectively to try to make up for his whole career as Treasurer, rejected the Asprey committee recommendations in a further report that had been put forward. And they laid out fairly clearly that there are three simple solutions when you are looking at expanding tax in the indirect area. The first is to extend the existing wholesale tax to additional goods and some services. The second is a general retail sales tax. The third is a value added tax imposed at all stages of production and distribution of goods and services. They are three things that have been looked at over time.We note that right now the Prime Minister has gone back to that value added tax at 10 per cent. What did he say in 1981 in regard to it? I quote from the Bills Digest:Mr Howard said that `a multi-stage VAT was rejected fairly quickly because it would have imposed an enormous paper work burden on both taxpayers and collecting authorities.'It is not 1981, it is 1999, but that same point holds true all these years later. It does involve an enormous paperwork burden on both taxpayers and collecting authorities. And although it is projected as being efficient it is in fact very inefficient in those areas. He rejected a general retail sales tax which was put forward in 1985 by another Treasurer, saying it involved `a very expensive licensing system, and the necessity for a significant increase in the number of taxpaying units'. So in 1981 Mr Howard went to his third preferred base. He said:. . . if the indirect tax base was to be broadened, the simplest method would be to extend the existing wholesale sales tax to some goods now exempt and to impose a tax on selected services.To make up for his want of a concerted position and his inability to push through what we have been told is his underlying preferred approach he opted for just an extension of that existing system. But he gave a further point, and this one is critical. It was critical then, when in 1981 the current Prime Minister as Treasurer had taken inflation to heights we had not seen before, when he took unemployment to heights we had not seen before—into double digits. At that time he said that the fundamental reason underlying the government's decision not to proceed with a greater reliance on indirect taxes `was its concern at the impact on inflation and inflationary expectations of any significant shift towards reliance on indirect taxation'. That was true in 1981, and it is true in 1999.The Treasurer, Mr Costello, on the basis of Treasury advice, has said that there will be only a 1.9 per cent inflation effect. We know, particularly from the material that has been brought before the Senate, that it is far more likely to be a four to five per cent inflationary effect and that the compensation mechanisms that have been proposed will not in fact be able to deal with this massive change in the indirect tax system. So in 1981 the Treasurer—then Mr Howard—preferred just an extension of the wholesale sales tax system. He has now turned to his really preferred model, and his really preferred model can still be seen as having the main disadvantages that there were in 1981: the fact that it was administratively burdensome and that it would have an impact on inflation and on inflationary expectations.Even in a low inflationary environment largely the result of Labor's last years in office, even in that environment, that situation is still true. This government has not proposed a fair, simple, straightforward set of tax changes. Those tax changes could have been made, and they could have been simple, fair, direct, straightforward and equitable. This GST proposal, the bills that are currently before the Senate, are none of those things and they should be rejected. (Time expired)16:58:003225Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—In speaking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99, and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 today, I point out that we in North Queensland are in very necessitous circumstances as a result of the protracted flooding and the continuous—now over a three-year period—series of cyclonic conditions and very heavy rainfall. The net result of this recent disaster has been that in large areas of North Queensland—Far North Queensland, I would emphasise—some 20 per cent of the cane has been seriously damaged, maybe as much as 30 per cent has fallen over and will have very low sugar content. Subsequently the growers will get very little return for the cane that they will harvest later in the year.In the banana industry, there have been massive losses. Probably 50 or 60 per cent of production in Far North Queensland, which represents about 80 per cent of Australia's production, will be lost. There will be no production for another six or seven months. Because all the trees that had banana bunches on them have fallen over, it will take that much time for the smaller trees to become big enough to grow bunches and then to have the bunches yield. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, as you are most familiar with, and one of the great champions of, the banana industry, you would understand what I am saying. The losses will be such that there will be no production for another seven or eight months.It proves the great importance of the New South Wales industry to Australia, because we would be under terrific pressure to bring in bananas from overseas if it were not for the resilience of the New South Wales industry. That is a position which has been held on many occasions in Far North Queensland and, I might add, Mr Deputy Speaker, somewhat as a result of your own endeavours and visits to Far North Queensland, during which you have put forward that proposition, and it has been listened to.We need access to social security payments. If these people have no money, they should have the same right to receive social security payments as all other Australians. I do not refer simply to farmers but to the other follow-on industries that are intimately involved, such as the transport industry and others.The natural disaster provisions have been triggered. They should be flowing through as expeditiously as possible. I am very familiar with the exceptional circumstance provision, because I represent areas that have been ravaged by drought. What happens is that we get no rainfall, the grass loses nutrition, the cattle and sheep do not grow, and therefore we have the terrible ravages and losses that drought entails.On the coast, where we have too much rain, the sugar level in the cane—the nutritional level—falls dramatically and we have exactly the same phenomenon that occurs with drought in the western areas, which are exceptional circumstance areas. So the exceptional circumstance provision should be flowing into these areas in exactly the same way that occurs when there is drought in the western areas.The honourable member for Dawson and I are well aware of the phenomenon of falling sugar content in cane. It is not just a phenomenon which is occurring because of the present circumstances; it has been very seriously exacerbated at the moment but it has been occurring for some time and it needs a more detailed, in-depth approach.Agricultural industries are being driven into the usual cycle of droughts, fire, flood and devastation of various types, including the world market devastation which occurs when the world price for a commodity drops abysmally. This is the first time in Australia's history that we have been driven into these situations since King O'Malley introduced the Commonwealth Bank in 1902. To date, we have had special help banks available to us which have provided us with finance to get through these difficult periods.If we are asked to work in a free market, we can ride the roller-coaster; let there be no doubt about that. The very great and famous Sir Joseph McEvoy, probably the greatest agricultural leader that this country has seen during this century, would say to me, as a young member of parliament, again and again, `Every single time in Australia's history that an agricultural industry has borrowed money, they have paid back every single cent of those borrowings.' In other words, in the long term, we are always viable, but in the short term, we can incur massive losses that are losses not only to us but to the Australian nation.Before Mr Keating and Mr Kerin abolished the minimum price scheme for wool, we were getting $6,000 million a year for our wool; after their cavalier and irresponsible actions, we were getting $3,000 million a year for our wool. We are being asked to carry those massive losses. The net result is that, even if the price for wool were to come back, we only have 60 per cent of the sheep numbers that we had in those days. Our cattle numbers are down by 30-odd per cent on what they were 12 or 15 years ago. So not only is the country losing money because individual farmers are losing money but there are collective losses to Australia because the sheep and cattle herds that were once there are no longer there. In a lot of the cane farming areas, I suspect we will see them running cattle again, which produces nothing like the sort of wealth that they are producing at present, because a lot of cane farmers are simply going to fall over. They will not be able to continue; they will not be able to plant and carry on their activities.In agriculture, not only do we have this roller-coaster that we have to ride but the point must be made with as much force as I can muster that when we ride the down side of the roller-coaster there is an extra down side added to it because we have to carry interest rates. So the bottom curve is exaggerated by the interest rates that have to be added to it, but the top curve is truncated by taxation. So we have a truncated top curve of the roller-coaster and an elongated bottom curve.I mention some of the great leaders we have had in Australia: King O'Malley, Edward Theodore, Ben Chifley, John McEwen and Bjelke-Petersen. As I mentioned previously, the Commonwealth Bank was set up by King O'Malley. The Commonwealth Development Bank was set up by Artie Fadden, another great leader of the party to which I belong. PIBA and the AIDC were set up by John McEwen. In my state, QIDC was added by the Bjelke-Petersen government. God was kind enough to allow me a small part in the formation of that great bank which, sadly, operated only for two or three years before the Goss government commercialised it and flogged it off as part of the economic rationalist policies of the opposition in this place. Of course, one of the major reasons why they are the opposition in this place is those policies.At the present time, the government can borrow money at around five per cent and is borrowing money at around five per cent. If a special help bank existed, that money could be parcelled out to people in Far North Queensland who are on their knees, people who are producing ordinarily about $1,500 million worth of sugar and horticultural production for our nation. These people could be given a fair go. All they are asking is to access money at around five per cent.When I walked down a main street in Brisbane the other day, I noticed there are advertisements all over the place for money around five per cent for housing in Brisbane. So the money is out there for that purpose. But when these people try to access it, they are told, `No, you don't pay five per cent; you pay eight, nine, 10 per cent. That's what you pay.' Because a lot of them are now in questionable circumstances, you can rest assured there will be a 2½ per cent imposition upon that.So we have the government able to borrow money at five per cent, able to pass it out to these people at five per cent, and yet they have to borrow money at figures around 10 per cent. We are not asking the government for any taxpayers' money. We are not asking, from these appropriations, that money be taken from anyone else and given to us; we are just asking that we be able to access the same terms and conditions as the householder in Brisbane.When we set up the QIDC, we did very extensive research and study. It was very interesting that the three departments involved—my own department, the Department of Primary Industries and the Premier's Department—all said that over a 12- or 13-year time frame the safest sector of lending was agricultural lending. If you know what you are doing it is safer even than housing lending. Once again, we are not asking for any special treatment; all we are asking for is a fair go. Now all of those banks have been sold off, flogged off, corporatised and gotten rid of, so we do not have any of those banks any more. We need access to cheap, long, low interest loans.When we had the floods in Brisbane, there was no difficulty in finding $70 million or $80 million at the drop of a hat. Even in Alice Springs a very substantial amount of money was handed out immediately by the government. If we are talking about $200 million being freed up for these people, then the interest at five per cent would be $10 million a year. If we subsidised that to the tune of $5 million, then those people would be able to have interest at 2½ per cent and they would be much more relaxed.I quote Delmo Tarditi, Chairman of the Canegrowers Council at Tully, who—before we got back on the helicopter, and I thank Minister Vale and Gavan O'Connor from the opposition for visiting the area—said, `Even if we don't get any money, people are so desperately scared and frightened and morale is at such a low ebb that even the very presence of the minister and the spokesman for the opposition is of great importance to us.' I say that not because Delmo wanted us to visit there but because he was emphasising just how extremely serious is their plight.In addressing the appropriations today, it seems to me that we constantly do structural things down here, such as the GST, which—and I have heard the arguments—may be a very good thing for Australia. But it is our job to make the cake bigger. John McEwen, in one of his landmark speeches in this House said, `The job of government is to provide jobs for its people.' When Edward Theodore wrote to Ben Chifley when he became Prime Minister of Australia, he said, `Ben, please, the job of government is, above all else, to provide jobs for its people.'In North Queensland—I cannot speak with authority for other parts of Australia—we have 126 million megalitres of rainfall run-off on the inland of the northern half of Queensland. I emphasis the inland, not the superwet belt where it rains all the time. To put that in perspective, the Murray-Darling system, which produces over 40 per cent of Australia's entire agricultural production, has only 20 million megalitres of water. So the inland part of my colleague the member for Dawson's electorate, the inland part of my own electorate, and the inland part of the member for Leichhardt's electorate have 126 million megalitres of water, and the Murray-Darling, producing nearly half of Australia's agricultural production, has only 20 million megalitres of water.You can get on the great inland black soil plain that starts at Blackall and Barcaldine and you can go for 1,200 kilometres north on that plain. There are hardly any trees, it is as flat as a billiard table and it has rich, fertile black soil. Between Hughenden and Cloncurry it is 600 kilometres wide and it hits the gulf between Normanton and Burketown where it is still 300 or 400 kilometres wide.Where there are arguably 40,000 farmers in the Murray-Darling, we have five farmers. I know them all. I could give their names to the House. I know all five of those brave little heroes up there. Recently when I was at the airport in Cairns, there were three Indonesian businessmen visiting and the new deputy head of the Department of State Development in Queensland in the new Beattie government was there. He wanted me to speak to them. I was very busy but he insisted, so I spoke to them.To cut a long story short, they said that they would like very much to be able to do some prawn processing. Then they elaborated and said that they would really like to do some prawn farming. The said, `Would there be any part of the Queensland coastline in Far North Queensland, say north of Cairns, that would not be developed which we could use for this purpose?' I found that I could not look them in the eye. I found myself looking at the floor. I was ashamed and embarrassed because, out of that 3,700 kilometres of coastline, there are 10 kilometres that are developed, that is, Weipa and the port of Karumba.On the same length of coastline, Thailand is producing $4,000 million of prawn product alone. The reason I could not look these people in the eye is that they come from a country where 100 million people will go to bed not hungry tonight but starving. A mere few hundred kilometres away—of course, western New Guinea is part of Indonesia—there are 130 million megalitres of water, hardly a single drop of which is being used, and there are 1,200 kilometres of plain about 400 or 500 kilometres wide on average not being used, except for about 200 or 300 acres of it. Yet here they are saying, `Please could we open up some prawn farming on this coastline?' They asked if any of it was being used. Not a single kilometre, except for those 10 with the two ports, is being utilised at all.What we people of North Queensland can provide for Australia on those figures is at least $10,000 million worth of agricultural irrigation production from those river systems, that giant inland plain and projects such as those spoken of enthusiastically by the member for Dawson. They include the Urana Dam project, which I know is an excellent project; the Hells Gate stem; and in my own electorate the Ravenshoe Dam and the Richmond Dam. We can produce for you $10,000 million a year very easily, with minimal input of funds.There is another site there which we have been approached about for the production of salt. I was quite staggered at the figures because from that area—which is about 70,000 acres and only varies about a metre or two metres in height and depth; it is as flat as a billiard table and it runs into the gulf—it would be fairly easy to produce $4,000 million dollars worth of salt. The silicon deposits at Shelbourne Bay have already been found by the mines and energy department to be worth $5,000 million a year to the Australian economy. The ethanol, which I spoke of in another place today, would be worth $1,000 million if it were put in as an additive to petrol to replace the lead. It is a much cheaper additive than the additives they are using at present. Prawn and fish farming, on the Thailand experience, would be worth $4,000 million a year.Then there are the various mines that have been delayed. We just got news that Valhalla, the uranium mine at Mount Isa, has been knocked on the head by the Beattie government. The aluminium processing, which is pending and which would probably benefit the member for Dawson's area, the stainless steel plant, Valhalla, and Century all add up to another $2,000 million. I have just run over projects that are worth $27,000 million a year, every single year, forever to the Australian economy. We are not plucking figures out of the air here; these are things that have been researched in depth by the best engineering companies that Australia has produced. I am sure that other parts of Australia can come up with similar figures for their areas as well, most certainly the north of Western Australia.I would like to conclude by reading a statement which was prepared by Ernie Bridge, the very famous President of the Watering Australia Foundation and a very great Australian, and me. It says:That our country's great rivers should, on their journey to the sea, pay a small tribute to those people living along their banks. This great land of ours provides for its people the opportunity of properly developing their talents, both their natural assets and the great richness of character that God has given each and every one of them. That Australia becomes a bigger and more fascinating world, a world of wonder, hope and excitement. That we again unleash the wonderful aspirations and dreams that took our forefathers tens of thousands of miles away from their homes towards adventure and a new and bigger dream. That we affirm again that we are the descendants of a brave-hearted, enterprising and intrepid people. That we are the descendants of people who faced the misery of hardship and oppression and that who, in spite of it all, survived and prospered. That we are descendants of people who looked out through the narrow, grimy windowpanes of the old world to a clear, shimmering, golden vision of what might be.(Time expired)17:18:003229Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I am actually sorry that I will only have about 10 minutes in this appropriations debate to speak because I would like to take the opportunity to speak on two related matters having a direct impact on the Commonwealth Department of Defence. They are both matters of the gravest concern and were brought to my attention by Paul and Marie Stokes of Lindum, in my electorate of Bowman. As well as being my constituents and electors of my seat, I am proud to be able to call them good friends of mine.These issues concern the Department of Defence at its very core. This is entirely appropriate as the Stokes family is a great military family. Each of their children has worn an Australian uniform with pride. Their eldest daughter is a captain in the Army Reserve, their son is a petty officer with the Royal Australian Navy and their second daughter is married to an Air Force officer. Their baby, Clare Frances Stokes, aged 18, of Lindum was a senior cadet under-officer with the 12th Regional Cadet Unit based out of Camp Hill in Brisbane. She was a level one instructor with the Australian Army Rifle Association and very nearly a licensed pilot through the cadet flying program sponsored by the Army Aviation Regiment.She was all of these things and more. She was a fine musician, a strong chorister and a first-year university student just completing her first semester when she met her death in a single vehicle accident on a sandy road 300 kilometres west of Cairns on the Cape York Peninsula at 20 past one in the morning on Friday, 20 June 1997.Clare Stokes's death was a tragedy. It was a waste and an entirely avoidable consequence of gross stupidity, carelessness and reckless behaviour. I would like to explain to the House just why the defence department must hold an open board of inquiry into her death without further delay.Three Army officers knocked on Paul and Marie Stokes's front door at 7 o'clock on a Friday morning. Their daughter had recently left home for a weekend long cadet survival camp on Cape York Peninsula. The Army officers told her parents that Clare had been killed instantly when a vehicle had crashed and rolled over at Bulimba Station outside Chillagoe 5½ hours earlier.They also told Paul and Marie that a number of other cadets had been injured and had been transported to the Cairns Base Hospital. In the months ahead, Clare's parents learned more about her death from media reports and press coverage than they did from the defence department. Clare died on Friday, 20 June 1997, almost 20 months ago. The next official communication Paul and Marie Stokes received from the defence department was the investigating officer's report on the incident. It arrived at their home on Friday, 8 January this year—a mere five or six weeks ago. Do you know how extensive the defence department's investigation had been? The report was barely eight pages in length.Paul and Marie Stokes wrote back to Minister Bruce Scott within 48 hours listing the errors that they themselves knew about. And yet Paul Stokes had told the Courier-Mail newspaper on the day of his daughter's death, `It's just one of those terribly unfortunate things that happen.' He did not blame anyone. How could he? He knew nearly none of the facts. The Stokes family knew that Clare had been decapitated and they knew that five other people had been rushed to Cairns Base Hospital. They thought six people had been involved in total. That was all they knew.It was only at the first hearing of the coronial inquest at Mareeba in Far North Queensland on 7 July last year—over 12 months after Clare's death—that the Stokes learned that 24 Army cadets from five separate units were involved in that exercise. Two vehicles had been involved. The second one, with eight people on board—five cadets and three officers—followed some minutes behind the first vehicle. The first vehicle was a 1989 Toyota Landcruiser utility carrying 16 people. Two people sat in the cabin with broken seat belts and 14 people sat on top of their packs on the tray.It was announced at the final session of the coronial inquest two weeks ago that the vehicle had only one headlight, which was misaligned, almost no suspension or shock absorbers, and that the rear brakes and handbrake had been disconnected. On an exercise the previous year, the same vehicle had been run into a tree to stop it when the brakes failed—and yet it was still being used. It was carrying almost two tonnes, nearly double its capacity, on a sandy road in the middle of the night at between 40 and 60 kilometres per hour after they had been travelling for 20 hours since the previous morning. Despite early reports in the days following Clare's death, alcohol was involved. These are the facts. They are without dispute.Mr Deputy Speaker, here is where I should be a little careful. Coroner Gary Casey charged three people with manslaughter, and they are due to face court on 27 April. It is not my place to attribute blame. I merely want to know the truth, and Mr and Mrs Stokes want to know the truth. What I have told you is already on the public record, having come before the Coroner's Court at Mareeba on 7 July last year, at Mount Isa on 3 August last year, at Chinchilla on 13 October last year, and at Brisbane on 3 and 4 February this year. According to the Stokes family and the coroner's records, the defence department was not represented at the inquest hearings in Mareeba, Mount Isa or Chinchilla. I am not sure if they attended in Brisbane.After the third session at Chinchilla, Paul and Marie Stokes started writing to Prime Minister Howard, to Defence Minister Moore, to Senator Ron Boswell, to Major-General Mike Keating, who is the commander of Training Command Army, to me and to many other elected and public figures. They sought an open board of inquiry from the Army into Clare's death. The only formal communication they had received at that time since their daughter's death was three Army officers standing on their doorstep at seven in the morning some 15 months earlier. The civil authorities acted. The Queensland State Coroner held an inquiry in four towns over a period of seven months, finally laying criminal charges.It could have finished sooner than that, but Paul and Marie Stokes asked for the Brisbane session to be delayed from 14 December last year until early this year. Why did they do that? Because by early December last year they had still received no written details from the defence department. Major-General Keating wrote on 29 October but could not comment. He explained to Paul and Marie Stokes that he had asked the minister's office to release the completed investigating officer's report to the coroner and to the police. Meanwhile, Minister Moore had passed the issue on to Minister Scott.On 21 December—two full months later and four days before Christmas—Minister Scott's office told the Stokes family that they were waiting until the minister returned from holidays on 18 January to approve release of the eight-page report. I grudge no-one their holidays, particularly my friend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, but I understand this report had been finalised at least two full months before the minister left Canberra. According to written advice from the commander of the Training Command Army, it was some two months before he left Canberra that that report was available. Why did Minister Scott let this report lie on his desk for at least two months?Two days later, the minister's office changed direction. On 23 December Paul and Marie Stokes were told the investigating officer's report was in the post. On the morning of Friday, 8 January they received an envelope postmarked from Canberra on Wednesday, 6 January—not 23 December. It contained a two-page letter from Minister Scott advising that the report had only been released to them and to the coroner—please don't show it to anyone else, the letter said. They could not have shown it even if they had wanted to, because the report was not attached. It was not until my office got onto Minister Scott's office that eventually they received it.This comedy of errors added pain to an already difficult day, because Friday, 8 January 1999 would have been Clare Stokes's 20th birthday. Minister Scott has offered his written condolences to the Stokes family, and the letter arrived at their family home last Friday, some six days ago. He also offered his condolences verbally on the Carolyn Tucker program.Time is going to beat me and there are a number of things I want to say. I will say them at a later time when I am able to resume this speech. But for the time being I call upon the minister to call an open board of inquiry immediately into the circumstances leading to the death of Senior Cadet Under-Officer Clare Francis Stokes on Friday, 20 June 1997. Furthermore, I call on the minister to ensure that this open board of inquiry is fully resourced by the defence department. To do otherwise would be to perpetuate the grief and pain of the Stokes family and to turn a blind eye to the reckless way in which some units of the Australian Cadet Corps seem to be run at present.I understand that only yesterday two brigadiers advised that they will be visiting Mr and Mrs Stokes this Sunday. I just want to let them know that they are not going to smooth things over with the Stokes. The Stokes want a full, open board of inquiry to understand how their daughter died. I can tell you that they will pursue this issue for a long time to come.Finally, before my time expires today, I want to commend the local newspaper, the Wynnum Herald, and its senior journalist Jackie Miller for being prepared to bring this out in the public arena as they have. I will take up the balance of this matter at some later stage.Adjournment323110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. 323217:30:003232Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—Today we have seen the government's true colours revealed on the rights of workers in this country. We have seen Minister Reith's document that spells out, in all its mean and sneaky glory, how this government sees the future for workers in Australia. It is a future where wages and conditions will be at the whim of employers, awards will be meaningless and the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as the protector of decent living standards for workers in Australia will be abolished. I think it is great that the government has been forced to let the rest of us in on its secret plan. They are the sorts of tactics, backed by the minister and carried out by his mates, whether they are wearing balaclavas or pinstriped suits, that I want to talk about today.Australian workers do not have to look very far to see what their lives will be like under Mr Reith's plan. We are seeing it in the Central Queensland coalmining industry right now at mines like Gordonstone and Blair Athol where the companies in charge, Arco and Rio Tinto, have pursued an aggressive and counterproductive anti-union policy. It is a policy in which ideology rules—ideology over and above any respect for the rightful place of the legal institutions within the industrial relations system in this country, ideology over and above cooperative reforms to improve productivity and ideology over and above any concern for the damage and division generated in the communities where the miners and their families live.In the workplace culture promoted by this government, the only way a worker can be sure of keeping his or her job is to renounce their right to be a member of a trade union. Their performance in their job is irrelevant. Their value as a worker comes down to whether or not they are prepared to renounce that union membership—a right, I might add, that is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.The long-running dispute at the Gordonstone mine is a classic example of where this obsession with de-unionising the work force leads to. In 1996 Arco was happy to report on the record breaking production levels achieved by its unionised work force. The next year, following the introduction of Mr Reith's new industrial relations laws, the story changed and suddenly a non-union work force on individual contracts was the only answer. When the miners refused to cop such an illogical insult—that somehow, by definition, as union members they could not possibly be cooperative and productive workers—Arco dismissed all 312 workers at the mine.The Industrial Relations Commission has since ruled those sackings to be unfair and the matter is subject to an appeal to the Federal Court. Arco has consistently defied the commission's rulings by refusing to recommence production with the former work force. At the same time, 16 miners from Rio Tinto's Blair Athol coalmine are giving evidence before the Industrial Relations Commission seeking reinstatement following their sacking last July, only days after the government's award stripping legislation came into force.I am not here today to prosecute the union's case. I will leave that to the proper legal forums. What I want to do is breathe life into the government's policy—to give it meaning and names and faces. When I look at the results of the government's industrial relations experiment, I do not see flexibility and productivity and all those Disneyland catchwords. The government's industrial relations agenda, as carried out by the likes of Arco and Rio Tinto, has meant for the mining communities in Central Queensland division, insecurity and intimidation by security guards staking out miners and their families in their homes.I see miners with 20 years of experience being sent out to pull weeds for months on end in 40-degree heat just because they want to stay represented by their union. I see other experienced miners applying for their old jobs and not even receiving acknowledgment of their applications. I see miners and their families having to pack up and leave towns that have been their homes for many years.Meanwhile, Arco packs up and goes back to America without a care for what it left behind in Emerald. And Rio Tinto, for all its crying poor and criticism of unions, reports a 37 per cent increase in coal production and a full year profit of around $2 billion in Australian terms. Mr Speaker, I table a report from the Financial Review which documents that profit figure. Meanwhile, the mine that is literally across the road from Gordonstone—Crinum operated by BHP—has worked with its unionised work force to reach agreement on changed work practices. BHP's mines are reported as achieving an improvement in the tonnes of coal produced per employee.Meanwhile, it has been the workers and their union, the CFMEU, that have consistently sought to resolve these matters through due process before the appropriate legal and industrial forums that have served this country for almost a century. The companies, on the other hand, seek to use corporate and emotional trickery to undermine the legitimate decisions of the legal system. When Australians look at what is happening in the coalmining industry, I say to them: do not be tricked by the government's rhetoric. Do not judge this on the basis of whether or not you support unions. The question is whether you support fairness and equity in the workplace rather than blind prejudice and absolute power. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I deliberately did not interrupt the member for Capricornia in her speech, but in fact it is not possible to simply table a document; you need leave to do so. You can, if you wish, show it to the parliamentary secretary at the table but, if it is something that can be read, it will in fact not be able to be tabled because it could have been read into Hansard . If she wishes to seek leave to table it, I will consider that at the end of the adjournment debate.323317:36:003233Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I wish to draw to the attention of the House a very special event that occurred on Australia Day in my electorate of Moore. I had the pleasure of recognising 15 worthy recipients of the inaugural Mal Washer Community Contribution Awards at a very pleasant, albeit hot, ceremony on the Australia Day public holiday. These people came from all walks of life and represented many age groups and occupations. However, they all shared a common trait, this being their strength of character by wanting to help others in their community by voluntarily giving their time and energy, so making them outstanding Australians. I believe it is no accident that we live in such a lucky country. It is the volunteers in our community that really make it so. In these fast-moving and often tumultuous times, it is becoming more important to take a step back and pause for a minute to give these people a pat on the back and just say, `Thanks.'Of course, it is in the very nature of our volunteers that they do not often seek praise and recognition for their efforts—they are quiet achievers. It is for this reason that I would also like to thank those people who nominated these volunteers. The recipients this year were Ann Jackson of Duncraig, Nick Cavie of Merriwa, Audrey Harris-Brown of Currambine, Walter Grubb of Kallaroo, Eve Sadler-Witham of Mindarie, Peter De-Rijcke of Merriwa, Dale Lings of Burns, Graham Hailstones of Yanchep, Joy Coleman of Heathridge, Jacyntha Gannaway of Yanchep, Tony Moloney of Clarkson, Jennifer Spence of Connolly, William Sanders of Ocean Reef and Tom Smith of Two Rocks.323317:38:003233Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It gives me great pleasure to speak tonight in the adjournment debate. I would like to do something that we do not often get the opportunity to do in this place and that is to pay homage to parents. In this case, I want to pay homage to my mother, who died recently. It is not commonly known that I was the first person born in the ACT to serve in this parliament. My mother was born in the ACT. She was born in Canberra in 1927—the year the first Parliament House opened. She was one of 11 children. Her family came to Canberra as part of pioneer families to establish the Canberra community. Her family lived and worked around the Causeway. For those of you who do not know the Causeway, it is a small community just near the railway station. It was built as a construction camp for people participating in the building of Can berra. My mother went to the local primary school and to St Christopher's Catholic Church in Manuka. She was a child of the Depression. Her father was a manual worker and each of her brothers and sisters was educated in the same way—she spent 12 months during her childhood living away in the country.In 1948 or thereabouts she met my father and they were married. My father came from Victoria—Greta, Kelly country, via Geelong. They got together and I was fortunate enough for them to produce me. I think that was a wise choice on their part.The point I want to make is that we have condolence motions in this place for fine prominent Australians; we very rarely pay homage to those Australians we should pay homage to and they are our families, our parents and our friends.My mother was brought up in Canberra and she moved from the Causeway to Narrabundah. Her home, where she died, was five kilometres from where she was born. That is quite unusual in modern Australia. The importance of Canberra then as a village and now as a community was clear from the number of people at her funeral service who were from the Causeway. The Causeway is a very important place in Canberra's history. Many of the people working around Parliament House and servicing us—drivers, attendants, the people who make this place function—come from the Causeway or their parents come from the Causeway.I do not think that my mother had ever entered Parliament House until the day I was elected in 1987, although she worked as a copy person for many years transcribing Hansard in the old printing office. I think many people who live in Canberra or who are brought up in Canberra have never entered Parliament House.What is clear is the strength of spirit that they had as a community. That was passed on to me and I hope I will pass it on to my children. I do not want to get into a political debate, but it is a bit offensive at times to hear the unctuous comments that come from the government when they talk about people from trade union backgrounds. My mother and father were workers; they were trade union members. My father certainly was an active trade union member in his later life. I am proud of it. But most of all they were humble people. My mother was a humble person. Her brothers and sisters, the strength of community she had and her family were what gave her the drive to survive the years she did, even though she lived in much pain. Unfortunately, she died on Christmas Eve, just prior to the time we were planning to go away on a holiday together. I want to use this opportunity to say thank you to her and to all those like her.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House sympathises with the member for the Northern Territory and reflects on the fact that his remarks echo similar remarks made by the member for Bowman earlier this week.323417:43:003234Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I also pass on my condolences to the member for the Northern Territory. We never realise how grateful we are to our parents until they have left us. I stand tonight to acknowledge the enormous contribution made by another great Australian, Neville Bonner. Neville Bonner achieved many, many things in his lifetime and his work towards peace for all Australians was enormous.Many people in this House would know him and can attest to the contribution he made while he served in the Senate for 12 years. I have known Neville for many years, mainly through membership of the Liberal Party. But I also knew about his past. I was brought up with Aboriginal people on Moreton Island. Many stories went around about Neville before I actually met him. The respect he had in Dunwich and on Stradbroke Island was enormous. I learnt about his start in life on the Tweed River, having been born under a tree. I learnt about how he had only three years of education and how he worked in a lot of places around Australia—ringbarking camps and so forth. He had a very tough beginning, but he fought on and soared to great heights to achieve a position as senator.What I remember most about him was his contribution to the Liberal Party behind the scenes. Our Queensland members in here will not forget that it was about this time last year that he and the Prime Minister were on stage when we gave an award to former Senator Bonner. It was very emotional for the Prime Minister and for Neville Bonner, but he appreciated that we appreciated the many contributions he had made to the Liberal Party over the years.I got to know Neville even better when he became patron of the Rivermount College in my electorate. He served as patron of that school for nine years. He never missed a Foundation Day. He contributed enormously to that school. I met with him on many occasions and we discussed the benefits of looking after Australia and making sure that we all work together.I stand up here tonight because the people of Rivermount College—the college that he gave many hours to and was the patron of—sadly miss him. They wanted me to put on record their many thanks for the contribution he made to the school over the years. The head principal, Colin Young, has stated that for many students, parents and friends of the college, Mr Bonner's influence over the past nine years has been enormous. He said that Mr Bonner will live on in the hearts of the college and the community through his authentic demonstration of human dignity and the desire for genuine reconciliation.I am sure we all remember the words of Sir James Killen at Mr Bonner's funeral when he said, `I never heard a word of hate from him. I saw no evidence whatsoever of personal malice. He was, indeed, a gifted and graceful man.' I am sure everyone in this House will agree with that. I hope that with his passing Aboriginal people have learnt that the only way Australia is ever going to achieve and go forward is if we all work together as Australians. That is exactly what Neville told me he wanted for Australia.I would like to place on record a poem by Sally Bailey, a year 9 student of Rivermount College. At last year's Foundation Day, I had the pleasure of hearing Sally deliver this poem. I am sure she would be only too happy for me to read it into the record tonight. It says: Our friend, our patron who has taken much care of our College,an encourager, a man of excellence who freely shares his knowledge,a true supporter working with many hearts and hands,watching our school get better each day as Rivermount expands.Today, Dr Bonner joins us and our community has much to say,we are glad to see you here to celebrate our school's Foundation Day.Generous and kind are words to describe this wonderful man,I'd have to say Dr Bonner that Rivermount College is your number one fan.Your advice and support is so genuine and true,and from all of us at Rivermount College we'd like to say thankyou!But words cannot explain how much you have done,now Rivermount is booming and is in for the long run.You've taught our school how to take a big stride,in building bridges of harmony you have been a true guide.Loving together in peace is what we intend,to you Dr Bonner, our love we send.Loving, forgiving and healing brings life anew,and thanks to you Dr Bonner, you've made that dream come true.I would also like to say thank you, Neville, for the honour of knowing you and for the excellent service that you have given to this country and to our people. (Time expired)323517:48:003235Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I would like to note that, as a new member, it is not often that in this place you agree with, welcome and, indeed, are moved by the two contributions made before yours, but I have been on this occasion. I would like that noted.I rise to raise an issue of major importance to my electorate—an issue which I raised on the last sitting day last year—and that is the continuing appalling condition of the Princes Freeway which links Melbourne and Geelong. I noted on that occasion that the Herald Sun has consistently reflected community concern about the major safety problems posed by the poor design and poor condition of the freeway.It should be noted that since this House sat last year, there have been further accidents on the freeway and, indeed, there was a tragic loss of life on the freeway on Sunday, 24 February in the early hours of the morning. Two people were killed on the Maltby Bypass, which is in my electorate, in an accident in which five cars and 14 people were involved. Last Friday, I was in my electorate, having returned from this House to attend to electorate business. Unfortunately, I have no option but to travel regularly up and down the Princes Freeway because it bisects my electorate. That Friday was a day of fairly heavy rain in Melbourne and there were three major pile-ups on the Princes Freeway.There was a four-car crash just west of the western ring-road interchange. There was a five-car pile-up near the Grieve Parade off-ramp in Altona North, just outside my electorate, and a six-car collision occurred two kilometres east of the Altona North accident. It was a very bad day on the Princes Freeway in Victoria.Given the importance of this issue in my electorate and to the community in the west of Melbourne—and I would say to the community in Victoria generally—I have followed with some interest road funding announcements made in this House and in the media. I have noted with interest all of these announcements. I note that, in an answer to a question last week from the member for Page, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services said the following in relation to a road announcement about the Summerland Way in New South Wales:I can confirm that the Summerland Way was declared a road of national importance. I can advise him that we are still awaiting the completion of negotiations with New South Wales over a work plan . . .He said that the works—$20 million of promised federal funding—would proceed. I understand that that announcement was well and truly in the public domain before it was raised in this place, and one could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that there is a New South Wales election in the offing and that such announcements need to be made on more than one occasion.Having heard the minister utter those words in answer to a question last week, I have followed the matter up and have since ascertained that a New South Wales, government financed, $50 million five-year upgrade has begun on the Summerland Way. The first expenditure was in the 1995-96 financial year, and some $38 million has already been spent on work that has been performed. To the New South Wales government's $50 million, the Commonwealth government has committed $20 million over a period of four years. I understand that the first amount of that money has been spent in this current financial year and a sum of $2 million of Commonwealth funds has been expended.The Commonwealth money that has been allocated to the Summerland Way has been allocated as part of the Roads of National Importance Program. Given that I grew up in South Australia and now live in and represent a seat in Victoria, I cannot claim to be familiar with the Summerland Way, which runs between Grafton in New South Wales and the Queensland border. I certainly wish those commuters, businesses and ordinary people who will benefit from the upgrade all the luck in the world, but if the Summerland Way has attracted federal government funds and attention, it seems a great mystery to me why the Princes Freeway has not, especially when we look at the comparative statistics. The Summerland Way traffic varies from 25,000 vehicles per day at Grafton, through to 10,000 at Casino, and down to 2,000 to 3,000 at the Queensland border. The Princes Freeway carries 132,000 vehicles per day, with traffic volumes increasing at five per cent a year.The Summerland Way is economically important to the agricultural industry in that precinct. The Princes Freeway carries freight on the vital road link between Melbourne and Geelong, where the greatest concentration of transport infrastructure and industry account for almost 40 per cent of the nation's exports. On this basis, we ask for something more than the funding received for the Summerland Way: we ask for the Princes Freeway to be included in the national highway system, and we specifically ask for the Howard government to meet Labor's election commitment of putting $100 million of federal funds towards upgrading the Princes Freeway to match the $100 million coming from the Victoria government. (Time expired)323717:53:003237Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—Firstly, I would like to commend the honourable member for the Northern Territory for his thoughtful and very sensitive contribution. Antarctica is very important to Australia, and today is a very special day in the history of Antarctic exploration: 100 years ago today the first party to ever winter on the continent actually landed at Cape Adare. It was a British-funded Norwegian-led expedition, and they landed at the edge of Antarctica at Cape Adare, which is due south of New Zealand.The expedition was led by a Norwegian called Carsten Egeberg Borchgrevink. This was the first group ever to spend a winter on the Antarctic continent. The party included an Australian scientist, Louis Bernacchi, who was a Tasmanian physicist. He was so keen to go on this expedition to winter in Antarctica, and risk his life—as everybody who goes down there does—that he paid his own way to go to London so that he could leave with the expedition from the United Kingdom.Borchgrevink was born in Norway in 1864, but he lived in Australia for a great many years. He had actually visited Antarctica in 1894-95 with a party led by a gentleman called Henric Bull. When Borchgrevink was involved in setting up the expedition, he tried desperately to raise some funding here in Australia, but he had no luck at all. He then went to the UK and was very lucky. He obtained £40,000, which was pretty significant back then. It was not a very large sum, but it was a gift from publisher Sir George Newnes. So, even though it was not an enormous amount, it was enough to mount a small expedition with enough supplies and equipment for the Antarctic winter.There seemed to be some degree of jealousy within scientific circles in the United Kingdom at that time, and I think there are other examples of that if one looks back. A member of the Royal Geographic Society, Sir Clements Markham, claimed that Borchgrevink was incompetent and that the ship, the 531-tonne Southern Cross, was rotten. Well, it was not so rotten that it could not get to Antarctica and get back. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the Royal Geographic Society, of which Sir Clements Markham was a member, later sent Scott to the Antarctic.Borchgrevink's party left the United Kingdom on 23 August 1898 and went to Tasmania; they sailed from Hobart on 19 December 1898. Mr Speaker, having been to Antarctica with me, you would know about the pack ice, but other members may not. The expedition sailed from Hobart on 19 December, but they did not break out of the pack ice until mid-February—that is a very long time in that ice. They sighted the coast three days later and the next day, 18 February 1899, 100 years ago from today, they actually landed on Antarctica and started setting up their huts.The crew of the ship came ashore as well and worked with the expeditioners to erect the huts which would enable them to survive the winter. Almost immediately, gales and blizzards blew up and the ship had to use the full strength of its engines to save it going on the rocks. Of course the leader, Borchgrevink, and five others were marooned onshore without a single hut having been erected. Fortunately, they had a Scandinavian reindeer skin tent and a team of dogs. So they all got into the tent, with the dogs on top to keep them warm, and they all survived. The expedition had a 10-man wintering team and, until May, they involved themselves in coastal exploration, but then it got too dark. A zoologist, Nikolai Hanson, had a strange illness and died on 14 October, and he is buried at Cape Adare.I would like to take this opportunity not only to salute, as the Deputy Prime Minister would say, these first wintering expeditioners but also to pay tribute to the tremendous effort made by Australians and people of other nationalities, but particularly our people, who, over the decades, have wintered in Antarctica, undergoing extreme conditions but serving the best interests of humanity.323817:57:003238Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I rise to congratulate Steven Waugh on his appointment as captain of the Australian cricket team. Steven is a local Bankstown boy. He and his brother were raised in Panania and are true ambassadors for the Bankstown area. I recall seeing Steven and his brother some 17 years ago in local grade cricket; they were only 16 years of age and they basically flogged the Revesby Workers Club in a final and then trotted off to play grade for Bankstown.Steven and his brother are revered in the Bankstown area. They are statesmen of the highest order. I think that Steven's appointment, unanimously, as captain is a worthy one. From 111 tests his batting average is over 50. He has lifted his average in recent years from the low 30s. He has also taken 89 wickets. I think that Australia will be well served by Steven; he has impeccable credentials. He and his wife, Lynette, have a young daughter. I know that the family are very proud of them. We in Bankstown are proud of them.I suppose in sport they are a bit more fortunate than we are in politics because we tend to have divisions in the community, whereas those who represent Australia in sport have the whole community behind them. I was impressed with his press conference. Steven has had a few setbacks—at one stage he was dropped from the Australian cricket team. He did not drop his bundle; he came back with a vengeance.If one looks at his record in recent years, you can see that he has averaged over 65; he has basically been the mainstay. I wish him well with the Australian team in the West Indies. I think that he will serve the nation with distinction, as he has already.I know that out in Bankstown we are delighted that Bankstown boys are still making an impact on this nation. We are proud of Paul Keating, our former Prime Minister, but we are even prouder of Steven because there are no politics involved in that, just immense pride for the district. It is a worthy appointment. I congratulate him and his family and look forward to many years with Steven as a great captain.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:003238House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.1999-02-18Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.54 a.m.Statements by Members3239323921:54:003239Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I rise today on behalf of all the constituents who have contacted my office complaining about the health insurance premiums. These constituents believe that they have been duped, and that this government has not put forward the true picture of what was going to happen with the health insurance rebates. People who have had health insurance with companies such as NIB, Medicare, HCF and Government Employees Health Insurance have all contacted my office and been most upset by the government deceit.Add to that the fact that there has been this massive advertising campaign about health insurance and the fact that all Australians were to get the 30 per cent rebate. Australians were not advised of the fact that the previous rebate was to expire on 31 December last year and that this would reduce the amount of the premium reduction that they received. They are angry. Everyone believes that the government has not put forward the true picture to them and when they see advertisements saying, `Private health cover will now be 30 per cent cheaper for all Australians', they believe that this is a lie and very deceitful on the part of the government.It is 30 per cent if you are on a high income; it is 30 per cent if you can afford to pay for health insurance. But it is not 30 per cent if you are a pensioner. It is not 30 per cent if you are somebody who struggles to pay health insurance, like Mr and Mrs Stevens of Buff Point, who had their health insurance policy with HCF. Some constituents are very disturbed by the fact that there has been no decrease whatsoever. I have even had people contact the office complaining that their health insurance has gone up.I am sure members on both sides of the House have had complaints such as this: that this has been very unfairly represented. It has been put to people in a way that is very deceitful. At the most, people receive only a 23 per cent rebate increase, such as was received by Mr MacDonald of Whitebridge. There are people like Mr Callum and Mr Griffith. They are all with NIB. There have been so many complaints received that I think the government needs to look again at this health insurance rebate and get honest and tell all Australians the truth about the health insurance rebate. (Time expired)323909:57:003239Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—Recently I corresponded with the Minister for Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry regarding serrated tussock and the withdrawal of the herbicide Frenock from the market. The voluntary withdrawal of the herbicide Frenock has posed both environmental and agricultural problems in areas infested with serrated tussock as there is no suitable chemical alternative.Frenock is selective in taking out tussock at the lower recommended rates. It has been used for 25 years without any significant problems recorded. The herbicide Frenock will selectively kill serrated tussock readily at rates as low as 100 millilitres per hectare.Registration was granted to Frenock some 25 years ago under less stringent conditions than exist today. Recently a review of recommendations reduced the rates of application and refined application methods which also affected the economics of supply of the chemical.The greatest threat to the environment on the tablelands of New South Wales is serrated tussock, with almost one million hectares infested. There is a major expanding problem in Victoria and a small area infested in Tasmania. The Victorian Department of Agriculture estimates that the potential area of infestation is 32 million hectares in Australia based on climatic data. In non-arable areas, the weed is now uncontrollable without Frenock. The cost to agriculture is estimated at $60 million in control and lost production. There is no estimate of the environmental cost involving loss of native species or the social cost that can be attributed to many farmers who are suffering economic hardship as a result of marginal land, low wool prices and serrated tussock infestation compounding the problems of low returns.Serrated tussock has no nutritional value. One plant can produce 80,000 to 100,000 seeds and these seed heads can blow 30 to 50 kilometres downwind. If uncontrolled, the weed will develop into a monoculture that chokes out native species, thereby becoming a serious environmental problem. It is an insidious weed which is not easily recognised as a weed, and will grow in low fertility soils and low rainfall areas. As there is no suitable alternative chemical control—at recommended rates, glyphosate will kill everything, with no residual action on seedlings—it is imperative that we get Frenock back onto the market. There are a number of options: we approach Daiken—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills3240r6693240Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:003240Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The Labor Party is proud to have introduced, in 1990, the legislation which established the Australian Sports Drug Agency. The establishment of the agency was a world first—no other government on the globe had ever enshrined such a body in government legislation—and, since its inception, the drug agency has earned an exceptional international reputation. The opposition is enthusiastic to see that the agency maintains that very good reputation and, as such, we will be supporting the Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Bill 1998 . However, we note a few general concerns.The legislation brings into effect two key objectives which were identified as part of the review of the principal act conducted in 1997: first, a need to increase the flexibility of the agency in response to drug testing, procedural and policy requirements, and, second, the continued protection of athlete rights to natural justice and privacy. The 1997 independent review of the principal act outlined the need for a comprehensive review of the legislation to enable the agency to adequately meet the policy needs of the international sporting federations and national sporting organisations in relation to the provision of drug testing services. We cannot, however, be sure that this legislation provides adequately for all of that.The amendment bill is directed more towards some operational changes and the addition of new committees than the comprehensive reform which would enact the changes required for ASDA to continue to be at the forefront of antidoping agencies worldwide. The bill seeks to move operational and other provisions currently in the principal act to subordinate legislation, and establishes the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee. It would also enable the Australian Sports Drug Agency to provide services which test for the presence of substances that may affect competitors' judgment or their safety.The advisory committee's primary functions will be to provide expert medical advice to the sporting community and, importantly, will provide independent approval for the use of a prohibited substance where it finds the drug is necessary for a legitimate medical purpose. Members of the advisory committee will be professional appointees. But the opposition wants to put on the record its concern about the powers given to the minister, in the bill, over the appointment and dismissal of committee members. While it is necessary for there to be provisions within the legislation for members of government boards to be dismissed, it would be of grave concern if, because of this relationship, the committee's members were to become politicised.We are not proposing amendments with respect to this concern, because a strong element of bipartisanship is necessary, indeed critical, in this very important area of public policy. However, the opposition implores the minister to exercise these powers with due diligence and only on the most sound and serious advice, to ensure that the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee's members are immune to the politics of drugs in sport.The opposition is also concerned about the fact that there is no provision in the amendment bill for additional funding to facilitate the administration of the advisory committee. This will place additional weight on the already stretched budget of the agency, and that must be of concern to us all.The bill also establishes a mechanism for the exchange of information between the Australian Customs Service and the agency for the purposes of assisting with the agency's testing program and activities. The opposition therefore eagerly awaits the necessary complementary customs legislation to ensure it is both adequate and competent.It must be noted that the government intends to increase the level of administrative and coordination support services it provides to the agency in relation to the illegal importation of banned sporting drugs. Given this, the government must also address the issue of resourcing and ensure that adequate training regarding sports drugs is provided to Customs officials.The bill also provides a legislative framework for state and territory governments to enact complementary legislation that will enable the agency to undertake drug testing on competitors at the state level. While this is a positive step towards uniform antidoping procedures within Australia at both national and state levels and across most sports, it should be noted that this bill alone will not achieve this due to a requirement of the states to initiate that complementary legislation.The government must therefore ensure that it proactively encourages the states to engage in a state testing regime under the agency's umbrella. If it is found to be cost prohibitive for the states and their sporting bodies to participate then the federal government should provide that financial support. While the opposition has these general concerns that I have outlined, we will be supporting the bill. We think this is a very important area of public policy.I have to admit that when I was younger I used to drink and drive; in fact I probably drank and drove regularly—not an unexpected thing to do in those days. You did not mind approaching your friends, your mates or your football colleagues the next day to boast about how many schooners of beer you may have drunk last night and how you still drove home. It was something that would often gain almost the respect of your friends.I often think about prohibition and how it does not work. It has never worked under any circumstances. In my view, it is not because of random breath tests that we do not have so much drink-driving these days, but because it has become uncool to drink and drive. Young people these days do not go to the pub and boast to their mates about having drunk 20 schooners of beer the night before and still having driven home. If they did so, they would get something far removed from respect from their colleagues; they would attract the ire of their colleagues.In this society we have made it an uncool thing to drink and drive. In this society we have to make it an uncool thing to take drugs to enhance our sporting achievements. No other area of policy or area of society is more important than this, because today's young people look up to these people. If young people see these people enhancing their sporting abilities through the use of prohibited substances, we will see them doing the same.I cannot think of any other piece of public policy more important than this in that respect, and that is why the opposition is happy to be here supporting the legislation. I have outlined a few general concerns, but there can be no greater issue out there. We see too much in our newspapers these days about street crime and the use of illegal substances—all of those things that are causing so much decay in our society. We must ensure that the people our kids look up to most, our sporting heroes, are far removed from those influences, far removed from those temptations, and there could be no issue more worthy of bipartisan support than this one. I commend the bill to the House.10:08:003242May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I am pleased to support the Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Bill 1998 . In my view, drug cheating is the most serious issue facing Australian sport today and in the year leading up to the Sydney Olympics. It is referred to by high profile athletes such as Pat Rafter and Greg Norman as the ultimate sporting crime.Drugs have a devastating effect on sport. In the past 12 months a substantial number of prominent sportsmen and sportswomen have been disgraced in drug scandals around the world. At the beginning of last year headlines drew attention to how Australian Customs officials found human growth hormone in the bag of a Chinese swimmer travelling to Perth to compete in the world championships.The trend continued throughout the year with the Tour de France scandal. The Festina team was kicked out of the race following a discovery by Customs officers of a team loaded with banned substances. An Irish triple Olympic swimming champion was banned for four years for tampering with a urine sample. Last month, at the Australian Open Tennis Championships in Melbourne the Czech defending champion Peter Korda was criticised by those within the sport for being allowed to play, despite testing positive to an anabolic steroid at Wimbledon last year.As a journalist recently wrote in the Canberra Times, `The motto that it is better to be dead than second clearly still has support among some top-class competitors.' According to another report in the Canberra Times last month, Australian Customs reports show a rise in the detection of performance-enhancing drugs from 34 cases in 1991-92 to 571 in 1997-98, including 385 prohibited substances used for performance enhancement. The report states that the Australian Sports Drug Agency detected 15 positive results out of 1,351 tests carried out during the September quarter: eight for anabolic steroids in Australia and three overseas, three for stimulants and one for cannabis. For the same period in 1997, only three anabolic agents were found. During 1997-98, the agency detected a total of 33 positive findings, including 11 for anabolic agents, eight for cannabis and the rest for stimulants such as amphetamines. The agency made 4,313 tests during the year. The agency's chief executive, Natalie Howson, said last month that anabolic agents are a continuing problem in some sports.The only way forward is for the Australian government to continue taking a proactive approach to drugs in sport to stop the drug cheats. The Howard government has already made a significant contribution to the fight against drugs, both on the sporting field and in the streets, with the introduction of the highly successful Tough on Drugs campaign in 1997. The Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Bill 1998 will ensure that the Australian Sports Drug Agency is able to undertake its responsibilities effectively and adopt world's best practice when delivering drug testing services.I want to remind the House of the aims of this bill: to enable the Australian Sports Drug Agency to deliver an independent and high quality antidoping program for the Australian and international sporting communities; to enable the Australian Sports Drug Agency to be more flexible and adopt world's best practice when delivering drug testing services to national and international sporting organisations; to position the agency to service the needs of Australian sport well beyond the 2000 Olympics; to continue to maintain a strong focus on preservation of athlete rights and procedural fairness through the drug testing process; and to enable the creation of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee to provide assistance and expert medical advice to sport. As the minister for sport has informed us, the Australian sporting community has been fully consulted on these amendments, from the administrators of our peak national bodies to the elite athletes who are eligible for drug testing.The proposed amendments will ensure that Australia's antidoping regime is more effective in achieving its goals of combating use of performance-enhancing drugs and is fairer to athletes who are subject to drug testing. But the biggest advantage for the Australian community of introducing these amendments is that it will be tougher on drug cheats.How will the bill achieve the government's commitment to being tough on drug cheats? Firstly, the bill strengthens the ability of the Australian Sports Drug Agency to deal with positive test results registered by foreign athletes. If an international body chooses not to take any action against a sports man or woman who records a positive test result, the agency will be able to notify a relevant Australian sports body so that it may take action which it sees fit.Secondly, the bill gives the Australian Customs Service the capability to pass on information to the Australian Sports Drug Agency about prohibited imports which are also banned for use in sport. As a result, the agency will then have the ability to use this information to better plan its testing activities to achieve the best results. I note that within the amendments provisions have been made to protect the interests and rights of competitors to ensure that natural justice principles are available and applied to the drug testing by the agency.Thirdly, the bill allows for the formation of an Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee. The aim of this committee will be to provide scientific and medical expertise to support the Australian Sports Drug Agency's drug testing activities and the antidoping policies of national sporting organisations. The establishment of such a committee is strongly endorsed by the Australian sporting committee.Fourthly, the bill provides a framework for state and territory governments to enact state drug testing legislation which will enable the agency to undertake drug testing on state-level competitors. The bill will promote harmonisation of antidoping rules across all sports to provide a nationally consistent approach. It is anticipated that the agency will undertake an increasing number of tests on behalf of international sporting federations in the lead-up to next year's games.The amendments we are debating will enable the agency to apply best practice principles in complying with requests from all international sporting federations. It will also ensure that the agency has the capabilities to conduct specific drug testing services and safety checking services to such organisations under contract, on a user-pays basis.I am sure that the majority of Australians want what I want for this country in the sporting arena: fair play, for drugs not to destroy the fundamentals of sports excellence, healthy competition, and the chance for current competitors and our youth to achieve success on a level playing field. This bill will enable the Australian Sports Drug Agency to adopt world's best practice when delivering drug testing services.10:16:003244Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I wish to add my support to the Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Bill 1998 and congratulate the Hon. Jackie Kelly, Minister for Sport and Tourism, on an excellent and timely bill. This bill ensures Australian pride in a great sporting nation, where we can be secure in the knowledge that we are competing on equal and drug free terms. It also ensures the importance of athletes as role models. It is a great tribute to Australia to assist other countries in this goal. We have a total commitment from government and sporting organisations to stamp out drug usage.Australian athletes do it for themselves and for Australia, with their own natural abilities. Let it be clear not only to Australian athletes but also to organisations right around the world that Australia is deadly serious in the fight against drugs in sport. Performance enhancing drugs were first recorded as far back as the ancient Greek Olympics in the 3rd century BC and in the mythology of ancient hunting rituals using herbal and other medications and substances.Sometimes there are difficulties in identifying performance enhancing materials, and problems differentiating between the drugs helping different types of sports. Flushing and masking agents are also often used as a disguise. We need constant out-of-competition testing to achieve realistic baselines on natural hormones such as testosterone.Drug testing was instituted for the first time at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico. Drug testing programs started in Australia in the early 1980s. Consistency and accuracy in testing is essential for fair legal proceedings. We need standardisation of protocols and procedures for testing and uniform penalties so that we can achieve talent not chemistry in athletes. It should also be noted that long-term damage can result from drug use in athletes. This is criminal.The IOC world conference on doping in sport was held in Switzerland early this month to fight doping in sport and to unify the structure. ASDA made a large impact at this conference and, from this, Australia will be seen as a leader with the adoption of three proposals: independent worldwide drug testing programs, an international antidoping agency and an antidoping research fund. The proposal for a uniform antidoping policy framework needs further work. The minister, the Hon. Jackie Kelly, will convene a meeting with like-minded governments at the end of this year to address this.The essence of the bill is to preserve the rights of athletes whilst strengthening the capacity of ASDA to deal with positive tests recorded by foreign athletes, thereby creating a more even playing field.Increased cooperation between Australian Customs and ASDA has been cemented. Establishment of the ASDA committee consisting of specialist medical practitioners in fields such as sporting medicine, endocrinology and pharmacology allows the committee to advise in approved high quality testing laboratories, with the ability to test between doping and natural physiology. It will also ensure that the athlete is able to take necessary therapeutic substances where the rules of the sporting organisation permit, as well as offering expert medical advice to the sports doping tribunals. It will also ensure safety testing for drugs that impair judgment and the safety of competitors. It will recognise genuine inadvertent use of banned substances.It is worth noting that the bill receives strong support from state and territory governments. The need for research has been recognised by giving the agency the ability to establish a foundation to attract non-government funding. The government has committed $3 million into research for reliable testing of substances such as growth hormone. There is also the possibility of shortening the time that a positive test can be brought to the attention of the sporting organisation. In summary, this is an excellent set of amendments to put in place before the Sydney 2000 Games.10:22:003245Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to speak on the Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Bill 1998 . I congratulate the minister, her predecessor Mr Andrew Thomson and the executives of the Australian Sports Drug Agency. I think they have done an excellent job and I want to say well done to all of them.This is not about a bureaucratic process; it is about the athletes themselves. I have had the privilege and opportunity of going to several Olympic Games. The Atlanta Games stand out in my mind. As I was sitting amongst the parents of some of the swimmers, one particular swimmer recorded times that would have seemed impossible for her 12 months before. Everyone believed that this particular swimmer was taking some type of enhancement drug but for various reasons they were not actually able to cap it on her. I thought of the frustration of the swimmers' parents who had been up morning after morning to get their kids to the pool for training. They had done their best. These swimmers were the best in the world and the cheats came and took the gold medal away from them. As time has gone by, that particular swimmer has been shown up for what she really is.We are not only talking about bureaucracy; we are talking about athletes. We are talking about people who are the best in the world—and this gets taken away by the cheats in sport. This particular bill is about that. It is about equity and fairness for the athletes. The bottom line is that that is what we, as Australians, support.I have to say how disappointed I was in President Samaranch and his statements a while ago about softening the approach to drugs, that we should look at some drugs for use for therapeutic reasons and that they were not major problems. Here is another reason why President Samaranch should look clearly at his position and find a successor—although I would not suggest that he finds a successor; the Olympic movement should find a successor. This is not only because of issues such as drugs. Someone should be found who has had a track record of speaking out on the issues of corruption that have been dogging the Olympics.That is not what we are here for today, but it is important for the leading person in sport to be constantly thinking about the athletes. One of the reasons that Sydney won was because those who were concerned about the athletes chose Sydney and there is so much commercial pressure in the games today that we need to remember what it is all about.This bill is about the athletes and about fairness and, of course, ensuring we have an environment where we have the best practice in the world. That is why I commend the agency for being on top of their brief, for trying to be ahead of the field, not behind it, and for not even being prepared to take the standards of some of the other sporting organisations but saying, `We are going to try to be the best in the world.' Especially in the lead-up to the Olympic games, we need to make sure that our standards are excellent; that we take every measure possible to crack down on the cheats and that we are using world's best practice in terms of the ways we go about it.I have to congratulate you on the advisory council that you have set up. The advisory committee is really the centrepiece of the legislation, and it was not there before. If I may be so politically parochial as to commend your chairman, Dr Peter Baume, let me say that he is an outstanding physician. He is an associate professor at the University of New South Wales and a person who, I know, is always concerned about the questions of fairness. He is a very good chairman and I am sure he is doing a great job.In terms of you people from the agency who have come up with the advisory committee, this is pretty important. We have not had it before. It is going to have three major purposes. Firstly, its primary purpose will be to provide athletes with approval to use prohibited substances for therapeutic reasons when it can be proved that such usage is recognised by the rules of the athletes' sports. There are some times when this usage can be made, as Dr Washer would know. There are some special cases. Instead of referring it to people like me, who would not know the difference, they will have an expert advisory group to refer it to and say, `Does this seem reasonable to you? Is this valid?'If we think of the Samantha Riley exercise—which I think was a great pity—athletes can actually refer to the committee and say, `Okay guys, what do you think about this proposal?' It is a great advantage to have a real body of experts that is able to take decisions over anybody else. You do not have the argy-bargy we had in the press about who is going to decide, and Kevan Gosper taking it to President Samaranch. For heaven's sake do not take it to President Samaranch. Let us have our own group to decide what fairness is about.Secondly, there is expert medical assistance to accredited laboratories when investigation is required to determine whether a positive test result for a barred endogenous substance is due to doping or a physiological condition. It is also important that this particular group would know whether it is due to a high level of testosterone, for example, which might be seen normal for a particular individual, or whether it is due to simply wanting to mask performance. It is important that we see this advice in terms of whether it is appropriate or not.The third aspect of it will be to provide medical advice to sports doping tribunals so that they can come in and provide a major body with the credentials and accreditation of skilled people who can say. `This is the way it is. This is our best advice to you.' That is the best feature of the bill in terms of bringing us up to best practice, and I think it is excellent. Of course, we have got the streamlining of the act, which is the bureaucratic process, and by all means put the details into subsidiary acts, handbooks, et cetera, and keep the main features of the bill. In terms of the other aspects of the world's best practice we have talked about, the support from the customs agency is significant.We now have Mr Deputy Speaker Causley in the chair, and we welcome him. It is a great pleasure to have my former colleague in New South Wales—now my current colleague—presiding in the chair and, as someone who was the member of the cabinet that made the important decision that Sydney was going to bid for the games, I am very proud of that. I know that the Deputy Speaker is very proud of that.One of the things that struck me about the relationship with Customs—and this is something that you have to ask yourself—was `Why on earth weren't they able to provide this information before? Why did they need to include it in the act?' I am sure there are special technical reasons. The bureaucracy again has been holding out. This will tie it down.The final aspect of the advisory committee will be to provide a framework for the states and territory governments to coordinate their legislation. That is going to be significant as it is replayed in each of the states. It will ensure that we have a uniform system that relates to the federal act.Overall, this is an excellent piece of legislation. The agency deserves appropriate support. It has performed well and has established itself as one of the lead agencies around the world, and now it is going one step further. Good on you all for what you have done. Keep up the good work.10:30:003247Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I am pleased to rise in this debate on the Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Bill 1998 . It is an exciting initiative by the Minister for Sport and Tourism that has been prompted by the concerns that have been raised in the community, particularly over the last 12 to 18 months, about the continued use of drugs in sport. The minister, in her opening remarks in the second reading speech, summed it up pretty well when she said:The Australian sporting community has been fully consulted on these amendments, from the administrators of our peak national sports bodies to the elite athletes who are themselves subject to drug testing. They recognise that the agency must have the flexibility to keep abreast of change.I think that is commendable as far as the athletes themselves are concerned. She continues:The proposed amendments will ensure that Australia's anti-doping regime is more efficient, fairer to athletes subject to drug testing but, importantly, tougher on drug cheats.My parliamentary colleague alluded to one of those cheats from Asia who recently visited this country. It was also interesting from my point of view to read:In 1990, Australia became the first country in the world to establish a national sports drug testing authority under legislation. The amendments in this bill complement that. The bill also refers to the therapeutic use of banned substances. We all know that the use of prohibited substances for therapeutic purposes could undermine the credibility of Australia's antidoping program. These amendments enable the ASDA to operate within the prevailing policy framework—it does not set the policy framework as such—which is set by the government through the Australian Sports Commission doping policy. The ASC doping policy recognises, quite rightly, that athletes should be able to use banned substances for the treatment of legitimate medical conditions. However, there is an enormous difference and gap between legitimate medical conditions and the use of drugs to enhance performance. Some international federations already approve the use of therapeutic drugs—for example, disabled sports organisations and tennis organisations.Through the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee, the agency will only recognise the use of prohibited substances by athletes for therapeutic purposes where their national sporting organisation or international federation has an antidoping policy which allows such use. The government is responding to the specific and individual needs of both Olympic and non-Olympic sports bodies which recognise that some athletes need banned or restricted substances for legitimate medical reasons.The government quite rightly is not going to unnecessarily discriminate against or jeopardise the health of Australians who just happen to be athletes. The bill will also provide a framework to deal with the issue and reduce the pressure on sports bodies and athletes who now deal with this issue.Once the federal legislation is in place, it is anticipated that Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia will quickly follow with the introduction of complementary legislation. Other states and territories are currently finalising their antidoping policies, consistent with the national drugs in sport framework that has already been adopted by all states and territories. Some jurisdictions believe the national antidoping program is meeting their needs and are not expected to introduce their own legislation in the short term.The proposed changes represent the most current thinking on the simplest and most effective mechanism to facilitate complementary state and territory antidoping legislation. You do not have to go too far back to understand why there is concern, not only nationally but right across each state and territory in this country, about the use of drugs in sport. We do not have to go far in the state of New South Wales to know about what is going on there. As an example, there are some problems in national rugby league. There was a recent report of a positive drug test. I understand there was another one two days ago. Those reports in the media on 7 February this year claimed that a national rugby league player had received notification from ASDA of a positive test result.As far as the general process of reporting positive test results goes, it requires that once an athlete's name is entered on the register of notifiable events the athlete, the Australian Sports Commission and the national sporting organisation are notified. Responsibility for hearing the athlete's case lies with relevant sports authorities. Prior to notification of an entry onto the register, the athlete concerned has access to due process as described by the ASDA Act. Matters arising from a positive result remain confidential between the athlete and ASDA until ASDA places the athlete's name on the register.Is it any wonder that that sort of action is taken when you read, as I did the other day, in the 30 June 1998 edition of the Australian an article by Jeff Dunne which gave some figures on drug testing in rugby league. From the year 1991 to June 1997, ASDA carried out 3,099 random tests in rugby league. Of those 3,099 tests, 85 players or 2.7 per cent tested positive to banned substances, which included performance enhancing and recreational drugs. Of the 85 positive results, 10 players or 35 per cent were found with anabolic agents in their system. What sort of message is that action, by supposed professional athletes out there in the public arena, sending to the young children who are looking at them as idols and following their careers, whether in rugby league or any other sport?Obviously, the issue of drugs has created some interest in the IOC. The IOC had a conference in Lausanne in early February which was called in the wake of the Tour de France and continued worldwide concern with the problem of doping in sport. In the lead-up to the conference, the IOC established four working parties and called for submissions on strategies to address the problem. The four working parties contained representatives from the IOC, the international sports federation and the national Olympic committees. Representatives from the government agencies were not involved. There is no clear definition outlining what constitutes `extenuating circumstances', which are words that are used from time to time for people to justify some of the use of drugs. The wording of the resolution leaves the international federation to determine its own definition.Briefly, the IOC is obviously to a large degree concerned about dope in sports. What we need to do is concentrate our efforts and this is what the ASDA bill is all about. We need to concentrate on reducing the use of drugs and look at the sanctions that we need to impose on athletes when they use those drugs.I understand that the International Olympic Committee has agreed that the two-year ban for athletes found guilty of first serious doping offences can be shortened in exceptional circumstances. The answer to that information I received is that the International Olympic Committee, as I said, hosted a world conference on doping in sport in Lausanne in early February. We were disappointed as a government to hear that the conference rejected the IOC's push for the international sporting federation to accept the uniform sanction of two years for first serious doping offences.If we are going to have sanctions let us have proper sanctions, not Clayton sanctions which send the wrong message out to athletes. If you can successfully administer illegal substances to enhance your performance and you do so in the full knowledge that you are trying to create an induced advantage to your natural ability over another athlete, then you need to be sent a message that the sanctions are going to be so severe that you are not going to have an opportunity to do that again.In closing, I read some articles in a number of papers before I looked at speaking on this bill and one of the things that interested me was an article in the Canberra Times of 15 January of this year which reported on an Australian Customs Service seizure of prohibited imports, namely anabolic steroids. This seizure was from an individual reported to be an Australian elite athlete. Specific details of the identity of the individual cannot, of course, be made public by the ACS. The Australian Customs Service has placed the matter into the hands of the Australian Federal Police and the AFP is responsible for issuing the summons and bringing the matter before a prosecutor. That case highlights the type of scenario where information sharing between federal government agencies may assist antidoping efforts. It is very important that agencies such as the ACS and the AFP work in close collaboration with one another so that we can get on top of this information.The article also made reference to the fact that the Australian Customs Service will be able to pass on information to the Australian Sports Drug Agency where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an elite sportsperson is responsible for the importation or attempted importation of these illegal substances. They can report where they suspect the imported drugs have been brought into Australia by persons such as sports coaches, sports team doctors and officials who the Australian Customs Service might believe could supply the drug to elite sportspeople.I think, all in all, the amendments brought in by the minister in this bill are to be commended. It is sending a message out to the community that not only do we have a concern about the illicit drugs in the community that are creating massive health problems for people, but also we are ensuring that those drugs that are performance enhancing as far as our athletes are concerned are looked upon very seriously by the government and that we are going to do something about it. I know all the bodies associated with sportspeople in this country will work together and do all they can to assist the government in this regard. I thank the House for the opportunity of saying a few words on this very important bill.10:43:003250Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—The comments and contribution from the member for Hume and those that preceded him certainly highlighted the problems of drugs in sport. They certainly also highlighted the need to be ever vigilant and again suggested very strongly the need for government to be fully committed in dealing with this. This government is strongly committed to the fight against doping in sport. The concept of fair play is embedded in the Australian culture and the government will not tolerate cheats.This bill proposes amendments to the ASDA Act that will ensure that Australia's antidoping regime is more efficient and fairer to athletes who are subject to drug testing and tougher on drug cheats. The ASDA Act has served us well but the sporting scene is now far more complex and sophisticated. The amendments we bring forward in this bill will enable Australia to stay ahead of the game. Changes to the ASDA Act will ensure that Australia's drug testing is, first of all, tougher because the medical and scientific experts will scrutinise test results, so cheats cannot so easily beat the system and Australian sporting organisations will now be able to take action against foreign athletes caught cheating in Australia.The program will be fairer because athletes with a serious medical problem—not just a sniffle or a headache—will be able to gain prior approval to use appropriate medications. Medical consideration of results will occur before an athlete's name is passed on to relevant sporting organisations, and athletes' rights will be enshrined within the legislation. Also, the program will be more efficient because ASDA will be able to respond quickly to the rapidly changing antidoping environment.In summary, this bill will keep Australia in the forefront of the international fight against drugs in sport. Indeed, this bill will provide the framework for Australia to again establish the benchmark for world's best practice in antidoping regimes. Australia will be well prepared for the challenges of the 2000 Olympics and beyond.The amendments to the ASDA legislation are only one expression of the government's commitment to drug-free sport. The government is currently working on pulling together a whole suite of antidoping measures, with a view to developing a comprehensive and coordinated antidoping strategy.This bill is a foundation upon which we can build a truly comprehensive and nationally coordinated effort against doping in sport. It has the support of the peak Australian sporting organisations, it has the support of elite Australian athletes and it has the support of state and territory governments. It now needs the support of this House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. 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.Bills3250r6683250Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.10:47:003251O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2) 1998 amends a series of acts that relate to the rural sector. The opposition does not oppose this legislation at this point, nor do we seek to move any substantial amendments to it.This bill amends the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992, the Dairy Produce Act 1986, the Export Control Act 1982, the Imported Food Control Act 1992 and the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994.With reference to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992, the purpose of the amendment as proposed by the government is to meet Australia's obligations under article 39(3) of the WTO agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, known as the TRIPS agreement. Applications for the evaluation of new agriculture and veterinary products are submitted to the national registration authority and they may include previously undisclosed data on active ingredients.The TRIPS agreement requires Australia to provide protection from unfair commercial use of this data, for example in the manufacture of competing genetic products. The amendment ensures that such data will not be made available to commercial competitors for a period of five years without the approval of the originator of the data. From our point of view this is a reasonable amendment, and we will not be opposing it.The amendments to the Dairy Produce Act 1986 will allow the Australian Dairy Corporation to make payments from its domestic fund as compensation for levies paid, under the Domestic Market Support Scheme, by Victorian dairy farmers and manufacturers who suffered some financial loss due to the Victorian gas crisis last year. As many members would recall, the gas crisis led to many dairy farmers and manufacturers pouring milk down the drain.Dairy farmers pay a levy on market milk, and manufacturers pay a levy on milk used in manufacturing dairy products sold on the domestic market. The funds which are generated are used to supplement the incomes of those dairy farmers supplying milk for the manufacture of dairy products which are then exported. Milk used for manufacturing delivers farmers a much lower return than milk sold to the fresh milk market. Under current legislation, the levies were still payable by dairy farmers and manufacturers despite the fact that the milk was destroyed and no income was derived. The rebate payable under this amendment is to be the equivalent of the market support payment which would have been received if the milk had been delivered and used as manufacturing milk for export.The Victorian gas crisis not only affected dairy farmers but businesses throughout the length and breadth of Victoria. Of course, now we have significant class actions being mounted against the producers and the Australian gas industry over this debacle. We will get to the bottom of it—there is an inquiry under way in Victoria. But there is a lesson here for communities as to what really happens to the essential services, such as the provision of electricity and gas, when these services are privatised.As many of you would know, in the Longford fire two workers lost their lives. What we have witnessed in Victoria is a gradual diminution of the servicing of the basic infrastructure that delivers these particular services to the Victorian community and to rural producers. We have seen it in electricity. Ask any electricity consumer in Geelong and they will tell you that over the last two years, since the privatisation of the electricity system and its sale to foreign interests, we have seen a lack of maintenance being done on basic infrastructure. We have blackout after blackout in the urban areas, but these blackouts also affect dairy farmers and rural producers. When you go to get the cows in in the afternoon and go to turn the milking machines on and you find that your power supply is not there, it is a cause of great concern to you and it can lead to a loss of income.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—And loss of cows.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I will not enter that debate. What we have witnessed in Victoria over the past few years is the wholesale privatisation of these public resources. What we have seen is reduced levels of service and problems with the supply of such essential services.The dairy industry is one that will be facing some real challenges as we move into the year 2000 and beyond. This industry is one that I have an interest in because I am the son of a Western District dairy farmer and, in my political life, I have been through some of the tensions that have been generated over the restructuring in this industry in the early 1980s. When we came to power in the early 1980s we were left an industry that had grown very comfortable behind a very heavily deregulated environment. We proceeded along the path of restructuring that industry in a way that ensured that the basic productive capacity of the industry was retained and improved while providing for dairy farmers to exit the industry.There were many dairy farmers that I knew when I was growing up in the Western District of Victoria whose livelihoods were truncated by the reforms that were introduced at that time. But they were necessary reforms to reorient this industry to an export task. It now enjoys a level of profitability and has certainly been one of the mainstays of agricultural production in this country over the past decade. It owes its current position and, indeed, its future in fairly competitive global markets to the vision of Labor ministers at the time. I refer to John Kerin and Simon Crean, who had to grapple with the problems of refocusing and restructuring an industry to take advantage of its market potential.I can recall in the 1983 campaign, when I campaigned in the seat of Corangamite against the then minister Tony Street, and later in 1984 against the current member for Corangamite, Stewart McArthur, attending a rally of dairy farmers down in the Heytesbury in Victoria. I tell this story because it does give an indication of the tensions that can be generated in an industry through restructuring. We met the representatives of the dairy farmers at the local municipal offices and I say, quite openly, that, if they had had a rope there, they would have hanged us. We were the devils incarnate, the socialists coming to tell them how to restructure their industry.Leaving the politics aside—because there were members of the coalition who were in there feeding the frenzy about what the ugly socialists were going to do to their industry—we put an argument to them that their industry had a realisable potential but it had to meet an existing threat. That threat was going to come from New Zealand producers, from the New Zealand dairy industry, and the Australian industry was not prepared for the export challenges that were going to be necessary to ensure its survival in the long term.This was not an issue that was particularly confined to the dairy industry. It was one that we had to face in the major restructurings in steel, automotive and component manufacture and in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. So it was a turbulent time for the dairy industry.It weathered that particular storm and positioned itself as one of the more profitable, and consistently profitable, industries over the past decade. Now it faces a new challenge and a new task, given the opportunities that are emerging in export markets and the structure of the domestic industry. I can only commend the industry to intensive debate and discussion, without the politics, about the industry's future.As I said, in 1984 I had to suffer National Party and Liberal Party members going around rural Victoria and trying to make hay while the sun shone as far as this issue was concerned. It caused particular pain and worry to producers in the industry, and it was not really conducive to an intelligent and informed debate about where the industry might go.I know I am digressing just a little, but I call for all sections of the industry to engage in a meaningful and productive debate on the industry's future. There are some markers that have to be put out as far as future deregulation of this industry is concerned. We have to have our eye to the regional impacts of the decisions that are taken when particular plans and legislation come to an end. We have to keep in mind that the consumers of this product need to be assured that, if a deregulated environment were to be engendered as far as this industry is concerned, there would be some benefit to them and it would not all flow to the major supermarket chains nor to the processors. Those discussions are well under way in your state, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, and you would be more acquainted, probably than any other in the House today, with the problems that a deregulated environment may cause in the states of New South Wales and Queensland.It is very important that this debate proceed in an honest, frank and intelligent way so that governments can make rational decisions about the legislative frameworks in which industries will have to operate beyond particular days, regional communities can plan for any consequences that might flow from decisions, and the industry and the producers can prepare themselves adequately for the challenges that they are going to face over the next decade.In reference to the amendments to the Export Control Act 1982, the regulatory controls are necessary to ensure that prescribed goods for export are fit for human consumption, match their trade description, and have been prepared in such a way as to meet the import requirements of Australia's export market. This amendment clarifies the power of the secretary to approve and administer quality and safety assurance arrangements for the production of prescribed goods for exports. It also makes some amendments to the enforcement powers for the entry and search of premises or vehicles and for the copying or seizure of evidence relating to export control matters.I think this is a fairly important amendment because many producers in the past have not kept their eye on the requirements of the markets in which they have intended their produce to go. If we go back over the last 15 years, the great task has been to alter the export culture of primary producers to make sure that they are fully aware of the requirements of the markets in which they are intending to send produce. Too often in the past—for example, with onions and potatoes, the industries with which I am more familiar than others—growers basically grew produce for a domestic market. If they had a fairly good element of their crop, they sought to drop it onto the export market and seek a higher return. There was no real planning to grow for an export market and for the requirements of that market and to ensure, as far as food safety issues and the produce was concerned, that they met the trade requirements of the markets in which their produce was being sold. So it is an amendment that the opposition supports. We think it is an important one to proceed with.The amendment to the Imported Food Control Act 1992 provides for the inspection and control of food imported into Australia and is used in conjunction with the Quarantine Act 1908. It allows certain kinds of foods to be defined as trade samples; it gives the secretary power to approve or revoke approval for a food processing operation; and it allows importers to claim compensation from the Commonwealth for food which, as a result of the inspection process, has been rendered unfit for the purpose for which it was imported. It is an amendment that the opposition supports.The amendment to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 provides for the naming of new plant varieties in an easier manner by allowing duplication of plant names provided that the plant with the same name is from an entirely different plant class. This is a technical amendment that will streamline procedures under the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994. It is in conformity with international standards that prevail in this area so we will not be opposing that amendment; we will be supporting it. This legislation, in the main, is non-contentious and therefore we will be supporting the amendments that are being proposed.11:04:003254Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—This bill is an omnibus bill, and I guess the huge number of people clamouring to speak on it indicates how comprehensive and significant it is. Taken in its various elements, it has great impact on various industries around Australia. For somebody wishing to debate large issues and general philosophical thrusts and changes of policy, this bill would not be an attractive bill to debate. But it has in its application and administration great significance for important elements of Australian agricultural industries.I want to deal with some of those elements in the debate today because I want to sound something of a warning to the administrators of our agricultural industries that if they make life too difficult for our producers they are working almost as a foreign power against the export potential and cost structure of Australian industry.It is possible through tax systems, through banking systems and through transportation systems to inadvertently impose costs on Australian exporters and Australian producers. For instance, if our taxation system is not simple and competitive in administrative terms and it takes Australian businesses and primary producers longer to fulfil their tax obligations, then we are loading unnecessary costs onto them, unnecessary time and a diversion of resources onto them, which will ultimately penalise the nation as a whole. The same may be said for government administration of all types.I encourage our administrators, as they look at legislative changes and policy changes, to remember that the implementation process should have as its No. 1 objective the aim of being as competitive, as clean, as excellent in the administration process as any exporter is required to be. I know that is often their goal but from time to time we get competing organisations, wishing to retain their employment base and their influence, attempting to build unnecessary restrictions and structures.Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, being a man of practical background, I know that you would agree with me that the administration and implementation of regulations and laws can be detrimental if they are interventionist or unnecessarily complex. That can impose costs and complications on our primary producers that they just cannot afford or do not need. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to drag you into this debate but with your experience in the government of New South Wales I know that you are well across all of those areas. I have heard you speak on a number of occasions on the need for Australians to administer effective, sensible laws relating to agriculture, fisheries and forestry.This bill covers a number of provisions including the protection of intellectual property for new constituents in agricultural and veterinary chemicals, a very important area. It seeks also to overcome the unintended consequences of the Dairy Produce Act.The bill seeks to facilitate administrative arrangements for export controls so as to enable exporters to take a greater role in product quality under the guidance of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, AQIS. It allows for the clarification of trade samples, delegating some authorities to inspection and evaluation. The bill seeks also to facilitate the easier naming of plant varieties under the Plant Variety Rights Act.I want to deal with a couple of elements in the legislation. Firstly, I would like to deal with the plant variety rights aspect of the Plant Variety Rights Act. Plant variety rights do not have a long history in Australia but they have a very significant history because after a lot of pressure from Australian nursery and plant breeding industries, both horticultural and agricultural, Australia introduced the Plant Variety Rights Act.We have brilliant scientists developing new species of plants and varieties which have been great export winners for Australia. Unfortunately, in the world of competition we have had a number of foreign plant breeders come to Australia, take overseas the seeds or plant material of a variety of Australian plants, look at the genetic structure of, or by selective breeding modify, them and develop them to a point where they become a world bestseller in the nursery industry. In particular, I think of the first example that I became aware of, which was the plant breeders of Israel taking the Australian Geraldton wax to Israel and, through selection and careful breeding, turning it into quite a different plant, which is now dominating the world almost as if it was an Israeli plant. That has happened in a number of instances, but we are getting better at it. We are, in fact, having quite a significant impact on world plant breeding with the uniqueness of Australia's own indigenous species and also the work that is being done with commercial crops and cereal types.I had the good fortune to know of one of Australia's great plant and wheat breeders, Professor Irving Watson, who developed rust-proof wheat varieties that became for many years a household name across Australia. A protege of his, a Hungarian migrant, Nick Derera, who is currently at an advanced age, has been brought back into Sydney University. He is a man so brilliant that Sydney University could not do without him. In his eighties they have brought him back to a full professorship at Sydney University to continue his plant breeding. Nick was instrumental, with Irving Watson, in establishing the Australian cotton industry and has been decorated by Her Majesty and by foreign governments.Now Nick Derera is developing a paprika industry because he knows that we can breed and produce great capsicums here in Australia. We can replace all the imports of paprika, but we can also follow the South African trend and make this a multimillion dollar export industry. Nick has done great work at Cobbity research farm. He has pointed out to me that these plant variety changes, whilst significant in allowing Australian producers a greater flexibility in choosing names for their own products or for products they have imported and which are protected by plant variety rights, maintain the consistency of plant variety right protection. That is a commercial consideration.These amendments are welcome but there are still further amendments needed to protect an inadvertent change in the act from the Plant Variety Rights Act to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act. Some of the work by people like Nick Derera could be knocked off by anybody. An amendment is urgent to protect people like Nick Derera, and I know the minister has that in hand; it is in the pipeline. Nick Derera can safely say, `If anybody tries to play with my plant material that I am using to establish this new industry, the full force of the act will come down on them because it will be protected.'I want to praise our plant breeders, compliment the government for these changes, and encourage the government to go further and indicate that the research and development programs that we have in agriculture should encourage our plant breeders who are dealing with both indigenous species and commercial crops and varieties.The second issue I want to raise is that of the changes to exports and the powers of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. I have had an unfortunate experience over the years with AQIS. I do not know whether every member has had the same experience, but at one stage they made claims that they had researched pig quarantine measures and the safety of certain diseases around the world. They wrote to members saying they had done that. I checked with those foreign governments and AQIS had not contacted a single university—yet they said they had been in touch.I made a speech in the House a couple of years ago, but AQIS are too busy to even acknowledge those sorts of concerns. Maybe one day they will. But until they can explain themselves, honestly, fairly and up front in everything they do, I am going to have a doubt about that organisation. I have got plant producers and plant breeders in my electorate. Mitchell is a huge, multimillion dollar production area. We have got most of Australia's mushroom growers and we have got heaps of strawberry and cut-flower growers. These people rely on complete protection for the clean, green image. They are so close not only to the airports and to people that want to sneak stuff in and in some way smuggle plant varieties in—which occurs; I acknowledge that and that is not possible to control—but also to the threats of imported plants and plant types from everywhere around the world.Valentine's Day has just passed; there were truckloads of flowers from all over the world in the Sydney city markets on Valentine's Day. Bugs were found in those plants. I am told by one of the local growers that on one of the imported plants there was a hard-shelled beetle of some sort. The plants were supposed to be fumigated. AQIS said the bug would die in 24 hours; the bug is still living happily down in Sydney. Valentine's Day was a few days ago but the bug is still alive. Who knows what the bug is or what it is carrying?I acknowledge that we have got to make a decision about what is sensible protection. But we have also got to think that it is a tremendous advantage for the flower-growing industry of Zimbabwe or India to lob onto Australia plant pests or diseases we have not currently got. If they can load us up with pests or diseases that we currently do not have and that they do have, that levels the cost equation between the countries and may in fact knock out some Australian industries.Western flower thrip is in Australia, and white rust. AQIS will claim, `Don't look at us. We could not possibly have let it in.' All the evidence points to the fact that it came in in commercial imports but, of course, you cannot identify which plant. I think we need to have a system where we can have our authorities say, `We know that it did not come in through our system. We are certain.' All they can say at the moment is that it probably did not and that is their side of the argument. The industries are saying, `It probably did,' because they can trace back to where they think the first contact was made.Some of the provisions in this bill are allowing a tighter control of our exports and I believe in quality control in our exports. That is very significant. But I would like to put the counterbalance to tighter control of exports by saying that, if we are going to come down hard on Australian growers to maintain the standards of our exports, we must also make sure that our importers are not bringing in plant material which carries the risk of disease and pests that we have not seen in Australia. Western flower thrip is a high-cost pest that really should not have got into Australia. We have got it now and there will be, I am told by a reliable authority, a major outbreak of plant or animal threats of a significant type at least four times a year. I think we need to be jolly careful about this; we have got a great export advantage and we need to maintain it.It is okay saying that all the scientists say this or something else. We are thinking about bringing in fruit from China, and the protection against fruit fly, I understand, is the acceptance of the Chinese practice of one fruit fly trap in every 100 trees. That is not protection for Australian industry and I would like to draw the minister's and the House's attention to the fact that it is no good jumping on Australian exporters to maintain quality—I agree with that—if we do not on the other hand say that we are also endorsing their efforts by preventing somebody inadvertently or by design dumping in Australia diseases or pests that should not be here.Finally, I wish to refer briefly to another measure in the changes to the act: the registration processes for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Chemical engineering is a great Australian industry and one that is not very frequently recognised by government. We have a multitude of very enthusiastic administrators there that want to nominate, describe and register every molecule and every chemical known to man, including things like common salt.The administration for our Australian agricultural and veterinary chemical industries has gone up dramatically. My plea to the government is to sort this mess out because we have got at least two organisations, possibly three, competing for fees, registration and recognition for agricultural and veterinary chemical industries.There are good reasons why there should be two organisations. It has been the government's commitment that they should be reduced to one; the government has not reduced them to one but I know work is being done and has been done over a period to reduce it to one organisation. The duplicated cost to industry is needless and should be removed. The more quickly that can be done, the better. Those people who are holding onto power bases or claiming particular protection for particular groups of people, saying that we must have a really safe system, are more interested, I think, in maintaining their bureaucracies than they are in doing something for the large number of Australians who would benefit not only from easily and positively identified Australian veterinary and agricultural chemicals but also from those products being available at a significantly lower price.This matter goes also to the coverage of new products, both those which can be developed by Australian chemical engineers and those which are imported to Australia. We should have access to the latest and the best, provided it is properly tested, and we should be encouraging Australian producers not only to manufacture and to export but also to innovate and develop new products.11:22:003257Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I have been asked to attend on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, who is otherwise engaged, to respond to the many speakers on the amendments contained in the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 , which cover a number of issues, and to thank them for their participation. I can assure those speakers that their comments will be considered by the minister, as they would normally be, and the minister has asked me to make the following remarks.The proposed amendments to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 provide five years protection for undisclosed test and/or other data submitted to the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, NRA, for the valuation of a new active constituent for an agricultural or veterinary chemical product.The five-year data protection period for agricultural and veterinary new chemical entities will have a negligible effect on the NRA, which will be responsible for administering the provisions of the proposed amendments. In the vast majority of cases, the five-year data protection period will lapse before the expiry of the patent term, thereby having no effect on the marketing of generic products. It will, however, remove any doubt about whether Australia is fulfilling its obligations under article 39(3) of the World Trade Organisation agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, generally referred to as the TRIPS agreement.The proposed amendments to the Dairy Produce Act 1986 are designed to ensure that the difficulties experienced by sectors of the dairy industry during the Victorian gas crisis are not compounded by the operation of the Commonwealth's Domestic Market Support Scheme. The proposed amendments have the full support of the Australian dairy industry.The proposed amendments to the Export Control Act 1982 reflect the Commonwealth's commitment to a system of approved quality assurance arrangements that properly ensure the higher standards of product safety, the appropriate level of company accountability and a cost-effective food industry.The proposed amendments to the Imported Food Control Act 1992 anticipate a more effective and efficient service to industry by clarifying some aspects of the act which have previously been confusing or caused an inconsistent application of the act.The amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 will simplify the naming of new plant varieties. It allows for two or more varieties to have the same name, provided that they are completely different and unlikely to be confused in the marketplace—for instance, turnips and tulips. Duplication of names will not be allowed within a group of closely related genera called plant classes. A list of plant classes consistent with international standards will be maintained by the registrar of the plant breeder's rights scheme and will be accessible free of charge. Industry, particularly the horticultural industry, supports this improvement and encourages its earliest introduction.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. 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.Bills3258r6803258Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.11:26:003258Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—This bill is welcomed by the opposition as a step forward in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The bill widens the definition of a vehicle standard for new motor vehicles to include standards for energy saving. At the moment, the Motor Vehicle Standards Act defines a vehicle standard as having three characteristics: being designed to make road vehicles safe to use, or to control the emission of gas, particles or noise from road vehicles, or to secure road vehicles against theft.This bill adds a new design parameter to that definition by adding the words `to promote the saving of energy', and that will enable the development of additional standards designed to do just that. Once these new standards are developed, they will be included in regulations made under the Motor Vehicles Standards Act 1989 and they will become mandatory in Australian design rules applicable, Australia wide, to new vehicles.The government initially intends to use this new standard to develop an Australian design rule for model specific, fuel efficiency labelling, although it is important to note that these amendments do not preclude other standards from being developed. Fuel consumption labelling forms part of the government's environmental strategy for the automotive industry, included in its 1997 climate change package. The new Australian design rule is being developed by the Australian Greenhouse Office in consultation with the Federal Office of Road Safety. Once that rule is developed and introduced, all new cars will carry fuel efficiency labelling setting out the fuel consumption of the particular vehicle. This means that new car buyers will have an easy comparison of fuel consumption between vehicles, like we have with fridges, with the stickers with stars on them. I think it helps.I also think it would be good—and I would ask the minister to take this on board for consideration—to take the opportunity offered by the new design rule to look at extending this labelling to the advertising of new vehicles. I understand that the United States has had this requirement for well over a decade now. What happens there is that in any advertisement, whether it is print or television, there is also a label, which has to be carried down the bottom of the advertisement, indicating the car's fuel consumption. It is just another, more public way of educating people to take that into consideration when making purchases. I do not think it is a particularly onerous requirement, and I think it is a helpful one if we are serious about educating people to think about how they individually can contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases.It is worth remarking on the fact that the 1996 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory tells us transport is responsible for 17 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, with road transport responsible for 87 per cent of those emissions. Cars are responsible for more than half of transport's greenhouse gas emissions and for 10 per cent of Australia's total emissions. Consequently, they are responsible for a contribution to air pollution in our cities.This bill is a positive step—we acknowledge that—towards reducing those emissions, although we do have to consider the way in which this could possibly be undermined by the government's proposals to reduce diesel fuel excise and what that will mean for heavy road transport's contribution to the total emissions. I do not intend to go into that today. I simply put on the record the opposition's support for this bill and our support for fuel consumption labelling.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I call the honourable member for Dunkley—in a very bright tie.11:30:003259Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, are you unhappy with my tie? I will pass on your thoughts to my wife. Quite frankly, she is a Greek goddess, and I am not brave enough not to wear it, Mr Deputy Speaker.I compliment the previous speaker on her contribution. I also compliment the last speaker on the previous bill, the honourable member for Mitchell; we will all practise fruit fly trap for the rest of the day.I am pleased to be able to talk in support of the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 1998 . It brings together two areas of government policy that very much interest me. One is improving the performance of government, which this bill seeks to do by tidying up some of the administrative arrangements that support the implementation of these types of measures and by enabling the delegates of the minister to act on his behalf.The second area that interests me is its contribution to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions effort. I will start with the latter point because I think it is worth reflecting on the importance of this measure in the context of the Prime Minister's 20 November 1997 statement on greenhouse issues, Safeguarding the future: Australia's response to climate change. The issues that were outlined in that statement by the Prime Minister were very comprehensive and were designed to deliver on Australia's commitments that have been entered into through the Kyoto process. Naturally, they are not binding at this stage because many of the member states have not gone through the formal ratification process, but it is a guide to the responsible approach the government will take into the future and in meeting our commitments in the future accounting periods under the Kyoto protocol.What I like about this particular measure is that it is something we can all get behind. The member for Dickson spoke about individuals wanting to do something in this area and I concur with those remarks. We have seen in areas like recycling and in other conservation and environment related areas of concern that the ordinary citizen wants to do their bit. They want to be able to make a small contribution towards a national or international effort to address some of these environmental concerns. With recycling, we have probably been killed with people's enthusiasm to get involved, as the downstream processing of some of the products that are available for recycling has not quite kept pace with the supplies of recyclable products that Australian consumers are putting back into the waste management system. In this example, though, it is a chance for individual consumers to make some choices about their behaviour and how it will impact on emissions from Australia. This measure tools up consumers with information that will enable them to make some choices about which vehicles to buy into the future under a reliable set of reporting arrangements embraced as a standard.The bill expands the range of standards that can be implemented under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act to include energy conservation and fuel efficiency. That is particularly significant in light of the contribution that emissions from motor vehicles, or, more generally, the transport sector, make towards the total greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.There are a number of very in-depth and well-considered reports around. One of them I have here with me, which is the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics working paper No. 37, which talks about tradable permits in transport. While we are not here to talk about tradable permits, the document canvasses issues about the transport sector and how it will play its role in the reduction of the emissions from the broader Australian economy. It points to some options that, frankly, are flagged as not being terribly manageable or not being sound and efficient administratively in terms of what the transport sector can do to reduce our emissions.What is attractive about this proposal before us today is that it fits very neatly with and responds quite directly to some of the concerns that have been raised in this paper. I have talked about tradable permits on other occasions and I will not go into that today. But if you reduce that sort of thinking down to individual motorists, it becomes a bureaucratic and administrative nightmare. It is difficult to imagine how, at an individual level, a tradable permits system would bring about changes in people's behaviour, because many of the decisions that are made about people's behaviour in terms of their motoring habits and the vehicles they buy would be removed in some way from the particular permits that would operate at an individual level if a full tradable system were implemented.That has been recognised by the government in that there are other more direct policy measures required to make sure that all sectors of the economy are doing their share towards reducing the growth in our emissions of greenhouse gases. This particular measure is one of those. I like it because it is, I think, something we in this place can agree on—and that is nice—but it is also something that those outside this place can agree on.I know the motor industry itself is taking its responsibilities very seriously. I would like to put on the record my respect and support for the work that people like Mr Russell Scoular, a friend of mine who works at Ford who is heavily involved in this area, and others involved in the motor vehicle industry are doing to make sure that the difficult problems around other measures, as outlined in the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics working paper No. 37, are not an impediment to the motor industry doing something at all.This particular bill will see a standard introduced where consumers will have reliable and consistently compiled fuel consumption information at their fingertips. It actually goes further than some of the similar measures which are around overseas. The explanatory memorandum points to the United States, Japan and, I think, some European countries that have taken steps in this direction. In the US, the mandatory measures tend to relate to a consumption rate across the whole suite of vehicles a manufacturer is putting into the marketplace. While they do support that with individual fuel consumption information, as the member for Dickson pointed out, and are quite adamant in having that information communicated to consumers, the mandatory obligations relate to a whole suite of vehicles.We have gone a bit further here. We are talking about mandatory obligations on fuel consumption reporting at an individual vehicle level. Just to illustrate what that means: if I was in the market for a small car and, being a bit of a Holden man, was attracted to some of the Barina product line or to some of the Astra product line but knew there were some much larger engine capacity, higher fuel consumption vehicles in the top end of the Holden range, I might not get the information I wanted about the particular vehicle I was interested in if we applied parts of some of this whole-of-fleet mandatory regime.Under this proposal, though, I will get that information about the particular vehicle I am interested in purchasing and I can compare that with other vehicles on the shop floor. It tools up consumers with information to do something themselves at an individual level, and that is what is really first class about this proposal.We are still faced with other issues in the motor vehicle industry that need to be addressed in the context of our greenhouse gas responsibilities. There are some questions concerning the age of Australia's vehicle fleet, and I have talked previously about that subject under a private member's motion dealing specifically with it. But just to recap on some of those themes, the age of the Australian vehicle fleet causes some inherent problems, not only because many drivers use vehicles that do not have the latest technology, safety measures and fuel efficiency devices that are available but also because they run on unleaded fuel. Unleaded fuel itself has other problems outside greenhouse gas emissions—obviously lead emission being the key one—and at this stage we are still moving towards the date in 2010 when we will look to have leaded fuel taken off the market.There is an argument that we might look at bringing that date forward, but we have got to be mindful of the age of the vehicle fleet and what such a measure would do. I think that, with some of the petrol companies already producing half-lead fuels and derivative fuels that can run in leaded engines, we do have some encouragement to look at bringing that date forward. But we need to bear in the back of our minds that more than 30 per cent of all the fuel sold today is leaded fuel.We have also before us some work to do at a broader level about our emissions trading responsibilities under our greenhouse gas commitments. What I like about this vehicle standards amendment is that cars being imported into this country, as I understand it, will have to meet the same requirements as domestically produced cars in terms of their vehicle fuel consumption performance.It raises other questions about how, in this greenhouse gas emitting world and under some of the framework set up with the Kyoto protocol, we are going to harmonise the behaviour of countries that are in the loop and have made commitments to reducing their emissions and those countries that are outside the loop and under the banner of being a developing country. At least here, if we have motor vehicles that are manufactured in those developing countries where, at the point of manufacture, emissions are not being fully taken into account, under Kyoto, the product of that effort, when it comes into a more developed market such as ours, needs to apprise itself of those global responsibilities.It also leaves some broader questions about trade. Here we are recognising that products offshore that have an impact on greenhouse emissions need to come within a more responsible emissions net. At the same time there are other manufactured products, coming out of developing countries in particular—where emissions are not a high priority—competing with goods manufactured domestically where we have to keep an eye on the emissions produced. There seems to be a tad of inconsistency there. I have talked previously about whether we might need to look at climate control compliance measures on imported goods coming out of undeveloped countries into our mature market so that our domestic manufacturers are at least competing on a level footing. That is about fairer trade and fairer competition, and that is a subject I would very much like to talk more about at another time.I might leave my contribution at that today. I am grateful that the deputy speaker has changed: he might find my tie more acceptable than did the previous incumbent of the chair. I commend the bill to the House and think it is a small but important step towards a sensible way for our nation to address its greenhouse gas emission responsibilities. That is important; it is important for my little son, Alexander, because he will be here dealing with the world as it is long after I have gone somewhere else and do not need to worry about the ties I am wearing.11:42:003262Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—In saying a few words I am not going to repeat what the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 1998 is all about; all the other speakers have done that. The changes to the Australian design rules being facilitated by this bill will remind us that we are able to change Australian design rules. There is an Australian design rule being introduced now which very badly needs to be changed. The aerodynamic, sweptback shape of the modern car results in the driver being exposed to sunlight and solar radiation which cause skin cancers. Two Mount Isa taxi drivers came to me. One has a very serious skin cancer problem and the other looks as though he may have the same problem. While some of these people work in shorts, some do not; they drive with long trousers on—all of them drive with long trousers on now. But even trousers do not give you all that much protection and, unless you wear gloves, your hands are constantly exposed to the sunlight coming into your car.In addition to that, what you create with the modern car design is a glass bubble. For those of you who are not familiar with what happens when you have a glass bubble, radiation can travel through the glass, but it changes its wavelength after it has travelled through the glass and cannot get back out again, and that is what is called the greenhouse effect. So in every one of our cars now we have a little greenhouse machine keeping the heat in.The vast majority of Australians use airconditioners in their cars all the time. The fuel consumption that is arising as a result of the glass bubble effect, of course, makes what we are doing here today very irrelevant unless we address the problem of modern car design, the glass bubble design. The average airconditioner pulls, if my memory serves me correctly, five horsepower, which is an awful lot of power. In fact, if you are driving along you will notice the loss of acceleration and speed the minute you turn the airconditioning on, because it does take an awful lot of power to run the small compressor which works your airconditioner.Our airconditioners in northern Australia are simply not adequate to cool cars. We can have an airconditioner on maximum speed, maximum freezing, and still it will not cool the car because the car is designed, albeit inadvertently, as a glass bubble. This design may be suitable for Europe, but it is very interesting that it is not a design suitable for the United States where the vast majority of the population now are in Texas and California. In fact, 30 million people live in southern California and, I think, pretty close to 30 million people live in Texas and the other southern states of the United States. Of course, Europe is now dominating the world stage with 550 million consumers. They are quite happy with the glass bubble effect because it is suitable for their climate.It is most unsuitable for our climate. Having had this very real problem presented to me, I know that people will die. In fact, there was a report recently in the Queensland media—and I must emphasise that I have not verified whether it was accurate—which said that skin cancer is the second biggest killer in Queensland, after heart disease. I do not think that anyone would argue that it is not a major cause of death in Australia. When I see a lot of our older citizens—and I must say this—without ears and noses and parts of their cheeks as a result of this, I consider that it is a problem that governments should be addressing in Australia.I started my little campaign by ringing Choice magazine—the Australian Consumers Association—and asking to speak to the editor. I cannot help but say that over a period of the next eight months I made somewhere between 15 and 25 telephone calls and I have still not been able to speak to the editor of Choice magazine. She must be a very important person because she does not speak to people. I have spoken to other people there to say that I wish to proceed with this. The logical place to start would be with the Australian Consumers Association and Choice magazine but they are not even interested enough to return a telephone call. If people are dying of cancer out there, this does not seem to be of any interest whatsoever to the Australian Consumers Association and Choice magazine. I would ask any of the government decision makers who may be here today that, if there is any government money going into those areas, they seriously consider whether this is a responsible organisation or not.The reason I am acting with considerable anger towards this organisation is that we have a very serious problem indeed. Ralph Nader did a wonderful job in the United States saving so many lives by his aggression on the issue of dangerous motor cars that was brought to his attention. We have an organisation in Australia which, when a situation which is extremely dangerous to the health of Australians is brought to them, cannot even be bothered to return a telephone call over a period of eight months—a matter of, as I say, between 15 and 25 phone calls.Perhaps the Australian design rules can be changed; I do not know whether substances can be put into the glass to stop the UV light from coming through. Clothing gives very modified protection so do not think that clothing or gloves can overcome this very serious and dangerous problem. There is also the issue of increased fuel consumption because of the greenhouse effect in the motor car. So we are defeating all of our purposes here today unless we address the problem of this glass.I do not know if the minister at the table, the honourable member for Wide Bay, is responsible for this area, but I would like to see the minister responsible for this matter run an annual cancer award for the car with the least protective roof. There will be a lot of very strong contenders for that prize. That is how I believe this thing should be because I have very strong feelings about this, having seen so many of our oldest and greatest citizens from North Queensland ravaged by skin cancer in the most terrible manner.There is another issue which needs to be addressed here with respect to fuel consumption. Transfield came to the Queensland government and approached four separate ministries in Queensland—the premier's department, the mines and energy department, the northern development department and the primary industries department—with a proposal to put a 10 per cent ethanol content into motor cars.Ethanol is much more expensive than petrol. They were not proposing that they replace petrol with ethanol, as is done in Brazil—98 per cent of fuel in Brazil came from sugarcane, but that is now down to about 60 per cent—where 60 per cent of fuel in cars in Brazil is ethanol from sugarcane. They are selling that at world prices so there is no subsidisation going into the fuel tanks.When I was working on this matter in 1988, the average in the United States was between two per cent and four per cent, depending upon which authority I used. The United States already has an ethanol content in its fuel tanks and the percentage varies from state to state. In Canada it is a bit higher, and there are a number of other countries throughout the world that have relatively high ethanol content in their fuel.Transfield explained to me that they did not want to replace petrol with ethanol—a notion which I knew was absolutely stupid—they wanted to replace with ethanol the lead that had been taken out. If you put in a 10 per cent ethanol blend you did not need to put in the expensive additives that now have to be added to raise the octane level because lead has been taken out. It was really a replacement for these expensive additives.In my department we had Wright and Killen from Texas, and Fluor Daniel from Texas, do the figures. The premier's department and the mines and energy department used other engineers, and the primary industries department did not submit a paper to cabinet. All three of those ministries said that it would be about the same cost, or cheaper, for super grade petrol. And they said it probably would be the same cost, or maybe a bit more expensive, for lower octane rated petrol.We felt that price-wise it would have been neutral. I would not say that it would have reduced the price, but on the figures that we had available to us from the best engineers in the world, we felt the price would have been about the same as it was at the time for petrol, and that that fuel would have given a cleaner burn, a better octane rating and better performance in the cars.It would also have dramatically lowered the greenhouse effect coming from motor cars because to get this petrol we would have had to grow sugarcane and, of course, an average sugar mill will take two million tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the air. There would be a massive change in the net greenhouse effect if we went to an ethanol content, and the carbon credits that would flow in this area would be massive. So there is another ball game out there that should be being addressed.This was not the reason why we were proceeding, but there was a by-product effect which was of enormous benefit to the Australian economy. World sugarcane prices have dropped dramatically. We do not have the protection of a home market any more, like all the other countries, and we are up against slave labour produced product out of South America in countries like Brazil. We are up against massive subsidies in Thailand. Believe it or not, there is nearly a 100 per cent subsidy in Thailand. And according to a report to the President of the United States in 1990, the subsidy tariff levels on the biggest sugar exporter at the time—and it is still the second biggest sugar exporter in the world, the European Community—was 193 per cent.We could get long-term contractual arrangements at $360 a tonne—maybe even $380 a tonne—with this arrangement which would underpin the price of almost a quarter to a fifth of our Australian sugar production as well. So there was an enormous side benefit for one of Australia's major export earning industries and one of Australia's major industries, the sugar industry.Whilst I think this is a very good move, the problem of the aerodynamic shape and this massive glass bubble effect that we have in our motor cars must be attacked now because it is causing cancer. It is also causing a massive increase in the consumption of petrol to keep those airconditioners burning at a level that they should never be burning at. There is another safety issue, of course. If you have glass covering your motor car instead of steel, it is far more dangerous; far less protection is afforded the passengers if you have steel over your head instead of glass over your head.We are exposed to the dangers of car accidents; we are exposed to the dangers of skin cancer; and also our motor cars are becoming heat traps that are causing a very dramatic increase in the consumption of petrol. A little by-product of a manoeuvre in that direction would be of massive help to one of Australia's great industries—the sugar industry.11:51:003265Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—At the outset, I thank the members for Dickson, Dunkley and Kennedy for their contributions to this debate. In her fleeting contribution, the member for Dickson acknowledged the opposition's support for this legislation and we are grateful for that support. I merely comment on her reference to opposition concerns about government proposals to reduce fuel taxation in regional areas. I am not sure whether that is the ex-Democrat speaking or the new Labor spokesperson for regional affairs, but let me assure you that the government takes very seriously the cost of fuel in regional areas. These taxation measures are a significant proposal to help equalise the costs of living around Australia and to ensure that regional Australia is able to effectively share in the economic growth of our country. All people in rural and regional Australia will be gravely concerned to hear the comments of the honourable member for Dickson about proposed changes to fuel taxation.I compliment the member for Dunkley on his contribution and his recognition of the importance of consumers being aware of the energy usage of vehicles and of the contribution this bill will make towards having a more informed marketplace.I think we were all interested in the comments of the member for Kennedy. Let me say, as a fellow Queenslander, that I share his concerns about the impact of the increasing level of glass, particularly on the tops of recently designed vehicles. A compromise is obviously being made between the aerodynamic styling, the attractive looks, and the effect that that has on the occupants of the vehicle. I am one who always tries to order a sun visor for my vehicle and I am finding it increasingly difficult to do so. I am told that some of the new models are coming out—with sun visors only designed at a later stage. Certainly, many of the manufacturers discourage the fitting of sun visors, because they rightly point out that it affects the fuel economy of the vehicle. There is no doubt that that is the case. It also affects the lines that the designers have chosen for the vehicles.Many of the new cars have very little metal on top at all and the driver's seating position is exposed to the sunlight through the windscreen for the majority of the day. I think that is a matter of concern. I will certainly raise that matter with my colleague the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, and ask him to take the issue on board. I think it is a relevant issue and we do have to make judgments as a community as to whether some of those issues are so important from a health perspective that they have to be given priority.I would like to make one other point to perhaps emphasise and support what the member for Kennedy said: it is not only the risk of skin cancer that is associated with exposure through the high glass contents of vehicles, but it also raises the temperature in the vehicle. They become much hotter and that has implications for airconditioning and also the safety of the occupants. There have been many tragic cases of that having an effect, particularly on young children who are left in vehicles. Some of those things I appreciate are difficult issues. The world believes very strongly, for very valid reasons, that we need to improve fuel economy wherever we possibly can but there are certainly other factors that need to be taken into account.In the climate change statement of 20 November 1997, the Prime Minister announced that model specific fuel efficiency labelling was to be implemented as a part of the automotive industry environment strategy. The bill debated today will amend the Motor Vehicle Standards Act of 1989—the vehicle for Australian design rules—to allow that commitment to be met. Consumers and the environment will benefit from the introduction of the new ADR to make fuel efficiency labelling of motor vehicles mandatory—a concept similar to the energy efficiency labels on household electrical appliances that we have all come to expect in this day and age.It is anticipated that the draft ADR and the regulation impact statement for this ADR will be released for public comment shortly, giving industry the opportunity to contribute to the development of this important measure. The proposed amended definition of `vehicle standard' is also broad enough to enable other agreed greenhouse/fuel conservation objectives to be implemented in the future, a point that was made by the honourable member for Dickson.A number of other measures are contained in this bill. Notably, the ability to appoint an associate administrator which will allow the Federal Office of Road Safety to provide a better service to clients by ensuring that the functions of the administrator, particularly the routine ones, can be performed by more than one person. The remaining amendments are essentially mechanical in nature, aimed at improving the administration of the act. They include restoring the connection between this act and the Customs Act 1901 and removing a duplication of penalties.On behalf of Minister Anderson, I thank those who have contributed to the debate and commend the bill to the parliament.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—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.Bills3267r6733267Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.12:03:003267McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—What we have before us is a minor bill, but it is a minor bill about a major matter. I know there is a lot of interest on all sides of the parliament about a range of issues related to research and development. I do not think any of that interest will lead to contention about this particular bill. I do wish, of course, to make some specific remarks about the terms of this bill, its impact and our view about it, but I principally want to talk about the broader question of research and development and its place in the economic and industrial future of this country—in a sense, talking about what is not in the bill but should be, instead of what is in the bill.The Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 amends the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, known colloquially as the IR&D Act, and streamlines the administration of the research and development tax concession scheme. It does it in a number of minor but I think useful ways. It extends the time for registration and allows the board a bit more discretion in the manner in which it deals with applications. This is always something the House should examine when legislation is changed to make it less proscriptive and more discretionary. It gives flexibility but it also gives, in a sense, less direct scrutiny. But this sort of discretion exercised by a public body is open to the normal review procedures of our administrative law regime, so I think we have no problem with that.The bill has another aspect, one which parliamentarians should always examine but with which in this case I have no concern, in that it has a retrospective element. It allows the board to consider or reconsider six specific applications where the existing lack of discretion to accept late applications has prevented the board from validly considering them. In the case of these six, as I am advised and as appears to be unquestionably the case, the delay was not the fault of the applicants but in the administration of their application. The retrospective element seems to be entirely beneficial, so we have no difficulty with it, although it is never a matter that we allow to go through without comment.The bill also implements some minor proposals arising from the Audit Office review concerning appointments to the board and other such matters.We intend to support this bill and the amendments which it makes to the act. They assist in the administration of a scheme. But what I hope and expect will be unanimity in the House should not in any way deflect attention from the profound concerns that we on this side have at the decline in business investment in research and development which has followed from the government's flawed strategy of cutting assistance for research and development. This is what I call the hole at the heart of our economy.There continues to be predominantly welcome news about the strength of the economy. There are some worrying signs, which I spoke about last night in the debate on the appropriation bills. I will not repeat what I said then, but there are clouds on the horizon and today we have had what appears to be worrying information about an increase in long-term employment. Nevertheless, everybody in Australia welcomes the fact that the growth figures had been better than expected, and we hope it continues.But my concern—as an Australian, as a member of parliament and, particularly, as shadow minister for industry—is that at the very heart of our economic development there is a fundamental flaw, a structural problem in our economy which is leading us to not be positioned as effectively as we might to maximise the benefits and opportunities of globalisation, and to not be as effective a participant as we might in the economy of the 21st century.I am concerned about the new industries, the new jobs. Those phrases are sometimes misunderstood to mean that one is not interested in the existing industries—the flourishing core of our mining, agricultural and manufacturing industries at the moment, as well as what it is more fashionable to discuss these days, the services sector. But when we talk about the industries of the future and about the importance of science and technology, and research and development, we do not mean only the wonderful and exciting new industries that research and development can generate but the way in which they can transform our existing industries and have traditionally done so.There is no doubt that our agricultural industries have been wonderfully enhanced, over the years, by the powerful impact of the research and development that has been done by the industry specific R&D boards and by the CSIRO. That sort of research and our strength in medical research combine to put us in a position where we have a wonderful opportunity to be very successful in Australia in the emerging biotechnology industry.There is a lot of fascination with information technology in the public debate and in the government, where a minister is specifically responsible for information technology but the rest of technology is not so specifically addressed. It is lumped in with the industry portfolio overall—which is where it should be, but I am concerned about its lack of priority there.There are worrying reports from our researchers, highlighted this week in an article in the Age, that we might miss the opportunity that our research strength gives us in what is going to be the industry of the 21st century. There is no doubt the last decade of this 20th century has been the decade of information technology, the silicon decade, a decade dominated by physics. I suspect in the next decade or so we are going to move to the dominance of the biological sciences, of genetic engineering, of the products and the problems that that creates—the challenges and the opportunities. Australia is very well placed in that area—per head of population there are few, if any, countries that can claim more success in publication, in citation, in innovative thinking, in original thinking and in effective research and development in this area of potentially great economic importance in the 21st century.That is just an example. As IT has become a centre of debate, so now we are moving to biotechnology, but there are other important new areas of research and development, both in their application to existing industries and to things we have not imagined. In areas like polymers and those sorts of potential new industries and new products, Australia can be at the cutting edge. But we are going in the wrong direction: slashing the research and development tax concession, cutting funding to universities, and undermining our intellectual property regime in a manner that affects our most successful policy initiative with regard to innovation in this area—the Cooperative Research Centre Scheme—which has had bipartisan support and has flourished under governments of both persuasions. Those things are a source of real and profound concern to me.The problem we have before us in dealing with this bill is not what is in it, which I think we all support, but what is not in it—what it does not say, what it does not address, what it does not examine about the industries of the future and the jobs of the future. Sometimes, in a welcome way, you find the occasional minister saying something about the potential of new industries. With Senator Alston, it is only about IT, but that is his brief; I do not criticise him for that. My criticism for him is that he speculates about whatever the current trendy phrase is—something about tax here, something about clusters there. You try to look behind the comments and say, `Where's the policy?' This is not an independent commentator writing interesting articles, this is the minister, the member of the executive government with responsibility for this area. Where is the executive action? Clusters are an important concept, with potential to assist the growth of new industries or new companies, to build on existing industries. But just saying it is a good thing does not help. You actually have to do something. And at the moment nothing is happening.Look at the balance of Australia's external trade, particularly our exports. A little of the shape of our imports as well is affected by this, and of our import competitiveness, but let us just have a look at our exports. We have had a long and continuing history of great strength in exports from mining and agriculture. It has been the basis of our wealth for the whole of the European development of this country, and you cannot imagine an Australia where that will not be the case, where they will not be fundamental to our future. They will be different. The mining industry is more obviously different to the eye than agriculture because we have had the transformation from the underground mine to the open cut, with the new technology and the changes that it has made.The product, the technology, the science that have gone into agriculture are not so obvious to the layman driving by but it has meant that wheat, wool and the new industries like cotton—and the new products within wheat and wool—have kept Australia at the cutting edge in that area. They have kept us productive, successful, effective and efficient. We need to continue to do two things: to encourage and support the R&D that keeps those industries going and to build on the strengths that those industries give us.I mention the period up to 1996, and I do not use that figure simply because it is the period of the change of government, which is rhetorically convenient for me, but because the most recent data tends to analyse these industrial structural changes up to 1996; that is when the analysis was able to be done. Documents which have been published by the current government—this research took place over a 20-year period to 1996 and essentially looked at the structural changes that took place in the period of the previous Labor government—show a great increase in our manufactured exports and in our services exports. One of the significant areas of growth in our manufactured exports is in the further processing of our minerals and our agricultural products.This has had a bit of a cult status. It seems intuitive that, because we grow, produce or dig out these primary resources, we should always be the best place to further process them. That is not going to be the case; it cannot always be the case. The laws of economics do not work like that or else we would not have any of the industries we have that sometimes depend upon further processing other people's products—some of the high tech things that we do. But there are significant opportunities: for example, the emergence of the opportunity for the further processing of magnesium. It is being driven by research and development, by cooperative research centres, by the injection of new technology. Research did not put the magnesium there; research, in the main, did not find it. Research has the potential to develop that natural resource into an effective commercially successful new product and maybe even new industry. We might see a bit of state competition as to where this might best be developed. I am all for a bit of competition, but there is nothing less productive than having states caught up in a bidding war about who should have a particular industry within Australia.In the time remaining to me, let me turn my attention to some aspects of what a government should be doing, rather than deploring what is not happening. What used to be called the Metal Trades Industry Association—the forebear of the current Australian industry group—in a research paper, Make or break, stated:OECD analysis suggests that manufacturing companies in high wage markets can best survive by focusing on work that has a high technology or science content.That is a very apposite comment because today with the release—even if it is the very reluctant release—by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business of his secret agenda to the Prime Minister about employment matters, we see the contrast, starkly written, between a high wage strategy and a low wage strategy. Everything in that document is about lowering wages. I see here some representatives of rural and regional Australia. I hope they have read the document and have seen that it is talking about lower wages in regional Australia—that the people they represent should get paid less than the people I represent—and, as a corollary, what that means for other income support payments in rural and regional Australia.We want to talk about a high wage strategy for Australia and that will not automatically happen. It will happen if we are intelligent, if we look at issues of innovation, research and development and the associated investment in the products of innovation in research and development through venture capital.Governments can play an important part, an active role, by committing funds to the universities and the cooperative research centres that conduct much of this research and development and providing incentives to the venture capital industry. On the face of it, one of the government's initiatives about venture capital seems to be working well. I am always happy to acknowledge the bits that work—it never takes very long.What I see about the innovation investment funds—it is very early days—is that, conceptually, it seems to be quite a well designed scheme and it has the potential to be of value to one aspect of our venture capital industry. I hope it is successful. We said at the last election that we would continue it and there is nothing I have seen since that time to discourage me in that area. But the overall thrust of government effort in terms of innovation and research and development is going in the wrong direction, reducing incentives for the private sector leading to the decline in business investment in research and development. For the first time since we have been measuring this matter, the trend is down. There could not be a worse time for a reduction in business investment and research and development in terms of what is needed to position Australia to be successful next century.The second area where governments of all developed countries, but particularly the Australian government, need to invest is in education and training both in aggregate terms and in terms of where and how that is done. Others are more expert in that, and more responsible for that than I am, and I am very happy for the member for Dobell and others to lead the debate on that. I want to focus on just one aspect.We have a disappointing and absurd situation in that, as a country that needs science and engineering to turn our potential into jobs and industries for the future, we say that the Higher Education Contribution Scheme should be imposed more heavily on students of science and engineering than on others. That probably would have suited me when I was at university because I was not any good at those things, and those of us who did arts and economics degrees would not have been hit. But in the national interest, how can you say that it makes sense to put a deterrent on young people going to university? The only place where the government think the price signal does not work in a market economy is in the incentives for young people to go to university. They put disincentives in their way in studying science and engineering.Of course there is a big government role in infrastructure. There is a lot to be said there, most of which has been articulated often, about roads, rail, telecommunications, et cetera. But we need to look at our scientific and legal infrastructure, the framework of intellectual property rights. I am extremely concerned about the recent move by the National Competition Council which has been opposed by both the CSIRO and IP Australia and which has the potential to water down our intellectual property rights and impede the commercialisation of innovation.The Howard government have been silent about this. They make generalised glib statements. We need them to make it very clear that they reject the National Competition Council's proposals as they relate to intellectual property.I am concerned about other areas of lack of government action, which I will mention briefly because most of them do not come to the subject matter of my comments today, such as export assistance and enterprise improvement. These are areas where a role for government has been accepted even by many conservatives on the basis of perceived market failure. We have reduction in funding for export assistance and abandonment of the field of enterprise improvements.There are three other issues, none of which I will deal with in detail today, that closely relate to what we are dealing with here and which need examination and action by a government if we are to deal with this hole at the heart of our economy. They relate to issues of tax, and not this red herring about a goods and services tax.The one useful thing that is emerging is a consensus that you might be encouraged by the distributional effects of a goods and services tax. That is a proper matter for public debate and we are having it elsewhere, at great and exhausting length. But the argument that it has any significant efficiency and macro economic effects has now gone. Even its advocates now acknowledge that is not the case. It is not going to create jobs and it is not going to have a significant efficiency effect. There might be another case for it, but that is nothing to do with this argument.However, there are some tax issues around that are important for investment in innovation, and the capital gains tax issue does need to be addressed. We do not want this to become a cloak for capital gains tax reductions which simply transfer the tax burden from people who make their money from capital gain to people who make their money from the sweat of their brow or the exercise of their intellect. That is an issue that needs to be addressed along with design issues and venture capital issues.Obviously, we do not oppose these amendments because they streamline the administration of the R&D tax scheme and they create the potential for the Research and Development Board and those others associated with the administration of the scheme to operate more efficiently and effectively. They also streamline system design matters to do with the tax act and the IR&D Act so that they do not get in the way of the objectives.We sometimes find in our parliamentary and executive government, in our administration, that the administration of the law gets in the way of the intention of the law. That is essentially our fault. We are the legislators, and if the law creates that impression, creates that outcome, it is a matter that is our responsibility.These changes flow from the continuing review, revision and modification of the strategy by successive governments about the administration of the IR&D Act. They will not be the last, and nor should they be the last because we continue to bump against administrative impediments to our public policy objectives. We need to expedite the passage of legislation that gets us back to our core purpose, whether it is in industry research and development or in the plethora of other matters that go through this parliament unnoticed and unheralded while public attention is on matters of controversy and contention.I notice the member for Groom is in the chamber. He is a new member but I am sure that already he will have had constituents coming up to him saying, `Why do you people spend all your time arguing with each other? Why can't you just get together on a few things that are in the national interest and agree?' And when you say, `But 90 per cent of the bills that go through the parliament are like that,' nobody believes you. I like to think that, in my electorate, people think that I am very open and truthful with them. However, when I say that to them you can see their eyes glaze over because they never read about those things.You used to read about those things. Only a decade or so ago, media coverage of the Australian parliament did record debates like this. It was not on the front page, and I have to say, with all due modesty, I do not think it would be on the front page, even with this contribution. But there was some acknowledgment that people were up there talking about ordinary matters of profound public interest, sharing common views, disagreeing as we have today about other matters but agreeing about some and saying, `This bit is going well and that bit is okay, but I do not like this.'That is what the Australian people expect us to do, and it is what our obligation is, but it is very hard to communicate, even to people who have a particular interest in this matter of research and development. This is an area which has a big constituency of Australians concerned about it either because they are involved in doing it—which is a growing band, I am happy to say—or else they are the beneficiaries. These beneficiaries include primary industries that benefit from the CSIRO, and industries that are seeking to take advantage of the R&D initiatives that we take. Yet when we make those consensus initiatives we find that it is very hard to get attention focused on them.We welcome the amendments and we support them—they do not in any way address our more profound concerns in the area of R&D—not just because they are important but because they are essential to addressing—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—It being 12.30 p.m., I propose the question that the Main Committee do now adjourn.Adjournment3273327312:30:003273Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday, 14 November 1998 gave an interesting insight into the workings of the Liberal Party today, especially the growing influence and power of a small group of extreme right wing power brokers, centred around the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin. I want to focus on the role of Senator Minchin and his chief Queensland acolyte, Mr Santo Santoro, the Queensland state member for Clayfield, and the Liberal Party's unprincipled and disastrous decision to give its preferences to the One Nation Party at the Queensland state election on 13 June of last year.The former member for the seat of Oxley must have thought all her Christmases had come at once when the Queensland Liberal Party decided over the May Labour Day weekend to put the Labor Party last in all but one electorate in the state election. Overnight, almost single-handedly, the Queensland Liberal Party made One Nation a real force in Queensland politics. The Liberal Party's decision, following a similar but less surprising decision by the Queensland National Party, gave One Nation a real chance of winning seats in the Queensland parliament and possibly even holding the balance of power in our state.They almost got their wish, with the One Nation Party winning 11 seats through Liberal and National Party preferences. For some time the Liberal Party state president Mr Bob Carroll, a Queen Street grazier, claimed credit for the preference decision. The fact that he still says it was the right decision shows just how out of touch he is with the people of Queensland.But the profile of Senator Minchin in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 November distributes the credit much more widely. The article makes it clear what most political observers already knew—that every decision made by the Carroll regime in Queensland emanates from Mr Santoro. Senator Minchin has been somewhat bashful about his role in the Queensland preference decision. Given the disastrous result it achieved, that is not surprising.For months stories have been circulating in Queensland politics that Mr Santoro was the architect of the preference decision and that he was backed up in his decision by his extensive range of contacts in the federal Liberal Party. Mr Santoro tells everyone game enough to listen that he has a pipeline to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the minister for labour relations and employment and, of course, the grey eminence of the Liberal Party's right wing, Mr Michael Kroger. Does anyone seriously believe that such a well-connected political hatchet man would not have consulted his southern network before such a momentous decision was made? Bashful though he is, Senator Minchin did concede the following in the Sydney Morning Herald article:Well, I discuss a lot of things with Santo from time to time. That was a very big issue for the Liberal Party so he would have mentioned it in passing whatever they were doing and why. Do any of Senator Minchin's party victims and rivals believe him? Does the member for Sturt, who seems to be under attack from Senator Minchin's forces in South Australia once again, believe that?Also of interest is the fact that the Queensland Liberal Party expelled former state candidate for Ipswich, Steve Wilson. Mr Wilson was expelled because he would not deliver preferences to the One Nation Party. The expulsion shows the lack of support in the Queensland Liberal branch for the Santoro-Minchin preference deal as only 16 of the 44-member Liberal executive voted and with a split decision. It seems not everyone in the Queensland Liberal Party is without principle.What Senator Minchin must do is come clean on his role in the preference decision. Did he travel to Brisbane on the weekend the decision was made to meet with Mr Santoro and the state Liberal Party president, Mr Bob Carroll? And did he consult with the Prime Minister on this matter?You cannot blame Senator Minchin for trying to distance himself from such a decision. It was, after all, one of the biggest own goals in political history. The decision helped cost the Liberal Party six of the 15 seats it held and saw it lose official party status once again. It also made the Liberal Party in Queensland a political pariah, even in its own heartland, with sitting members in the blue ribbon seats such as Mr Santoro's suffering swings of 10 per cent or more. The decision also impacted in the federal election, even though with the benefit of hindsight and for political convenience, not principle, the Liberal Party reluctantly put One Nation last in the federal election. It still lost four seats in Queensland and went within a few hundred votes of losing three or four more.Incredibly, Mr Santoro and his puppet, Mr Carroll, are claiming that the federal election result in Queensland was a good one for the Liberal Party. They even defend the preference decision, blaming the media and dissidents within the Liberal Party for the loss of six seats and for the loss of party status. But the real issue remains: what was the role of Senator Minchin and his Queensland factional colleagues in the decision to give One Nation Liberal Party preferences—arguably, the most inept decision by any political party in the last decade or so.The people of Queensland are entitled to know who made this disgraceful decision and what role they played. I am sure that the members of the Liberal Party in Queensland, who have seen their party returned to rump status, would also like to know. I am sure most of the people of Queensland would be very interested to know who was involved in the preference decision, why the Liberal Party made those decisions and then what really changed their minds not to make the same decision at the federal election. It certainly was not based on principle. It was certainly based on what they saw as a way to get more votes. (Time expired)327412:35:003274Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—While I cannot comment on the article that the member for Oxley was referring to, I would just like to remind the member that, in South Australia, where Senator Nick Minchin is a senator, we did very well at the last federal election, and I am sure that we will continue to do so.As I stated several nights ago in the adjournment debate, I recently had occasion to speak out publicly against the prospect of a film being released in Australia, although not yet classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification—a film entitled, Lolita, based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov. Unfortunately, there was not enough time to finish, so I will continue here.This in turn created something of a frenzy on the part of some people in the media. In particular, Mr Phillip Adams, in his Weekend Australian article, without actually naming me, poured vitriol on my efforts to take some steps to protect our children and even accused me of being xenophobic. Again, as I stated in the House earlier, I have written a response to Mr Adams in the form of a letter to the editor to the Australian, dated 16 February 1999, which, sadly, has not yet been published. That may still be. We live in hope. The letter is as follows:Dear SirI choose to refute comments made by Phillip Adams in his article, `In pursuit of Power Abusers'( Weekend Australian , 13-14 February 1999) with reference to an unnamed Liberal MP wanting to have the film, Lolita , sight unseen, banned.Well, yes, I'm not afraid to admit publicly, having recently finished reading the book, Lolita , by Vladimir Nabokov, on which the film is based, I do have grave concerns about the film which, to date, has not yet been classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification.Upon deconstruction of the text, the main themes are: (i) that of a middle-aged man (stepfather) who desires to abduct, rape and keep prisoner a 12-year-old girl, specifically after priming her for that purpose, which he does for two years until her escape, sadly, into the arms of another paedophile and child pornography film-maker; (ii) his justification for continual sexual abuse of his step-daughter; and (iii) his desire to procure more victims via Lolita having more daughters by him.The justification of his abuse by statements to the effect that his loves her and wants to care for her sounds a bit like Phillip Bell's `hebephile' defence to me. When any adult loves and cares for a child, that's exactly what they do—not sexually exploit them for their own deviant sexual gratification. Mr Adams states the film is a depiction of `child sexuality'. Isn't that the problem? This notion is used by paedophiles to justify their deviant behaviour. The term `child sexuality' in the context of Adams' comments on the film is, in my view, incongruous.I have no objection to examining the serious issues relating to the abuse and exploitation of children for educative and preventative purposes. However, a film depicting the aforementioned in the genre of `film entertainment' is beyond the pale.The most up-to-date research suggests there are two things that paedophiles crave most. The first is more children to sexually abuse. The second is mainstream acceptance and sympathy for their activities in any form (Institute of Criminology Conference, 14-15 April 1997, Paedophilia Policy and Prevention). I, for one, do not wish to put a smile on a paedophile's face.Mr Adams refers to covers of magazines with fourteen year old girls. Yes, sex sells, as does violence, particularly in videos, computer games and films, so how low, if we continue to push boundaries and lower the thresholds of tolerance, can we as a society go? Mr Adams may be consoled by the fact that these are issues I have consistently raised with the Attorney-General's office, as well as the Office of Film and Literature Classification.I'm a little bit perplexed as to why Mr Adams attributes to the unnamed Liberal MP the comment, "Not only is it filth, (the book, `Lolita') but it is foreign filth." I am not xenophobic, Mr Adams, and I resent the inference in the article. I am also perplexed by Peter Goers' hysterical reaction on local radio recently in relation to my stance on this issue.Yours sincerely(Mrs) Trish Draper MP (nee Zimmermann)327512:40:003275Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Like many members, I am aware that Telstra has appointed a new chief executive officer to take over the organisation on 1 March. I am sure that all members wish him well in this very challenging position. I note that the new chief executive officer has flagged a further crackdown on operating expenses. Perhaps a good start would be some of the correspondence the organisation has been sending out.Just before Christmas, a constituent telephoned me to ask why Telstra would be sending her letters in Japanese. I had to confess that I did not know. I said that it must have been an oversight. She then said, if it was an oversight, why did her daughter, who lived at the same address, get a similar letter? She said that apart from the date, 22 December 1998, her address and the name at the bottom—Ken Sackville, Regional General Manager—the letter was all in Japanese.Here is the letter. This letter is all in Japanese. It has got `Telstra' at the top, the constituent's address and 22 December, then it has greetings in Japanese—I suppose that must be `Dear' in Japanese—before `Ms Tilley', then it goes on for six paragraphs all in Japanese and it is signed by Ken Sackville, Regional General Manager.The people who received the letters have given me permission to use their names. One was sent to Lorraine Tilley and the other was sent to Renay Tilley. They run a hairdressing salon in Wollongong and Telstra sent them each a letter. The women have assured me that they are not Japanese speakers and they are puzzled at receiving such letters.First of all, I tried to telephone Mr Sackville and I could not get through. So I then rang Telstra Customer Relations and asked them why they were sending out letters in Japanese to English speaking people and if they could give me an explanation. Talk about the run-around! Obviously people did not know; they did not know these letters were going out. I was put onto various people and finally I spoke to someone who assured me that Telstra would contact the Tilleys and give them a full explanation. Then I said, `What about me?' They said, `Yes, you will be contacted, Mr Hollis, and you will get a full explanation.'QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—In Japanese or English?DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—I did ask for it to be in English not in Japanese. I have been ringing Telstra each week and they will not get back to me. One of the points the Tilleys brought up to me was about waste of public money. They asked me how many of these letters I thought were being sent out. I said I had absolutely no idea, but I would ask Telstra how many people throughout Australia were receiving these letters. I do not know if any of my colleagues' constituents are receiving these letters.I receive many complaints about Telstra in the office. They are usually to do with telephone accounts and they can usually be fairly easily sorted out. It is usually that some of the other members of the family have been using the phone for various telephone calls they should not have been making and hence the big bill. But this one I am quite puzzled about.I wonder whether the letters are actually meant for people in Japan, whether Telstra is selling its services in Japan and writing to people in Japan. As I say, I am still waiting for a reply. And, as my colleague suggests, I urge Telstra, when they do reply to me, to please reply to me in English. I do go to Japan quite a lot but I am not a Japanese speaker and the Tilleys are most certainly not Japanese speakers.I am also concerned that Telstra has not bothered to get back to me. This is fairly typical of many business organisations in Australia, that when you raise complaints with them they do not have the courtesy to get back to you. It may have been a genuine mistake, or they may have thought the Tilleys were Japanese speakers, or the Tilleys may have won a prize, a trip to Japan, and Telstra is writing in Japanese to tell them that they have won a trip to Japan or something like that. I want to know the answer and the Tilleys most certainly want to know the answer to why they are receiving this letter. It is in very nice Japanese; nevertheless, they cannot understand it. We all want to know the contents of this letter that Telstra has sent out in Japanese.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Sayonara, member for Throsby!327712:45:003277Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I am here today to make a plea for commonsense, more balance and less pointless bureaucracy with reference to the Native Title Act. The fact is that the inflexible nature of the Native Title Act is fuelling bureaucracy and hurting a lot of people.I cite in evidence of this the example of Dennis Dilger, from Childers, in my electorate. He runs a very well-focused and very successful fish hatchery, and he exports to Japan. He breeds all sorts of native fish, like Australian bass, sooty grunter, silver and golden perch, whiting, flathead, coral trout and even barramundi. Many of these are used for the stocking of dams, rivers, lakes, estuaries and other waterways.He does this under contract and strict supervision from DPI. You cannot move these fish from certain river systems to other river systems; there is quite a protocol there. He usually does it under contract to councils, fish stocking groups, government departments and community organisations who generally know what they are doing. In fact, he has pioneered many breeding techniques and his fingerlings have been exported overseas, as I mentioned earlier.But fish breeding is a very sensitive business. The window of opportunity for the transfer of fingerlings from holding tanks to open water is quite narrow. It can be as narrow as three days and the outer limit is generally not beyond a fortnight. It is absolutely vital, then, that he meets the window of opportunity for a particular fish or his investment just goes down the drain and the fish do not survive.Recent changes to the Native Title Act demand that 30 days notice be given for the release of fish into waterways in areas where there is a claim. Just think about that: 30 days notice has to be put in writing before you can put the fingerlings into the water. Because various land councils close down over the Christmas holidays, the state government deemed that this should be put out another 21 days, then you had to allow another seven days for the actual issue of the permit, so you had an eight-week time lapse. During that time, the fish got too big, the cost became prohibitive and they could not be placed in their new environment. This delay, about which there was no prior warning, cost an excellent business operator an estimated $30,000 over the last few months, all because of thoughtless bureaucratic bungling.I can understand people claiming native title who have sacred sites, who have land that has been in their tribe for generations, being sensitive about new roads being punched through their areas or land clearing that is unnecessary. It is appropriate that they should be consulted about such matters. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why a service that is regenerating the environment, putting things back into the system that had been taken out in previous generations and, in some cases, putting new life into man-made storages, has to face hurdles such as this. Let us give the fish breeders, people like Dennis Dilger, a fair go. Is it any wonder there is anger and resentment in regional Australia when hardworking small businessmen and the community at large confront mindless bureaucracy like this?327812:49:003278Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Today we have seen the revelation of the plan that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business envisages for Australia into the future. In extraordinary circumstances, we have had what can only be described as a truckload of documents dropped officially by the minister on proposals that have been considered by the cabinet and by the Prime Minister. What is extraordinary about this is that it says a lot about the dynamics of decision making. Whilst I do not want to dwell on the obvious tensions between the pretenders to the throne, the two Peters, what this document reveals is a vision for Australia that is quite scary.In the Age on Saturday there was a document based on the concept of mutual obligation and exploration of what was happening in New Zealand and the United States and even what was being considered by the Blair Labour government in the United Kingdom. In my speech on the appropriations legislation, I referred to that article. I said that I hoped that if Australia—and in particular the Howard government—was going to continue with the notion of mutual obligation, that it should be mutual. The documents that Minister Reith has now revealed indicate this expansion in his eyes of mutual obligation. But what is not revealed in the documents is that it is a true concept of reciprocal obligation—that is, the government will do something for people and that, in return, people receiving a benefit and other things from government policies will do something for that. For instance, if we look at the Work for the Dole scheme, all that is being done is that people, in return for their benefit, are receiving between 24 and 30 hours work.The work experience in itself has importance. The Labor Party suggests that we can build on that work experience if proper training is injected into these schemes. When the junior minister in this portfolio, the Minister for Employment Services, answers questions, he can relate how cheap the Work for the Dole scheme is. Unfortunately, it is cheap—in the full sense of the word—in that, bar the work experience that these people have, it does not give them any wider experience.It is of interest that the Minister for Employment Services, in a couple of answers this week, referred to the community service scheme back in 1987 that the then Liberal opposition went to the election with, which he believed was based on the work of Professor Mead in the United States. In his answer on 16 February, he said:. . . at much the same time as Professor Lawrence Mead, in America, was developing notions of responsibilities to match welfare rights.Professor Mead has been involved in promoting notions such as the families, the children of people on benefits, having no rights themselves to benefits. If that is the notion that the Minister for Employment Services says that we should follow from people like Professor Mead, I really wonder what the vision is for Australia. At least the document that Minister Reith has produced has explored fully some of the problems. I dismiss many of the answers, bar the ones that he has picked up that Labor went into the last election with, such as the tax credit scheme and others. This document highlights the need for special attention for the long-term unemployed. What is the answer? Suddenly the long-term unemployed are not going to be paid a full wage. This is the great boost for the long-term unemployed and their families—to put them behind the economic eight ball. This is a real problem.When we look at some of these proposals, we see that there is a proposal to assist small business: to explore the possibilities that small businesses need to meet a more minimum set of requirements for working conditions of their employees. If this is Minister Reith's vision for the future, it is something that we will have to be debated over time. I believe that we are at a crucial time in Australia's history. Solutions can be achieved if we have a proper debate and cooperation from all those that have an interest in finding those solutions. (Time expired)327912:55:003279Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I want to report to the Main Committee this afternoon that I am detecting a tide of anger in my electorate in Townsville and Thuringowa on the Labor Party's position on matters such as unfair dismissal and junior wage rates. This morning, for example, I received two faxes in Canberra. One is from Kent Sutton at Darrell Lea on Flinders Mall. He said:Dear Peter, Thank you for your recent update. My comments are:1. you must retain junior wage rates otherwise no one will ever employ a junior again—Secondly, he said that he would like to see the government extend the Work for the Dole scheme to everybody, that it would give the Australian taxpayers a little value for their dollar. I am well aware that this particular scheme is very popular in the community. I thank Kent for sending me that note this morning. The other fax is from Dave and Adele from Dave's Pet Barn in Kirwan, and I thank both of them. They say:Re the Unfair Dismissal Laws.Would you please convey to Mr Beazley and his Senate members and to Meg Lees and her Democrat Party that the statistics for unfair dismissal claims that they are hiding behind does not reflect the true state of the epidemic of suing small business by people who are making a career out of unfair dismissal.No small businessman in his right mind would contest a case as the litigation costs double the payout figure. There is no hope of recovery from the people bringing the claim, as they cannot pay—That is an issue in itself in a wide range of litigation. They continue:It is clearly a law to help the down and out have rorts. Break the back of small business, which for some obscure reason is the aim of the two opposing parties, or are they really one party under two names—that is an interesting question—Their obstructive behaviour is sentencing young Australians to either no job or at best casual employment is very concerning. Why don't they come clean and stop hiding behind statistics and tell all Australians what their agenda is.They are just two unsolicited faxes that I have received here in Canberra this morning.As I move widely in the Townsville community I detect very great concern with the position of the Australian Labor Party and the Democrats. The Australian Labor Party is seen as a party that simply opposes for the sake of opposing, has no plans for the future and no vision. Certainly, this government has a plan. It has a vision. It wants to bring unemployment down. It wants to have sensible laws. In a sense, it certainly understands the problems that businesses have. I, as a small businessman, know full well the ramifications of the unfair dismissal laws and why that precluded me from employing extra people. I was concerned about the legal ramifications of that.The Labor Party, the Democrats and the Senate have got to get out of the way of the government. We have a plan for the next century. We have a new tax system for Australia for the next century. Yet these people just sit there and say they are going to obstruct, they are going to make life difficult, but they have got no alternative.It is certainly incumbent on the Labor Party, the Democrats and the Senate to give the government a fair go—we have a mandate to do what we have been elected to do—and to let us move on. I make the point that three years ago we had to make some very difficult decisions in bringing the budget back into surplus. Three years later we are reaping the benefits of those very hard decisions. Now we want to move on to a new tax system, a new employment system. Let us have the hard problems and the benefits again in three years time. We have a track record as a government able to deliver, that looks after the people who live in our great country.More and more people are going to produce this kind of material which has been sent to me today as their plea to the Australian Labor Party and to the Democrats to get out of the way, to stop obstructing, to let the government get on with its agenda and to build a much better Australian nation.328012:59:003280Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—In the 30 seconds that I have, I say to the honourable member for Herbert without too much rancour that the coalition went to the election with a plan. Even though they have formed government—and I acknowledge that they did win the election—that plan was rejected by over 50 per cent of the voters.The concern is that not only has the plan been rejected by the majority of voters but we now have a new plan that Mr Reith is peddling around the place which the Australian public will be even further confused about. If we throw in any other plans that Treasurer Costello puts in place, or that Prime Minister Howard can inject into a preamble suggested for the Constitution, there will be even further confusion amongst the Australian electorate.Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing3281The following answers to questions were circulated:3281(Question No. 192)1923281McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 3086 (Hansard , 15 July 1998, page 6271), will the Minister inquire into the success of the 1998 World Expo in Lisbon, Portugal, in particular the trading and tourism opportunities available to participating nations; if not, why not.(2) Would an inquiry similar to that referred to in part (1) assist the planning of Australia's exhibit for Expo 2000 in Hanover.3281Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia did not participate in the 1998 World Expo in Lisbon and the Government has no independent means of assessing the success of this event. The Portuguese Commissioner-General presented a final report on the Expo to the International Bureau of Expositions (BIE) General Assembly meeting on 27 November 1998. I understand that the report focuses on the urban development impact of the Expo and does not contain substantive discussion of its trade or tourism impact for Portugal or for the participating countries.(2) No.3281(Question No. 224)2243281Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:Will the Government release the advice it has given to or received from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about how it intends to monitor the price changes that will occur because of the implementation of the GST.3281Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government has not given to or received from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) advice about how it intends to monitor the price changes that will occur because of the implementation of the GST. The Government has introduced a number of tax reform bills including A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998. This Bill will amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 by inserting a new Part to provide the ACCC with power to monitor prices, in order to prevent the possibility of consumer exploitation and excessive profit taking in the transition to the new tax system. The Bill will prohibit price exploitation, which will occur where a corporation supplies a good or service at a price that is unreasonably high, taking into account the various tax changes, provided the unreasonably high price is not attributable to the supplier's costs, supply and demand conditions or any other relevant matter. The price oversight regime will begin 12 months prior to the implementation of the GST and will continue for a further two years after the date of introduction. The ACCC will publish guidelines about when a price may be regarded as being in contravention of the prohibition on price exploitation. The ACCC will report quarterly to the Minister on its operation under the new Part of the Trade Practices Act and these reports will be made public.3281(Question No. 247)2473281Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Did the Commonwealth announce after the special premiers' conference in November 1998 that it would give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission statutory authority to formally monitor prices and take legal action against businesses taking pricing decisions in a manner inconsistent with tax reform.(2) Is the Government taking steps to curb GST-based profiteering.(3) Has the Government introduced formal monitoring of bank fees and charges; if not how will the Government prevent profiteering by banks.3281Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Government announced in A New Tax System (page 85) that it would legislate to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) special transitional powers to formally monitor prices. The ACCC will be required to monitor retail prices in order to identify instances where consumers have not fully benefited from reductions in the tax rate, or have been exposed to greater than necessary price rises.The Agreement on Principles for the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, which was endorsed by the Premiers and Chief Ministers in November 1998, states that the Trade Practices Act 1974 will be amended to insert a new Part giving the ACCC statutory authority to formally monitor prices and take legal action against business practices that take pricing decisions in a manner inconsistent with tax reform. In order to ensure that the measures apply to the whole economy, the States and Territories agree to apply the Commonwealth legislation, and extend it to cover those areas outside the Commonwealth's constitutional power.In general, it can be expected that the competitive pressures that already exist within the economy will ensure that a fall in the tax rate on a product will flow through to consumers in the form of lower retail prices. However, the Government recognises that with the transition to a new tax system, there will be legitimate community concern regarding the possibility of consumer exploitation and excessive profit taking.Accordingly, the Government introduced into Parliament, on 10 December 1998, A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 that amends the Trade Practices Act 1974 to provide the ACCC with powers to monitor prices, in order to prevent the possibility of consumer exploitation and excessive profit taking in the transition to the new tax system. The Bill requires the ACCC to publish guidelines about when a price may be regarded as being in contravention of the prohibition on price exploitation. The ACCC will report quarterly to the Minister on its operations under the new Part and these reports will be made public.The price oversight regime will begin 12 months prior to the implementation of the GST and will continue for a further two years after the date of introduction.(3) The Government will maintain its policy of informal monitoring of bank fees and charges. The major banks voluntarily inform the ACCC of their movements in fees and charges. These arrangements would not preclude the ACCC from formally monitoring bank fees and charges, along with other prices in the economy, as provided for in the A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998. 3282(Question No. 337)3373282Forrest, John, MPMr ForrestNV5MalleeNP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) What was the budget allocation for the ABC TV (a) news and current affairs and (b) documentaries and features departments in 1997.(2) How many documentaries were commissioned solely within the ABC in 1997 and what was the subject in each case.(3) How many documentaries were purchased by the ABC and partly funded by the Film Finance Corporation, Australian Film Commission, Film Victoria or another funding body in 1997.(4) How many documentaries were purchased by the ABC in the secondary market from overseas offerings in 1997.(5) What is the usual cost of the documentaries referred to in part (4).(6) Which of the documentaries referred to in the preceding parts were the five most expensive to produce or purchase and what did each cost the ABC.(7) Is the information requested in the preceding parts collated in some publication or format in the ABC; if so, (a) in what publication or format and (b) is it available to the public.3282McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) In line with Government accounting policies the ABC maintains budget information on a financial rather than calendar year basis. For the 1997/98 financial year the budget allocation for:(a) ABC News and Current Affairs (Television) was $70.7 million.(b) ABC Documentaries (including Natural History Unit) was $9.4 million; and ABC Features/Science and Talks was $10.1 million.(2) ABC Television Documentaries commissioned twelve projects in house.The projects generated forty-nine episodes of documentary material produced or currently in production solely by the ABC. These were:. "Reporters at Large". Short stories made by reporters selected and trained by the ABC as potential Race Around The World reporters, but not selected as part of the final eight. . "The Invincibles". The story of the 1948 touring Australian Ashes team.. "Eye of the Storm". A four part natural history series about climate.. "Top Floor". A three part series which traced the business highs and lows of well known Australian entrepreneurs in the 80's and 90's.. "Frocks, Woks, and Gossip". A documentary following the introduction of The Australian Woman's Weekly in Singapore.. "Aim 4 More". The story of a Brisbane contemporary band who set out to find out more about their family history, (produced by the Indigenous Production Unit).. "King's School". A five part series on life in a boarding school.. "Burden of Proof". Examined the human cost of attempting to find the truth behind child sex crimes.. "Tent Boxing". Examined the history of an Aboriginal boxing troupe which toured rural Australia in the 1950's.. "Without a Song". (Produced by the Indigenous Production Unit).. "Dancing in the Dark". A program to mark the 20th anniversary of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.. "Race Around The World". 21 episodes made up of short documentaries from young film makers as they travel the world.Documentary episodes were also produced in house for inclusion in series produced by the Science Unit for programs such as Quantum, the Arts Unit for Sunday Afternoon and evening timeslots and the Religious Unit for programs such as Compass. News and Current Affairs produced documentary episodes for programs such as Australian Story.(3) In 1997 thirty one single episode documentaries and five documentary series were commissioned in this way.The projects generated fifty five episodes of documentary material commissioned by the ABC and funded in part by other funding bodies in the year.(4) Sixteen individual programs and seventeen documentary series (excluding Natural History) were purchased from overseas for inclusion in documentary timeslots such as The Big Picture and Inside Story in 1997.(5) and (6) Arrangements made with producers outside the ABC are considered commercial in confidence. (7) Apart from published program guides this information is not available in a collated/published form.