1999-03-243912REPS416301999-03-24Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills4163r7714163Bill presented by Mr Vaile, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.416309:31:004163Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to improve compensation for members of the public who suffer personal injury or property damage as third parties on the ground involved in an air accident.Recent air accidents in Australia have seen six houses damaged in one accident and five members of the public killed in another. Recent accidents overseas have demonstrated the potential for considerably more loss of life and property damage. For example, the crash of a Boeing 747 in Amsterdam in 1989 killed 43 members of the public and in effect destroyed two large apartment blocks.It should be stressed that the involvement of members of the public in an air accident as third parties on the ground is generally not due to any choice or action on their part. In the great majority of cases they will not have contributed in any way to the accident, for example, by contributory negligence or by choosing aviation as a mode of transport.Improving compensation for members of this non-flying public will complement the Commonwealth government's recent initiative in introducing a national scheme improving compensation for air passengers and their relatives who suffer loss or injury during an air accident. This involved raising the amount of compensation substantially and making passenger liability insurance mandatory for all carriers serving the Australian aviation market. The main concern with the current third party on the ground arrangements is the amount of compensation available to some injured parties. This can differ across Australia according to whether the operator of the aircraft involved is engaged in domestic or international operations and, in the case of international aircraft, whether or not an aircraft's country of registration is a signatory to the Rome Convention of 1952. The Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft is an instrument of international aviation law, which unfortunately limits the amount of compensation payable to an inadequate level.Not only do the compensation outcomes differ across Australia but also the burdens of proof imposed on injured third parties on the ground. As foreign aircraft, whether subject to the convention or not, are strictly liable for any damage, the plaintiff has no need to establish liability in the first instance before seeking compensation. Domestic aircraft coming under state legislation in the majority of states and making only intrastate flights are also strictly liable. However, aircraft flying within the territories and within Queensland and South Australia are subject only to common law. Under common law, members of the public suffering damage by aircraft must first prove negligence in the courts before any amount of compensation is considered.This lack of national uniformity in measures intended to protect the public's personal and property rights is unsatisfactory from the point of view of social justice and inconsistent with the concept of a single national market for aviation services. The variation in access to compensation, and the different levels of compensation possible, can create considerable uncertainty for the plaintiff and can increase the costs on the judicial system and the plaintiff through the increased levels of litigation necessary to obtain better compensation.As I have just indicated, the most significant concern with the current arrangements is the inadequate level of compensation that would be available from an accident caused by one of the larger foreign aircraft subject to the Rome Convention.For example, the total liability limit for a Boeing 747 aircraft allowable under the convention is about $A36 million, on the most favourable interpretation of the gold conversion mechanisms allowed under the convention. This is clearly insufficient to cover the full compensation required in the event of a major air crash in a metropolitan area in Australia, similar to the 1989 B747 crash in Amsterdam. However, the limit for the B747 could also be as low as around $A4 million. This would be on the least favourable interpretation of the conversion mechanisms, which is to use the last official price of gold. This is clearly unacceptable in Australia.The convention's limitation on liability and its low amounts of allowable compensation are mainly due to the survival of the infant industry argument into the 1950s, when it was being drawn up. This argument has long since lost any force and is especially inappropriate when prompt and adequate compensation for the innocent victims of air accidents is being considered.In addition, the convention has gained very restricted adherence in its almost 50 years of existence, mainly due to its low compensation limits. It does not therefore provide the international uniformity of rules or adequacy of compensation intended. Canada denounced the convention in 1976, citing these shortcomings as reasons for doing so.This bill therefore improves the situation quickly, as far as those large foreign aircraft subject to the Rome Convention are concerned, by repealing the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958, which gives force of law to the convention in Australia. The convention will also be denounced at a time to coincide with this bill coming into effect.The bill replaces the convention's strict but limited liability regime with strict and unlimited liability. This will make those foreign aircraft currently subject to the convention subject to the same liability regime of strict and unlimited liability that currently applies to the great majority of foreign aircraft serving the Australian market.The bill's strict and unlimited liability regime will also apply to aircraft operating within the territories. This will assist in removing the anomalies in the national arrangements covering third party on the ground liabilities. The bill's liability provisions are closely aligned with those currently in legislation in the majority of Australian states. However, as the bill is intended to provide members of the public with compensation that is as prompt and as comprehensive as practicable, it modernises and strengthens the provisions of relevant state legislation, where clear public gains have been possible. The bill also retains provisions of the Rome Convention regime where they will be of advantage to the plaintiff.Finally, in order to remove the anomalies across the various Australian jurisdictions completely, I propose urging the ministers responsible for aviation matters in South Australia and Queensland to enact very similar legislation as soon as possible. This will be the least complex way of achieving national uniformity in this area.In proposing these measures, the Commonwealth government is reflecting the results of extensive consultation on options to improve the current regime. This showed overwhelming support from the industry and other interested parties for the introduction of a uniform national regime, based on all aircraft being subject to strict and unlimited liability. The introduction of strict and unlimited liability within Commonwealth jurisdiction naturally requires the denunciation of the Rome Convention.The bill's main provisions therefore provide a coverage of aircraft as comprehensive as practicable. All aircraft coming within Commonwealth jurisdiction will be subject to strict and unlimited liability, except Australian military aircraft. This will include all foreign aircraft operating over Australian territory, all Australian aircraft operating international flights, all domestic interstate carriers, and private owner-operators in the territories. The great majority of these aircraft are already subject to strict and unlimited liability.It is intended that compensation will also be as comprehensive as practicable, to cover all economic and non-economic loss possible. The person using the aircraft at the time of impact and its owner will be jointly and severally liable. This will give the courts ample scope to find compensation for the plaintiff, in the absence or insolvency of one or the other.However, as a balance against this comprehensive and relatively rigorous application of liability, the bill restricts liability to instances of damage resulting from actual impact with either the aircraft or parts of it or with an object falling from it when the aircraft is in flight. This accords with legislation in the majority of Australian states. Normal aircraft operations should remain unaffected. Alleged minor damage from such incidents as tile movement from wake vortices, or trespass or nuisance claims from noise or vibrations and the like are not included.Restricting liability for damage to the period of flight will also allow normal operations at airports, and the minor and frequent incidents associated with them, to continue without the application of the new act. Minor damage occurring at times other than during flight, for example, when the aircraft is being towed to a hangar, or is taxiing to a hard stand, should be covered by the common law as it has been in the past. However, serious incidents on landing at airport sites such as overshooting the runway or veering off a taxiway at speed and causing damage, and crash landings, are included in the bill's provisions. This restriction of strict liability to incidents during flight is also consistent with provisions in state legislation.I consider that this bill will allow the introduction of an improved regime for third party on the ground compensation that falls within Commonwealth jurisdiction. It will also provide the basis for the Commonwealth's initiative to unify national compensation arrangements. Applying strict and unlimited liability to all aircraft across Australia will be the best outcome from the point of view of social justice. It will assist in establishing compensation as prompt and as comprehensive as practicable for those members of the non-flying public unfortunate enough to be included among the victims of an air accident, through no choice or action of their own. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills4165r618Billsr605Bills4165Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.09:43:004165Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It has taken some time for me to get to speak on the Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. The last time I spoke on these bills was in May 1998. At that time, I was concerned about the time it was taking to implement the Willett anti-dumping recommendations. Now we are nearly into April—another year on after the legislation was first put into parliament—and the passing of these bills is still to be done and in the meantime we have had an election.The debate started in 1996 when the Willett report was submitted to government in September with four major recommendations. Then nothing happened. We had to put in a private member's bill to try to put these recommendations in place, and still nothing happened. Three months later, a response was announced which closely matched Labor's. But despite all the delays, it is still important to get this under way quickly.In 1997 bills were introduced to implement changes to the way goods sourced from China are treated for the purpose of anti-dumping complaints. China has been treated as a command economy and, therefore, when goods sourced from China are subject to anti-dumping complaints, the domestic price is determined by reference to a surrogate country.In 1996 the Minister for Trade accepted a proposal that China's goods be treated as coming from a free market in future anti-dumping cases. The 1997 and 1998 bills respond to the situation created by this decision. They introduced a new economy in transition category which allows goods to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The opposition proposed amendments and the bills were amended in the Senate, but they were not passed before parliament was prorogued.I have taken a particular interest in these measures because of the terrible situation facing our paper mills in Tasmania. It was quite obvious to all and sundry that Indonesia was dumping paper pulp on Tasmania and there were grave concerns expressed about the future of many people's jobs in the Australian paper industry.As it was, many fears were realised with the closure of the Amcor pulp mill in Burnie and hundreds of jobs disappeared. So great was the disgust of the community that when the election intervened they tossed out the sitting member for Braddon and replaced him with Sid Sidebottom, my current colleague, who will speak later in this debate. I suppose there is some rough justice in that, but it is much harder to replace jobs that have been axed than to try and keep them in place through some intervention, legislation and assistance. So the Indonesian situation was far from resolved.To add insult to injury, a written undertaking was given by the minister to the National Association of Forest Products Industries Communities that Customs would not notify the Indonesians of the results of the study and its recommendations. They were only supposed to receive the figures for verification. This has now been broken again by the department.They were given the assurance that any overseas investigation into Indonesia would not repeat the last inadequate inquiry. It was also pointed out that there was a need to adopt a surrogate country to determine dumping margins. We have a situation now that is likely once again to threaten the paper making industry in Australia. If Indonesia can still dump, then many other similar style economies could easily develop arguments to dump too; China included.So these bills were seen as being very crucial to the ongoing well-being of many Tasmanians involved in the forest industry. Yet we have seen the legislation held up and the minister procrastinate to such a degree that the bills have gone through the lives of two parliaments yet still we have not had some sort of protection for our workers in Australia.The purpose of the bills this year is still to amend the Customs Act 1901 to provide a special approach for determining the normal value of allegedly dumped goods from countries that are in the process of transition to a market economy, when it is established that the selling price of these goods is subject to government control.Also the purpose of the bills is to provide a new methodology for determining the normal value of allegedly dumped goods where the goods are exported from a control in the process of transition to a market economy, and a raw material input into the goods which accounts for more than 10 per cent of the costs of producing or manufacturing the goods is supplied by a state-owned enterprise. This is the provision which was not in the original 1997 bill. It was recommended in the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. A further purpose of the bills is to clarify provisions of these acts which relate to the manner in which interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected.As I recall when the 1997 bills were introduced, there were four concerns raised by industry with the proposed special approach for determining normal values, and these were taken up by the opposition and moved as amendments.Under the 1997 bills, a price control situation was not taken to exist where government controlled, substantially controlled or influenced more than 10 per cent of the cost of inputs to production. Industry wanted this to be included.The 1998 bills have dealt with this issue by defining a price control situation to include cases where a raw material input into the goods which accounts for more than 10 per cent of the cost of producing or manufacturing the goods is supplied by a state-owned enterprise. It should be noted that this is the second substantive amendment referred to above.Under the 1997 bills a price control situation was defined as one in which the domestic selling price of the goods is controlled or substantially controlled by government. Industry wanted the definition to include situations where price is directly or indirectly controlled, or substantially controlled or substantially influenced by government.Under the 1997 bills industry wanted to include a regulation making power to allow the minister to make regulations deeming price control situations. If a price control situation does exist under the 1997 bills, the minister could use the surrogate country method of determining the normal value of the allegedly dumped goods, but had a discretion to use any other method. Industry wanted only the surrogate country method to be available.The major amendments proposed provide for a tightening up of the time scales and the way in which investigations are treated and creates a new body, the Trades Measures Review Office. But it also removes provisions allowing Australia to take retaliatory countervailing action against another country. It is claimed that this is contrary to our WTO obligations. I believe there are many products that have been similarly affected.Australia is very open to dumping because we have lowered most of our tariffs and lowered or dropped our bounties on a range of goods. Yet we are still allowing subsidised imports from other countries. This has had a terrible impact on Australian pig farmers and many have gone to the wall during the passage of legislation aimed at trying to overcome this problem.While the market problems are not entirely caused by subsidised imports, these have had a disproportionate effect compared to their actual volume. If there had not been the open slather imports from September 1996 to December 1997, then that particular crisis would not have occurred. Dumping is being allowed in the so-called interests of free trade. This does not make sense and it is sacrificing a good and keen market.These bills are even more important in light of some of the evidence from the inquiry into the possible treaty concerning the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Here we were being launched into the global market by our Treasury people without having a clue what sort of effect this would have on our local trade. This is the report I spoke of earlier in the week.This was all done in the name of free trade. I have my doubts. When I look at the cartels around, I wonder who was really making the deals and who the deals were being made for. But being susceptible to dumping is just as bad. Without some legislation to enable us to control what comes into our country, the prices of our resources and maintaining the standards that are being sought now in world trade, we really could be accused of raping our own country. What the opposition is trying to achieve with the amendments is to try to avoid goods coming in the back door. However, the government appears to be supporting some sort of check on dumping while sending out information by the backdoor to help our country's competitors compete against us. I support the amendments.09:53:004167Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—These two legislative proposals, the Customs (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 , are designed to clarify the ability of personnel to investigate and analyse claims of dumping with a sound standardised methodology whilst making determinations on a case by case basis. They also ensure that moneys collected in the interim, once the likelihood of dumping is established, without reference to magnitude, can be collected and retained while the investigation is completed and the report is prepared, presented and action recommended.Interim duties have been collected since 1 January 1993 and now total approximately $12 million. Recent legal opinion has denied personnel the authority they previously took from certain sections of various acts involved in determining normal value, dumping, causal links and government ownership by remaining with the narrowest limits of the legislation. This severely restricted the ability of depart mental officers to perform the tasks required of them.It is important that the personnel authorised to carry out investigations be allowed to do so quickly and with agreed and standardised procedures so their inquiries take the shortest possible time to determine that a case does exist and that interim measures can be applied immediately. To this end, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 seeks to clarify the manner in which the interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected. The major point to consider is that the interim duties can be collected pending final assessment even though normal value and export price may not have been determined.This bill is important for two main reasons. Firstly, there has been some $12 million collected in interim dumping and countervailing duties, as I said, since 1 January 1993, and that requires protection from legal challenge. Secondly, affected businesses such as the Shoalhaven Paper Mill—one of the major employers in the region—in my electorate of Gilmore, need fast protection in the form of interim duties to ensure they remain viable and do not suffer more harm whilst the investigation is proceeding.Currently, the Shoalhaven Paper Mill is about to shut down for another two weeks, forcing its employees, once again, to take holidays—holidays that are fast running out as shutdowns have been happening for about the past four years. These shutdowns allow the market to take up the oversupply of fine quality paper that is produced in Gilmore. My point is that one of those major industries whose viability is closely tied to fluctuations and demand in the marketplace will quickly be adversely affected by the dumping of competing goods, as has happened in past years. As such, it needs the protection of duties applied to suspected dumped goods in the interim between initial investigations, the completion of the report and the adoption of the report's recommendations. Without this amending legislation, Shoalhaven Paper Mill could close for much longer than a fortnight.As mentioned earlier, these interim measures were introduced in 1993. That is why the proposed amendments are to be taken as having commenced on 1 January 1993. Importers who were operating at that time will not be required to pay more dumping duty than was demanded during the period since 1 January 1993.The other related piece of legislation, the Customs (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1998, is needed to amend the Customs Act 1901. These amendments will allow an investigation to distinguish and treat differently goods exported from a country whose economy is in transition. The transition mentioned relates to the movement from a command economy to a market economy. During this transition many circumstances are changing, including the relationship of the government of the day with the goods produced in that country.In a command economy the government controls what is produced at what cost, and also determines the final selling prices. In a market economy the marketplace determines the selling price which drives the viability of the cost price. Producers create the types of goods they believe will sell on the market and succeed or fail according to the realism of that belief. To change the economic structure from command to market obviously entails a cultural shift of some magnitude, regardless of the machinery involved. Until the culture of that country has changed sufficiently and the mechanisms for the transition are appropriately designed and introduced, many opportunities for the retention of partial government control exist.While this may be necessary to ease the pain that is often associated with large-scale change, it poses difficulties for those trying to identify normal values or actual export prices. This is important to Australian industry because dumping occurs when products from one country are exported to another country at prices less than their normal value. Normal values that are being artificially generated through government control of pricing or raw materials used are of no use for the determination of dumping activity. Analysis of government influence over normal value was exercised under section 269TAC of the Customs Act 1901. However, recent legal advice has indicated that the provisions of that section of the act are limited to countries whose trade is almost totally controlled by government and whose prices are almost totally controlled by government as well.Countries in a state of transition usually have some industries and individual companies privatised and others still under government control. Prices vary from market driven to government controlled according to the status of the industry or specific businesses. The strict limitations of that section preclude officers of the department from attempting to determine normal values or actual export prices of goods from a country in a state of transition by utilising the selling prices in a third or surrogate country under section 269TAC of the Customs Act 1901, hence the proposed amendments.These amendments provide a standardised methodology for the treatment of countries in transition to market economies to determine the normal value of goods allegedly being dumped in Australia, firstly, where the selling price is subject to government control; and, secondly, where a raw material input into the goods accounts for more than 10 per cent of the cost of producing the goods. These amendments allow for a case by case approach to the investigation of claims of alleged dumping of goods. If the minister is satisfied that the exporter's domestic selling prices of the product under investigation are subject to government control, normal values may be ascertained by reference to other relevant information, which may include the selling price of like goods in a surrogate country.If the minister could only treat an economy in transition as a market economy, because its status does not fall within the narrow confines of section 269TAC of the Customs Act 1901, it would prove a great disadvantage to Australian industries and businesses. This is because under that treatment the playing field, in terms of determination of `normal value', would be grossly tilted in favour of the country allegedly dumping goods on the Australian market. With the passage of this amendment bill, an economy in transition whose government in all probability will exercise control over some prices, some industries and some raw materials—all of which can affect the determination of a realistic normal value—will have its status recognised and will be treated accordingly.That Gilmore has a paper mill, the Shoalhaven Paper Mill, has alerted the local community to the process and impact of imported goods being dumped on the Australian market at prices lower than the retail price on their own domestic market. As mentioned earlier, the mill is a major employer in Nowra and surrounding districts. The employees have experienced several shutdowns through fluctuations in demand for fine paper. The staff and management of the mill are an innovative and enthusiastic group of people who work extremely hard to keep the mill improving its market share. To say that every employee is a sales agent for the Shoalhaven Paper Mill would be an understatement.For instance, for the second time there is an exhibition of the diverse quantity and quality of Australian made paper right here in Parliament House. The exhibition's theme is `Imagine a World Without Print'. The Shoalhaven Paper Mill is the sole producer of specialty papers in this country. Fine quality stationery papers, embossed papers and cards are made there. My constituents at the mill have also produced a special stationery paper with a Parliament House watermark for the exclusive use of members and senators, and this can also be viewed at the exhibition. They have even recruited me to the sales staff, as you can see. So do yourselves a favour and have a look at the special quality paper produced by the Shoalhaven Paper Mill and buy some of the Parliament House watermark paper, some cards ready for all occasions and plenty of specialty paper. Please, keep my people in business.I urge you at all times to think before you order and to ask for Australian made paper; resist and report any cheap import. The government's record of assisting business under threat of possible dumping action is already well documented. Last year the federal coalition cut the maximum time for investigation and report to 155 days, with interim measures to be applied after 60 days. This government has acted.The new provisions for this timetable have already been successfully applied, twice that I know of, in the paper industry. This government's solutions are working. Business is becoming confident that the government is working with them to establish sound and timely management practice in relation to allegedly dumped imports. Again, I can use the Shoalhaven Paper Mill as an example. The staff and management have joined forces to form a group called PACT, which is a lobby group for the mill. Its role is to educate people, wherever they are, on the paper making industry, its particular requirements, its difficulties and the need for a united approach in business.Along with introducing the measures contained in these bills, the federal coalition is committed to providing a united approach to difficulties experienced in the business sector through the dumping of goods on the Australian market. However, there is no point in protecting Australian industry from unfair advantages enjoyed by importers if Australians will not support their own industries.To lead the way, I urge the Australian government, members and senators and their staff, federal departments and their staff, reporters in the press gallery and their supply managers back at the office or printery to buy Australian made paper only, preferably from the Shoalhaven Paper Mill. Do practise asking for Australian paper. I commend the legislation to the House.The Customs (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 is needed to amendment the Customs Act of 1901. These amendments will allow an investigation to distinguish and treat differently goods exported from a country whose economy is in transition. The transition mentioned relates to the movement from a command economy to a market economy. During this transition many circumstances are changing, including the relationship of the government of the day with the goods produced in that country.These amendments will provide certainty to industry through a standardised methodology for the treatment of countries in transition to market economies to determine the normal value of goods allegedly being dumped in Australia, firstly, where the selling price is subject to government control; and, secondly, where a raw material input into the goods accounts for more than 10 per cent of the cost of producing the goods. These amendments allow for a case by case approach to the investigation of claims of alleged dumping of goods. This ensures that individual requirements of industries or specific companies can be met. The amendments also ensure that Australian industries receive fair treatment and that influences on economies in transition are identified and weighted accordingly.The Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 seeks to clarify the manner in which interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected. The major point to consider is that interim duties can be collected pending final assessment, even though normal value and export price may not have been determined. This protects Australian jobs.10:06:004170Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Economic and social change is the hallmark of living in the regions. Local, national and international forces are at work driving this change. There are some forces we can manage and fashion as positive outcomes and others we cannot. The challenge is to distinguish between these. Where we can affect the issue we should harness our resources to do so. Governments of all persuasions and at all levels should work with regional communities to do this. Unfair competition and practices have to be tackled realistically and head-on if our industries are to survive long enough to remain competitive in the long term. Restructuring, reviewing, rethinking, reskilling and reorganising will look after the domestic or micro side of things, but the government must do its part to ensure genuine competition takes place along with fair trading practices.Regional Australia has been educated to think globally and to act locally. The federal government must realign its policies to think more locally as it looks to the more global issues. It is okay having the most deregulated industries in the world—we know they will be world leaders, if not the most competitive. The problem is that at the rate Australia is heading down this path there will be very few of these industries left in Australia. It is no good being so far ahead of the pack when the pack has no intention of catching up in the first place.There has been a dramatic fallout from the shift away from a traditional manufacturing base, and those industries that are left are striving to become competitive in a world market. That is why responsible anti-dumping legislation with teeth is imperative. It is a justifiable expectation from Australian employers and workers. Workers and communities around Australia have already paid a high price for workplace reform on the road to world's best practice and international competitiveness.As I have mentioned several times before in this House, in my electorate of Braddon in north-west Tasmania it has meant substantial job losses. For example, those who have been loyal and hardworking in the paper making industry in my region have been among the hardest hit. Australian Paper's two mills at Burnie and Wesley Vale are struggling to survive. The harsh economic reality is that it will always be a battle. There will always be countries ready and waiting, and certainly willing, to cash in on lucrative Australian markets. It is vital that existing anti-dumping legislation be improved—with these amendments it certainly would be—to ensure Australian producers are not unfairly disadvantaged.I turn to the paper making industry again because it is an industry that has had to wear the punches of unfair competition and it highlights the need for a tougher stance on anti-dumping. Australian Paper is this country's sole producer of fine printing and writing papers. Apart from the Burnie and Wesley Vale mills, it has significant paper making operations, as we have just heard, at Shoalhaven in New South Wales and Maryvale in Victoria. There are close to 2,000 jobs across the mill sites. At Maryvale it commissioned a new $330 million paper machine only last year. All of these mills are located in regions with unemployment levels higher than the national average.The application of an employment multiplier to the direct jobs that have been lost because of dumping in the past has had a very significant and adverse impact on these regional areas. There will continue to be a serious negative effect if dumping is allowed to continue. Yet its production of A4 copy paper has been continually under threat—and remains so—from dumping by overseas manufacturers. In the past they have most likely seen Australia as an easy target and a very lucrative one. The Australian market for A4 copy paper is currently worth between $250 million and $300 million a year. That is why I cannot overstate my concern about the constant threat to Australia's paper making industry by product dumped on our domestic markets.I have serious concerns for the future of the industry and many hundreds of direct and indirect jobs on the north-west coast of Tasmania. Those concerns have been highlighted in the last few weeks by the government's decision to lift controls on Brazilian paper imports. The Australian Customs Service has just completed its inquiry into whether dumping duties applying to exports of A4 copy paper from Brazil, Germany and South Africa should be continued for a further five years. Customs found evidence of continued dumping from exporters in South Africa and Germany but has let Brazil off the hook. It has decided to do away with the dumping duty on exports from Brazil because it says that it is satisfied it will not lead to a recurrence of dumping and that economic injury would not be caused to Australia's paper making industry.Understandably, the industry is again nervous, indeed very nervous and anxious, about the future. Brazil has been guilty of paper dumping in Australia before, and I urge the federal government to monitor the situation closely. Let us not forget that VCP of Brazil, which has now been given the green light from Customs, was one of the main parties found guilty of dumping cheap copy paper in Australia in the early 1990s. This company will now be able to re-enter the Australian marketplace free of any import duties. Let us hope they will not again flood our market with cheap paper.I notice that a spokesman for TasPEAC was quoted recently in my local newspaper, the Advocate, saying that the minister had given assurances that VCP of Brazil will be monitored carefully in terms of paper exports to Australia. Given the minister's decision to revoke dumping duties on this company, and given its poor record on dumping in the past, I join workers in the industry in remaining nervous about this. That said, Customs is to be commended for its approach in regard to paper exported to Australia from South Africa and Germany. The dumping duties on A4 copy paper, I am pleased to say, will remain on producers from these countries for at least another five years. But an even larger threat is now looming from Indonesian paper makers. I will go into this in more detail later.Needless to say, unfair dumping flies in the face of all that has been achieved so far in the race to become world competitive. It negates the sacrifices made by workers and, as history has shown, threatens the very existence of not just the paper making industry. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the dilemma facing the industry and its workers at both Burnie and Wesley Vale could see the mills forced to close down. The effects of dumping on local industry in my region have indeed been well documented. It has led to massive job losses and industry downsizing.Let me give you an example. Just four years ago, paper orders at Burnie and Wesley Vale dried up. The two mills lost millions of dollars and future investment went into a holding pattern. The cause? In the main, paper dumping. The result? Two hundred workers lost their jobs. I know only too well that, when the squeeze is on, there is no loyalty; jobs will go. This proves that the fragile economy of the north-west coast of Tasmania can ill afford the effects paper dumping in Australia has had on its local paper manufacturing operations. Again I stress: it poses a serious threat to employment and the regional economy as a whole.I do not see anti-dumping contingencies simply as protection. They are about ensuring that Australian businesses do not have to compete unfairly with whatever products are coming into this country. Yet I acknowledge that Australia will never be able to compete in terms of labour costs. Again take the paper making industry as an example. How can Australia compete against the level of wages in countries like Brazil and Indonesia? But what do we do? Do we shut up shop or do we fight to retain our paper making industries and local jobs?Where I come from, every job is worth fighting for. Given that some parts of my electorate have unemployment rates that are amongst the highest in Australia, I remind the Prime Minister and his colleagues of the Prime Minister's statement after the signing of Tasmania's Regional Forest Agreement late last year. He stated;When you are trying to achieve a balance and when you are trying to strike the right balance between strongly competing interests, I ask you always to think of the employment prospects of Australians.Employing Australians is the greatest single social challenge of any government, federal or state in Australia in the 1990s, and the decisions that we take in every area of political responsibility must have a very high priority in the area of employment.If only that were true of this government. In this case, the government's performance in dealing with anti-dumping legislation to date has been second rate. I recall the litany of indecision surrounding the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 cognate legislation and the second reading of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1998 in this House.On 28 May 1998, the member for Hotham rightly pointed out to this House that the 1998 bills came about because Labor forced the issue. The government failed to act on the key recommendations of the Willett anti-dumping report until shamed into action by the Labor opposition, particularly the current deputy leader, Simon Crean, and Tasmanian senator Shane Murphy, as well as workers, unions and the industry lobby group TasPEAC at the Burnie and Wesley Vale paper mills in my electorate.Recent events in Asian economies and the government's initial mishandling of the Chinese dumping issue clearly demonstrate that the legislative and administrative change is necessary to preserve the integrity of Australia's anti-dumping system, be it for the paper making industry or other industries at risk. The specific legislation before the House in relation to China should improve existing anti-dumping procedures and help to ensure that Australian producers are not as seriously disadvantaged as they have been in the past.In 1997 this side of the House did not disagree with the need for legislation to implement changes to the way goods sourced from China were treated for the purpose of anti-dumping complaints. However, the Labor Party issued a minority report as part of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee October 1997 inquiry into the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997 because it believed:. . . that the Bill does not achieve this goal, particularly in the way it ignores the impact of inputs to the production process, precludes the use of a sectoral approach and takes a position which is well in advance of our trading partners in the way it treats dumping complaints against products sourced from China.The ALP recommended that the 1997 legislation be amended along the lines of the proposal put forward by the Industry Task Force on Anti-Dumping—in effect, that regulations should be set out to prescribe circumstances that are deemed to constitute price control. Sensibly, the 1998 legislation introduces a new `economy in transition' category that allows goods to be considered on a case by case basis.In 1997 we moved a number of amendments which fortunately have found their way into the 1998 bills. These amendments were accompanied by four concerns with the proposed special approach for determining `normal value'. The 1998 bill correctly defines a price control situation to now include cases where raw material input into the good, which accounts for more than 10 per cent of the cost of producing or manufacturing the good, is supplied by a state owned enterprise. As mentioned earlier, this was not the case under the 1997 bills. To the government's credit, Labor's amendments have now been incorporated into the 1998 bill.There are, however, a number of issues still of concern to the industry, and I would urge the minister to take these into account when dealing with these provisions. For example, industry rightly want the definition of a `price control situation' to include instances where price is not just controlled or substantially controlled by government but is expanded to include situations where price is directly or indirectly controlled, or substantially controlled, or even substantially influenced, by government.Likewise, under the 1997 bills, industry wanted to include a regulation making power to allow the minister to make regulations deeming price control situations. This demand and need is still relevant under the proposed legislation. Further, industry is still concerned that the minister should adopt the surrogate country method exclusively for determining the normal value of the allegedly dumped goods rather than exercise discretion to adopt other methods. This, according to the industry, allows the industry greater certainty in terms of arguing relative comparisons between the dumper and similar economic competitors.Industry, I believe, can still feel some disquiet about a lack of assurance that Customs can identify significant foreign government influence in companies exporting goods to Australia. I believe that the mechanism suggested by industry for identifying companies with significant foreign influence should have been given more recognition in the legislation. Because of the Asian economic turmoil, there is likely to be substantial overcapacity in some countries which, in turn, will increase the risk of product being dumped on the Australian market.That brings me again to the issue of paper dumping and the preservation of local jobs. The industry is now bracing itself for the flow of Brazilian paper back into Australia. There is no doubt that it will have an impact. Just around the corner is the prospect of Indonesian paper once more coming on to the market. Indonesia is the world's biggest paper producer and undoubtedly the biggest threat to our industry. The potential for both direct and indirect economic injury if Australia's paper making industry is again exposed to an unfair level of competition is a very legitimate cause for concern.Indications so far from Australian industry representatives related to the consultancy report of January 1999 of the Asia Pacific Economic Group, or APEG, to Customs on Indonesian paper exports are worrying. It appears that the report does not see a threat to Australia's domestic market or producers. However, contrary to this consultancy report, specialists within the industry argue that the evidence is that Indonesia is a clear-cut case where the surrogate country criteria should be applied to assess evidence for dumping behaviour. The main argument is that Indonesia does not in reality reflect a market economy but the opposite. The surrogate economy replacement case was introduced to allow for the case of non-market economies when cost accounting estimates need not reflect underlying resource costs in the way that would happen in an OECD type market economy.The National Institute of Economic and Industry Research assessment—`Indonesian paper imports: Dumping assessment criteria' March 1992, page 2—of the APEG study is that its conclusions and methodology are seriously flawed. It argues to the contrary that Indonesia fails both the structural and short-term tests for determining normalcy. In addition, the NI critique argues that there is prima facie evidence that suggests that a significant fall in Indonesia's imported paper prices in the Australian market would be consistent with paper dumping. The strong conclusion of the NI paper is:.. that a surrogate country should be selected in place of Indonesia to establish benchmarks for Indonesian paper exporters.Indonesian dumped paper is a very serious threat to the very fragile paper mills in my electorate. Rumours already abound about their futures, just as they did about the Burnie pulping operations. Without wishing to be alarmist, it would not take much to push these industries over the edge. I am reliably informed that a senior adviser in Minister Vanstone's office gave an undertaking to Australian Paper that Indonesia would not be sent a copy of the confidential APEG report, but in fact this is what occurred. One can only hope that the 20-day submission appeal time can be used to convince the minister and Customs of the validity of the NI objections once the statement of essential facts has been lodged with the minister.I draw the attention of the Minister for Justice and Customs to the thoughts of a paper worker at Wesley Vale during the last anti-dumping campaign against Indonesia. He said:I have mates that have lost their jobs with the last round of dumping and they are still out of work. They are totally demoralised. It still hurts them and their families and it hurts Tasmania.Like him, I am well aware of the vital role the paper making industry plays in my region's economy. Therefore, I support all endeavours to combat unfair trade practices.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Before I call the honourable member for Denison, not that he has done anything to warrant it yet, I would ask him to be on his best behaviour and to set a fine example to those in the galleries, especially the students of Watsonia North Primary School from the electorate of Scullin.10:26:004174Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not certain what in my past conduct has warranted this admonition, but I am told I have form, so I will comply indeed with your admonition. I want to begin by echoing the concerns of the member for Braddon. Before I go to the specifics of these customs bills, it is very important to place on record the growing concern that has been expressed to all Tasmanian members and to those members who represent workers in the paper industry in Victoria regarding the potential for dumping of paper from Indonesia. I think the concern is heightened by the fact that the industry still bears the scars of the way in which the coated paper inquiry was conducted.The grievance there flowed from the fact that the inquiry which was undertaken as to the status of the Indonesian economy was viewed as insufficiently rigorous. The complaint that has been put to me is that the Australian senior Customs official who was responsible for the assessment of the Indo nesian economy specifically referred to his study of that economy by indicating that he was indebted to information that had been supplied to him by a named individual. That named individual was a former Customs official currently working as a lobbyist for Indonesian paper interests. The report, I am told, indicates that the Australian officials made no independent inquiry and accepted the material supplied to them by the now lobbyist for the Indonesian paper industry.As a consequence of that, I understand that there was given to the National Association of Forest Industries Products Committee an assurance that the Australian Customs official would not be given responsibility for the current inquiry. Nonetheless, it appears that, notwithstanding those assurances which were given at the highest level of the department, that same officer has had carriage of the current inquiry. That gives rise to a sense of great misgiving and of an undertaking not met. It has been coupled by two other instances, one of which was referred to by the member for Braddon. There were suggestions—again, contrary to assurances from the department—that materials developed in this particular inquiry would not be submitted to the Indonesian authorities at this point of time, but they have been.The second instance is the way in which the Brazilian import issue was handled. If I might mention briefly the Brazilian matter: there was a question there about whether or not a Brazilian company which had a record of dumping in Australia would be permitted to resume trade to Australia. Again, the minister's office appears to have been indicted as having given assurances that the matter was under consideration by her and that no decision would be made in relation to that matter. Yet at the time she was giving those very assurances the department had facilitated the publication of an approval that was published so that the legal authority for the Brazilian imports was complete.Those who are concerned about this industry—the employers and the employed—believe there is a want of good faith in the way this process has been administered. That is very important because this is the first inquiry to be conducted under the new procedures. Previously there was the Anti-Dumping Authority which had conduct and carriage of these specifics. Now it is internal to the department and directly under the ministerial supervision of Minister Vanstone. When the industry and the employers who are concerned about their job futures reach a point where they come to members of the parliament saying that they no longer trust the word of the minister, that they believe there have been breaches of good faith and that they no longer have confidence in the department because assurances given at the most senior level within the department have not been honoured then I think there are real and significant concerns. The member for Braddon has referred to the conflicting expert opinions regarding the status of the Indonesian economy and he has firmly expressed his views on that matter. All I would say is that it will be very important for this minister to consider carefully the submissions that have been put forward from the industry in relation to the APEG study. The APEG study essentially concludes that the Indonesian economy can be regarded as a normal market economy. Very substantial attacks on those propositions have been put forward by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research trading as National Economics—the institute which is headed by Dr Peter Brain.There are concerns within the industry which reflect, from their perspective, their expert judgment in relation to those matters. These are complex matters. But the whole issue is made much more difficult because of the lack of faith that is held in the processes that the department has established and the fact that one of the key individuals that was previously associated with the coated paper inquiry—an inquiry which is roundly regarded as having been inadequate and having taken far too much regard of materials supplied by a lobbyist from the Indonesian paper industry accepted on face value without any scrutiny from the Australian authorities—is still integrally involved in the current assessment. I flag those concerns not merely as the member for Denison but on behalf of all five Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives and those Labor members who are in the Senate. I think I also reflect the concerns of many coalition members in the parliament on this matter. I am certain I also reflect the concerns of those who represent seats around Maryvale whose interests would also be affected if unfair competition leads to the loss of jobs in Australia through the import of a flood of paper products. I should pass from there to the specifics of this bill. By establishing what I have put on the record today without naming names, I seek to put down some very clear markers that this process is being watched intensely by those of goodwill at this stage who are seeking to see a proper process worked through within the new legislative framework. I indicate that I have sought to facilitate that goodwill by communication to the minister's office in the past without seeking to unduly raise concern and without heightening the political controversy that will obviously exist if a decision that is adverse to the employment interests of those that we represent is effected.While I understand that the department does have strict legal obligations and that those cannot be compromised for political reasons, I have also been flagging with the minister's office our concerns that people have started to distrust the assurances that they are being provided, firstly, from the minister herself and, secondly, from those senior officials within the department. This matter requires the exercise of more than the usual caution to ensure that the processes are scrupulously followed and that the interests of those affected in Australia are thoroughly understood, taken into account and evaluated before any final decision is made. I am meeting later today with representatives of the National Association of Forest Industries Products Committee who will I am sure be bringing me further up to date in relation to their concerns on this matter. The Labor Party essentially expresses its support for the present bill and regards the bill as a creature of its own advocacy. It is an overreaction to the mess that the Australian government made of its relations with the PRC when a decision was made—only explicable as a political decision—to regard the PRC as a market economy. More appropriately, the PRC would be regarded as an economy in transition. It certainly is moving and, in some sectors, it is moving with a great degree of speed towards a market economy. Nonetheless, there is central control over a range of decisions that go to input costs and output costs. Industry in China is still very dominated by state ownership and by pricing decisions which are non-market related.The decision of the Australian government, I believe, flowed from, firstly, poor management of its relationships over the DIFF scheme when it withdrew programs of assistance without consultation with the Chinese authorities, which led to a serious breakdown of normal courtesies between the two countries, and, secondly, the manner in which it dealt with the issue of Taiwan. I myself have recently been to Taiwan. I regard our relationship with Taiwan as important.It was a regrettable misunderstanding of the diplomatic niceties when a very large trade delegation visited Taiwan early in the term of the government and a very small trade delegation visited the PRC. Again, it gave a sense to the PRC that we were seeking to change our diplomatic recognition and respect for that country, coupled with the DIFF situation and a range of issues relating to the Pauline Hanson debate at the time and the Prime Minister's reluctance to engage in a serious debate.All of those factors soured our relations with the People's Republic of China and led to knee-jerk reactions, in a sense, to try to patch that relationship up. Two parts of that knee-jerk reaction have had particularly adverse consequences: firstly, the decision to schedule the PRC as a full market economy in relation to dumping measures—now being addressed by this government after substantial criticism from the Labor Party—and, secondly, an effective downgrading of our relationship with Taiwan. It was as though that because those bad steps were taken with regard to the PRC there has been a reluctance to continue effective recognition and respect for the economic interests and cultural ex changes that would be appropriate with Taiwan. So, in a sense, our diplomacy has led to erratic behaviour from the Australian government, erratic behaviour that would not have been necessary had we behaved more sensibly and in a more balanced way with our relationships with the PRC in the first instance.This legislation deals in a fairly sensitive way, largely on the recommendations of the Labor Party—I think substantially so—with the way in which one can deal with a market economy in transition. It accommodates those concerns that we expressed to protect Australian industry and to deal with the sensitivities that exist in the relations between Australia and the PRC. I believe that it is a sensible measure well worthy of support. In a sense, I think it is important for us to flag that it is a creature of our advocacy. We do not denigrate the government for following up, but we note the reasons why this legislation has come before the House in this form.It was an unfortunate situation that led to that occasion. It could have been dealt with in a much more sensitive way without the damage to the relations between the PRC and Australia which had previously been extremely sound. It is important in a mature relationship between a government such as that of Australia and the People's Republic of China that we understand where our diplomatic, economic and cultural interests lie and that we act not only with respect but also with self-interest. This legislation will get us back into some better balance.With those remarks, I would indicate that, following the speech on the second reading by our shadow minister for industry, Bob McMullan, we are very pleased that this legislation is now before the House. We look forward to it being part of a building block for growing trade relations with the PRC but on an appropriate basis which cannot disadvantage Australian national interests.10:41:004177Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—In wrapping up the debate on the Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 , I would like to thank the honourable members for Fraser, Dunkley, Lyons, Gilmore, Braddon and Denison for their comments on the bills. In particular, I thank the member for Fraser, who indicated the opposition would support the bill, and I thank also those opposition members who spoke in support.These bills have had a long history in the parliament, with the main bill being introduced into parliament in June 1997 as the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997. Like a lot of legislation of the first Howard government, it languished in the Senate awaiting debate until it lapsed on the calling of the 1998 election.As I outlined in my second reading speech, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 to provide a special approach for determining normal values of allegedly dumped goods from countries that are in the process of transitioning to a market economy. Under the main bill, this special approach, or methodology, will apply in two circumstances: first, when it is established that the domestic selling price of those goods is subject to government price control, as announced by the government on 12 March 1997; and, secondly, where a raw material input into the goods which accounts for more than 10 per cent of the costs of producing or manufacturing the goods is supplied by a state-owned facility.The Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) also clarifies provisions of the Customs Act and the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Act 1998 which relate to the manner in which interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected. The bill proposes to replace the terms `preliminary finding' and `Anti-Dumping Act' with the terms `preliminary affirmative determination' and `Dumping Duty Act' respectively to ensure consistency with the amendments to the Customs Act 1901 implemented by the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Act. These changes are necessary as a result of the abolition of the Anti-Dumping Authority by the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Act. The bills provide for a case by case approach to be taken by the minister to inquiries into the alleged dumping of products from countries that are in the process of transition to a market economy.The members for Gilmore, Lyons and Braddon and, more incidentally, the member for Denison, have raised the issue of the dumping of A4 copy paper, in particular by producers in Indonesia. I propose to comment only briefly on this. In doing so, I do not seek to downgrade the significance and impact of dumping in Australia on the paper industry. It is a matter of particular concern to members from Tasmania and the member for Gilmore.Under action initiated in November last year, the issue is being reviewed in relation to anti-dumping measures applying to exports from Indonesia. Customs is undertaking the review, and I am advised that a statement of essential facts will be made available by Customs on Tuesday, 30 March. Once the statement has been issued, interested parties will have 20 days to take up the opportunity to comment on those facts before Customs makes its final recommendation. I am advised that Customs is due to make that final recommendation to the minister by 14 May.Some speakers referred to some events which have occurred in the past. Again, I recognise justifiable concern at the impact of dumping on local industry and local jobs. However, some matters raised were, largely, matters of history which have been previously addressed, and other matters I will leave to the Minister for Justice and Customs to address, if appropriate, in debate in the Senate. I commend the bills to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4178Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Williams) read a third time.Bills4178r6054178Consideration resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4178Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Williams) read a third time.Bills4178r7544178Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.417810:48:004178Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bills I introduce today form the third round of legislation required to establish a new tax system for Australia. The reform of our tax system, the most comprehensive since Federation, provides a rare opportunity for the government to address inefficiencies in the way we conduct our tax affairs.The first part of the government's legislation was introduced in November 1998 to make private health insurance more affordable. The government introduced a universal 30 per cent benefit to be claimed against the cost of health insurance contributions as either a rebate on tax or a direct payment from the government.A second round of legislation was introduced in December 1998 to abolish the outdated wholesale sales tax and replace it with a broad based goods and services tax (levied at 10 per cent) as from 1 July 2000. Included in this round of legislation were bills to introduce $13 billion worth of annual personal income tax cuts; the provision of powers to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ensure that it can monitor prices for 12 months before the GST starts and two years after; a tightening of the reporting of fringe benefits to prevent some higher income earners taking advantage of government assistance designed for low income earners; and bonuses for older Australians.The bills before us today represent a further major step in the comprehensive reform of our tax system. With this third round of legislation, the government puts forward landmark reform of Commonwealth-state financial arrangements. It also includes further reforms to the way luxury cars and wine are taxed, removing inefficiencies and smoothing the transition to the modern indirect tax system endorsed by the Australian people in the last election.Reform of Commonwealth-state financial arrangementsLet me emphasise that the Commonwealth, the states and the territories are in agreement that the current financial relationship between levels of government must be reformed. Australia needs a stronger and more productive federal system for the next century. This will help deliver it.A key feature of the new tax system is the Commonwealth's offer to the states and territories of a stable and growing source of revenue. By passing all revenues from the GST to the states and territories, the Commonwealth will provide the states and territories with a superior growth tax that will allow them to remove nine of their current taxes. They will abolish financial institutions duty, debits tax, a number of business related stamp duties and accommodation taxes. This will reduce the cost of financial transactions and increase Australia's attractiveness as a major financial centre.The new arrangements mean that the states and territories will no longer have to rely on inefficient taxes to raise their own source revenues and that they will have greater independence from Commonwealth funding. They will no longer have to rely on general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, which have been the subject of much debate each year at the annual Premiers Conference.The Prime Minister and I met with all premiers, chief ministers and state treasurers last November to discuss these new arrangements. An historic agreement was reached at this Special Premiers Conference, covering principles that will guide the implementation of far-reaching reforms to Commonwealth and state taxation and to federal financial arrangements.GST revenuesAt the Special Premiers Conference, the Commonwealth committed to legislate to provide all the revenue from the GST to the states and territories. The A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 provides a standing appropriation of the GST revenues to the states and territories. As indicated by the government in August 1998, these revenues will be distributed to the states and territories according to the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation. The bill provides the basic formula that will determine this distribution.These reforms will replace the current system of Financial Assistance Grants by the Commonwealth to the states and territories. These grants will be abolished as of 1 July 2000.Transitional assistanceThe Commonwealth also guaranteed that, during the initial period following the introduction of the GST, a period not less than three years, the government will pay transitional assistance to the states and territories in each of these years to ensure that they are no worse off financially than they would have been under the current arrangements. Payments under this aggregate funding guarantee will be made so that the budgetary position of each state and territory will be no worse off in each year.Both the GST revenue and transitional assistance payments will be freely available for use by the states and territories for any purpose. These arrangements will bring enhanced revenue security to the states and territories. It will ensure that they can fund a sustainable level of quality services for hospitals, for schools, for roads and for law enforcement.Other paymentsThe bill also includes provisions to ensure that states and territories will retain their existing entitlements to franchise fee windfall tax and competition payments.Lock-in of GST rate and baseI would like to turn to the process for locking-in the GST rate. The Commonwealth has indicated very clearly that no change to the GST rate will be implemented without the unanimous support of all the states and territories and both houses of the Commonwealth parliament. The bill clearly provides this lock-in mechanism. The mechanism will be backed by the Commonwealth-State Intergovernmental Agreement as well as by legislation.The introduction of a GST is a major undertaking and like the introduction of any major tax, provisions must be made for finetuning. The government expects that some administrative changes or minor adjustments may be required in the early months of operation, generally having regard to the need to protect revenues. It would be irresponsible for the government to ignore this. As the GST revenue will be directed to the states and territories, the bill ensures that the states and territories will be involved if changes to the GST base prove necessary.However, time will be of the essence in the first year of operation. Therefore, to ensure that action is taken as quickly as necessary, the Commonwealth will reserve the right in the first year to introduce legislation or regulation that may impact on the GST base but is necessary for the smooth and proper operation of the GST. This right is reserved only for changes which are of an administrative nature, necessary to facilitate minor adjustments to the GST and are made having regard to the need to protect the revenue of the states and territories. After the first 12 months, any change to the base will be subject to the approval of the states and territories and both houses of the Commonwealth parliament.The 10 per cent GST rate is locked in with the passage of this legislation.Intergovernmental AgreementThe bill before you today will result in a major transformation of the Commonwealth-state financial arrangements. It brings a new era of cooperation between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments.Reforming the Commonwealth-state financial arrangements is a major undertaking. This is the major reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations in the history of Federation. However, not all aspects of this reform are appropriately addressed through legislation. Other mechanisms are better suited for arrangements between governments. Accordingly, the Commonwealth will enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the states and territories with respect to the reform of our financial arrangements. This agreement, which will be discussed at the forthcoming Premiers Conference, will spell out the detailed arrangements for the implementation of the reforms to Commonwealth-state financial relations.In addition to outlining the Commonwealth commitments reflected in these bills, the intergovernmental agreement will detail the obligations which the states and territories are assuming as part of the new arrangements. In particular, these obligations will include:. the repeal of nine inefficient state and territory indirect taxes;. the assumption by the states and territories of responsibility for the funding of local government; and. the operation of a first home owners scheme by the states and territories.National indirect tax reform means that the financial arrangements relating to local government can also be reformed. The revenues from the GST base will be sufficient to also fund the Commonwealth's current contribution to local government. Therefore, starting in July 2000, responsibility for ongoing financial assistance to local government will be transferred to states and territories. States and territories will be required to continue to provide general purpose assistance payments to local government at a level which is at least equal to that which would have been paid under the current funding arrangements.In return for the GST revenue, states and territories have also committed to take on specific responsibilities in assisting home buyers with the purchase of their first home. Starting in July 2000, states and territories will assist first home buyers through funding and administering a new first home owners scheme, designed to offset the impact of the introduction of a GST on the price of new homes.Consequential legislationI also introduce as part of this package of legislation the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999. This bill repeals the States Grants (General Purpose) Act 1994, the legislation governing the current Commonwealth-state financial arrangements. It also amends the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 to enable a smooth transition of payments in 1999-2000, and provides for its repeal on commencement of the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999.The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 provides for financial assistance for local government by means of grants to the states and the Northern Territory. As I mentioned before, under the government's reform package, these financial assistance grants are to be abolished from 1 July 2000 and the states and territories will take over responsibility for providing this assistance to local government from GST revenue.The Commonwealth recognises that local government needs certainty in its funding arrangements and has guaranteed that payments to local government will be in accordance with existing conditions. The states and the Northern Territory will make payments at least equal to the amount local government now receives under the financial assistance grant arrangements, adjusted each year for population and inflation movements. These are non-negotiable conditions for the payment of GST revenue to the states and territories.The states and territories are responsible for local government under the relevant legisla tion and it is therefore appropriate that they resume financial responsibility for local government. The new arrangements will be set out in more detail in the intergovernmental agreement to be considered at the forthcoming Premiers Conference. ConclusionThe third round of legislation I am introducing today represents a major step towards establishing a modern tax system for Australia. These are the big tax changes of the century. These are the tax changes which will give Australia a modern tax system to take it into the next century.The reform of Commonwealth-state financial arrangements will improve the financial position of the states and territories by providing them with a more robust tax base which can be expected to grow over time. At the same time, it will allow the states and territories to abolish bank transaction taxes, a number of stamp duties and accommodation taxes. The cost of financial transactions will be reduced and Australia's attractiveness as a major financial centre enhanced.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills4181r7554181Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418111:01:004181Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.With the government's introduction of A New Tax System, the current arrangements for provision of Commonwealth financial assistance to the state, territory and local govern ments will change. This bill repeals the two acts that currently provide this assistance—the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994 and the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995. The second of these acts falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government and in presenting this bill I therefore also do so on his behalf.Under the proposed reforms, all goods and services tax revenue will be distributed to the states and territories, and Financial Assistance Grants will be abolished. The States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994, which appropriates funding for payments of FAGs to the states and territories, will be repealed on commencement of A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999.States and territories have provided their agreement in principle to assuming responsibility for local government funding. This bill therefore amends the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 to enable a smooth transition of payments in 1999-2000 and provides for its repeal, also on commencement of A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999.The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 was designed for the continual payment of grants, with adjustments in respect of one year's payments being made in the following year. This adjustment process will not be available after 30 June 2000. This bill therefore amends the act to provide for payments in the final quarter of 1999-2000 to be paid by monthly instalments, with the instalment adjusted to reflect the final determination of the local government grant for that year.In addition, notwithstanding the repeal of the act, state treasurers will be required to report to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government that the 1999-2000 payments have been passed on to local government and will need to provide a certificate by the state Auditor-General to that effect. As is currently the case, the minister will be required to report to the parliament on the operation of the act in 1999-2000 as soon as practicable after 30 June next year.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4182r7614182Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418211:05:004182Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will introduce a wine equalisation tax. From 1 July 2000 it is proposed that the nation have A New Tax System which will abolish wholesale sales tax and replace it with a goods and services tax at the rate of 10 per cent. Currently wine products are subject to wholesale sales tax at the rate of 41 per cent.The wine equalisation tax means that after the abolition of WST and its replacement with GST prices are equalised back to avoid dramatic and dislocating price falls.The bill will apply to wine products including non-grape wines, cider, perry, mead and sake.The government has consulted industry and taken advice from industry representations. The bill applies to a broader range of products than outlined in A New Tax System. In particular, cider is included and will remain excise free.From 1 July 2000 the wine equalisation tax will be levied at a rate of 29 per cent.This will achieve the relative price impacts on cask and bottled wine outlined in our tax reform policy endorsed by the Australian public at the last election. In line with that policy the price of a typical four-litre cask of wine need only increase by the estimated general price increase associated with indirect tax reform; that is, 1.9 per cent.The wine equalisation tax payable will be incorporated into the net amount calculation under the GST so that taxpayers do not have additional payment and administrative obligations.The tax will apply to assessable dealings and importations and a quotation system will ensure that the incidence of the tax is delayed until the final sale at the wholesale level or an equivalent transaction.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4183r7654183Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418311:08:004183Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will impose wine equalisation tax, to the extent that it is neither a duty of excise nor a duty of customs, at the rate of 29 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4183r7634183Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418311:09:004183Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will impose wine equalisation tax, to the extent that it is a duty of customs, at the rate of 29 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4183r7644183Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418311:10:004183Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will impose wine equalisation tax, to the extent that it is a duty of excise, at the rate of 29 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4183r7574183Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418311:11:004183Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. This bill will introduce a luxury car tax in place of the current 22 per cent wholesale sales tax that applies to cars generally and the 45 per cent wholesale sales tax applying to luxury cars. From 1 July 2000 it is proposed that the nation will have a new tax system. The wholesale sales tax will be abolished and replaced with goods and services tax at the rate of 10 per cent. The price of cars will fall when wholesale sales tax is abolished. If the government took no additional action the price of luxury cars would fall dramatically more than non-luxury cars because they are currently subject to wholesale sales tax at the rate of 45 per cent.The luxury car tax will make up for the removal of the wholesale sales tax luxury loading.From 1 July 2000 luxury car tax will apply at the rate of 25 per cent. The tax will be applied to the portion of the price of a luxury vehicle above the income tax depreciation limit. The limit is currently $55,134. The luxury car tax will be payable in addition to the GST but on a GST exclusive price. It will be incorporated into the net amount calculation under the GST so that taxpayers do not have additional payment and administrative obligations.A quotation system will ensure that the incidence of the tax is delayed until the car is sold at the retail level. The luxury car tax will not apply to the private sale of motor vehicles by unregistered persons.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4184r7604184Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418411:13:004184Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will impose luxury car tax, to the extent that it is neither a duty of excise nor a duty of customs, at the rate of 25 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4184r7584184Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418411:14:004184Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will impose luxury car tax, to the extent that it is a duty of customs, at the rate of 25 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4184r7594184Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418411:15:004184Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. This bill will impose luxury car tax, to the extent that it is a duty of excise, at the rate of 25 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4185r7564185Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418511:16:004185Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to bring the wine equalisation tax and the luxury car tax within the administrative powers exercised by the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of taxation laws.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4185r7624185Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.418511:17:004185Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill sets out special rules needed to ensure a smooth transition from the existing wholesale sales tax applied to wine and luxury cars, to the new wine equalisation and luxury car tax arrangements.A special goods and services tax credit will be available for sales tax already paid on stock that becomes subject to wine equalisation tax. The bill will also provide that the proposed luxury car tax is not payable on cars sold by retail before 1 July 2000.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills4185r6954185Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.11:19:004185Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 is the fourth omnibus taxation bill for 1998-99. It covers seven separate areas: promoting Australia as a financial centre; commercial debt forgiveness; depreciation of plant that was previously owned by a tax exempt entity; franking credits, debits and the dividend rebate; franking of dividends by exempt entities; tax deductibility for donations to the Menzies Research Centre Public Fund; and trust and partnership distributions that are really interest on loans. I will go to each of these areas in turn.The first area is promoting Australia as a financial centre. There are a number of measures proposed to increase financial sector activity in Australia. These focus on reducing existing taxation on a variety of financial transactions involving non-residents in order to attract business to Australia. The areas covered are as follows: first, providing greater access to the existing 10 per cent interest withholding tax exemption, that is, section 128F; second, broadening the existing offshore banking unit provisions which provide a concessional rate of company tax of 10 per cent, instead of 36 per cent, on designated transactions with non-residents; third, providing a tax exemption for investments by Australian investors in United States investment funds, or FIFs; and, fourth, technical amendments to the thin capitalisation provisions. These restrict related party gearing—that is to say, debt levels—of foreign firms to protect the Australian tax base.Labor supports the further development of Australia's financial centre status. However, we do have some concerns that provisions like this do have some potential to be abused for tax avoidance purposes. Accordingly, we are proposing to support these provisions in the House but have them examined in detail by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. These proposals are estimated to cost $22 million per annum but, hopefully, will lead to further activity which will generate additional revenue in response. The measures have been modified after some consultation with stakeholders and will operate from 2 July this year.The second area is commercial debt forgiveness. Forgiving debts was a method of avoiding capital gains tax. I think we might want to ask some questions about the operation of the Greenfields Foundation concerning this issue of forgiving debts. This has been legislated against. The bill contains technical amendments to those anti-avoidance amendments, and we will be supporting it.The third area is depreciation of plant that was previously owned by a tax exempt entity. This is relevant to the issue of privatisations. The bill will enact previously announced rules which value plant owned by a formerly tax exempt entity—for example, a state electricity entity—which is privatised and therefore enters the Commonwealth income tax system.The bill will limit the value of plant to the written down value at the time of entry to the tax system or to an audited value. The reason for doing this is to protect the tax base by ensuring that old plant cannot be fully depreciated on entering the Commonwealth tax system. Further amendments cover the situation where the privatised entity on-sells the plant to another entity. In this case, a balancing charge is levied on the privatised entity to offset any additional depreciation available to the new purchaser. Failure to pass this measure would allow a considerable tax subsidy for privatisation to continue, described in the explanatory memorandum as `a potentially significant threat to the revenue'. So these measures will be supported.The fourth area relates to franking credits, debits and the dividend rebate. Labor introduced the dividend imputation system in 1986 to end the double taxation of dividends and to promote reinvestment of capital. This has been a very successful system. However, the imputation credits, known as franking credits, have a value as any taxpayer can offset them against their income tax liability. Consequentially, these credits have been misused in tax avoidance schemes. The major abuses occur through taxpayers technically owning shares for short periods and then receiving large amounts of franking credits. These taxpayers have entered into arrangements so that their actual economic risk in holding the shares is less than the apparent legal risk.The legislation attacks these practices by introducing a holding period rule. Subject to certain exceptions, taxpayers are required to hold shares at risk for more than 30 days, and the related payments rule requires that taxpayers who are under an obligation to make a related payment with respect to a dividend paid on shares hold the relevant shares at risk for more than 45 days. These very important anti-avoidance measures aim to raise at least $130 million per annum. Labor has already announced in-principle support for these measures which were announced at the time of the 1997 budget, and we will be continuing to support them. That said, the workability of the rules for some collective investment vehicles, such as superannuation, is a legitimate issue which should be investigated further. We would be suggesting that it be considered further by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee.The fifth area relates to the franking of dividends by exempt entities. In relation to limiting the source of franking credits involved in schemes which I described in item 4, the bill proposes to limit franked dividends paid by companies wholly owned by foreign investors or tax exempt entities to a few situations, such as for avoiding non-resident dividend withholding tax, and also quarantining the franking surpluses of companies which were formally wholly owned by non-residents or tax exempts. These measures will remove a major source of franking credits available for trading and should be supported. The revenue implications are not quantifiable but are expected to be quite substantial.The sixth item relates to tax deductibility for donations to the Menzies Research Centre Public Fund. Labor does not oppose providing this organisation with tax deductible status. But it ought to be pointed out that the Prime Minister was in breach of his own discredited code of ministerial conduct by being a director of a public company, the Menzies Research Centre Public Fund, when he became a minister. He further breached the code by agreeing to grant tax deductibility for donations to the fund, as is proposed in this bill, which involves a clear conflict of interest. Frankly, he should have resigned as he had breached his own code. This is something we will be saying some more about.Item 7 relates to trust and partnership distributions that are really interest on loans. These are further technical amendments dealing with another area of avoidance similar to those addressed in items 4 and 5. Taxpayers who make loans to companies on which they would receive taxable interest have disguised the transactions to make it look as though they are shareholders who receive dividends which attract the dividend rebate and therefore franking credits. These arrangements involve interposing trusts or partnerships. Accordingly, these amendments treat the dividends flowing through the trusts or partnerships as if they were interest, thereby denying the rebate and credit. These amendments are anti-avoidance measures and, once again, Labor is supporting them.We are supporting this legislation. We will be suggesting that it be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for further investigation. Regrettably, this bill and the other tax bills which we have been debating in the House over the past few months do not go anywhere near far enough towards addressing some of the real tax avoidance problems which have arisen in our community. Accord ingly, I now move an amendment to the second reading motion. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:(1) the Government has not addressed the real issue of tax reform facing Australia namely the continuing threat to the fairness of the tax system arising from widespread income tax avoidance;(2) senior Australian Taxation Office officials have expressed concern that aggressive tax planning is growing and that the real power now resides in the corporate sector not with the revenue authorities; and(3) the overwhelming evidence from both overseas experience with the GST and the evidence before the Senate GST inquiry is that the Government's tax package is unfair, will cause significant job losses across the Australian economy, and will have other adverse economic and social consequences".There is a significant document—which was revealed recently from within the Australian Taxation Office and to which I have referred in my second reading amendment—which makes quite clear the level of concern within the Australian Taxation Office about what is described as aggressive tax planning by corporate Australia. I suppose aggressive tax planning has become the latest expression for tax avoidance, tax dodging and the like. This paper was prepared by former assistant commissioner Ross Humphries and was sent to the leadership of the Australian Taxation Office. I want to point out to the House some of the remarks that assistant commissioner Ross Humphries made in this paper. He said that the approach of corporate Australia:. . . is one of minimising tax through creativity, opportunism and interpretation, which differs from our—the tax office's—objectives of contributions within the bounds of the legislation and its intent.He says:. . . we have to expect Corporate Australia to take up opportunities that present themselves to minimise tax and impede our progress, and that we need to design our system and approaches accordingly. A "real time" philosophy and an approach that targets "aggressive tax planning" is an appropriate response to current events, and the need to maintain and improve the revenue. . .He says a little about the context in which tax issues ought to be seen in Australia. He points out that the internal environment is driven by:- a view that compliance is acting "within the intent of the law", and the feeling that Corporate Australia, or part of it at least is outside this definition, and aggressively minimising its moral and legal responsibility, at a cost to the community.So this concern is being expressed that the view in corporate Australia is, `What we are really trying to do here is get away with as much as we possibly can, rather than pay the share of tax which is appropriate given our level of profits and turnover and the like.' He then turns to the area of self- assessment. He says:Corporate Australia's desired outcome from the tax system, to keep tax at a minimum, has probably not changed since Federation. But the system, and behaviours have.A dramatic change in tax administration has taken place over the last ten years with the introduction of self assessment, an approach predicated on honesty and voluntary compliance, but including a sophisticated audit activity . . .While that activity had outstanding results in terms of issues identified, additional revenue collected . . . and staff achievement and development, its longer term impacts have been more from Corporate responses to our success . . .Self-assessment was a 1986 response to resource pressures of the time . . . Whilst it has been an overall success—one cannot imagine where our processing would be without it—in the corporate sector at least, it has not kept pace with business and technological trends, or the force of human behaviour on its operation and effectiveness.Over the past 10 years, the system surrounding and driving self assessment has been developed and refined . . .He points out ways in which this has occurred. He says:These have included- return forms that until recently have provided us with insufficient information.- the creation of powerful lobby groups . . . and the development of professional bodies, associations and individuals, as areas of influence. - concessions and guidelines for access and legal professional privilege.- those concessions pushed to the limit, combined with a positive move by externals [companies] to more fully utilise privilege and keep information from us.. . . . . . . . .- a review of penalties, and a softer approach to penalty impositions.He goes on to say:We have also seen- issues grow from "millions" to "billions", and from simple to complex- the growth of an industry of highly intelligent, creative, but aggressive bankers and financiers, and tax strategists and advisers- aggressive taxpayer behaviour at all levels, with tax minimisation an accepted standard- the internationalisation and globalisation of businessHe further says:Today, we have a world, an environment, far different from that in which Self Assessment was designed and introduced.The outcome is a system that now allow itself to be controlled by the Financiers, the Corporates and their advisory/planning network, rather than by Government or the ATO. That could be "OK" if we were satisfied with the revenue and equitable outcomes it produces, and confident of the future, but that is not the case.There are enough examples of corporates taking an aggressive and untenable line, that does little for current or future confidence in the system. Externals [companies] continue to be hungered by the need for power and cost reduction, and fed by their ability to exploit our legislative and administrative weaknesses.In particular, an approach that conceals the facts, the ability to take a closed reasonably arguable position, the aggressive use of the legal and conceded right to legal professional privilege, few disincentives not to comply, and an ATO approach that puts faith in relationships, consultation and future goodwill that is not always returned, releases corporates from desired levels of accountability.In today's environment, large corporates can enter into a Multi million/billion dollar transaction or arrangement, and take an aggressive or simply corporate based tax position that will be unknown to us unless we conduct an audit, (which is unlikely) or if we do, if we see then recognise the arrangement for what it is. Whilst there are exceptions, in the event of making any enquiries, we are more than likely to have to fight for the facts, or alternatively find nothing other than basic accounting data because of privilege or cleansing.. . . . . . . . .If we make an adjustment or issue an assessment, penalties are unlikely. If we change the law, it will be prospective. So the corporate has lost nothing for its approach.That is the real world of today's self assessment, where the power is with the corporates and the external network, not the statute or its administration, a situation that needs to be reviewed if not reversed.That is a somewhat gloomy world view, but it does give us a great insight into the tax office's understanding of these issues, the tax office having the expertise and the day-to-day responsibility for these issues.In the last few paragraphs of the document I quoted, the assistant commissioner was basically saying that corporate Australia had nothing to lose from endeavouring to conceal transactions and to conceal its real tax liability. It is quite difficult for the tax office to become aware of what the true situation is. They have to conduct the audits, they have to get access to the documents—which they are being denied—and they have to recognise arrangements for what they are. Even if the corporate does get caught out, there is no penalty. And if the legislation is changed, it is changed in a prospective fashion.It is a document which I think we should all reflect on and which does give us some cause for concern about the way in which tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning is once again mushrooming in this country. I think it shows and ought to show the coalition government that we have an increasing situation where we have one tax rule for the rich and another for the poor. Rather than the government saying, `It is all too hard. The way we are going to address this is to impose a 10 per cent GST on almost everybody,' it needs to look seriously at the issues that have been raised within the tax office, and look at ways in which it can address those issues and ensure that corporates do pay their fair share of tax.It is a matter of some concern that the author of the paper, Ross Humphries, has since left the Australian Taxation Office. It raises great questions about whether the Prime Minister and the Treasurer could have or should have been doing more in their tax package to tackle the tax minimisation schemes which are being used by the government's supporters in business and in the legal and accounting professions.I also note that where the government has been involved in Taxation Office matters it has been intervening in a way which increases political control, rather than supporting the Taxation Office's attempts to ensure that everybody pays their fair share of tax. For example, at the end of last year, the tax office was instructed to have all communications with the public cleared by the Howard-Costello government. Frankly, that was a clear attempt at political control of the tax office's role of public education. The tax office was being required to hand over effective control of its public communications to the secretive and politically influenced government communications unit. The minute from Michael Carmody on this matter clearly stated:We will not be able to undertake Tax Reform public education informational activities unless they have been scrutinised by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications (MCGC).. . . . . . . . .We will also need to present our entire business as usual (ie: non-tax reform) public education informational activities to the MCGC.That committee is chaired by the Liberal Special Minister of State, Senator Chris Ellison. Its membership includes former Liberal Party Victorian State Director Petro Georgiou and Mr Tony Nutt from the Prime Minister's office. Their expertise is not in the area of advice to taxpayers about the detail of the tax act. Their expertise is in the area of political campaigns and advertising. I think we need to get some assurances from this government that that kind of power is not going to be used to shift scrutiny of tax avoidance away from the big end of town. Nor is it going to be used to pressure the tax office to hand out advertising contracts to companies associated with the Liberal Party.I thought it appalling that we had some $19 million of taxpayers' money used to fund the yes case for the GST prior to the last election. I think that was the most outrageous use of taxpayers' money for partisan political purposes in this country's history. I fear that it has only wetted the Liberal Party's appetite for using taxpayers' money instead of their own money.I did make reference earlier to one of the provisions in this bill which provides that donations of $2 or more to the Menzies Research Centre will be deductible if they are made after 2 April 1998. We are not opposed to this deductibility amendment, but it does come against a background of the Prime Minister being involved in cover-ups and conflict of interest. The Prime Minister was a director of this company and did not disclose it—a Prime Minister who, as a director of this company, presided over a cabinet decision which benefited that company and did not declare his interest at the relevant cabinet meeting, and a Prime Minister who, when he was caught out and realised he should have declared, did not fess up but secretly resigned from the position which he held. That does nothing for building up standards of trust and integrity within this country.Just to briefly recap that history, the Prime Minister's code of conduct states that ministers are required to resign directorships in public companies. Prime Minister Howard was appointed a director of the Menzies Research Centre on 29 September 1995. The centre is a company limited by guarantee. He should therefore have resigned his directorship of that public company.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—What was he getting paid?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The code says that ministers are required to resign directorships in public companies.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Is that what it says—how much you get paid?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—A new test. We have just seen the ministerial code watered down some more. He remained a director of the centre after becoming Prime Minister. He resigned secretly on 15 October 1996, interestingly enough, just days after the resignations of Senator Short and Senator Gibson for breaching the Prime Minister's code of conduct for not disclosing, and after the Prime Minister had said directly to them, `You need to know what your obligations are under my code.' We would reasonably suspect that, having admonished his frontbench in this way and having sacked a minister and a parliamentary secretary, he realised that he himself was in trouble and decided to resign secretly and weasel his way out of it.He tried to suggest that this was not a public company and talked about dictionary definitions and the like. He also tried to argue that it was a not for profit company. That is quite spurious. In the case of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Friedrich, the court found that there is nothing in company law to suggest that the standard expected of a part-time non-executive director of a company not for profit was different from the standard expected of any director of a profit making company.Despite the semantic gymnastics of the Prime Minister, the case against him on this issue is quite clear. He did not resign the directorship of the Menzies Research Centre when he became Prime Minister—and he should have. Having a Prime Minister who is prepared to flagrantly breach his own guidelines on integrity and honesty leads to a lack of public faith.I must add that this flagrant breach has been committed by someone who has made a big deal of these issues. The Prime Minister said back in February 1996 that he wanted an understanding, a covenant of trust with the people, in which in return for the voters' decision to make him Prime Minister, he would deliver honest and faithful government. He talked of a sense of trust, a sense of integrity, a sense of honesty and a sense of commitment to the Australian people. But here we have seen a failure to abide by his own code of conduct and then a secret resignation from the Menzies Research Centre rather than a public explanation of these events. I think, frankly, the Australian people are entitled to better.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—A non-core promise.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—A non-core promise, as my colleague the member for Rankin points out. In the second reading amendment I have moved there is a paragraph which relates to overwhelming evidence from the Senate GST inquiry that the government's tax package is unfair and will have adverse economic and social consequences. My colleague the member for Rankin has been working very closely in terms of that Senate GST inquiry, and I will certainly leave it to him to carry the debate on this point. But I will make the observation that the more evidence the Senate GST inquiry has uncovered the more it is becoming clear that the GST, if passed through the Senate, will adversely impact on the overwhelming majority of Australians.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Rubbish! You're not serious about that.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—One of the areas we recently have been talking about is its impact on pensioners. It has become quite clear from question time, from the questions asked and the government's responses, that—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—What about the compensation package?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I am glad that you have raised the compensation package.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order! Through the chair, please.Mr Slipper interjecting—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You can't have it one way if you don't want it the other way. Tell him that he can't talk directly too.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I am quite capable of handling the chair.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I listened very carefully to the comments made by the member for Brisbane, and he was clearly reflecting on the chair. I would ask that he withdraw those reflections, or that you consider dealing with him under the standing orders.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. I did not hear the comment, but thank you.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The government's responses to our questions on notice make it absolutely clear that, for pensioners, the level of increase they will have in their pensions over the next few years will be exactly the same, identical, whether we get a GST or not. So the compensation package will be of no practical value to pensioners whatsoever. However, if the GST goes through, they will be hit with a 10 per cent tax on nearly everything. The compensation package is of no practical value to them whatsoever, because it is quite clear that pension adjustments based on wage increases will meet exactly the same figure as the government proposes with its GST compensation package.On the basis of the GST's impact on retired people, on the basis of its impact on small businesses, on the basis of its impact on charities, on the basis of its impact on poorer and disadvantaged Australians, this side of the House is overwhelmingly opposed to the GST. We will continue to fight the GST in the Senate, through the Senate GST inquiry process and around the nation as more and more Australians come to understand that both they individually and this nation collectively will be worse off if the package is successful.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Is the amendment seconded?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—I second the amendment, and reserve my right to speak at a later time.11:49:004191Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—One never looks a gift-horse in the mouth, and the member for Wills certainly has proved to be a gift-horse this morning. Here we have on a number of different fronts yet again a perpetuation of that consistent same old scheme, that consistent same old theme of the Australian Labor Party—the big scare. The big scare was played out yet again in the closing comments of the member for Wills with regard to pensioners under tax reform.What the Australian Labor Party cannot fathom is that this government is `the government' that brought about a nexus between male average weekly earnings and pensions. By doing so, it has ensured that pensions are maintained at a figure at or above 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings and, as well, has tied into its tax reform package the fact that pensions will remain 1.5 per cent above the CPI increases.In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and other learned people in this place who have read this document and understand these matters far more clearly than they are understood by the member for Wills and the Labor Party clearly understand that, under the tax reform proposals, this government essentially is providing a pay rise in advance for pensioners. Rather than perpetuating the ongoing Labor legacy of every six months, as the CPI figures are announced, pensioners having to hope they can catch up to price increases they have had to endure with the wage or income situation effective from the previous pension rise, this government is saying, `You are going to stay 1.5 per cent above'. With inflation running so low, that constantly means that pensioners will be getting more money in their hand before more price rises have to be contended with.Another matter I would like to refute quickly as well is the notion of the Prime Minister's role in the Menzies Research Centre foundation. If you listen to the protestations of those opposite, you cannot help but ask: when did members of the Australian Labor Party frontbench—those who sit in the shadow cabinet or those who sat in the cabinets of the failed Hawke and Keating governments—ever consider resigning their position when they deliberated on matters relating to unions?As is well known right throughout Australia, those opposite take their marching orders from various unions. For instance, when there is an issue that has to be raised, the education unions and the student unions will ring the education spokesman and get them to ask questions about this, that or the other. At the end of the day, with matters having been raised relating to unions and benefits obtained by unions, or perhaps even contracts to sign up 10-year rental arrangements for a Labor Party owned building not very far from this place—the Australian National Audit Office is in Centenary House based on a contract deal signed by the Australian Labor Party; the building is named for Labor's centenary—one has to wonder why members of the Labor cabinet in the Keating government did not offer to resign their position because of a conflict of interest arising from their union membership. It is a ridiculous argument, and the people of Australia see through it.I would invite the member for Wills, the member for Rankin, the member for Brisbane and anybody else opposite who wants to hop up today and contribute to this great scare, this great negative about taxation reform to keep it up, because it is playing very well from my political point of view in the electorate of Moreton. People are sick to death of the negative. They are sick to death of the big obstruction—the no, no, no instead of the yes, yes, yes. This is the yes, yes, yes team. We are the proactive team; Labor are the protractive team. We are in the business of doing something to improve the lot of the people of Australia, something we have been elected twice overwhelmingly by the people of Australia to do.I welcome the Australian Labor Party's support on the anti-avoidance measures contained in the bill directly before us. But, again, while this government is thinking, acting and constantly looking to be proactive in the area of taxation reform—reform of the basic systems that encourage investment, enterprise and therefore the growth of jobs and the prospect of greater prosperity for all Australians—those opposite are on the big political no. It is just not good enough.The Treasurer just half an hour ago introduced yet again another series of reforms to the taxation system which deliver on the government's word. Those opposite cannot get used to the fact that this government have set about doing what they said they would do. Things that are promised before elections are introduced after elections.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—We keep our word.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—We keep our word, as the member for Fisher rightly interjects. Those opposite have had a dreadful track record over too many years of arrogant government and of not keeping their word, saying one thing before an election and doing another immediately after. Where were the big compensation packages for people when they put up wholesale sales taxes after the 1993 election? Yet here they are bemoaning the fact that the government is keeping its word, offering the compensation, offering the understandable dealings on a straight basis with the people of Australia, doing what we said we would do. This government is all about today and into tomorrow, improving our prospects as a nation. The Australian Labor Party are tied to the past. And what a past! They were a government of high debt, high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment. That is the Labor legacy that this government for the last three years has set about undoing and undoing extremely well. We did not create the problem; we are in the business of fixing it.The bill before us today is about improving the lot of all Australians. There are a number of measures here relating to all sorts of technical matters which I will not delay the House in attempting to go over because they have been explained well by the minister. At the end of the day, the most important measure contained in this bill is that we are keeping faith with the `Investing for Growth' statement announced on 8 December 1997 by the Prime Minister. I believe the amendments to various taxation bills will bring about a further enhancement of Australia's credentials as a world financial centre. In particular, measures which are included in the `Australia: A regional financial centre' component of that statement from December 1997 are aimed at making Australia a far more attractive regional financial centre by building on our existing advantages to ensure our ongoing participation in an increasingly global trade in financial services.This government is all about encouraging people to put money here, and therefore create jobs and secure a position of great strength for this nation. The natural advantage we have at the moment is that, while the rest of the Asian region is crashing and burning, Australia is maintaining its own, standing on its own two feet. We are strongly and proudly looking into the future, despite the very worst that has been thrown at us by those opposite. Additional measures are also contained in this bill which result from consultation with industry to further develop the corporate debt market. Those measures were announced on 13 August last year by the Treasurer.Essentially, the measures contained in this bill include the widening of the interest withholding tax exemption provided for under section 128F of the income tax laws. Since this particular measure was introduced, it has been amended to allow the issue of bearer debentures in Australia to residents of Australia without denying the interest withholding exemption on the issue of debentures as a whole. It also allows companies acting in the capacity of trustees to issue debentures under section 128F and still obtain an exemption. As well, the thin capitalisation changes benefit various foreign banks operating in Australia by giving them greater access to debenture funds raised under that particular 128F exemption. As well, the exemption from the foreign investment fund measures are intended to make Australia collective investment funds more efficient. Why? Because they will expose them to greater competition from US investment funds. Essentially, all the offshore banking unit concessions are expanded to extend the range of entities eligible to register as offshore banking units.It has been suggested to me that in a lot of ways Australia could become the Switzerland of the South Pacific—a place where, because of capital flows, because of involvement in those capital flows and foreign investment through the banking sector, we have great advantages for all our citizenry. Our economic performance has currently showed that we are far better than Switzerland already. We have a great growth rate of 4.6 per cent. What a fantastic result! While the rest of Asia is suffering, we are standing on our own two feet. Second in line would be Taiwan, with three and a bit per cent growth. Nevertheless, it is doing very well. I will say a little more about Taiwan in a moment.There are those who would like to see us lower the capital gains tax regime. Some would like to see it at zero, but I think that is probably too bold a move. Some would like to see capital gains tax lowered; some would like to see company tax lowered. These are all matters that will not simply boost the profits for companies for the sake of profits alone. If you listen to some opposite, you would swear that, just as the Scrooge McDuck cartoon character used to swim in olympic size swimming pools filled with money, those who invest in capital in this nation to create jobs and to create a good country are themselves hoarding great wads of money and swimming in it on a daily basis. There are no pools of money that will come out of this sort of legislation. What comes out of it will be a benefit for all Australians.The sorts of measures that the government has put in this bill, the sorts of measures that are contained in taxation reform in general as being promoted by this government and the other measures which the government will always consider all have the capacity to flood this nation with additional capital, have the capacity to bring this nation up to even greater speed and, for everyday Australians, have the capacity to increase our living standard. Our living standard is already so good, but there is so much more we could do. Those opposite talk about tax avoidance, saying that perhaps not enough is being done. But, at the end of the day, if you have a simpler and more transparent taxation system, you will have more people willing to comply with it. What is this government in the business of doing? Having a simpler and more transparent taxation system. So the question of non-compliance should start to devolve.As the member for Wills said, the call to lower taxes on business has been made by business since Federation. It is an understandable call because it is being made by people who have a desire, at the absolute core of their being, to grow their business. The consequences which flow from the growth of business are always more jobs. One would have thought those opposite, with all the strong links they have with the trade union movement, would have wanted more jobs because people in jobs may actually join unions. People out of jobs have little or no use for a trade union and people out of jobs know that a lot of trade unions have delivered fewer jobs in this country. This government has the political will to do something about the problems that confront us as a nation and, moreover, to do something about the challenges presented to us these days as the world continues to evolve and gets closer and closer on matters such as financial dealings. We have the will; those opposite do not. We have the will displayed clearly in the taxation reform measures that have been introduced through so many bills that have been before this parliament, including those that were introduced again by the Treasurer today. Those opposite offer nothing but ill will.I fear that the Australian Labor Party are so cemented on the claims of Paul Keating in the 1980s about a banana republic that they are trying to fulfil the prophecies of Keating and bring about a banana republic kind of approach in this nation. I would challenge yet again those opposite who believe there is so much wrong with the government's proposals for taxation reform to pass all the government's measures in the other place.We have had 100 weeks of inquiries from Senate committees looking at the taxation measures. There have never been so many inquiries conducted into any other matter. We have subjected Australian citizens to atomic testing and we have sent them off to war, but on this measure, which is all about being proactive, all about being positive, all about building a bigger economy, a better Australia and improving living standards, the Australian Labor Party have done their very worst to bring about as many delays as possible.If the bills are so bad, why won't those opposite pass them? If they are bad and they pass them, the Australian Labor Party could then expect a landslide result at the next election because, once in place, they would be able to campaign against the government's own results. But they know in their heart of hearts that what the government has proposed is going to work. They know that it is going to bring about so many positive improvements to the living standards of everyday Australians—be they pensioners or be they Packer, all the way through. The full range of Australians are going to benefit as a result of the government's tax reform measures. They will know that the big lie of the last election campaign will have been exposed. They will know that the basis on which they scored votes and defeated very good local coalition candidates in a number of seats around this country will have been exposed.They know that the government's agenda does work. The last thing the Labor Party want is to expose themselves to a generation who will never ever again trust the Australian Labor Party, because they will be certain of the fact that the Labor Party will say and do anything to win a vote and they will say and do anything to destroy the prospects of a very good government doing a lot of very good work. Again I challenge those opposite to pass the bill.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And we have a mandate for it.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—We do have a mandate—the member for Fisher is correct. I am looking forward to more international banks investing in Australia. I am optimistic that, as a result of the measures contained in this bill today, we will see more international banks wanting to be here in Australia.I would like to mention in particular something that is happening in the next couple of weeks: the International Commercial Bank of China are officially opening their branch at Sunnybank in my electorate. The ICBC is a Taiwanese based company. I am delighted that they are doing this in the Sunnybank area of my electorate, which is an area with a lot of Taiwanese born residents.This bank has an A plus rating from Standard and Poors. They are therefore a very long-term prospect. They have been acknowledging the changing economic conditions in the Asian region. Management, employees, shareholders and customers have been working very hard together and growing business deposits in the last couple of years by over 10 per cent. So they are a good prospect for Australia.What they offer all Australians is access to greater efficiency, improvements in quality of service and establishment of new business lines. The ICBC have successfully introduced various innovative products in the fields of credit cards, deposits, electronic banking, lending and trusts to meet the needs of various customers. Those new products have been going for the last couple of years.I think this bank should be applauded for their decision to open up their branch in Sunnybank. They already have a branch in Sydney. It makes very good sense when it comes to south-east Queensland that that particular area has been seen to be the place to base themselves. The ICBC are welcome, and more ICBCs will come to Australia as a result of this government's measures. As I said, this government is being proactive and is being aggressive in the desire to build a better and stronger economy. I commend the bill to the House.12:07:004195Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The brief description of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 is that it promotes Australia as a financial centre; it also relates to commercial debt forgiveness, the depreciation of plant that was previously owned by a tax exempt entity, franking credits, debits and the dividend rebate. It relates to the franking of dividends by exempt entities, to tax deductibility for donations to the Menzies Research Centre Public Fund and to trust and partnership distributions that are really interest on loans.I do find it curious that it has essentially been left to the Labor speakers on this bill to at least outline what the bill contains and what it involves. I am not sure that members opposite are very knowledgeable about that at all. I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment to the bill that was moved by the member for Wills. As indicated by the member for Wills, we will be supporting the overall bill but we are proposing a number of aspects go to the Senate Economics Committee.In dealing with the amendment to the bill moved by the member for Wills, I would like to start by talking about the impact of the goods and services tax package on jobs. In this regard, a new report has been released. It was commissioned by the Senate GST inquiry. The new report is by Professor Dixon and Maureen Rimmer of the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. It was released yesterday and it reveals massive job losses in prospect from the implementation of the government's tax package. In particular, if wage earners successfully pursue wage rises to compensate for the cost of living increases from the GST, Professor Dixon's work estimates job losses in the short term of 120,000 people. This is a massive result and it is one that everyone opposite should be worried about, but obviously they are not.In my own state of Queensland, the results obtained by Professor Dixon of Monash University are job losses of up to 23,000. It is particularly interesting that, in Brisbane, there would be job losses of almost 11,000. The member for Moreton, who has just finished speaking, seems oblivious to that or completely indifferent to the prospect of job losses in Brisbane of 11,000. He says the GST package is a great package. He should be worried about those job losses. He should be acting against the tax package. We invite him to support us on this because he has a responsibility to protect jobs in Queensland and the 11,000 jobs that are at risk in Brisbane.In the statistical area of Moreton, which in fact covers the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast, job losses of almost 5,000 are predicted. I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to an article that appeared in the Sunshine Coast Sunday on 21 March 1999. In the Sunday Coast News section, the headline reads `Somlyay pushes for fair share of revenue', and the newspaper article says:FEARS that Queensland may be short changed in the allocation of Goods and Services Tax revenue to the states are shared by a Sunshine Coast-based member of the Federal Government.Member for Fairfax Alex Somlyay, a former Howard Government minister, said he agreed with Queensland Labor Treasurer David Hamill's assessment that the state could draw the short straw of GST revenue.What is the assessment of the Queensland Treasurer? The assessment is that, in the first few years of this tax package, Queensland will be some $465 million worse off as a result of the implementation of a GST. Queensland, at present, is a low-tax state. It will not be a low-tax state after a $32 billion GST is imposed on Queenslanders and the rest of Australia.It astonishes me that the member for Moreton and also the member for Fisher continue to defend the implementation of a goods and services tax which is forecast to produce job losses of up to 23,000 for Queensland, of up to 11,000 for Brisbane and of up to 5,000 for the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast—and the member for Fisher represents an electorate on the Sunshine Coast. I simply cannot understand the position of Queensland members of this parliament in failing to and refusing to defend Queensland against the impact of the GST.Even the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Mr Chris Murphy, has done an analysis of the impact of the GST package on jobs. He reported to the Treasury before the package was finally unveiled that he expected job losses in 12 out of 18 industry sectors. This should be a matter of grave concern to the Treasury and to the Howard government, but it obviously is not.Worse than that, in one sense, is that the GST will penalise labour intensive export oriented industries in the form of tourism and education—overseas students coming to Australia—which are, as I said, labour intensive and whose prices are rising in the long term. It will penalise those industries, obviously to the particular disadvantage of Queensland, and it will reward capital intensive industries such as mining, whose long-term prices are falling. So we actually have a tax package which, under the analysis of Professor Dixon, will reduce average Australian living standards. In the case of Queensland, it will bear the brunt of those reductions in living standards. Yet again we have a situation where the coalition members for Queensland refuse to stand up for the state.The Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed that `everyone's a winner' from the GST package, except tax cheats. Is he completely unconcerned with job losses? How can the Prime Minister explain to families of workers who lose their jobs that they are better off with their parents out of work? That is really what he needs to do—explain to them how they will be better off when their parents lose their jobs as a result of this tax package. The answer seems to go along the following line, `Don't worry too much about job losses; let's reap the efficiency gains that have been predicted by Treasury,' but not quantified, and also by the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Mr Chris Murphy.Mr Murphy's absolutely best-case scenario is 65c per person per week. Why is that a best-case scenario? It is because he assumes there is no GST paperwork burden for the 1.6 million businesses that will be forced to pay GST, that will be caught in the GST net. He assumes that there will be no short-term job losses. Isn't that wonderful? As an economic modeller he just says, `Well, I'm only interested in the long term, so I am completely unconcerned with short-term job losses.' And he assumes that there will be no inflationary impact from the GST other than the government's stated figure of 1.9 per cent. Treasury has admitted that the true figure is 3.1 per cent, and that assumes full and immediate passing on of all indirect tax reductions, overnight, on Saturday 1 July 2000. Mr Murphy, the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, is quite comfortable with that assumption; he is unconcerned about that.Professor Dixon has done some work on that. He has looked at a situation where there is some delay, even a modest delay, in those price reductions. As a result of his analysis, he came up with a figure of another 15,000 jobs lost on that account alone—and still the Queenslanders are unconcerned, completely unfazed. We are told that this is such an efficient tax because it is so much simpler than the existing indirect tax system.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It is.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—Okay, thank you very much. Let us have a look at what the international accounting firm Arthur Andersen told the Senate GST inquiry on the issue of the paperwork burden and simplicity. Arthur Andersen in their submission to the inquiry said:. . . it is generally accepted that most GST taxpayers (and there will be approximately 1.6 million of them) will be saddled with a substantial compliance burden but will contribute no net GST revenue.That is clever, isn't it? A compliance burden that will contribute no revenue. They went on to say:On the issue of cash flow, the ATO has publicly acknowledged that in order to collect $30 billion in net revenue, it will cost $40 billion gross. This ATO estimate reinforces our concern about the additional business costs of GST and, in particular, the cost of funding the collection process through every stage of bringing goods and services to consumers.They also said:We are deeply concerned that the Government's proposed $500 million compliance assistance package is grossly inadequate, equating to approximately $300 each for the estimated 1.6 million taxpayers who will register for GST.Dealing with the question of efficiency, we have heard from the Treasurer that the existing wholesale sales tax is some sort of ramshackle system, that it is the sort of system that countries like Botswana have implemented. Let us hear from Arthur Andersen on this point. They said:The WST has been replaced with three new taxes—GST at 10%, a new "luxury" car tax at 25% and a wine equalization tax at a rate yet to be announced. Simplicity should dictate that a multi-rate GST would be preferred. The strongest objection to this structure is, of course, that these taxes compound. GST will be payable on the wine equalization tax itself and the luxury car tax will be charged on the GST—these results are untenable in the context of the Government's stated goal of the tax reform process in general and the GST in particular.A further concern, of course, is that, over time, more and more goods/services will find their way into these other taxes to meet political goals. The Government constraint on increasing the GST rate can thus be easily circumvented. How long will it be until other "luxury" goods are brought within the luxury tax regime?We heard today from the Treasurer about this lock-in mechanism on the GST rate. Arthur Andersen have already blown the whistle on how that can be circumvented—just put more so-called luxury items into the GST treatment of luxury cars. So much for a simple tax to replace the wholesale sales tax that the Treasurer says is so complicated. Let us try this for example, again from Arthur Andersen, who said:There are, for example, 158 identified "medical aids and appliances" that are GST-free but only if they are not "widely used by people without an illness or disability". Such imprecise language (define "widely used") in tax legislation will only lead to challenges and disputes.They also said:The draft legislation as proposed is very complex and at times uses vague and imprecise language.This is the simple tax system that the members opposite see as being much simpler than the existing tax system! Arthur Andersen said:There are 67 pages of "Basic Rules" which require a 28 page "Dictionary" to apply, but these are impacted by 30 pages of "Exemptions" and 144 pages of "Special Rules" which are made even more difficult by extensive cross-referencing to other Acts. Indeed, the draft legislation is far more complex than we were led to expect.So much for the argument that we are going to have a simpler and more efficient tax system. Arthur Andersen are not alone in the submissions and views they have put to the Senate GST inquiry. Other accounting firms and associations have advised the government, through evidence to the GST inquiry, to rewrite the bill, that it is far too complicated and unmanageable.So we have this odd situation—an astonishing situation—where the government is pursuing a tax that is job destroying, inefficient and unfair. But it is now locked into this policy which is bad for families and bad for the economy. If I could give some advice to the coalition, I would say that perhaps they should heed the warnings given in a confidential briefing note from former Liberal Party director, Mr Tony Eggleton. Mr Eggleton went to Canada. His briefing note is dated 14 August 1990 and is addressed to John Hewson, former opposition leader, with a copy to Peter Reith, who is now Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. In his briefing note, after he came back from his trip to Canada, he said:I'm just back from meetings of the International Democrat Union, and from talks with the Progressive Conservative Party in Ottawa and the Conservatives in London.At the Pacific Democrat Union meeting in Toronto I gave a report on the Australian political scene and mentioned that we were undertaking a review of our taxation policies.Somewhat to my surprise, when I got to Ottawa I received a call from the Director of the Progressive Conservatives to say that the Party thought it important that I should be briefed on their Goods and Services Tax. A meeting was arranged with Jim Ramsay, the Chief of Staff to the Minister for Energy and a consultant to the Finance Minister. Ramsay is also playing a key role in "marketing" the Goods and Services Tax and he has promised to let us have samples of their communication material.He goes on to say:The Progressive Conservatives propose resolutely to follow through on their Goods and Services legislation.However, the purpose of the briefing for me was to warn of the dangers and difficulties.Ramsay said that, although they would never admit it publicly, they now seriously doubted the wisdom of introducing the new consumption tax.Opinion polls were recording a two-to-one majority opposed to the new tax, and opposition has been polarised in a way the Government had never expected.The Government would be going flat out to overcome the objections, and would be putting a massive effort into a comprehensive communications programme.Not unlike the communications program that was put in place by the coalition government here in Australia before the last election, at taxpayers' expense, amounting to $19 million. The briefing note goes on to say:However, they were concerned that it could cost them the election. Their support in the polls had slumped to 23% and there was a very pessimistic mood at the Party Headquarters in Ottawa.Specific points made by Jim Ramsay:. Opposition emerged from all sections of the community, and especially women's organisations, family lobby groups and the elderly.. Although business had largely welcomed the legislation, they "went for cover" as soon as the controversy heated up.We have seen a bit of that in the Senate GST inquiry too, where a range of business groups have come to the inquiry and said, `Well, we think the GST is all right just so long as we get special treatment or just so long as it doesn't apply to us at all.' The next point in the note from Mr Eggleton is:. The cynical Canadian electorate refuses to believe that they will be better off with the Goods and Services Tax . . .They showed good judgment on that point, didn't they? Another point:. The electorate fears that it is too easy for a Government of the day to keep increasing the consumption tax rate . . . The Canadian electorate was right to have that concern, just as the Australian electorate is right to have that concern, because in 22 out of 23 countries with the GST the rate has subsequently been increased. People in Australia know that. Ironically, Canada is the only country where it has not gone up, but it is only a matter of time. Another point that is made in the briefing is that:. In retrospect, most Government people regretted embarking on the new legislation . . . and were worried about their capacity to change public opinion before the next election.It is history now that, at the next election, that government was wiped out, retaining only two seats. I would provide some advice—unsolicited—to members opposite that they still have time to reconsider the goods and services tax legislation and drop it. It is bad for the Australian economy and it is bad for families, and that is why Labor is opposing the goods and services tax and will continue to oppose the goods and services tax in the Senate and in the Australian community.12:27:004199Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I would like to focus on the measures in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 and later on perhaps make a few remarks about other impediments in the tax system that stand in the way for Australia to create more wealth and, indeed, to reach the goal that is inherent not in the title of this bill but in the policy behind it, and that is, Australia—a regional financial centre. We have all the potential in the world to attract more in the way of financial services industries to this country—particularly, I suppose, to the city in which I live and part of which I represent, Sydney, but I think it has flow-on benefits for all of Australia.The measures in this bill include, in particular, an extension of the exemption to withholding tax. That is contained in section 128F of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Interest withholding tax is a tax imposed on Australian sourced interests paid to non-residents—that is, lenders abroad who lend capital to Australian businesses. It is levied at the rate of 10 per cent. At the moment, there is an exception to it—interest paid outside Australia on debentures issued outside Australia as a public offer by an Australian company is not subject to interest withholding tax. The new bill proposes an extension of that exemption to include companies acting as trustees who issue such debentures. It also allows Australian residents to buy such debentures and yet the exemption to be maintained. This is aimed at encouraging the development of a thriving domestic corporate debt market.In the United States, there is a great spectrum of bonds issued by corporations with investment grade, or even below investment grade, credit ratings. You will perhaps remember the notoriety attracted by the so-called junk bond market during the 1980s and the asset bubble that occurred then. It was exploited by some unscrupulous operators. I suppose Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky were the two that came to the public's mind most by their arrest and, indeed, subsequent imprisonment.But, in fact, having a thriving corporate debt market is a very good thing for a country that seeks to allow its own enterprises access to capital more cheaply and efficiently. It is also good for securitisation of debt or receivables. This is something that is not often widely understood, but where great credit schemes such as car loans, credit cards and of course also home mortgages, one way of lenders realising their capital early is to bundle up the receivables into particular legal persons—usually a trust—and selling that at the going rate for such loans to other investors. You of course get a higher interest rate than you would if you invested simply in a government bond, and the credit ratings are often very good—especially for home mortgages. At the moment, interest withholding tax is raising only $515 million, at least in the last financial year. So you could say that that is comparatively little revenue for the great deterrent effect that it has on such valuable financial services that we seek to attract.Another reform proposed has to do with offshore banking units or, to describe that activity more simply, it is intermediation by Australian based financial institutions—you might say merchant banks—in financial transactions between non-resident borrowers or lenders. In a sense, you could have a company or bank in Sydney or other parts of Australia providing services for a fee to borrowers and lenders in another country. At the moment, the income from an offshore banking unit, provided you are licensed to undertake that activity by the Treasurer, is taxed at a concessional rate of only 10 per cent. This amendment will extend the eligible entities and activities which those entities can undertake in order to qualify for that concessional rate.Of special importance, I think, is that the entities to be included will be fund managers and life insurers. Fund management as an industry is very valuable for the very high return on capital that a country can achieve by developing a flourishing fund management industry; traditionally, of course, these have been in the city of London and other places such as Charlotte Square in Edinburgh, Singapore, Hong Kong and, to a much lesser extent, Japan. In Japan the regulations for fund management, certainly for foreign fund managers seeking access to the enormous Japanese pension funds, were so restrictive that the industry found it very hard to develop—to say nothing of the costs of establishing and operating a fund management enterprise in Tokyo.It is a far better, more efficient notion to operate an enterprise providing that service to pension funds in a place like Japan from Australia and, if you then qualify as an offshore banking unit in order to provide that service in another jurisdiction, likewise you will qualify for a concessional rate. The activities that are permissible within the rubric of an offshore banking unit will now also include custodial services, settlement, foreign exchange, reporting—that is, judging or calculating the net asset value of a fund, for example, and reporting it to the client—and also the trading of gold. They are set out in a table on page 43 of the explanatory memorandum.A third reform that, perhaps, is not such as to make headlines but which is very important for the banking sector, is in changes to the thin capitalisation rules. These are rules aimed at limiting the amount of interest that can be claimed in relation to foreign-controlled entities. So, for example, if you have a German company seeking to invest in plant equipment or some kind of development in Australia, it will establish a subsidiary in this country and then provide the capital. If it provides it entirely as a debt or as a loan to its own subsidiary, it will pay only 10 per cent interest withholding tax on any interest that that local subsidiary will later repay when the investment is up and operating and, hopefully, making a profit. If it was paying a dividend because the capital had been provided by way of equity instead, then it would have to pay 36 per cent in company tax on the dividends. This is something I encountered myself once in the past, and I learned thin capitalisation means precisely that. You cannot be too thin in a debt to equity ratio sense. So the ratio now set by the tax act is two to one—that is, two equity to every debt unit of investment—for normal entities but six to one for financial institutions. This amendment seeks to enable the branches of foreign banks in Australia to borrow money from their parents overseas and hence to on-lend it to Australian enterprises. In that sense, if the money is for lending by its Australian entity here in Australia and not for some other purpose, then it will qualify for the concession within the thin capitalisation rules. That should encourage the development of business by foreign banks here and, in turn, create more efficiencies in the capital markets in this country to hopefully reduce the cost of capital to Australian entities who borrow here at home.Another reform embodied in the amendment bill pertains to the foreign investment fund rules in part 11 of the tax act. These were designed originally to stop Australian residents deferring their tax on accumulated profits in a foreign company or trust—profits that had been accumulated but not distributed to them by way of a dividend. So, for example, if you had an export business and you established a subsidiary overseas, whether in a tax haven or not, and you managed to leave your profits in that vehicle overseas, then you might borrow against accumulated profits to undertake further business. Instead of claiming that as a dividend back home in Australia and paying tax, you would be deferring the tax but, in doing so, gaining an advantage that you probably should not. So, in those cases, such accumulated profits were deemed to have been distributed and you were taxed on them.There are, of course, various exemptions for active businesses where it is not really a device to avoid or defer tax, and this amendment provides more exemptions in terms of exposing Australian investment funds to a little more competition, which should of course be good for their returns. So in the cases of certain American foreign investment funds, such as regulated investment companies, real estate investment trusts or entities treated by United States tax law as corporations and subject to tax on their worldwide earnings—that is to say, normal active businesses in which you or I might be investing—if they choose not to distribute their profit we will not, in that sense, be deemed to have received and be taxed on them, because of course that is hardly something you could describe as a tax avoidance measure.There are other measures in the bill regarding commercial debt forgiveness, depreciation of plant and equipment, and franking credits and dividend streaming schemes. In general terms, the policy behind this is to promote Australia as a leading financial centre in this region. I think we have gone a long way towards realising that goal, but there are of course some other rather poisonous impediments in the way. The chief among them, I believe, is capital gains tax. It was originally introduced to combat a lot of the tax avoidance that was happening through the 1970s and early 1980s whereby High Court decisions had allowed people to very loosely convert what should otherwise have been income into capital gains and thereby escape their tax obligations.The other side of that is that by taxing capital you are placing an impediment in the way of wealth creation. And, as huge gaps seem to me to be opening up between what is described as `information rich' and `information poor' Australians, my sense is that it is only capital formation that will boost growth, boost real incomes and, thereby, do something to close that gap. Because if you tax capital gains as we do now—certainly at $50,000 or above it is taxed at the top marginal tax rate—then you really are encouraging people to sit on existing capital. I think that works to widen the gap.It is one way, if you like, of entrenching a kind of aristocracy of capital by allowing people to sit on it. Whereas if you could tempt them, by taking away the tax penalty, to risk it more often, re-invest it more often, I think you would give access to capital to people who are starved of it and, therefore, give them the chance to get on. It makes for a more classless society in an economic sense. Venture capital, of course, is immediately stymied by this. Anyone with spare capital will tell you—it is the innate sense we all have—that capital will find its best after tax return.There are some very unfortunate stories about new types of industries which grow to what you might call a mezzanine stage where they want to acquire more—whether it is more plant, equipment or staff—or to develop more markets, for which they need a little bit of what they call `mezzanine capital'. This is something between borrowing from the bank on your home mortgage to start your business and boosting your capital in a very large way by listing on the stock exchange. At the moment, of course, if you have something that, when it is listed, you think will be potentially worth $10 million, $20 million, $30 million, $50 million—and there are such wonderful enterprises out there—then you must leave Australia to undertake that listing and that capital raising, otherwise you will lose half of it in tax.There are any number of stories of such companies which have relocated to the United States—especially there—where the capital markets and the stock market, especially the over-the-counter market, are so easy to access. But I see it more at home in my electorate. I noticed the other day that the Taxation Office released statistics about which postcodes pay the highest tax, and the top two were in my electorate. As you drive around the affluent part of Wentworth—that is, the southern fringe of Sydney Harbour—you can see with your own eyes the amount of spare capital invested in people's houses. Renovations are undertaken simply because they give the best after tax return on the capital that you can get. An astonishing and obscene amount of money is sitting there in housing stock in these affluent areas which should be flowing out of there into other parts of Australia that are starved of capital, allowing people the chance to build businesses. This is not happening.Many people say, `If we reduce capital gains tax to zero, if we abolished it,'—as I think we should—`then everyone would rush into property speculation and we would have a new boom, another Gold Coast built, and so on, and wouldn't that be terrible?' It is not so terrible if the market is there for the construction of new capital—whether it is housing stock or commercial industrial property. We should let the market forces work. People will invest in that. If we are to allow people to accumulate more spare capital in Australia, which can then flow into the sorts of new industries that this country needs to maintain its prosperity in the future, then we have got to do something to allow people to create that capital in the first place.You cannot expect to build the new Jerusalem in investment in information technology if you are compelling people, through a capital gains tax, to find the best after tax return for their capital outside Australia. It is an impossibility. So if capital is the plasma of a private enterprise economy and it will always seek its best after tax return, then one of the things that we have to do, if we are to encourage the development of these wonderful financial service businesses where the return on capital is so high, is to get rid of capital gains tax. And I hope that, once the parliament has dealt with the reforms necessary to the indirect tax system and we get on to debating what changes to business taxation are necessary, more people will join with me in crying out as loud as they possibly can for the abolition of this most poisonous tax—capital gains tax. The sooner it is got rid of the better.12:45:004202Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I am delighted to follow the honourable member for Wentworth to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 . It was wonderful to hear him speak in this chamber on a broad range of issues, and it is wonderful that we are able to investigate proposals and legislation that will change the taxation laws of Australia. The proposals before the House today deal with a broad range of issues, but the most significant comes from the statement made by the Prime Minister in December 1997, `Investing in growth', and in particular the aspect that promulgates Australia as a regional growth centre.These changes to the taxation law are endeavouring to provide those investors who have their money here in Australia—whether they are locals or they come from elsewhere—with an environment that will allow an extension of Australia's influence in the Asia-Pacific area. We have notable success in the management of our economy, and what is needed now is a substantially attractive environment—both a regulatory and investing environment—to allow us to grow not only the financial infrastructures, I would contest, but the information technology and management systems that would allow Australian managers and financial institutions to take advantage of a strong, sound economy built on a prosperous policy instigated, I would have to say, by this government and not by previous governments.The proposals before the House today provide a range of options for financial investors. The main provisions under `Australia as a regional finance centre' cover the expansion of the existing section 128F withholding tax exemption, expansion of the existing concessions provided for offshore banking units, the provision of an exemption to foreign banks from the thin capitalisation rules for funds raised under the section 128F withholding tax exemption and provision of certain exemptions from the foreign investment fund regime of the income tax law.These are technical matters but they do have an impact on investors. I draw the attention of the House to the provisions of the tax changes that are set out in the explanatory memorandum. The constant growth and detail that is applied to the Australian tax laws amazes me. When one comes to weird dia grams of relationships between companies and organisations and to pages and pages of explanation, one has to really start to wonder whether our Australian tax laws are able to provide a clean and easy system of operation, one where compliance is essential but compliance costs are not extraordinarily high.The legislation extends the range of eligible offshore banking activities to include: custodial services; trading in Australian dollars where the other party to the transaction is an offshore person; trading in gold bullion with offshore persons in any currency; trading in gold bullion with any person other than in Australian dollars; trading in base metals and palladium bullion with offshore persons in any currency; other trading activities, apart from currency trading, in Australian dollars with offshore persons; eligible contract activities in Australian dollars with offshore persons; and hedging in Australian dollars with related offshore persons.There are a number of measures in the legislation which are designed to do the following: seek to remove the current anti-avoidance measure which prevents Australia being used as a conduit to channel loans to other countries; reduce the capital gains tax liability where non-residents dispose of interests in offshore banking unit offshore investment trusts; provide a foreign tax credit for foreign tax paid by Australian resident offshore banking units regardless of whether a double tax agreement applies; remove the requirement that offshore banking units maintain separate nostro and vostro accounts for offshore banking unit transactions; and reduce the rate of offshore banking unit withholding penalty tax for breaches of the IWT concession from 300 per cent to 75 per cent. Thin capitalisation and foreign investment funds are also examined under these proposed changes in the legislation. The government, as it made a commitment to on being elected, has examined the compliance cost with a report on it.Australia is a regional centre and we are doing very well economically. Our success does not just depend on being able to attract others to use this as a centre for trading because of the stability and the high level of advancement and development in technology we have here; we must also encourage people to invest and operate here because it is simple and transparent to do so.Today we are looking at one side of the agenda. My colleague from Wentworth said that there are other factors about investment and making Australia an attractive haven besides the ones that have already been dealt with by the government and the ones that are contained in this legislation. On the one hand, he said there are taxes which limit and debilitate investment in Australia or our region, and that is perfectly right. We want to be known in this area as a country which not only is a regional growth centre but has a long-term vision for growth and not a short-term `grab the capital that goes past' attitude and hope that at the end of the day that will provide us with the foundation for a regional growth centre. There must be more to it than that.The aspects I want to bring to the attention of the House today are the processes of complexity and compliance costs. I know these matters have been raised consistently in the parliament and have been raised from a number of sources. In my study of these matters, I went back to a Senate report entitled A question of balance: the tax treatment of small business by the Senate Economic References Committee in June 1996, which was three years ago. This committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Alan Ferguson, prepared a report which impacts on the regional growth factors in Australia.That report looked at the health of investing in Australia and the relationships between Australian businesses and the tax system. Senator Ferguson's committee dealt with matters such as provisional tax, the provisional tax uplift factor, wholesale sales taxes, fringe benefits taxes, company tax, capital gains taxes, prescribed payments taxes, PAYE tax payment, superannuation provisions and other provisions of trading stock valuation. It also dealt with the wine industry, hardly a surprising matter as Senator Ferguson comes from South Australia, but that committee certainly considered the wine industry as part of their tax review.The committee also dealt with the timing of tax payments and the burden of taxation as it falls upon various sections of the Australian community. I would have to compliment the government in dealing with many of these issues under its review for a complete new system of taxation. Senator Ferguson no doubt feels quite pleased with the impact of that report from four or five years ago when he and his fellow senators annunciated the difficulties experienced by small business with provisional tax, the provisional tax uplift factors and wholesale sales taxes. The complexity of that system which we are leaving as a nation is something that is well put behind us.The documentation for the Australian community is thorough. It is extensive. For any rational or thinking person, the alternative of moving from those provisional tax and uplift factors compared with the proposals that are before the House and the Senate are very attractive. We must move away from provisional tax and wholesale sales tax. We need to examine the whole tax regime for company tax, capital gains tax, prescribed payments tax and pay as you earn taxation. All of these factors, or most of them, have been looked at by the government, but the provisions of fringe benefits taxation, company tax and related matters are still to be dealt with.The argument I am putting to the House today is that it is okay for us to offer concessions and encouragement for investors to take advantage of Australia as a base so that Australia becomes a regional growth centre and people invest in this nation for growth. We also have to look at the internal systems of the way in which we operate here so that, after having attracted capital and finance into this nation, we are able to maintain it so people do not become sick and tired of a system which is too complex and too costly. My argument today is that our system is too complex and too costly with too fine a detail in every aspect of application. The way in which the government has dealt with a number of these taxes in a broadbrush way of producing a new tax system is a process which, having been commenced, must continue. In a report, Under the microscope: micro businesses in Australia, a report of the Micro Business Consultative Group produced for the Australian government in February 1998, one year ago, particular attention was given by that working party to taxation regulation. That report says in part that taxation compliance and the associated paperwork burden remain the greatest area of concern to micro-businesses. This perception is supported by many inquiries and surveys. It quotes the inquiries and surveys that have been produced by governments and by industry groups to demonstrate how significant the taxation regulation regime is in Australia for the operation of business.The report goes on to say that the compliance costs for taxation are aggressive, and they certainly are. A report prepared for the Australian tax office last year clearly indicated that large corporations can take advantage of a complicated tax regime and make sure that they gain every dollar. In fact, they turn a complex tax system into an advantage as compared with small and medium businesses. Whereas a small and medium business has a huge compliance cost, a large business can take advantage of that system. However, in an international sense, a complex system disadvantages Australia because it means that the cost of operation here is higher than elsewhere.In relation to the simplicity that the government has initiated with its reform of taxation in order to continue to attract the investment that Australia needs and to create the centre of excellence that Australia is becoming, we must drive further to reduce the cost of compliance and the complexity of our taxation system. The measures before the House today certainly seek to make a more equitable process but, having glanced through the explanatory memorandum, one would have to say that the compliance costs are probably not reduced and may in fact be increased.The government's response to many of these issues has been very welcome. The government's response entitled More time for business, which seeks to deal with many of these issues, particularly those related to small businesses, has difficulty coming to grips with the cost of the fringe benefits tax. My colleague spoke at length about the difficulties that capital gains taxes impose on Australian investors, and that is certainly right. A capital scarce country has great problems if you are going to tax capital, because the very commodity that the nation needs is further reduced by the tax grab out of it.But the most commonly referred to compliance costs that I hear about are the superannuation surcharge and the fringe benefits tax. I would urge the government the need to progress this matter. There must be a way whereby the rorts of the tax system that are perpetrated with regard to overseas trips and holidays, fees for boarding school and other high cost institutions for children are precluded. Those things ought to be excluded as part of a reasonable package for taxation or remuneration purposes. But to continue to nitpick as to who pays for food and the 37 different ways that this can be accounted for debilitates industry.Australians want a fair approach to this, but not a complex approach. It is time that the Commissioner of Taxation applied his mind to how we can establish Australia as a regional centre. In order to continue the thrust of that initiative, that policy, we must also make sure that the operation of that regional centre for finance is such that it is attractive for initial investment and attractive in the long-term because it is efficient, it is transparent, its operation is easily understood and the cost of compliance offers an advantage to people investing in Australia rather than imposing a disadvantage. That is the thing we should safeguard against. That is the message of the legislation before the House today: we can provide the incentives very easily but we should also provide encouragement for people to continue their investment.13:03:004205Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the speakers on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 , being the members for Wills, Moreton, Rankin, Wentworth and Mitchell. The member for Mitchell made a very good contribution. He gave an erudite presentation on the benefits of the bill, particularly its financial centre initia tives. The government will not be accepting the amendment moved by the opposition for the very reason that it is absurdly hypocritical; it is a joke. I request that the members of this House read the proposed amendment from the opposition. It says, `Whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the government has not addressed the real issue of tax reform facing Australia, namely, the continuing threat to the fairness of the tax system arising from widespread income tax avoidance,' et cetera. So the opposition is trying to condemn the government for not doing the hard yards on taxation reform.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Tax avoidance.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Tax reform. The words say `tax reform'.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Look—it says `avoidance'.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Mr Deputy Speaker, I know a good optometrist whom the member for Melbourne might be familiar with. I am sure he would be prepared to assist. But, whatever the case, the fundamental fact is that the government is doing the hard yards on tax reform. The opposition are stuck in the 1930s. Their commitment to tax reform is a wholesale sales tax. Their commitment to tax reform is financial institutions duty. Their commitment to tax reform is debits tax. Their commitment to tax reform is stamp duty on the transfer of shares. Their commitment to tax reform is high personal income tax rates for low income Australians. Their commitment to tax reform is to ignore every fair proposal the government and the Australian people put up for reform of the taxation system. Yet, laughably, the opposition come in here wishing to condemn the government for not addressing the real issue of tax reform facing Australia, namely, the threat to the fairness of the tax system. So obviously we will not be accepting the opposition's amendment.One of the measures that is aimed at making Australia a more attractive financial centre and that honours the Prime Minister's commitment made in December 1997 is contained in this bill. The franking credit measures, which complement other legislation the government has passed in the last year, will also protect the revenue base. This bill also sets out a choice of depreciation methods for tax exempt entities that become taxable and introduces an anti-avoidance rule for commercial debt forgiveness.Apart from that, it should also be brought to the attention of the House that the government has already acted on a number of fronts to ensure that all Australians pay their fair share of tax. For example, we have introduced measures to address dividends disguised as private company loans, the misuse of charitable trusts overseas to distribute funds overseas, trust losses, the creation of artificial capital losses and franking credit trading and dividend streaming. Some of the measures are included in this bill. Also there are measures to address tax minimisation through luxury car leases and the abuse of research and development syndication, which—and it is important to remind the House of this—led by the member for Hotham, the opposition did not support.In addition, tax reform will implement other measures, including taxing trusts like companies under proposed redesigned company tax arrangements, and measures to ensure that Australian residents cannot avoid paying their fair share of tax through the use of foreign trusts. Furthermore, we are removing the scope for tax minimisation that presently exists through the creation of artificial losses and duplication of losses.Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, we will not be supporting the opposition's amendment. We commend the bill as it stands. I advise the House that I have a number of amendments which I will move during the consideration in detail stage and I will address them further at that time.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4206Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:09:004206Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos. 1 to 47 as follows:(1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 11 (line 26), after "owned", insert ", directly or indirectly,".(2) Schedule 1, item 42, page 16 (lines 5 to 10), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) throughout the entity's notional accounting period, the total value of: (i) any interests that the entity has in income or gains derived from sources outside the United States of America; and (ii) any interests that the entity has in FIFs that are not resident in the United States of America; and (iii) any real property held by the entity that is not located in the United States of America; being interests or real property that the entity has or holds directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed entities (other than through an entity covered by paragraph (1)(a) or (b)), does not exceed 5% of the total value of all interests held by the entity in other entities; and(3) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3—Controlled foreign companiesIncome Tax Assessment Act 193647 After subsection 356(4)Insert: (4A) Shares in a company that is treated as a real estate investment trust for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code 1986 of the United States of America are to be ignored for the purposes of the application of subsection (1) to the company (except in so far as that subsection has effect for the purposes of section 459) if the conditions in subsection (4B) or (4C) are satisfied. (4B) The condition in this subsection is that the taxpayer who holds the shares satisfies the Commissioner that: (a) the shares that the taxpayer holds at the end of the entity's statutory accounting period are held for the sole purpose of investing directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed entities, in: (i) a business conducted in the United States of America; or (ii) real property located in the United States of America; and (b) the company does not directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed entities: (i) have an interest in income or gains derived from sources outside the United States of America; or (ii) hold an interest in a FIF that is not resident in the United States of America; or (iii) hold real property that is not located in the United States of America. (4C) The condition in this subsection is that the taxpayer who holds the shares satisfies the Commissioner that: (a) the shares that the taxpayer holds at the end of the entity's statutory accounting period are held for the sole purpose of investing directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed entities, in: (i) a business conducted in the United States of America; or (ii) real property located in the United States of America; and (b) throughout the entity's statutory accounting period, the total value of: (i) any interests that the company has in income or gains derived from sources outside the United States of America; and (ii) any interests that the company has in FIFs that are not resident in the United States of America; and (iii) any real property held by the company that is not located in the United States of America; does not exceed 5% of the total value of all interests held by the company in other entities; and (c) throughout the entity's statutory accounting period, the total value of assets held by the company that: (i) produce income from sources outside the United States of America; or (ii) if disposed of would give rise to a gain from a source outside the United States of America; does not exceed 5% of the total value of all the assets held by the company. (4D) For the purposes of subsection (4C), the value of interests and the value of assets is to be determined using the accounting records of the company.48 ApplicationThe amendment made by item 47 applies to statutory accounting periods of CFCs ending on or after 2 July 1998. (4) Schedule 4, item 8, page 69 (line 15), omit "section 160APHN", substitute "sections 160APHN and 160APHNA".(5) Schedule 4, item 8, page 75 (lines 3 to 5), omit subsection (6), substitute: (6) If the trust estate of a widely held trust has included, or includes, shares or interests in shares, each person who is a beneficiary of the trust holds an interest in the shares while the person is such a beneficiary.(6) Schedule 4, item 8, page 75 (lines 15 to 29), omit subsection (8), substitute: (8) If the trust estate of a widely held trust has included or includes shares or an interest in shares: (a) a taxpayer who becomes a beneficiary of the trust is taken to acquire an interest in the shares at the time when the taxpayer becomes the beneficiary, whether or not the trust estate includes the shares or interest in the shares at that time; and (b) a taxpayer who is a beneficiary of the trust and acquires a further interest in the trust (whether by subscription for, or purchase of, further units or otherwise) is taken to acquire a further interest in the shares at the time when the taxpayer acquires the further interest in the trust, whether or not the trust estate includes the shares or interest in the shares at that time; and (c) a taxpayer who disposes of an interest in the trust (whether by redemption or sale of units or otherwise) but remains a beneficiary of the trust is taken to dispose of an interest in the shares at the time when the taxpayer disposes of the interest in the trust, whether or not the trust estate includes the shares or interest in the shares at that time; and; (d) a taxpayer who ceases to be a beneficiary of a trust is taken to dispose of the interest in shares that the taxpayer held as a beneficiary of the trust at the time when the taxpayer ceases to be a beneficiary of the trust, whether or not the trust estate includes the shares or interest in the shares at that time.(7) Schedule 4, item 8, page 76 (after line 33), at the end of subsection (2) (but not as part of paragraph (b), add:In calculating the number of days for which the taxpayer is taken to have continuously held bonus shares as mentioned in subparagraph (b)(ii), any days before the bonus shares were issued in respect of which the taxpayer materially diminished risks of loss or opportunities for gain in respect of the existing shares are to be excluded, but the exclusion of those days is not taken to break the continuity of the period for which the taxpayer is taken to have held the bonus shares.(8) Schedule 4, item 8, page 82 (lines 7 to 9), omit "Subject to subsection (5), all related securities held by connected persons at a particular time constitute a group of securities for the purposes of this section and", substitute "All related securities held by connected persons at a particular time constitute a group of securities for the purposes of this section and, subject to subsections (4A), (4B) and (5),".(9) Schedule 4, item 8, page 82 (after line 17), after subsection (4), insert:Subsection (4) not to apply to disposal between companies in the same wholly-owned group (4A) Subsection (4) does not apply in respect of the disposal of securities by a company in a wholly-owned group to another company in the same wholly-owned group.Time of acquisition of related securities held by company that is a member of wholly-owned group (4B) If subsection 160APHH(10) applies to a company that is a member of a wholly-owned group in respect of any related securities in relation to a period, the securities are taken, for the purposes of subsection (4), to have been acquired at the beginning of the period.(10) Schedule 4, item 8, page 90 (lines 32 and 33), omit paragraph (2)(a), substitute: (a) the trustee of a trust that is a widely held trust has held or holds, or has held or holds interests in, shares (the relevant shares ); and(11) Schedule 4, item 8, page 91 (line 27), omit "are held by the trustee", substitute "the trustee has held or holds".(12) Schedule 4, item 8, page 98 (after line 4), at the end of section 160APHN, add: (7) This section has effect subject to section 160APHNA.(13) Schedule 4, item 8, page 98 (before line 5), at the end of Subdivision A, add:160APHNA Certain payments not to be regarded as related payments If: (a) a company (the relevant company ) is a member of a wholly-owned group; and (b) all the shares in the relevant company are held by one or more other companies that are members of the group; and (c) the company or companies holding those shares (each a seller ) enter into a contract or contracts to sell the shares to one or more persons (each a buyer ) who are not members of the group; and (d) within 6 months after a contract is entered into as mentioned in paragraph (c) by a seller to a buyer to sell any of those shares, the relevant company pays a dividend in respect of the shares to the seller; and (e) it is reasonable to assume that no substantial part of the dividend is attributable to profits of the relevant company before it became, or after it ceased to be, a member of the group; and (f) the price paid for the sale of the shares was reduced by an amount representing the dividend; the reduction in price is taken not to be the making of a related payment in respect of the dividend.(14) Schedule 4, item 22, page 99 (lines 19 to 22), omit all the words before paragraph (a), substitute: A taxpayer who as a beneficiary of a widely held trust has held an interest in shares contained in the trust holding (within the meaning of subsection 160APHL(4)) of the widely held trust is a qualified person in relation to a dividend paid on any of the shares to which a distribution from the trust to the taxpayer is attributable if:(15) Schedule 4, item 22, page 99 (line 33), after "shares", insert "contained in the trust holding".(16) Schedule 4, item 22, page 110 (line 6), at the end of paragraph (d), add "and".(17) Schedule 4, item 22, page 110 (lines 7 to 10), omit all the words after paragraph (d), substitute: (e) the sum of the franking credits to which the electing taxpayer is entitled under this Part in respect of all those dividends exceeds the ceiling amount in relation to the fund in relation to the year of income; there arises, at the end of the year of income, a franking debit of the company equal to the excess.(18) Schedule 4, item 22, page 110 (line 30) to page 111 (line 4), omit paragraph (4)(a), substitute: (a) subject to paragraph (b), an amount equal to the sum of the franking credits to which a taxpayer (the notional taxpayer ) of the same class or kind as the electing taxpayer would be entitled under this Part in respect of dividends on shares in the benchmark portfolio of shares that applies in respect of the fund (being shares that become ex dividend during the year of income) if: (i) those dividends were paid to the notional taxpayer in the year of income; and (ii) the notional taxpayer were a qualified person under section 160APHO in relation to those dividends; or(19) Schedule 4, item 22, page 111 (after line 10), after subsection (4), insert: (4A) If the first acquisition of shares or interests in shares that are managed by or on behalf of the electing taxpayer as or in a particular discrete fund occurred during the year of income, the notional total credit amount in relation to the fund in relation to the year of income is to be worked out as if the year of income did not include the part of the year of income before the acquisition occurred. (4B) If all the shares and interests in shares that were managed by or on behalf of the electing taxpayer as or in a particular discrete fund are disposed of during the year of income, the notional total credit amount in relation to the fund in relation to the year of income is to be worked out as if the year of income did not include the part of the year of income after the last disposal of any of the shares or interests occurred.(20) Schedule 4, item 22, page 112 (lines 5 to 13), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute: (a) subject to paragraph (b), an amount equal to the sum of the rebates of tax to which a taxpayer (the notional taxpayer ) of the same class or kind as the electing taxpayer would be entitled under this Part in respect of dividends on shares in the benchmark portfolio of shares that applies in respect of the fund (being shares that become ex dividend during the year of income) if: (i) those dividends were paid to the notional taxpayer in the year of income; and (ii) the notional taxpayer were a qualified person under section 160APHO in relation to those dividends; or(21) Schedule 4, item 22, page 112 (after line 19), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) If the first acquisition of shares or interests in shares that are managed by or on behalf of the electing taxpayer as or in a particular discrete fund occurred during the year of income, the notional total rebate amount in relation to the fund in relation to the year of income is to be worked out as if the year of income did not include the part of the year of income before the acquisition occurred. (3B) If all the shares and interests in shares that were managed by or on behalf of the electing taxpayer as or in a particular discrete fund are disposed of during the year of income, the notional total rebate amount in relation to the fund in relation to the year of income is to be worked out as if the year of income did not include the part of the year of income after the last disposal of any of the shares or interests occurred.(22) Schedule 4, item 22, page 113 (lines 16 to 24), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute: (a) subject to paragraph (b), an amount equal to the sum of the rebates of tax to which a taxpayer (the notional taxpayer ) who is a natural person and a resident of Australia would be entitled under this Part in respect of dividends on shares in the benchmark portfolio of shares that applies in respect of the fund (being shares that become ex dividend during the year of income) if: (i) those dividends were paid to the notional taxpayer in the year of income; and (ii) the notional taxpayer were a qualified person under section 160APHO in relation to those dividends; or(23) Schedule 4, item 22, page 113 (after line 30), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) If the first acquisition of shares or interests in shares that are managed by or on behalf of the electing taxpayer as or in a particular discrete fund occurred during the year of income, the notional total rebate amount in relation to the fund in relation to the year of income is to be worked out as if the year of income did not include the part of the year of income before the acquisition occurred. (3B) If all the shares and interests in shares that were managed by or on behalf of the electing taxpayer as or in a particular discrete fund are disposed of during the year of income, the notional total rebate amount in relation to the fund in relation to the year of income is to be worked out as if the year of income did not include the part of the year of income after the last disposal of any of the shares or interests occurred.(24) Schedule 4, item 22, page 114 (line 13), omit "sum of the average values during the year of income", substitute "average of the values calculated for each relevant week during the year of income".(25) Schedule 4, item 22, page 114 (lines 27 and 28), omit " average values referred to in subsection (2) are to be calculated weekly", substitute "values calculated for each relevant week as mentioned in subsection (2) are to be calculated".(26) Schedule 4, item 22, page 114 (line 30), omit "average".(27) Schedule 4, item 22, page 114 (after line 31), at the end of section 160AQZH, add: (5) A relevant week referred to in subsection (2) is each week during the year of income other than: (a) if the first acquisition of shares or interests in shares that are managed by or on behalf of the electing taxpayer as or in a particular discrete fund occurred during the year of income—a week occurring before the week in which the acquisition occurred; and (b) if all the shares or interests in shares that are managed by or on behalf of the electing taxpayer as or in a particular discrete fund were disposed of during the year of income—a week occurring after the week in which the last disposal of shares or interests occurred.(28) Schedule 4, item 25, page 117 (after line 28), after subitem (2), insert: (2A) If: (a) a taxpayer acquired, or is taken for the purposes of subitem (1) to have acquired, before 1 July 1997 an interest in shares: (i) under a trust; or (ii) as a partner in a partnership; and (b) the shares, or an interest in the shares, was or is distributed to the taxpayer on or after that date in satisfaction of the interest referred to in paragraph (a);the acquisition of the shares or interest so distributed, to the extent to which the shares or interest distributed satisfied the interest referred to in paragraph (a), is taken for the purposes of subitem (1) to have occurred before that date. (2B) If: (a) shares (the bonus shares ) have been issued to a taxpayer in respect of existing shares; and (b) the existing shares were acquired, or are taken for the purposes of subitem (1) to have been acquired, by the taxpayer before 1 July 1997; and (c) no part of the bonus shares has been, or is taken to have been, a dividend included in the taxpayer's assessable income; the acquisition of the bonus shares is taken for the purposes of subitem (1) to have occurred before that date.(29) Schedule 4, item 25, page 118 (line 13), after "time", insert "(other than shares or interests acquired under an obligation contained in a contract made before that time)".(30) Schedule 4, item 25, page 118 (after line 15), after subitem (4), insert: (4A) If: (a) the trustee of a trust (other than a widely held public share-trading trust) acquired an interest in shares before 3.00 pm by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory on 31 December 1997; and (b) the shares, or an interest in the shares, was distributed to the trustee after that time in satisfaction of the interest referred to in paragraph (a); the acquisition of the shares or interest so distributed, to the extent to which the shares or interest distributed satisfied the interest referred to in paragraph (a), is taken for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subitem (4) to have occurred before that time. (4B) If: (a) shares (the bonus shares ) have been issued to the trustee of a trust in respect of existing shares; and (b) the existing shares were acquired by the trustee before 3.00 pm by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory on 31 December 1997; and (c) no part of the bonus shares has been, or is taken to have been, a dividend included in the net income of the trust estate; the acquisition of the bonus shares is taken for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subitem (4) to have occurred before that time.(31) Schedule 5, item 39, page 125 (line 14), omit "160APHE", substitute "160APHD".(32) Schedule 5, item 42, page 126 (lines 22 to 33), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) paragraph (a) does not apply but it would nevertheless be reasonable to conclude that, at that time, the risks involved in, and the opportunities resulting from, holding accountable shares, or accountable interests in shares, in the company that are not, or were not, held by, or directly or indirectly for the benefit of, prescribed persons are or were substantially borne by, or substantially accrue or accrued to, prescribed persons.(33) Schedule 5, item 42, page 127 (lines 18 to 34), omit subsection (3), substitute: (3) A share in a company is an excluded share if, having regard to: (a) the purposes for which the share was issued; and (b) any special or limited rights connected with, arising from, or attached to: (i) the share; or (ii) other shares in the company held by the holder of the share; or (iii) shares in the company held by persons other than the holder of the share; or (iv) interests in any of the above; including rights that are conferred or exercisable only if the holder of the shares or interests concerned is, or is not, a prescribed person; and (c) the extent to which any such special or limited rights are similar to or differ from the rights that are normally attached to the ownership of ordinary shares in companies; and (d) the relationship between the value of the share and the value of the company; and (e) any relationship or connection (whether of a personal or business nature) be tween holders of shares in the company of which the company is aware; and (f) any arrangement in respect of shares (including unissued shares) in the company, or interests in shares in the company, of which the company is aware; it would be reasonable to conclude that the share is not relevant in determining whether the company is effectively owned by prescribed persons because holding the share does not involve the holder bearing the risks, or result in the accrual to the holder of the opportunities, of ownership of the company that ordinarily arise from, or are ordinarily attached to, the holding of ordinary shares in a company. (3A) In applying subsection (3), the fact that a person is a trustee is to be disregarded.(34) Schedule 5, item 42, page 128 (line 6), after "issued", insert ", transferred or acquired".(35) Schedule 5, item 42, page 129 (line 17) to page 130 (line 3), omit subsections (2) and (3), substitute: (2) An interest in a share in a company is an accountable interest if it is not an excluded interest. (3) An interest in a share in a company is an excluded interest if, having regard to: (a) the purposes for which the interest was granted; and (b) the nature of the interest; and (c) any special or limited rights connected with or arising from: (i) the interest; or (ii) other shares, or interests in other shares, in the company held by the holder of the interest; or (iii) shares, or interests in shares, in the company held by persons other than the holder of the interest; including rights that are conferred or exercisable only if the holder of the interests or shares concerned is, or is not, a prescribed person; and (d) the extent to which the interest is similar to or differs from beneficial ownership; and (e) the relationship between the value of the interest and the value of the company; and (f) any relationship or connection (whether of a personal or business nature) between holders of interests in shares in the company, and the holders of shares in the company, of which the company is aware; and (g) any arrangement in respect of shares (including unissued shares) in the company, or interests in shares in the company, of which the company is aware; it would be reasonable to conclude that the interest is not relevant in determining whether the company is effectively owned by prescribed persons because holding the share to which the interest relates does not involve the holder bearing the risks, or result in the accrual to the holder of the opportunities, of ownership of the company that ordinarily arise from, or are ordinarily attached to, the holding of ordinary shares in a company. (3A) In applying subsection (3), the fact that a person is a trustee is to be disregarded.(36) Schedule 5, item 42, page 128 (lines 17 to 19), omit "the payment of the dividends may reasonably be regarded as equivalent to the payment of interest", substitute "the dividends paid are equivalent to the receipt by the person to whom they are paid of interest or an amount in the nature of or similar to interest".(37) Schedule 5, item 42, page 130 (lines 9 to 12), omit subsection (5).(38) Schedule 5, item 42, page 131 (line 22), omit "accountable shares, or accountable interests in shares", substitute "shares (whether accountable shares or excluded shares), or interests in shares (whether accountable interests or excluded interests)".(39) Schedule 5, item 42, page 131 (lines 25 and 26), omit "accountable shares, or accountable", substitute "shares, or".(40) Schedule 5, item 42, page 131 (line 32), omit "accountable shares, or accountable", substitute "shares, or".(41) Schedule 5, item 42, page 132 (line 5), omit "accountable shares, or accountable", substitute "shares, or".(42) Schedule 5, item 42, page 133 (line 1), omit "accountable shares and accountable", substitute "shares and".(43) Schedule 5, item 42, page 133 (line 5), omit "accountable shares, or accountable", substitute "shares, or".(44) Schedule 5, item 42, page 133 (lines 17 to 19), omit subsection (10). (45) Schedule 5, item 51, page 147 (after line 8), at the end of section 160AQCNG, add: (3) For the purpose of calculating the franking debit referred to in paragraph (1)(c) or (2)(c) and the exempting credit referred to in paragraph (1)(d) or (2)(d), in relation to the company, the franking surplus referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(b) is taken: (a) to be increased by so much of any franking credit of the company; and (b) to be reduced by so much of any franking debit of the company; that arose during the year of income in which the company became a former exempting company as is not attributable to a period in which, or to an event taking place at a time when, the company was an exempting company or would have been an exempting company if paragraph 160APHBA(a) had not been enacted. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a class C franking credit that arose under section 160ASI is taken to be attributable to a period or time to the extent to which the class A franking credit or class B franking credit because of which the class C franking credit arose was attributable to that period or time.(46) Schedule 5, item 51, page 147 (after line 33), at the end of section 160AQCNH, add: (3) For the purpose of calculating the franking credit referred to in paragraph (1)(c) or (2)(c) and the exempting debit referred to in paragraph (1)(d) or (2)(d), in relation to the company, the franking deficit referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(b) is taken: (a) to be reduced by so much of any franking credit of the company; and (b) to be increased by so much of any franking debit of the company; that arose during the year of income in which the company became a former exempting company as is not attributable to a period in which, or to an event taking place at a time when, the company was an exempting company or would have been an exempting company if paragraph 160APHBA(a) had not been enacted. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a class C franking credit that arose under section 160ASI is taken to be attributable to a period or time to the extent to which the class A franking credit or class B franking credit because of which the class C franking credit arose was attributable to that period or time.(47) Schedule 5, item 51, page 148 (line 6), omit "and 160AQCNH", substitute ", 160AQCNH, 160AQCNM and 160AQCNN".The amendments are to measures contained in schedules 1, 4 and 5 of the bill. Schedule 1 contains a series of changes to the tax law making Australia a more attractive financial centre. The amendments to schedule 1 are intended to improve the effectiveness of these changes. Only the third amendment will have a revenue impact and that is a minor cost to revenue.Schedules 4 and 5 contain the franking credit trading measures. The changes, in the main, address concerns raised by taxpayers and tax practitioners. Changes are also being made to remove deficiencies in the provisions to ensure they operate as intended.The amendments will have an insignificant impact on revenue. Compliance costs will be reduced for taxpayers affected by the changes. The amendments will apply from the commencement of the original measures. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4213Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4213r7384213Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Mr Tim Fischer:That the bill be now read a second time.13:12:004213Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—I say at the outset that trade matters. In the last financial year Australia's exports amounted to $114 billion, over one-fifth of the value of our country's whole GDP. As I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade agrees, trade is vital to our nation's future prosperity and to the living standards of our nation.When we look at our top exports and imports—the sale of coal, gold, wheat, wool and iron ore—they are things that allow us to buy cars, computers, computer parts, petroleum and telecommunications equipment. At the end of the day, in spite of all the considerable progress that has been made over the past two decades, this is still not a very diverse bunch of exports. In part that is the reason why the EMDG scheme needs to be expanded.It is fair that the House should note that the Howard government holds two records in the trade arena: the record for Australia's highest ever trade deficit, over $10 billion for the calendar year 1998; and the record for Australia's highest ever current account deficit, in regional terms $28.6 billion per calendar year 1998.The Asian economic crisis has caused considerable difficulties for many of our exporters. Extra work is required just to maintain a presence in the Asian markets. If they do not keep a foot in the door they will have additional work to do as Asia recovers. At the same time, exporters need to look for new markets in North America and Europe to make up for lost sales in Asia. Many have done so, but no-one should underestimate the difficulties involved. Penetrating new markets takes time, it takes effort and it takes an understanding of local conditions, preferences and regulations. These tasks would be made much simpler by a government that understood the needs of exporters and gave them all the support they deserve, not the short-sighted cost cutting and red tape approach of this Howard government.And then, of course, there is the GST. If one were to believe the Deputy Prime Minister, exports will go up under the GST, but that is a view that the experts do not agree with. If you take tourism, for example, Murphy—the government's own modeller of choice—says that tourism will decline as a consequence of the GST. Treasury's analysis also indicates that the GST will lift the exchange rate for this nation by some 3.5 per cent. Murphy in his analysis—again, Murphy, the government's modeller of choice—says it could be as much as 4.1 per cent. Either way, the GST will make our goods and services significantly more expensive in overseas markets.With a record trade deficit, a record current account deficit, an Asian crisis and a GST looming, against that backdrop the EMDG scheme is one of the few bright lights for Australia's exporters. Yet what was it that this government did to the scheme when it came to power? Typically, first up, it slashed its funding. When the EMDG Act 1997 was considered by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, three members of that committee—Senators Cook, Forshaw and Hogg—made that point very clearly. I quote from the view they expressed. They said:It is clear from the evidence before this Committee that the significant narrowing of the scheme will disadvantage a great number of Australian exporters.The Howard government took absolutely no notice of this warning. In 1996-97, the last year before the current legislation came into effect, total expenditure under the EMDG scheme, according to Austrade's annual report, amounted to $194.9 million. Then the government introduced the extra red tape and its $150 million spending cap. According to figures provided by the minister's office, total expenditure for 1997-98 was down to $147.3 million—that is, a cut of $47.6 million. In 1997-98, the cap was not met, but in future years it is likely to prevent effective development of the scheme to support our exporters, and it should be removed.This bill contains an amendment to expand the amount of information on EMDG grants which can be made available by Austrade without breaching the secrecy provisions. I think this has been put forward as a very useful measure, but it would be far better if the government undertook to publish the information annually. Such a publication would assist anyone wanting to know what exactly our cutting edge exporters are doing. Those who might use it would include industry organisations, journalists and academics. Of course, it would also be available to members of parliament, who would then be better able to scrutinise the EMDG scheme. On behalf of the opposition, I move the following amendment to the second reading:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that:(1) in view of Australia's record current account deficit in original terms of $28.6 billion for calendar year 1998, an increase of 67% over the deficit for 1997, there is an urgent need to increase exports;(2) the imposition of an annual funding limit at the same time as the introduction of more red tape for small exporters initially had the effect of reducing funding for export incentives available under the Export Market Development Grants scheme by $47.6 million;(3) the Asian economic crisis has increased ongoing costs for small exporters in maintaining a crucial foothold in Asia, while imposing new costs as they search for other markets to replace lost sales;(4) the Government should remove the $150 million annual funding limit applying to the Export Market Development Grants scheme; and(5) the Government should publish annually the publicly available details of recipients of grants under the scheme".I commend the amendment to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Is the amendment seconded?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.13:20:004214Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and the amendment. I hear what the shadow minister has to say but, given the success of the Australian economy at this stage, a growth rate of five per cent—which really puts it amongst the forefront of economies around the world—and the success of our exports across the board, I have to say that the suggestion of making further amendments to this proposal is difficult to understand. But we will look at it in more detail.The Export Market Development Grants scheme is part of the government's successful approach to export development across the board. It falls in line with the successful work of Austrade and the overall success of Australia's exports. In the 1997-98 year, for example, the recorded figure for Australia's exports was $114.06 billion. That was 8.2 per cent higher than the figure for 1996-97. That is a phenomenal increase, in anybody's language. Australian exporters come from a wide variety of industries, and they have had significant success across the board. Austrade has been particularly successful in assisting exporters.The Export Market Development Grants scheme goes hand in hand with the Austrade proposals. Governments of both persuasions have continued to support the Export Market Development Grants scheme, but we are very pleased to see that this government has provided further assistance measures. These measures were outlined 12 months ago in terms of budget provisions and are, of course, formalised in this bill.The Export Market Development Grants scheme has provided the opportunity for many small exporters to get out into the marketplace and for those who have not exported previously to test the market, undertake market research and make contacts in the international marketplace. In fact, there is a significant percentage of Australians in the workplace—of the order of 20 per cent—who owe their livelihood and their income to the Australian export market. This is not only in the traditional export area but also in the services sector. That is why it is absolutely, vitally important that we continue the proposals for the Export Market Development Grants scheme.This bill is not aimed at the BHPs, the CRAs or the Mount Isa Mining Co. but rather at the small exporters who have developed some new technology and are looking for assistance. It is beyond their scope and capability to get into the marketplace without the assistance offered by the EMDG scheme. So this side of the House is very keen to support the proposals for refining this bill. While there have been some amendments in terms of improving the performance of the bill, overall the scheme is kept in place.It is aimed particularly at small and medium sized exporters and is a way of continuing to show them government support. It obviously involves a degree of simplification and streamlining of some of the areas of the Export Market Development Grants scheme, which will very much assist one of the objectives of this government—to clean up the red tape provisions. This was, of course, well received by the export community when they reviewed the changes that were made for the 1997-98 year. The fact that many of the exporters were able to get 100 per cent in the dollar of their entitlement, which really does show the accurate matching of the scheme to eligible exporters, is important because there has quite often been a mismatch in the past. There has been a cutback in the amount allocated. So we have got a clear understanding of what claims are available for lodgment and most of the people are getting their money back in this way. In fact, all grant recipients received 100 per cent of their claim.Moreover, 219 new small and medium sized exporters were able to access the scheme because of the reduction in the amount businesses must spend before a grant is payable from $30,000 to $20,000. It is very welcome that we can have exporters go up to a market in a limited time to assess the potential and can simply now claim. The hurdle rate of $30,000 was preventing some of the smaller businesses from taking the opportunity that was available through the EMDG scheme.It is this government that has shown a strong commitment to small business right across the country and the new proposals under the Export Market Development Grants scheme coordinate with this commitment to small business. The lowering of the threshold does considerably assist these exporters at the smaller end of the market.The increase in the rate of the grant payable for tourism operators has led to an increase in funding to the tourism sector from 12 per cent to 15 per cent of total funding. The tourism sector has very much welcomed their inclusion and its ability to claim under this scheme. Members may recall that, when the government came to power, they gave a commitment to the tourism sector that it would have parity in the claims that were allowed to traditional exporters. Previously, it received half the entitlements of traditional exporters. Discrimination in favour of the manufacturing and mining sectors over the service sector was clearly inappropriate in the shift in the Australia economy to the service sector.It was very much welcomed by the tourism industry and it certainly encouraged a lot of the smaller exporters—exporters in the tourism sense of selling packages offshore—to get out to the European, Asian and American markets and determine what could be offered. It is for that reason that we saw many of the small operators, when the Asian market collapsed, being able to go to North America and Europe to determine their ability to switch from the traditional sources, particularly the markets which had collapsed—especially Korea, Thailand and Malaysia. That proved very successful; we saw a very significant increase in the number of tourists from those particular markets. There was an increase of over 12 per cent from the USA and of about 10 per cent from the UK and Europe.This scheme is assisting our balance of payments and foreign exchange earnings by getting people out in the marketplace and getting them to cement deals. For the smaller operators, once they are in the marketplace and have established their credentials, they can certainly capitalise on that for future opportunities.The exports to grants ratio has increased from 30 to one in 1996-97 to 35 to one in 1997-98. That shows that not only are the grants being consistently increased but also the success of these grants is being noted. If we had the reverse trend and found that we were putting up more money for less result, we would have to say there was something seriously wrong with the scheme, that we were not providing incentives for the exporter to get out into the marketplace. It is very encouraging to see the success right across the board.In fact, the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade was looking at the export results to Japan last year and, despite the fact that we had a slowdown in the Japanese economy which was quite significant, moving into a recession in terms of their own economic position, Australian exports to Japan last year increased in the order of four per cent. That I think is quite remarkable. Obviously part of it is that the commodities and the minerals were tied up by long-term arrangements and agreements, but it also indicates the success of the Australian exporter in this marketplace. These ratios reflect the increasing success of the Australian exporter in the international marketplace.This year also saw the introduction of a two-stage payment process following the capping of expenditure. An initial payment of $50,000 was made to all successful applicants at the time of the grant determination. That was very much welcomed, because obviously for a lot of the small exporters cash flow is quite significant. Instead of having to wait the long periods that used to be the order of the day, they had an immediate cash injection of the $50,000 and then the amounts in addition to that could be claimed over time. They were paid the balance of their entitlement at the end of the financial year. The payment process worked very well. So not only have you the drop in the threshold in which claims could be made, but also you have the immediate payment of $50,000 and clear guidelines, meaning that 100 per cent of the entitlements were received by the applicants.Almost 70 per cent of the applicants received grants of $50,000 or less and were unaffected by the change in the payment at the end of the financial year of the amounts in excess of $50,000. Again, the emphasis is on assistance to the small operator, the small business, in getting into the marketplace and determining their opportunities. The remaining applicants received 100 per cent of their outstanding balance at the end of the financial year. The outstanding balance is obviously significant: that was not received a year later or two years later but pretty soon after the end of the financial year.The underlying message in the annual report of Austrade of the Export Market Development Grants scheme is significant. It says that, for the 1997-98 year, 219 additional businesses were able to access the scheme because of the reduction in the threshold. That is particularly encouraging and significant. The report states that the increase in the rate of grant payable for tourism operators led to an increase in funding to the tourism sector from 12 to 15 per cent, as I have mentioned previously. The export ratio has changed, and of course the fact that businesses were paid the $50,000 immediately was significant. That is reported in their annual report.The eligibility of the scheme for all Australian based firms and their ability to access this scheme compares more than favourably with many of the schemes that are operating in OECD countries where it is more of a free market situation. But, in the Australian case, we were actively encouraging Australians to get into the international marketplace. Obviously the significance of being exporters is more significant than it is in the US market, for example. We have such a very large domestic market, but because 20 per cent of all of our jobs in Australia depend on the export market this assistance program is very significant.The special provisions that are provided by EMDG in helping firms, first-time applicants in new markets may combine two years expenditure to meet the $20,000 threshold; businesses can join forces in approved joint ventures; Austrade may approve bodies such as industry associations for eligibility; and approved trading houses may receive grants of up to $500,00 per annum. All of these factors are important in the success of the scheme and its acceptability to industry. The EMDG scheme, in its assistance to small and medium exporters, has been marked by the export market and is supported by Australian industry and by Australian companies across the board.Expenditure under the EMDG Act is capped through annual appropriation acts. The extension of the scheme to grant year 2000-01 will cost $150 million in each of the financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02. Given that the scheme is expected to be fully subscribed in future years, there are no costs or savings associated with the balance of these amendments.This bill ensures that Australia's export growth continues fuelling growth in the labour market and maintains Australia's strong economic positioning. The specific provisions in the bill ensuring certain exclusions to grants histories are applicable to all circumstances, the renaming of the grants entry tests and the genuine carrying on of business in Australia are all fine details of the bill. I think the key factor is the provision which allows access by the small exporter. That is the key provision. It will ensure the long-term viability of the Australian export market, the easy accessibility for exporters at the small end of the exporting spectrum, the strength of Australia's overseas trade position and Australia's balance of payments. It is welcomed by the mining and manufacturing industries and also the tourism sector, and the minister and the government certainly deserve congratulations on bringing forward these proposals in the bill before the House.13:37:004217Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in support of the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , subject of course to the amendment which has been moved by the member for Kingsford-Smith. Exports are of critical importance to the Australian economy. Exports alone represent some 20.3 per cent of Australian gross domestic product. The traded sector of the Australian economy represents some 41.3 per cent of GDP. In an economy which in 1997-98 generated a total GDP of some $560 billion these are large numbers indeed. That is why proper management of the nation's external account requires the highest level of policy attention by government.On this count there have been three sets of economic data published in recent months that should give us all cause for sober reflection. Here I refer to the January trade balance, the last quarterly current account balance for the final quarter of 1998 as well as the most recent publications on Australia's net foreign debt. These are all important barometers for the overall health of the Australian economy. But, when we look at these numbers, any objective analysis would start to sound very loud warning bells indeed. They are figures which stand in the starkest possible contrast with the sort of economic triumphalism that we see paraded in this place day after day.They stand in contrast with the high-blown rhetoric of the Treasurer, who has pronounced time after time that this government has put in place policy measures that have fireproofed the Australian economy from the impact of the Asian economic crisis. His Prime Minister says that we have weathered the economic storm and the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister responsible for trade, comes into this House almost every day with an unending stream of hyperbole to the effect that nationally he has somehow been capable of engineering some magical shift from export markets in Asia to those elsewhere in the world—thereby complementing the all-round brilliance of his colleagues in other departments of economic policy that have, in an all-encompassing sort of way, put an effective ring fence—the Treasurer's word, not mine—around the Australian economy, insulating us from the evils of the Asian economic crisis.One of the things they do say in this place is that when you actually start believing your own verbosity—I think that is the polite term for it—then you start to find yourself in deep trouble. So it behoves us to unpack some of these claims of the government's most senior economic spokesmen against the cold, hard, uncomfortable statistical reality of the ABS.Let us start with the most recently available data on the trade account which was released earlier this month on the January 1999 figures. January produced a monthly trade deficit alone of $1.369 billion. This is the largest single monthly trade deficit in Australian history, although it has had some pretty decent competition in recent months with this being the sixth occasion in the last 12 months when we have seen the trade deficit on, about or above the $1 billion mark.The reason for the January figure is that there was a collapse in exports—a collapse in metal ores and minerals, down 26 per cent; a collapse in machinery, down 34 per cent— other manufacturers down 24 per cent—and a collapse in the export of transport equipment, down 55 per cent. Not a pretty picture at all when you start to unpick the fabric. But the picture does not stop there. We have all heard from the Deputy Prime Minister how he has single-handedly, like some colossus of exports, succeeded in redirecting our national export effort away from the troubles of Asia to the more comforting shores of Europe and elsewhere.I have not yet seen a press release from the Deputy Prime Minister fessing up to the fact that, again, in January alone, exports to Asia fell by a further 16 per cent. But—wait for it—how did we perform in exports to the rest of the world, exports to all those places that Mr Fischer has been so busy visiting between parliamentary sessions, according to the most recent ABS statistics? Perhaps our exports to the rest of the world, other than Asia, may have just gone up a bit? No. Maybe they just stayed the same? No. Maybe they just went down a little bit? After all, it has been a difficult season. No, they did not go down just a little bit. Exports to the rest of the world, other than Asia, collapsed last month by a massive 25 per cent. Now that is what I would call a successful export diversion strategy, if ever I saw one.I fully anticipate the gripes from some of those opposite that it is not fair of me just to pick the latest month of trade statistics. After all, one swallow doeth not a summer make. Nor, I suppose, does one piece of bad economic news necessarily portend disaster.So let us have a longer look at the trend lines since Mr Costello assumed the treasury bench as the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. Let us look and see what has happened over a period of time. What we find is that the extraordinary trade performance figure for January is not really a one-off event at all. The monthly figures produced in a table in the Canberra Times dated 2 March, derived in turn from the ABS, going back to November 1997 demonstrate that, in fact, we have not been in surplus on the trade account since November of that year; we have run a consistent series of monthly trade deficits.If we turn to the quarterly figures, aggregating those into lumpier items normally used for analysis, the reading is even gloomier. If we look at the quarterly balance for March 1998 on goods, we are down $2.098 billion. If we look at the quarterly deficit in June 1998, again on merchandise trade, we are down $965 billion. In the September quarter 1998, we are down $3.183 billion. In the December quarter 1998, we are down $2.438 billion. That is simply on the merchandise trade.If we look at the trade in services, there was a positive figure for the March quarter of 1998, but since that time, again, we have been in sustained deficit—June 1998, down $757 million; September 1998, down $708 million; December 1998, down $707 million.All these figures, taken together, produce a gloomy picture indeed. If these represent the sort of successful strategy of diversion to other markets around the world that the Deputy Prime Minister has spoken so much about, then I think he is reading statistics other than those which the ABS has produced.If we look at other data which has been produced—apart from the simple narrow set which relates to the trade account—and look more broadly at the current account, we must turn to the most recent data available which is the quarterly current account for the fourth quarter of 1998. Seasonally adjusted, the balance on the current account worsened by nine per cent or $664 million in the December quarter to a figure of $7.968 billion. This is the worst quarterly current account figure in Australian history.In original terms for calendar year 1998, the balance on the current account is 67 per cent worse than for 1997. In that period the trade balance has deteriorated sharply from a surplus to an $11.2 billion deficit, and net services have moved into deficit to the tune of $1.2 billion. The current account figures make for gloomy reading indeed.These figures demonstrate a deterioration in terms of our balance of trade, in terms of our merchandise trade, in terms of the export of Australian services and, more broadly, in terms of the Australian current account. All of these factors telescope into that most critical determinant of our future economic wellbeing, Australia's net foreign debt. By the end of 1998 net foreign debt had risen to $236.8 billion. When the Labor Party left office this figure, for which we were berated at the time by those opposite, was $193.2 billion. With three years of achievement and record under their belts those opposite—the government which prides itself on its powers of economic management—have managed to increase the net foreign debt of Australia by $43 billion in a neat three years. That is an increase of 22.6 per cent.If this again is a record of proud policy achievement, taken together with what has occurred on the trade account and with what has occurred on the current account, I think the government's definition of `achievement'—the fireproofing of the economy, ring fencing us from the problems of the region and setting us on a firm foundation for the future—employs a different set of definitions to all those others involved in serious and considered debate of these issues.These are criticisms which some of those opposite would expect those from the Labor Party to make. However, they are criticisms of the performance of this government on the critical question of the external account which are not just being made from here. They are not just being made by spokespersons for the Labor Party. They are not just being made by spokespersons of the trade union movement. They are not being made by spokespersons of the Socialist International. You find these criticisms contained across the length and breadth of the informed economic commentary of this nation.The concern broadly is that unless this government starts to grasp the nettle of the impending crisis on Australia's current account then time will run out. We will have the inevitable consequences of a recurring current account crisis, in turn resulting in a use of interest rates policy to effect macro-economic stability and consequential implications for the Australian dollar.Let us look, for example, at the leading economic analyst with the Australian Financial Review, Stephen Koukoulas, who has criticised the government for:. . . eating away at national savings by its planned tax cuts from the middle of 2000, not an ideal policy response to a current account problem.Mr Koukoulas has also said:The government is not working hard enough to avoid the next current account crisis, whenever that may be.The economics editor of the Australian Financial Review , Mr Alan Mitchell, also has made sobering reference to a recent report produced by the IMF which deals in part with the crisis associated with current account difficulties in other parts of the world, including an impending difficulty in the United States. Mr Mitchell writes that if we read the IMF's alternative scenario for 1999 it will cause us to become concerned indeed. It says that a shift in the pattern of exchange rates as investors become concerned about the sustainability of the large current account deficits of the United States is in fact a major risk. Mr Mitchell invites us to look at the IMF's projections of the large current account deficits for the US—2.7 per cent of GDP for 1998, 3.3 per cent of GDP for 1999. He says:Next, take a look at our current account as a proportion of GDP. In the September quarter it was just over 5 per cent. According to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, it could run above 6 per cent of GDP `for a quarter or two'.Mr Mitchell continues:That's Banana Republic territory, with Access Economics predicting that falling commodity prices and tonnages will cost Australia about $4.2 billion in 1999. Now ask yourself this—Mr Mitchell concludes—if investors sell the US dollar because they are nervous about a US current account deficit of 3.3 per cent of GDP, what will they do to the Australian dollar?There is also commentary from the chief economist of the Commonwealth Bank, Mr Michael Blythe. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 March this year Mr Blythe was reported as saying that the burgeoning trade deficit would cause the dollar, which had fallen by over 2.5c against the US dollar in the past seven days, to come under renewed pressure. He said:The data raises concerns about Australia running unsustainable current account deficits that we have seen in the past. This makes financial markets nervous.So says Mr Blythe of the Commonwealth Bank, its chief economist. The bottom line is that we have an aggregation of economic data, not just from, shall we say, likely sources but from a range of sources in commentary, in economic analysis and in economic opinion, all of which concur on the point that a huge and opening gap in this government's policy performance relates to the state of Australia's current account.We might then ask ourselves what sorts of policies the current government is embarking upon that would alleviate some of the pressures on the current account and the consequential implications for the future of interest rates policy and the Australian dollar.There are a puzzling range of policy responses indeed. We are today debating the Export Market Development Grants Bill which, in its own right, will assist small exporters. It is something which broadly enjoys bipartisan support in this parliament. But, if we look at a range of other policy initiatives being used by the government, I think it is fair to say that they do not all come up to the mark. For example, let us look at the sorts of policies which the government has embarked upon in relation to national savings policy. National savings policy is an interesting topic in itself. One of the ways in which you manage pressures on the external account of an economy is to lift the level of national savings. But what we have discovered is that since the current government came to office the level of national savings in this country has in fact fallen. At the time the Labor government was in office the level of national savings was about six per cent; that has now fallen to something like 1.3 per cent.This decline has caused a range of opinion in the community—most recently including the various professional bodies representing the superannuation industry, as well as such commentators as Vince FitzGerald—to raise fundamental concerns about the future direction of policy. The public statements which have been made by the superannuation industry make for very stark reading indeed.I will quote Philippa Smith, Executive Director of the Association of Superannuation Funds. Referring to the government's most recent tax package she said that this $3 billion `short-term' tax grab, along with the coalition's tax changes ignoring the importance of super by reducing incentives to save for retirement, had increased the chance of an age pension blow-out in the 21st century. She continued:The three pillars of compulsory and voluntary superannuation and the age pension are now starting to crumble through neglect and vandalism.Ms Smith said that the superannuation industry wanted to force the government to review its retirement incomes policy, especially tax rules. She said that the government's tax cuts would effectively wipe out incentives for people to put money into superannuation. She said that `for the majority of people, who will have a top tax rate of 30 per cent, the incentives are very small' because the effective tax rate on super contributions and earnings is about 28 per cent. If that is not a criticism of a fundamental tenet of this government's non-performance on policy, I do not know what is. Taken together, we have a set of policy measures by this government which are not responding to, but which in fact are exacerbating, problems on the Australian current account. (Time expired)13:57:004221Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—In rising to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill, I first want to say that by coincidence I spoke in this chamber yesterday following the member who has just spoken. Yesterday I was able to agree with a lot of what he had to say—we were debating the subject of aid, particularly in relation to North Korea—but I have to say that I cannot please the gentleman today by agreeing with what he has said in much of his speech on this occasion. In fact, I disagree with an awful lot of what he has had to say on this occasion.He paints a very gloomy picture. Of course, he has used the debate on the Export Market Development Grants legislation to range across a broad spectrum of the government's economic policies. I want to make a couple of points to him that my colleague the honourable member for Macquarie interjected during the speech. One is that he should not just be quoting some of the raw figures but that he should be looking at them as a percentage of GDP when considering our problems in terms of the trade imbalance and also in terms of our servicing capacity. But I notice that those things were very conveniently left to one side.Criticisms of the government also come a bit hollow, I have to say, when you consider that after 13 years of the previous speaker's party being in power the economy was in far worse shape than it is today. In fact, this government has done many things to get the economy back into good shape. All is not perfect yet and there is a long way to go, but the reality is that overall the economy is in good shape.The honourable member talked about interest rates and started running the line that they were about to go up. The reality is that a high interest rate policy was the policy of the Labor government. When I got elected in 1990—when the Labor Party was in power—interest rates in this country were at 17 per cent. Look where they are today, not exclusively but very largely due to the good economic management of this government.Look at the good management that we have managed to bring to bear in terms of getting the budget back into balance, something which you did not do for years and years and years. The reality is that this government has had a very good economic record in the relatively brief time that it has been in office after the 13 years in which your side of politics made a heck of a mess of it.You complain that we were able to talk about fireproofing the economy. Nobody has made the claim that we are totally immune to what is going on outside, but what we are saying is that good economic management is helping us to weather the storm a damn sight better than most other countries are in this part of the world.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour this day and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Miscellaneous422214:00:004222Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to say a few words about the cyclone damage in Western Australia. I know that all members of the House will share the concern of Australians generally about the massive damage inflicted on parts of Western Australia, particularly the town of Exmouth, by the cyclone which has gone through that area over the last two days.I have spoken to the Premier of Western Australia on two occasions during the last 24 hours. He has visited the areas affected by the cyclone and has given me a first-hand report on some of the damage. Mercifully, loss of life has not been part of it. We are all very grateful for that and we hope that that will continue to be the position. The velocity of the cyclone represents, on all the information available to me, the greatest ever experienced in Australia's history. The damage that has been inflicted is therefore immense. Some indications are that essential services, such as electricity, could well be unavailable for up to two weeks.In the circumstances, I intend to travel to Western Australia tomorrow to visit the area. I have invited the Leader of the Opposition to accompany me, which I believe is appropriate in the circumstances. I will therefore not be present in the parliament tomorrow. I think it is appropriate that, on an occasion like this, both I and the Leader of the Opposition together express our concern for, our understanding of and empathy with those Australians who have been so badly affected by this cyclone.14:02:004222Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I seek indulgence on the same matter. Firstly, I thank the Prime Minister for his invitation to accompany him to review the damage done in the town of Exmouth in my home state. It was a nice gesture on his part; I appreciate it and will accompany him. As he says, we have experienced a number of natural disasters recently in which there has been a loss of life. Mercifully, at the moment, that does appear not to be the case. Western Australia has been hit by a number of cyclones in the last week or so—the most forceful being the one to hit Exmouth—with great damage having been done to other Western Australian towns as well.Like the Prime Minister, I have been in touch with Western Australian colleagues, who tell me of the colossal devastation. It was possible to see that also from the various television news services last night, with the extraordinary sight of steel poles having been bent to the ground. It is a miracle that nobody has been killed. I suppose part of that is a tribute to the fact that, when the town was constructed, a considerable degree of attention was paid to the potential of cyclone damage occurring, and that seems to have at least protected lives, if not property in this context.There will need to be a generous response. There usually is a generous response from this nation to personal crises caused by natural disasters. I have no doubt at all that this will occur again. I hope that the visit to Exmouth by the Prime Minister tomorrow will bring some comfort to the people of the town as they understand that there is national attention upon them and concern by their fellow Australians for them in their predicament.Questions Without Notice422242224222Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Prime Minister, in light of reaction to your draft preamble, will you admit your mistake and refer the drafting of a new preamble to a body which is representative of the parliament as well as the elected delegates to the Constitutional Constitution so that broad based consideration can be given to a new preamble which properly expresses our nation's ideals and history, and if not, why not?4222Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I say to the Leader of the Opposition that, in trying to assess reaction to this or indeed anything else the government does, I suggest you go beyond the commentaries of Canberra based journalists.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—What about your poet mate? He disowned you!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks! The Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Can I simply repeat to the Leader of the Opposition what I said to him when I wrote to him yesterday upon sending him a copy of the draft preamble—that I would appreciate any comments that he wants to make and that those should be available by 30 April. I will consider his comments. I will consider the comments of the Leader of the Australian Democrats. But even more importantly, I will consider the comments of the men and women of Australia.I think the comments of the men and women of Australia are very illuminating on this subject. I think the comments of the men and women of Australia are not necessarily the same as some of the comments that have emanated from some of the pens and some of the mouths of those who presume to speak for the entirety of the Australian nation on these matters.It is inevitable with something of this character that, no matter who is in government and who writes it, you will not have a unanimity of opinion. I would make two observations about the reaction of the Australian Labor Party. I would remind the Australian Labor Party that when it was in government and it presumed to write a new pledge for Australian citizens, I do not remember any process of consultation with the opposition at the time. There was a total indifference to the attitude of those who sat opposite. What is at the heart of the very negative reaction of the leader of the Australian Labor Party is that—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—We're envious!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Banks.ZD4Mr HOWARD—deep down they still cannot come to terms with the fact that they are not writing the preamble. Deep down, they cannot come to terms with the fact that there was a change of government. There was a change of government in 1996, and the attitude of the Australian people on that occasion was confirmed again last year.The Labor Party have this problem that they have to oppose everything that the govern ment does. They oppose our tax plan even though it was endorsed by the Australian people. They oppose the protection of junior wage rates. They oppose industrial relations reform. They oppose the privatisation of Telstra. It is an automatic mantra: if the Liberal Party says yes, the Labor Party says no. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, who sits opposite and will continue to sit opposite while he maintains that kind of attitude, that that sort of negative carping, small-minded opposition is not what the Australian public want. They have a greater generosity of spirit. They want a bit of leadership from the Leader of the Opposition and the mainstream of the Australian public expects more of an opposition leader and expects him to rise to the occasion instead of taking such a small-minded, negative approach.42234223Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of independent support for the government's plans to reform Australia's tax system and reduce Commonwealth government debt? What is the nature and source of this support?4223Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. The government's tax reform plan for Australia continues to win widespread support. In the Age today one of the newly supportive people of the government's tax reform policy wrote this:. . . Beazley needs to do two things. Firstly, he should declare support for the Government's GST, providing legislative measures are introduced that give ongoing compensation to low-income earners and those on pensions. Secondly, he should support the full privatisation of Telstra . . .That was advice from a Mr Bob Hogg, the former National Secretary of the ALP. Bob Hogg, the Labor Party campaign director during the Hawke years, also said this in his advice to Mr Beazley—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Ha, ha!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Opposition Leader always yells the loudest when he is going the worst and then he breaks into exaggerated laughter as if he is not actually hurt by this. Bob Hogg said this:To set the scene, Beazley needs to move to "a foreign country" those old, irrelevant party policies whose time has passed. If he doesn't, then Labor will remain on the back foot, defending the old shibboleths of the Telstra and anti-GST policies . . .I could not have put it better myself. Here we have a Labor Party that is caught in the last decade being advised by its own national secretary that it is hanging on to the policies of a foreign country and being given this advice: Labor has been `played on a break by the independent Senator Brian Harradine, who is using the ALP's numbers and oppositionist mentality to create a position of singular authority.' Mr Bob Hogg says Kim Beazley has an `oppositionist mentality'. He says that he should move his policies to a foreign country. He says that he has to support the GST. He says that he has to support the full privatisation of Telstra.You might wonder, given the oppositionist mentality of the ALP, that we were rather surprised to see the following in Laurie Oakes's report in this week's Bulletin: `Simon Crean is drying out.' This is a real dry out this is. This is Simon Crean at his dry best—opposing tax reform, opposing privatisation. But that was what Laurie Oakes said. In fairness to the member for Hotham, I will read what the member for Hotham said. The member for Hotham said about himself that he recognises the importance of dryness, but also of boldness and fairness. There he is, the member for Hotham—a little bit of boldness, a little bit of fairness, a little bit of dryness. It is what they call `chardonnay socialism'—a little bit of boldness, a little bit of dryness, a little bit of fairness. We are so glad to see the member for Hotham drying out and may he sober up to good policies very quickly.42244224Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—He was stung by the mockery and derision of the revelation of his past attitudes, wasn't he? My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of Les Murray's revelation of his struggle to find a word equivalent to `custodianship' to describe the Aboriginal relationship to the land before white settlement which would be satisfactory to the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and his subsequent disappointment at the outcome, is the Prime Minister now prepared to consider the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention, which was carried without dissent at that convention, that a new preamble should include reference to indigenous custodianship?4224Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question and I think it is an important one. It gives me the opportunity to say to the House that the point that is really involved here is the question of garnering the maximum amount of public support for the reference—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The existing situation is that we do not have a preamble in our Constitution. The existing preamble is part of the enabling act of the British parliament to which the Australian Constitution is a schedule. The purpose of the exercise is to insert for the first time a preamble in our Constitution. There is no reference in the existing preamble within the British enabling act to the indigenous people of this country.I think it is the desire of everybody, if there is to be a new preamble, a real preamble to our Constitution, to have an appropriate reference to the indigenous people. But, in order to have an appropriate reference, you need to have words that will gather the maximum degree of support. I believe that the worst possible outcome for the indigenous people would be to continue the present situation where there is no reference to them at all. Those who argue that this or that formulation of words is not satisfactory run the risk of achieving the outcome that there is absolutely no advance at all.As I have said before, and I will repeat it: if you push references too far, although you may satisfy one group in the Australian community, you will end up dissatisfying another group. The indigenous people of Australia are entitled to their point of view, but so are other sections of the Australian community who hold very strong views about a particular formulation of words. The words that have been chosen are words that accurately reflect an historical truth: they are dignified, they are sensitive and they are entirely appropriate.42254225Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of any alternative policies with regard to the issue of junior wages which have been proposed since the House last sat? What is the government's response to these proposals?4225Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for her question. In fact, it is the first question we have had on the issue of junior wage rates since the parliament sat prior to the last sitting week, and that is quite an interesting contrast.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You had 10 in a row.WI4Mr REITH—As a matter of fact, I think I hold the record; I had 14 in a row.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane and the minister will stop their exchange.WI4Mr REITH—Fourteen out of 14 was my result. But I make that point because the Leader of the Opposition, soon after having had his 14 out of 14 questions, went to ground and then turned up at some international trade union congress at the invitation of the shoppies' union. What is interesting about that is that, before this international audience, he said that one party needs to be serious about junior wage rates, and he went on then to extol a new and alternative position for the Labor Party. I was not surprised at it.The shoppies' union is a big union and it has a big influence in the Labor Party, and the Leader of the Opposition basically aligned the Labor Party with the shoppies' position. He does not want to be too aligned to any position because he has been saying that we pre-empt his—Mr Beazley interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—Exactly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition. WI4Mr REITH—He does not want to have a position because he has been attacking us on the issue for having a position. So this is the position he has, but he does not want to announce that it is his position because the shoppies—Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The chair rightly offers a great deal of leniency to the Leader of the Opposition, but he is abusing it with his persistent interjection in response to this question.WI4Mr REITH—The absurdity of the position now being pushed by the Leader of the Opposition is that he is supporting the shoppies. The shoppies' position is that the adult wage should be moved from 21 to 18, and that below 18 we should have an age based system. For those who are over 18, obviously there would be a significant increase in the wages bill for employers across the country of around $360 million. So a lot of people who are over 18 are going to lose their jobs. For people under 18, Labor's position now is the shoppies' position—an age based system. It would also mean a significant increase in wages because the shoppies are pushing for a 25 per cent increase for, say, a 16-year-old.But the critical point is that the shoppies' position is for an age based system below 18. To achieve an age based system for 18 and under, you would need to legislate to provide for a permanent exemption from the anti-discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. There is a means to obtain a permanent exemption for an age based system; the means to obtain that policy is to vote for our legislation.So Labor's position now is that they are supporting a proposition that could only be achieved if they were to vote for our legislation. Yet they have just voted against that legislation. When they voted against the legislation they now need to fulfil their policy, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was `chuffed'. Then he went to this crowd, the international trade unions, and said, `We have to have a serious position.' So he is seriously chuffed that he has voted against the one measure he needs now to implement his policy.Mr Speaker, this is a bizarre and absurd outcome. It just shows you that, when you have no capacity for leadership, no policy position, you get yourself backed into a position in the way the Labor Party has done. Simon Crean's advice is that the Labor Party needs product differentiation. Actually, on this issue there is product differentiation.We have a policy that supports young people hanging on to the jobs they have and getting jobs in the future. The Labor Party have no policy position. They are simply being pushed around by the shoppies and other unions—and the people who will pay the price of their political opportunism are the very young people whom they should be supporting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would remind ministers, principally in the case of question time, of the obligation to refer to members by their seat.42264226Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I will answer that misrepresentation at the appropriate time. In the meantime, this question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't your continued insistence on personally drafting a new preamble to the Constitution you otherwise do not seek to change causing community dissent and derision because you fear that, in the forthcoming great national debate about modernising our Constitution with an Australian head of state, you will appear backward looking, out of touch and with nothing worthwhile to say—a complete irrelevancy?4226Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I invite the House to recall, seeing that the Leader of the Opposition reminds me of it with his question, the many and various positions that the Leader of the Opposition himself has had on the preamble. His first position was that you should run a hundred miles away from having a preamble. His second position was that maybe it would not be a bad idea. His third position was that he would entertain a preamble only if it met certain criteria. His fourth position was that he had produced a preamble and why had I not produced one. His fifth proposition was that in some way the very idea of voting on a preamble is related to the issue of whether or not Australia should become a republic.My views on the existing arrangements within Australia for the head of state are well known. I do not resile from them, and it will take more than an attempted piece of derision from the Leader of the Opposition at question time to alter my view on the fact that we have a constitutional arrangement that has made this country one of the most envied democracies in the world. But that, of course, belongs to the debate that the Australian people will undertake. I have declared now for over a year that there will be a free and open vote within the Liberal and National parties on that issue.Quite separately from the question of whether or not Australia becomes a republic, I believe there is a strong case for giving to the Constitution of this country a preamble. I believe there is a strong case for giving it a preamble which is not borrowed in a slavish way from the preamble of the Constitution of other countries. I heard the member for Holt interviewed on radio this morning. I had my morning walk through the cool Canberra air interrupted by the dulcet tones of the member for Holt being interviewed by Radio National. They asked, `What is wrong with the preamble?' Immediately he said, `Well, it does not have some of the language that the American Constitution has.' Why is it that we have to always borrow that particular language?Mr Beazley interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Let me say to those who sit opposite—and I certainly invoke the observation of my deputy, the Treasurer—that the more voluble excitement that comes from the person who sits opposite me, the less consistent with that—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order concerning relevance. The Prime Minister is now way away from the original question that he was asked. One does not need to remind him that in these circumstances he is arguing for a British head of state in the Constitution.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister was asked a question about the preamble and its relationship to the referendum question. In it there was a comment made about the influence it would have on the Prime Minister's status. I think his response is entirely relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They are two quite separate issues, and that is why the government is providing two separate referendum questions. That is why there will be two separate ballot papers. It is entirely appropriate that some Australians will vote yes and yes to the two questions. Some Australians will vote no and no. Some Australians will vote yes and no, and some Australians will vote no and yes.42274227Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Minister, what benefits to investment and employment arise from the regional forest agreement process? What information has the minister received regarding support for the ongoing RFA process?4227Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Mr Speaker—QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—The log minister!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister for Maribyrnong is warned.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—In 1992 the then Labor government put out a national forest policy statement, the purpose of which was to create regional forest agreements which could guarantee certainty to conservationists by way of a comprehensive reserve system and certainty to the industry by way of guaranteeing them that the remaining forest would be available for harvesting and therefore encourage investment and the jobs that followed. That particular proposal was supported by all sides of politics. However, when that government was defeated in 1996, not one regional forest agreement had been even advanced in negotiation, let alone signed. It is evidence of the real commitment that that side of politics had to what was a very sensible process.This government has since also introduced regional forest agreement legislation in relation to agreements between governments which we know to be not sound that would guarantee if people took governments at their word and invested their money and a future government changed those rules then compen sation could be paid. That legislation is now in the Senate, but there is now considerable concern arising in the trade union movement as to the commitment that the opposition has to a process that was originally their invention. Consequently, the national secretary for forests of the CFMEU put out a press release some time ago in which, amongst other things, he said:"If an amendment to insert a disallowance mechanism was successful, [in the RFA legislation] the ALP would have regressed back to its mistaken way of 1994/95, when it tore itself apart over forest issues," Mr Smith said."It is a pity that some in the ALP wish to again politicise forest issues, it seems some ALP parliamentarians have failed to learn from their past mistakes."That is a pretty fair message. But he did not stop there. He chose to write to the opposition spokesman, the member for Reid, pleading with him not to be taken over by the more trendy elements of his party and to stick with the people that come with their label of the Labor Party. This is what he said:On the issue of disallowance, I again repeat the Union's position that it does not support this proposal as we believe that it is a proposal which would again take the Parliamentary Labor Party down the road of tearing itself apart over forest issues.The issue of a disallowance mechanism was never raised with the Union during the previous Labor Government's development of the National Forest Policy Statement. The issue was also never raised during the Labor Government's stop-start implementation of the NFPS. Again the issue was never raised when, after the 1995 blockade . . . We just had the Leader of the Opposition talking about consultation. You certainly did not give any to your own union when you went running off with the trendies. He went on to say:Clearly the concept of a disallowance mechanism has only been developed in recent times and seems to be in response to those who wish to politicise the process and the current public controversy in Western Australia.The reality of it is that I am giving you a message you refuse to hear from the people who have paid to put you into office and support you with, of course, their preselection.Finally, and in obvious total disgust, the CFMEU has put out another press release stating:The Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union's Forestry Division has called for ALP leader Kim Beazley to intervene in the growing controversy over the Regional Forest Agreement Bill.He is saying that he would like the Leader of the Opposition to show some leadership. He would like him to listen to the working people of the forest industry in terms of asking for a simple thing: a guarantee of certainty. The press release goes on:Mr Smith said that any view that the Union would sacrifice the WA Regional Forest Agreement in exchange for a tick for NSW, Victoria and Tasmania was "insulting and erroneous."That is what he thinks of you. Further down he says:"We have copped Regional Forest Agreements with the loss of resources because we have accepted the process and need to have that process based on proper criteria. We are not going to have future RFAs become part of a Senatorial political football match."He says in conclusion:"I want to make it quite clear that if people in the ALP expect this Union to turn a blind eye to this issue of disallowance, they are sadly mistaken."I would like the trade unionists in this room today to know how their supporters take this issue. They think it is an absolute joke. They are talking about people losing their houses when some of these small towns close down with no other resource available. They are laughing their heads off on the basis that they think—Opposition members interjecting—SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Well, if you want to laugh at me for putting a case for working people, you can laugh as often as you like. We also have labelling laws that say that you are supposed to provide true and proper labelling. On this performance, I think it is a breach of the law to go to the people calling yourself `the Labor Party'.42284228Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Why did you allow your colleague Senator Minchin to mislead the parlia ment in relation to the Pangea proposal when he stated in the Senate on 1 December 1998, `There have been absolutely no ministerial level discussions with that company,' when you had in fact met with the Pangea company on 5 November 1998? Have you breached the Prime Minister's code of conduct by failing to correct the record as soon as you became aware of the fact that Senator Minchin's statement to the Senate was substantially incorrect and misleading? Why did you wait so long?4228Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The code of conduct of the Liberal Party says first and foremost that we should give a hearing to all citizens of Australia and, what is more, the code of conduct of the Liberal Party says that you do not have to sign a piece of paper that puts the Labor Party above your own constituency as all of you have done. That is the first point. The second point is that I got a request through my office handled by one of my staff to give an interview to a respected United States industrialist. I did so and, what is more, I listened intently to what he had to say.I might add that during the time that I have given interviews to people, I have had people coming in representing the interests of convicted criminals, as I am sure many of us have had on other issues of that nature. I give everyone a hearing. But, having done so, I then decide what steps I might take on the merits of their representations to put forward a representation to other ministers.Having heard Mr Voss, I did not make any further representations to anybody, verbally or written, because I did not support the proposition that he put to me. It was not my responsibility as a minister. I therefore considered the matter closed. However, when Senator Minchin made the remarks he did, I was obliged to tell him immediately that he had made an error inadvertently and I stand by that. But, more than anything, there is a good reason Senator Minchin did not know. I did not see it appropriate to put any representations to him on the matter.42284228Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, parents in my electorate have praised the government for its support of quality schooling and education.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Indi will resume his seat. There is far too much audible conversation on my left and I will not tolerate it. The member for Indi will repeat his question.XU5Mr LIEBERMAN—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, parents in my electorate have praised the government for its support of quality schooling. Can the minister advise the House of the government's actions to strengthen choice and quality in education? Is the minister aware of alternative policies for schools? What is his response to those alternative policies?Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 76. Yet again the member for Hunter has interjected when the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has got up to answer a question. It was a highly offensive interjection and I would ask that you act on it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There was an occasion yesterday when the member for Hunter chose to make what I thought was an inappropriate interjection but I let it go. I warn him on this occasion that I will not tolerate interjections. The member for Hunter and I have discussed this matter outside the chamber. I simply indicate to him that I expect him to exercise a little more constraint.4229Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Indi for his question, and I acknowledge his commitment to quality education in all sectors for the young people in his electorate. This government has taken decisive action to build up standards of education in Australia. We have now put in place a national literacy plan. We have abolished the former government's new schools policy giving choice of school to low income families, and the funding for government schools in Australia this year is some $258 million more than it was in the last year of the Labor government.This contrasts dramatically with the policy vacuum that exists in relation to education on the other side of the House. We all recall the policy that the Labor Party put forward during the election campaign which, as the member for Werriwa said so eloquently at the time, was stuffed up. We now know that the Leader of the Opposition has returned to the scene of the crime in his so-called vision speech last week, attempting to outline just what the Labor Party did stand for in relation to education. Anybody who looked at that speech would have realised it was a vacuous empty speech with nothing to say about major education issues.I was interested to see that it was not just the government that reached that assessment about that speech; the Australian Council of State School Organisations also reached that assessment. Anyone who has followed the education debate in recent times knows that the Australian Council of State School Organisations has not been a consistent supporter of the government. In fact, it is an organisation which has traditionally aligned itself with the Labor Party. Yet immediately after the Leader of the Opposition's disastrous attempt to outline a vision for Australia, it issued a press release headed `Beazley education vision lacks substance'. The Council of State School Organisations described the Leader of the Opposition's speech as `deeply disappointing', `unconvincing', `contained little of substance and raised problems' and made `vague remarks'.This comment shows that there is a policy vacuum on the other side of the House which the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely incapable of filling. He has chosen, as we know, the perfect spokesman for the policy vacuum in the member for Dobell, who has nothing to say to the House on issues of substance. In that, he is the true follower of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me just conclude by pointing out what the Australian Council of State School Organisations felt it was necessary to ask the Leader of the Opposition to do:If Mr Beazley was to be taken seriously on education, he must issue as a matter of urgency a much more comprehensive statement of his vision which deals with the major current issues and which proposes a serious way forward backed by clear funding commitments, otherwise his wish to be the education Prime Minister will be dismissed as unconvincing.That is an organisation that has traditionally been a supporter of the Labor Party. That is an authoritative condemnation of the policy vacuum which exists under the weak leadership of the Leader of the Opposition.42304230Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the comments on the GST by Queensland Treasurer David Hamill:While we are being robbed, we are simply not going to sign.Does he support the Queensland Treasurer's view? If not, has he told the member for Fairfax, who is reported in the Sunshine Coast Sunday newspaper as saying:. . . he agreed with Queensland Labor Treasurer David Hamill's assessment that the state could draw the short straw of GST revenue.He also said:. . . he could find no fault with the state government's submission on GST funding . . . 4230Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of the views that have been expressed in relation to this matter by both the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Treasurer. I know it is part of the folk lore and part of the ordinary combat of Australian politics for state premiers to go into bat for their own states, no matter what the relative justice or otherwise may be of their case.I say to the member for Oxley and to others interested in this issue that, under the taxation arrangements, the states of Australia will enjoy, all of them, unprecedented access to higher levels of revenue. It is the greatest deal offered to the Australian states since Federation. It is a deal that will underwrite the financial basis of the provision of schools, of roads, of hospitals, of police services and all of those bread and butter issues, those bread and butter requirements. Those who repudiate that are not examining the detail. All of the attempts that have been made over the years to do something permanent and lasting about Commonwealth-state financial relations pale into insignificance compared with the generosity of what the states are being offered under this plan.No premier in his or her right mind would reject this offer. I say to the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Treasurer: `You are adopting a very provincial, poorly structured position. You are ignoring the long-term benefits that will flow to the state of Queensland. If you are interested in the long-term benefit of the state of Queensland, you will support the GST package.' So the Queensland Premier, the member for Oxley or any other member, indeed anybody else who is supporting the stance taken by the Queensland Premier, should be urging senators from the state of Queensland, including Labor Party senators, to vote for the government's tax plan because Queensland will be a big winner from the government's taxation plan. Queensland, along with all other states, will derive enormous benefit. If the premiers of the states of Australia do not play their role in securing Senate support for the government's tax plan, they will be betraying the citizens of their own states, they will be selling short the interests of the services of those states and they will be letting down the aspirations of the people they were elected to represent.42304230Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of industrial action occurring on the Sun Metals Zinc Refinery site in Townsville? What are the implications for working families and communities so badly affected by this strike and for the broader region of North Queensland? Does the experience of this strike strengthen the case for further workplace relations reform in Australia?4230Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. I appreciate his great concerns about this dispute and the impact on his local community. Of course, my office and my department have been closely monitoring developments. The dispute is wholly within the jurisdiction of the Queensland state industrial relations laws and, therefore, of the Queensland government. But it is of serious concern. It has a major impact on regional Australia, on foreign investment in Australia and Northern Queensland and on thousands of jobs for families in the Townsville community—more than a thousand direct jobs in construction and a multiplier effect of about 3,000 jobs in the community.The dispute is a demarcation dispute between five unions and is principally a battle between the AWU and the CFMEU and the old BLF, with the CFMEU-BLF trying to force itself into a workplace where it is not a party to a registered agreement. It is incredible that in this day and age union officials exercise the liberty to gamble with the jobs and living standards of 3,000 workers and families and to jeopardise the largest Korean investment in Australia—$530 million in stage 1 and $500 million in stage 2. The dispute is now entering its fourth week. It has been characterised by a picket line of intimidation, including reports of racist and sexist intimidation. At least half of the workers want to return to work, but they are intimidated by the CFMEU-BLF picket line from doing so.This is an illegal strike under Queensland state law, and the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has twice made orders, including a return to work and disbanding of the picket line. The unions have defied the orders of the IRC in Queensland. The dispute shows you how out of touch the CFMEU is with the reality and the aspirations of people in Townsville. Of course, this is the same union that paid out $79,467.25 to the Queensland Labor Party federal campaign in the last election, which explains the failure of the federal Labor Party to take any interest in this dispute. This dispute is sending a very negative message to investors in Queensland. The Beattie government ought to require the observance of its own law and require the observance of that law, in particular, by its union mates.It is typically hypocritical of the Labor Party that they in one breath defend the commission but, when there are clear orders by the commission declaring action to be illegal, they fail to support them and to require the observance of the law, as has occurred on this occasion. The dispute also, I think, suggests that we do need to further reform workplace relations laws, including a requirement for mandatory secret ballots and immediate enforcement of orders of the civil courts against illegal strikes. These are measures that the Labor Party opposes. So I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to condemn this dispute. He ought to explain to the people of Townsville why Labor Party policy is for unions to have more power for more strikes and demarcation disputes. I challenge the Labor Party to repeal its partisan message of solidarity for CFMEU industrial tactics in Queensland which they issued only very recently. Its failure to do so is just another sign of weak leadership from the Leader of the Opposition.I conclude by noting that, whilst the CFMEU is out of touch with reality and the consequences of its actions for workers, today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the latest industrial relations disputes figures for the calendar year 1998. They show the lowest level of working days lost per thousand employees since 1913—a record low level of industrial disputes—which shows that, with sensible reform, you get fewer disputes and a better deal for workers.42314231Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will pensions under the GST regime always be higher than they would without the GST?4231Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Pensioners have been made better off by this government. They will be even better off with the GST reform.42314231Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of comments from public figures supporting voluntary student unionism? What is the significance of these comments for the achievement of freedom of association on university campuses?4231Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Sturt for his question and for his strong commitment to voluntary student unionism. I would like to bring to the House's attention a valu able statement in support of voluntary unionism that I have recently come across. The author of this statement—recalling his days as a student activist I think—wrote:. . . Students were amazed at the way in which staid vice-chancellors continued to make them support a political machine taken over by extremists who made no attempt to hide the fact of their control, and who were, in many ways, linked to extremist organisations in the world off-campus . . . Why the establishment seemed so unwilling to permit freedom of association for students, either on the campuses or nationally . . . remains a mystery to many.Who was this student activist with such strong feelings which he put into print first in 1976 and then again in the 1980s? It was none other than Michael Danby, the member for Melbourne Ports. It is almost beginning to look as though there might be three thinkers on the other side of the House.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Write a book, Michael!BT4Dr KEMP—This was just a chapter in a book, but it is a start. The chapter was headed `Compulsory student unions: Australia's forgotten closed shop'. To his credit, the member for Melbourne Ports wrote the strongest possible condemnation of forced student unionism, and he went on to say what was required of VSU. He said:. . . the power of the AUS, for all of its bash-merchants, could have been dissolved virtually overnight . . . What was required was . . . simply a removal of coercive power from a body which had no entitlement to it.You could not get a clearer statement of principle than that. I was also interested to read in this article that the member for Melbourne Ports relied on a comment from the member for Higgins—well known to this House as one of Australia's strongest supporters of voluntary student unionism. Indeed, the member for Higgins said at the time:The AUS . . . does not affect the livelihood of the vast bulk of students. The whole compulsory unionism debate about AUS is designed to hoodwink students and university administrators into supporting the extremist . . . leadership.That statement, I believe, was made by the member for Higgins in 1979. So he has been a very strong supporter of voluntary student unionism for the last 20 years. I am quite sure that the member for Melbourne Ports—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The interjections have been good natured and that is understood and appreciated, but they are too audible and may not be understood by all those who are listening as good natured interjections. I just ask for some restraint.BT4Dr KEMP—I would like to conclude by congratulating the member for Melbourne Ports on mounting a principled argument in favour of voluntary student unionism, and I feel quite sure that he will be demonstrating his strength of character and his commitment to principle by crossing the floor of the House and voting for the government's voluntary student unionism legislation.42324232Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's rejection of advice from Access Economics' Geoff Carmody on the adequacy of GST compensation for pensioners. Prime Minister, I ask whether Mr Carmody was wrong when he told the Senate GST inquiry, through the Food and Grocery Council, and I quote from the submission:As male total average weekly earnings grows faster than the CPI, the benefits of compensation will be eroded to zero relative to the pre-existing legislated pension adequacy benchmark.Can the Prime Minister explain the error in Mr Carmody's argument?4232Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thought by now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be aware of my longstanding practice of never relying on quotes from him as to either what I have said or what other people have said. But can I just say it again for the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and for the benefit of all members of the House—Mr Tanner interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Much as you may not like it and much as you may be ashamed of it, our record of lifting the real incomes of not only workers but also pensioners is infinitely superior to yours. Under our government, pensioners have been made better off. Under our government, the average working men and women of this country have also been made better off via real income gains and reductions in interest rates, and those same groups in the Australian community will be made much better off by our proposed reforms to the Australian taxation system. And if you are interested in the welfare of Australian pensioners, you will vote for our plan, you will stop your obstruction in the Senate, you will take the advice of Bob Hogg and a growing number of people who have a long-term concern for the Australian Labor Party, stop your knee-jerk opposition and vote in favour of our taxation package.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order which goes to relevance.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I've finished.DT4CREANMr Crean—Yeah, you've finished because you won't answer the question, and you know you—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat!42334233Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of the positive effect that the increase in funding rates for aged care services will have on Australians living in rural and remote areas?Ms Hoare interjecting—Mr SPEAKER —The minister will resume her seat. The member for Charlton is warned. It is a gross discourtesy for anyone in this House to be engaging in that level of interjection when the minister has not even started to address the House. Furthermore, even if she were addressing the House there is no excuse for interjection and it will not be tolerated.4233Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for Curtin for her question; from a Bishop to a Bishop, it is almost a conclave. It is after 13 years of neglect by the Labor Party of the health and care for older Australians in rural and remote Australia that this government has had to put a lot of effort—UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member— How's your auntie?SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Mr Speaker, I take exception to that comment that was just made by the opposition. It was a reference made to a relative of mine—I do not wish to go into the personal aspect of it—but I will not wear it.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—You withdraw it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will determine who withdraws what in this chamber. I ask all those on my left to come to order. I heard the comment, I do not know who made it. Frankly, I did not think it was made in other than jest and, in that sense, I will allow it to stand—but I ask members on my left to exercise a little more restraint.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—The reason I take singular exception to that comment is that my aunt has passed away in the period since I first mentioned her with respect to a particular question. I do not find it amusing at all.We are dealing again with aged care and with people who require that aged care to live in dignity and to have the care that they require. The comments that come out of the opposition are simply in keeping with the treatment that they gave to old people when they were in government. Quite simply, we have had to fix it up. We have introduced an almost three-fold increase in multipurpose service centres which are an amalgamation of services given to older Australians. This means that older Australians can get services such as acute care, residential care and assistance with staying at home in a way that the Labor Party was never prepared to give them. I have just announced an increase in funding for these multipurpose centres of $1.8 million. This will allow us to have 42 such centres operating with another 24 on the drawing board. This increases funding for this important way of delivering services to $17.48 million. This important boost to the assistance given to older Australians is made with their care and concern at heart—that is something which is paramount in the mind of this government.42334233Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. It refers to the question we asked him previously about the statement made by Senator Minchin to the Senate on 1 December 1998. Minister, do you recall telling this House just a moment ago, `When Senator Minchin made the remarks he did'- that is, on 1 December—`I was obliged immediately to tell him that he had made an error inadvertently, and I stand by that.' Are you aware that Senator Minchin has just told the Senate that he received a letter from you about the inaccuracy of his remarks on 23 March this year—yesterday—and that was his first and only notice from you about that meeting? Who is misleading the House, you or Senator Minchin?4234Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Mr Speaker, as you would be aware, I have already requested from you an opportunity to add to my answer. I became aware of Senator Minchin's remarks in the Senate yesterday, and my reference to `immediate response' was in relation to that. If, in fact—because there was so much screaming and shouting from members opposite—I misled the House in my choice of words, I apologise. The fact is that I do not read the Senate Hansard . I was not aware of his remarks until yesterday, when a staff member drew it to my attention. I immediately prepared the appropriate letter which Senator Minchin has tabled in the other place and, of course, that is the statement I stand by.42344234Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister inform the House of any recent evidence of the performance of the Job Network? What does this evidence suggest about the effectiveness of the Job Network compared to previous strategies? In light of this evidence, is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to helping the long-term unemployed?4234Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Moore for his question and for the interest he takes in the Job Network. I am pleased to say that meaningful data, hard evidence, is now becoming available about the performance of the intensive assistance program within the Job Network and that 250,000 disadvantaged job seekers are currently being assisted under this program and that 60,000 intensive assist ance participants have been helped into real jobs, paid employment, by the Job Network. By contrast, only 45 per cent of people helped by contracted case management under the former government got real jobs.This is the important distinction—under intensive assistance 95 per cent are going into paid employment and under contracted case management only 45 per cent went into paid employment. The rest of them went into taxpayer funded labour market programs, and this created the unemployment treadmill that the member for Melbourne referred to when he said that some unemployed people under the former government's programs were `forced to undertake inappropriate and even demoralising training'. This truth from the member for Melbourne has not stopped the member for Batman in today's paper faithfully defending Working Nation—more paternalism from the born to rule mob opposite.But what has happened in the last few days is that we have finally had a policy from the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he has been goaded into action by the members for Werriwa and Melbourne and, more recently, by Bob Hogg. In a speech which Alan Ramsey said showed that he is more concerned about his leadership than most of us would have imagined, the Leader of the Opposition posed 17 questions and he gave one answer. I have been asked about alternative policies. His one answer was to pay long-term job seekers an employment bonus. He did not say what it was. He did not say who would get it. He simply said that it was a serious policy.There are some big problems with the Leader of the Opposition's employment bonus. It would discourage short-term job seekers from taking work. It would penalise people who take casual and part-time work. It would give a windfall bonus to people who would get jobs anyway. The Collins class submarine was a better idea than this. The Jindalee radar was a better idea than this. But this is about as good as you get from the inbred Labor aristocracy opposite.42354235Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Having already lost half his portfolio, will the minister give an undertaking to resign when he suffers the further humiliation of having his voluntary student legislation watered down or abandoned by his colleagues?RW5NELSONDr Nelson—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. I feel that perhaps the question should be considered to be out of order. It solicits a hypothetical response, amongst other things.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I agree that the question is close to being hypothetical. I share some of the member for Bradfield's concerns, but I am prepared to allow the minister to respond.4235Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The government policy on voluntary student unionism is an excellent policy. I just offer a small amount of gratuitous advice to the Leader of the Opposition, that when shadow ministers ask bizarre questions of that kind they cannot be long on the shadow frontbench.42354235Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister inform the House of the Australian government's attitude to the looming confrontation between NATO and the military forces of President Slobodan Milosevic? Will there be any Australians directly involved?4235Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question. The Australian government regrets President Milosevic's further intransigence which has brought about NATO's authorisation of air strikes. Responsibility for that situation lies squarely with Mr Milosevic, who at every stage has thwarted peace efforts. He has rejected the Rambouillet accord. He has violated the October agreement with atrocities against Kosovo civilians. His forces are responsible for an escalating humanitarian crisis, with 20,000 refugees and 200,000 displaced people. Mr Milosevic and the Serbian leadership should now be in no doubt of the international community's resolve to end the suffering in Kosovo.On 20 March Australians were advised to leave the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia immediately. The government authorised departure of all Australia-based staff and dependents. There are an estimated 5,000 Australians in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The majority of them are dual nationals who would prefer to remain for personal and family reasons. In Australia my department is on stand-by to answer calls about the wellbeing of Australians.As far as any further Australian involvement is concerned, as the honourable member asked, the Australian Defence Force units will not be involved. There is a small number of Australian Defence Force personnel on exchange with British and American units in the region, and they could be deployed with their units.42354235Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister recall writing in his article for the Australian on 26 February that a fee as little as $90 may cause students to `drop out or defer their courses'? Is the minister aware that some TAFE colleges also charge compulsory service fees? Does the minister plan to introduce legislation to destroy student services on TAFE campuses as well, or does this example highlight the dishonesty of the minister's attacks on university unions and expose his blatant political motivations?4235Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—They are clearly unsettled on the other side of the House by the discovery of the fact that on their back benches they indeed have some who are strong supporters of voluntary student unionism.Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—They are a divided party. The Labor Party, as we know, is the only political party in Australia which supports a compulsory up-front fee for most students. They are utterly hypocritical in what they say about student fees. They come into this House and complain about the fact that the government has provided students with the fairest student loan scheme in the world. Only the Labor Party insists that every student in Australia should pay a compulsory fee.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that the minister has not said anything about TAFE students. He has referred to university students only.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. Has the minister completed his answer?BT4Dr KEMP—Yes.42364236Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Could the minister outline the benefits to people living in rural and regional New South Wales and to the people living in my electorate of Parkes of his announcement yesterday of the commitment by the federal government of $4½ million towards the development of the new Royal Flying Doctor Service base at Dubbo in New South Wales?4236Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and note his very real interest, one which I share with him, in relation to, frankly, the quite vexed issue of the supply of doctors and health services in rural and remote areas of the country, particularly remote areas. It has been a great pleasure to be able to announce the outcome of the work of quite a few people, including my good friend and colleague the minister for health, that we are providing $4½ million for the Royal Flying Doctor Service to set up a base in Dubbo. That will become the third base in New South Wales along with Sydney and Broken Hill. We are putting $2½ million towards the capital and we will be providing $500,000 per annum for running costs.That new base will be of major benefit to people living in some quite remote areas, some of whom simply do not have the access to doctors that the rest of us take for granted. Indeed, in terms of time, it will mean that many people have access to an evacuation time of 40 minutes to Dubbo as opposed to anything up to an hour and a half to Sydney. As those with a medical background will know, the golden hour can often be critical for people facing real medical emergencies. This base will provide emergency transfers, primary care clinics, remote consultations and second-tier transport. I believe it will also help us use the resources of the Royal Flying Doctor Service far more effectively by cutting the number of flying hours relative to the delivery of their services.I have no doubt that this will be widely welcomed in the future, certainly in terms of its immediate announcement. It has been extremely well received. I know that all members in this place will be interested to know that at the moment people in remote towns such as Brewarrina, Collarenebri and Goodooga—places where people live and produce to the great benefit of the nation, and often do so under circumstances of considerable deprivation and difficulty—simply do not have access to a local doctor at all despite the real efforts that this government is putting in place and despite the real improvement in the number of doctors in rural and remote areas we are now witnessing as a result of our efforts. Many of these people will now have access to medical services in a way that they simply did not have before. It reflects our very real commitment to the people of the bush.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, on that very positive piece of news, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper and congratulate the minister on the announcement.Personal Explanations423615:20:004236Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Hunter claim to have been misrepresented?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I certainly do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Proceed.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—During question time today by way of a point of order the member for Wannon accused me of reflecting on the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in `a highly offensive manner'. Mr Speaker, I take offence at that because, as you know, that sort of behaviour is not within my make-up. What I did do was simply ask the minister to tell the truth.15:20:004237Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for La Trobe claim to have been misrepresented?OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Proceed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—An article in today's Bulletin magazine reports on the appointment by the Minister for Defence of Malcolm McIntosh and John Prescott to inquire into the strategic Collins class submarine project. The article says in part:For his part, Prescott received a serve from the prominent Victorian Liberal Party chairman of the—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not imagine that the electors of Australia found any of that outburst at all amusing or justifiable. The member for La Trobe has the call.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—Thank you, Mr Speaker. He did get that part right. The article continues:. . . from the prominent Victorian Liberal Party chairman of the parliament's Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, Bob Charles, who `openly questioned the wisdom of appointing John Prescott'. Charles' apparent rationale for questioning the Prescott appointment was that Prescott was in the chair at BHP when there were cost over-runs at the steel reduction plant in Western Australia.That could not be more wrong. I actually support Minister Moore's appointment of John Prescott precisely because he was in the chair—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for La Trobe has indicated where he has been misrepresented.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—when the HBI plant had the major cost overruns in WA.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat. He has indicated where he was misrepresented. Questions to the Speaker423742374237O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Sir, I have two questions of you. Yesterday in response to my question to you asking why it was you had cut short the day earlier—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke knows this matter has been dealt with. So I ask him to come very quickly—CE4Mr O'KEEFE—No, not at all, Mr Speaker. Allow me to ask my question, please.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am listening.CE4Mr O'KEEFE—I asked you if you would explain for the benefit of members the reasons why you cut short the member for Shortland. In your answer you then went on to outline why it was you suspended me from the House.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Under the standing orders, a direction by you, under 304A, is not able to be the subject of debate. This member believes that he can use the opportunity for questions after question time as a means of raising matters previously ruled upon by you. That is clearly part and parcel of his continuation today. He should be advised to see you afterwards.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will rule on the point of order. The chair has, in the chair's eyes, exercised a great deal of patience in dealing with the inquiry made by the member for Burke, but at this point in time he has only inquired as to why the member for Shortland was asked to resume her seat. I invite him to continue his explanation, but I will not tolerate any reflection on the chair, nor will I offer any explanation about 304A.CE4Mr O'KEEFE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will continue with the question I am asking you. In your response yesterday—and I am quoting from Hansard —you moved on to explain my suspension from the House and you said this:When I brought his attention to the reason why I had intervened on the member for Shortland's question, he then challenged the chair's decision and—your words—as the Hansard record will show, I warned him. He further challenged the chair's decision . . .Mr Reith —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. As I have suggested in my first point of order, the member is simply attempting to debate, under the guise of a question, an order that you made pursuant to 304A. He is not entitled to do so under the standing orders. He should therefore be ruled out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House is quite right that there is no debate about the decision under 304A. I had already invited the member for Burke to see me in my office over this question. But the member for—Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke is not aware of the fact but, as yet, he is not being heard by the rest of the Australia because he does not have the call. The member for Burke.CE4Mr O'KEEFE—To continue, Mr Speaker, Hansard reports that, in your words:He further challenged the chair's decision instead of resuming his seat. It was that persistent interruption of the chair that brought on the warning yesterday.Then I went to the Hansard record of the event, because my recall of the event was different from yours.4238Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Burke will resume his seat. The member for Burke has raised what he feels is an error in the way in which I interpreted Hansard or Hansard recorded the events, and there are ways in which the Hansard record can be corrected. For the illumination of the member for Burke, when the member for Shortland attracted my remonstrance in that question time it was because she had entered into the question of argument by nominating, as I recall, a sequence of country towns, which I felt was arguing her case in the question. That was the reason that I intervened in the member for Shortland's question. Subsequently the member for Shortland indicated to me that she wished to have the call yesterday and I did not—inadvertently—give her the call. I invite her to take the call now.42384238Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Mr Speaker, when I was asking for the call yesterday it was in relation to obtaining some answers to some questions. But, before doing that, I must express my disappointment that I was—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. The member for Shortland is a new member—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Shortland has the facility right now to raise with the Speaker a question, which she asked to be able to do yesterday. I understood that the question was under standing order 150.83NMs HALL—Okay.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no okay about it. Those are the standing orders.83NMs HALL—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150 I ask you to request the Minister for Health and Aged Care to respond to questions Nos 305, 306 and 307 that I put on the Notice Paper on 7 December.4238Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up that matter.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am on my feet. The member for Burke will resume his seat.Mr Price interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley is warned.Documents42384238Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—A paper is tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the paper will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Mr O'Keefe interjecting—Mr Price interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Member for Burke, I am on my feet and I intend to call the matter of public importance. The member for Chifley is currently under a warning.Matters of Public Importance4238423810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The critical community reaction to the Prime Minister's proposed Preamble to the Australian Constitution.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:31:004239Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The Prime Minister's arrogance in his decision not to participate in this debate on a preamble that he has just put forward for the Australian Constitution and not to take advantage of the first opportunity in parliament to discuss this proposition is matched only by the arrogance that he has demonstrated in deciding that he and he alone, with a little bit of advice around the edges, is going to write a primary document for the Australian nation to last for the foreseeable future. That is an extraordinary act of hubris, built on top of that determination that he will breach the olympic rules in relation to whether or not heads of state open the Olympic Games. We have seen a prime ministerial performance since the last election which has, in the old-fashioned Australian term, demonstrated all the attributes of swollen headedness. The ultimate piece of swollen headedness is this, and he ought to be big enough to admit a mistake, withdraw and return the process of drafting an important change to the Australian Constitution to the sort of process that goes to drafting the Constitution itself. He had the opportunity.He has had a Constitutional Convention deliberate on these matters. The Constitutional Convention arrived at a set of propositions associated with the drafting of the preamble. They did it in the context in which they sought a bringing together of the Australian people through that process. They determined it by something like a two-thirds majority and their views have—in all honesty, when you read this particular preamble—been set aside, dismissed and replaced by this piece of prime ministerial hubris.Whatever the economic figures of this nation now—the employment figures, the growth figures, the figures related to current account deficits, which so preoccupy the government and the opposition during our deliberations in this place—none will even be footnotes in history 50 to 100 years from now. None of them will even be recorded in the history books. They will be matters of great disinterest to those who follow us—total disinterest. But they will live with whatever this generation determines the Constitution to be. They will live with that. They will live with the words. They will seek in those words what we seek in the words now from the Constitution prepared by the founders back in the 1890s. They will seek contemporary relevance in the words. They will seek, particularly from a preamble, a statement about the nation with which they can continue to identify.My colleague the member for Holt was mocked by the Prime Minister for saying that he thought it might be relevant to consider what was placed in the preamble to the American Constitution. There is not a single American who is other than proud to recite that preamble to the Constitution each day the school begins. There is not a single American who is not proud to do that and not a single American who thinks that the preamble to the Constitution drafted more than a couple of hundred years ago is anything but utterly relevant and understandable in contemporary terms. That is the quality that has to be in this preamble presented to the Australian people. Is it there?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Despite the absolute barrage of criticism that the Prime Minister has received from the media since he brought down that proposition—including from his favourite newspaper, the newspaper which he constantly says is the voice of the people, the Daily Telegraph , which described it as `the shambles of the preamble'—he is proud to say, `Whatever the media might think, whatever the vox pop that we have seen so far might think about what we require, out there there is somebody who actually agrees with me on this, and on the basis of that I ought to be permitted to proceed.' Among those who agree with him on this, unfortunately for him, is not Les Murray, who was given a guernsey as the co-drafter of this and who has spent the morning on the airwaves repudiating large slabs of it.It is just possible that when the Prime Minister finally got down to write this, he was viewing a Textor focus group through a peephole and that he found one or two words floating out there in that Textor focus group and has somehow managed to cobble them together in a document which challenges the previous minister for education's efforts at literacy in the Australian community. It is just possible that that is where this emanated from. I do not necessarily take all that much notice of everything that Paul Kelly says or writes, but I have to concede that he is the premier political journalist in the print media in this country, and this is what he says:This is a Clayton's preamble.It is too bad to be true; the more you read it, the worse it gets.It is bad logic, bad law and bad politics. But it is even worse because John Howard's preamble is an utter shambles.. . . . . . . . .It doesn't stick to the core and universal values, the absolute discipline demanded for a Constitution; it wanders around like a tipsy journalist on a merry night into prejudice, fashion, ideology, achievement, excellence and mateship.It is a whole set of cobbled together concepts flung on a piece of paper like that old version of an art trend that occurred once when folk would get up with a bucketload of paint and sling one bucketload of paint after another on the canvas and say, `That's it.' That is your policy. That is your preamble. This is your statement of the nation.I am going to say things I find fundamentally wrong with this in terms of disuniting the Australian people. Before I get to that, I want to say how extraordinarily demeaning and disappointing those words are in their generality. I will say a thing or two about Aboriginal people later, but this is for all of us. I have never seen a preamble that argues from the negative, a statement about what we are not. The Prime Minister said, `I want words that will last for all time,' but then he comes out with a set of grievances that he has with the way the Australian political system has treated him for so long. He says, `It is not about fashion. It is not about ideology. It is not about prejudice.' I admit we can be, if we like, one-off and unique, but I challenge anyone to find in the preamble to any constitution of any country a nation which defines itself in the negative—particularly defining itself in the negative ungrammatically. I invite people to take a look at that particular section of the proposition to see precisely what I mean by that.When it comes to discussing the situation of our indigenous people—and recollect that one of the reasons why there has been an argument about there being a preamble at all is that it should be part of a process of allowing or helping indigenous Australians to be part of a total community which they do not feel they are part of; that is one of the reasons why we are doing this—the Prime Minister's preamble says:Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.As Paul Kelly says, `The words used about indigenous people . . . has a ring of paternalism and a 1970s school textbook.' Precisely: they have that ring of paternalism. The preamble also refers—and this is why it is a bad idea to move away from a collective examination of a proposition like a preamble—to `since time immemorial'. Time immemorial actually has a legal meaning. It is dated back to 6 July 1189 when time immemorial was defined at one point in English common law as the time prior to 6 July 1189. So evidently Aboriginals are regarded as having inhabited this country `since time immemorial', which is dated from 6 July 1189. Therefore, there is some mystery as to what has applied to the other 50,000 years of inhabitation that we already know of. This is another piece of the incompetence of drafting this preamble in the manner in which the Prime Minister has chosen, but it is not the main point as far as the Aboriginal community is concerned.The Prime Minister was proud that at the Constitutional Convention there were a number of Aboriginal delegates appointed and elected and this particular proposition was discussed with them at the Constitutional Convention at very great length. They came up with an acceptance of the use of the word `custodianship' for the description of their occupancy of this nation, this territory, this state, this continent and its associated islands, prior to the advent of white settlement. They accepted the notion of custodianship. I do not think you would find a single Australian citizen who would find that an unfair description, an offensive description, of the circumstances which existed in this continent of ours prior to European settlement.When it was put to the Constitutional Convention, consisting of monarchists and republicans—all with different views—and Labor representatives and Liberal representatives, there was not one word of dissent, not one. When it was passed they applauded it, in much the same way as the Liberal Party room applauded yesterday when the Prime Minister brought his message to them. How inferior have the Liberal Party cabinet and their backbench become that they actually tolerate a prime ministerial set of words like this, that they insult the Australian people like this by parading their prejudices, fears, worries and concerns, the mingyness and meanness of their self-definition of the last 30 years, across the Australian nation as a representative statement of the Australian people? It is an absolute disgrace that they would choose to do this at this point in time and then rely hopefully on an ability to bluster that through the Australian people during the course of the referendum campaign associated with the issue of a statement about our head of state.When it is all boiled down, that of course is the origin of all of this. The Prime Minister looked at the world and looked at our national political debate and saw that there were a large number of Australians who wanted to modernise the Constitution. He understood that the process would involve a debate in which those who support the notion that the time has come for an Australian head of state would appear to be, whether they are successful or otherwise, the way to the future, the people talking about where we need to be as opposed to where we are now, and he felt excluded.What he wanted to do was to substitute for a decent single public debate on that a bickering about John Howard's 30 years worth of political grievances and to allow him to get out there and argue about at least something during the course of this to explain to the Australian people why his prejudices, fears, grievances and concerns ought to be matters that concern them as well: `Please pay attention to that while you are deliberating on these great other measures so I don't feel left out. Deliberate on that so I don't feel left out.'The Prime Minister has ignored every single principle that goes into the forming of a Constitution and every single sensible method of coming to grips with a constitutional issue, particularly one as important as the definition of the status and character of a nation in the remarks made in the opening to such a vital document. If his constitutional amendment is passed, if that preamble stands as it is written now, future generations will mock this generation. Future generations will laugh at John Howard's fears. Future generations will not recite that preamble. Future generations will analyse that preamble for the inferiority of those who have come before. That is precisely what will happen if the Australian people were to pass as shoddy a document as this.Hopefully, a process eventually will be arrived at by the Prime Minister to allow ordinary Australians to speak and influence this document before it is put before them. But we on this side of the House are not holding our breath. (Time expired)15:46:004241Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—Members opposite have one big problem with this proposed preamble. Amidst all the hot air and bluster, there is just one crystal, and one germ, of an objection—and that is that they do not own it. The Leader of the Opposition is suffering the sharpest pain known to politics, the sharpest of stabs that all former ministers experience: he is suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome.Members opposite do not object to the substance of what is proposed in this preamble; they object to the fact that it is not theirs, and the Leader of the Opposition objects to the fact that it is not his. There are two words which entitle the member for Bennelong to take the leading role in drafting this preamble, and those words are `Prime Minister'. If by some twist of fate the Leader of the Opposition were sitting over here, he would have exactly the same role and exactly the same right—but he is not, and he does not.There is perfectly good past precedent for what the Prime Minister has done here. A few years ago when the former government wanted to recast the oath of allegiance in more meaningful and inspiring language, the then minister responsible did not summon a convention, he did not invite the opposition to draft something, he did not go to the whole of the Australian people, initially at least; he went to that great poet who has rightly been described as the `unofficial poet laureate of Australia'. Michael Tate went to Les Murray and had him draft a pledge of citizenship. In exactly the same way, the Prime Minister has gone to our greatest poet, our greatest wordsmith and asked him to do precisely the same thing.Les Murray did not like everything that Michael Tate did with his pledge of citizenship—and no doubt Les will object to some aspects of what the Prime Minister and the government have ultimately approved. But the fact is that Les Murray and John Howard have together come up with a document, a proposal, which is open-hearted, high-spirited, inclusive, moving and gracious.How do constitutional changes get drafted in this country of ours? How is it that constitutional change gets put to the Australian people? As members opposite well know, the only way to change, add to or otherwise amend our Constitution is to have a referendum under section 128. Under section 128 of the Constitution, a bill must go through the parliament. Under all circumstances known to men and women in here, that means the government must support the bill because, without the support of the government, a bill cannot normally get through this chamber. That means the Prime Minister must approve whatever it is that is proposed to be done to our Constitution.I think 42 referendum proposals have been put to the Australian people, and every single one of those was approved by the Prime Minister of the day. Had the former Prime Minister been sitting in this chair, and had the former Prime Minister had carriage of this matter that we will be deciding as an Australian people in November, he would have drafted the preamble with the help of those whom he deemed appropriate—perhaps Don Watson; perhaps he may have even asked for advice from that well-known wordsmith, the member for Holt.But the fact is that the Prime Minister of that time, were he here now, would have drafted whatever preamble was proposed. It is a perfectly reasonable thing. It is the obvious thing, it is the natural thing, it is the necessary thing for Prime Ministers to do—and that is what has happened here.The basic problem of members opposite is that they have never accepted the verdict of the electors in 1996 and again in 1998. Those opposite had 13 years in office. They got used to running the place. They got used to the big wide cars, the VIP jets and the salary supplements, as their fathers had before them. The `House of Lords' over there got very used to running the show. They got very used to the fact that ACTU Labor Inc. was running this country—a secretive, unacknowledged new establishment, leaving the old Melbourne Club for dead. The fact is that those opposite are not in charge any more, the Australian people have rejected them, and that is why this coalition government and this Prime Minister will draft the preamble that will be put to the people.There have been some objections to the draft as it has been put. Some objection has been made to the inclusion of the concept of mateship in our proposed preamble. I think this is a noble concept. It is a concept which has been celebrated by Charles Bean. It is a concept which characterised those Anzacs who have done so much to shape and form the Australian identity. It has been celebrated by Henry Lawson. It is something that every Australian, male or female, understands. Mateship is the instinctive affinity that Australians have for one another. It is the unstructured solidarity, not a solidarity ordered by governments, unions or business but that instinctive affinity that we as Australians have for one another and that sets us apart even from our closest international cousins, the Americans, the British, the Canadians and the Kiwis. It is something which is special. It is something which is unique. It is something which is rightly celebrated in a constitutional preamble.I appreciate that some members opposite may have problems with the term because, let us face it, amongst the heavies of the New South Wales Right being called `mate' is like being sent white chrysanthemums from the mafia. That is what Bill Hayden said of the New South Wales Right. So I can understand why some people opposite do not like the concept of mateship. If there is any single thing which makes Australians special and different, it is this. That is why it should rightly be in our constitutional preamble. Author and pastoralist Sara Henderson said:I've been called mate by many people on the land and I think it's a compliment.One of Australia's last surviving World War I veterans, Ted Smout, said that he was disappointed that:. . . the early rejection of the preamble seemed to be predictable and politically motivated. Even more disappointing, the criticism is getting personal at Mr Howard himself . . . I think people should take the time to read the preamble and understand it.Ted Smout is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition demeans himself by coming into this House and making cheap, low gibes against the Prime Minister of this nation; a Prime Minister who has treated him with the respect and dignity which a Leader of the Opposition in our great country deserves. Eddie Maguire, a Constitutional Convention delegate elected in the ARM cause, said:The preamble symbolises what the nation stands for. Australia is all about mateship and I think it is very appropriate.The editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald , a paper which is not by any means uniformly supportive of the government, said that Les Murray and the Prime Minister had done `a fine job'. My old constitutional sparring partner, Tom Keneally, was quoted in one of the papers today as saying that it was an inspiring document.I have been looking to be broad-minded in all this. The Canberra Times editorial said `almost but not quite' would be a good way to describe the preamble put forward by the government today. That is why the Prime Minister, in his generosity of spirit, in his desire to include members opposite, has suggested that if the Leader of the Opposition has any problems he should write and they will be considered.This is a good preamble. I think the Prime Minister has neatly sidestepped that rather sterile debate between occupation and custodianship. Occupation has connotations which the people who have come from Europe to this country would not like. Custody has I think some unfortunate connotations. I say congratulations to the Prime Minister and to Les Murray for doing the right thing by finally tackling the real symbolic deficit in our Constitution. Far more than the presence of a crown, which has never done us any harm and which I think has done us a great deal of good, the real symbolic deficit in our Constitution is the failure to acknowledge in any spirit of generosity our indigenous first Australians.This preamble helps to resolve the unfinished business of two centuries. We do have a problem in this country: that is, for too long our Aboriginal brothers and sisters have been strangers in that they have felt like strangers in their own land. For too long there has been a fundamental gap of sympathy between too many white Australians and our black brothers and sisters. This constitutional preamble begins the job of bridging that. It is the least that we could do to meet their legitimate expectations, but it is sadly perhaps the most we can do without causing more division in our society. It is generous, fair and inclusive, and its passage at the constitutional referendum later this year will be a triumphant and a great moment in Australia's history.What we are really seeing from members opposite is a fundamental failure to play by the rules. The rules of a Westminster system are that the government proposes and the government also disposes of these matters. We are very happy to hear what members opposite have to say, but our job is not to take the member for Holt's version and improve it. His job, if he wishes to play a constructive role, is to take the Prime Minister's version and try to build on that. I really believe that if the member for Holt is serious—and I am prepared to concede that there is a strong streak of statesmanship in the member for Holt—this is precisely what he should do. I do not believe for a moment that the member for Holt really believes the people of Australia think he is a better wordsmith than our finest poet Les Murray.I would invite the member for Holt and other members opposite to make their contributions by all means but to remember that, at the end of the day, this is a document that will be determined by the government and will go to the people as part of a government proposal. I think that the draft preamble deserves to be read onto the record. It states:With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted by the equal sovereignty of all its citizens.The Australian nation is woven together of people from many ancestries and arrivals.Our vast island continent has helped to shape the destiny of our Commonwealth and the spirit of its people.Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.In every generation immigrants have brought great enrichment to our nation's life.Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals. We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.Australia's democratic and federal system of government exists under law to preserve and protect all Australians in an equal dignity which may never be infringed by prejudice or fashion or ideology nor invoked against achievement. I am proud to say that myself. I commend it to the Australian people and I commend it to the future of our great country.16:01:004244Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—There were not too many crumbs of comfort for the Prime Minister in the press and community reaction to the preamble that he brought down yesterday. I think his demeanour and that of his backbench today in this parliament, together with the limp, lifeless and lacklustre performance of the member for Warringah just then, amply demonstrates that. The Prime Minister's language has been variously described in print and on the airwaves over the last 24 hours as `a shambles', `too bad to be true' and `wandering around like a tipsy journalist'—as the Leader of the Opposition reminded us—but it has also been described, among other things, as `corny', as `awkward', as `flat and lifeless', as `turgid', as `unintelligible', as `bizarre' and as `archaic'.Apart from a small handful of comments and the Sydney Morning Herald editorial, the reaction from media commentators, community spokespersons and across the airwaves on Australian talkback radio has been of a kind that would make any normally sensitive person reach for the rat poison or step off a tall building. The truth of the matter is that the Prime Minister is not a normally sensitive person. Probably no Prime Minister, frankly, ever is, but this one is in a class of his own.The problem is that he just did not listen. He did not listen to what a great many people, including on his own side of politics, were telling him or would have told him if they had had the courage to so. He listened, yes, to Geoffrey Blainey; he listened part of the time, yes, to Les Murray. But that was about it. At the end of the day, as he has made amply clear in all his public statements, it was his draft, his preamble, and he did not really listen to anyone else at all. And because he did not listen, he overreached himself and he has produced an absolute clunker of a document which has satisfied practically no-one in this country.If he had listened for a start to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, they would have told him that his flora and fauna type reference to their being here before we were and his theme park reference to their cultures were just not good enough. If he was really serious about reconciliation, they would have told him if he would listen that what was necessary was a warm-hearted and generous acknowledgment of their ownership or at the very least their custodianship—maybe even their stewardship; we could debate that—of this ancient land.`Custodianship' is a splendid word and was the consensus choice of the Constitutional Convention—a convention full of delegates either from the Prime Minister's side of politics or appointed by him. They adopted that word without any dissenting voice or vote. Without opening up any kind of divisive controversy, that word `custodianship' does capture at least some of that intensely spiritual and protective way in which indigenous Australians have always related to their land. The Prime Minister simply must revisit and rethink this whole issue.If he had listened to Australian women, he would not have put into his draft a word like `mateship'. `Mateship' is a good and honourable word. It is a great Australian word; it is a quintessentially Australian word—yes, it is all of those things. But the trouble is it just does strike, on all the available evidence, the overwhelming majority of Australian women as too blokey and, accordingly, just not the right kind of word for this sort of document. The trouble is that our whole history has been too blokey, and women today and tomorrow just do not need language in the Constitution reinforcing that kind of imagery.If he had listened again not just to Australian women but to almost any one of the 18 million men and women in this country with a real sense of pride in our country, he would have not have come up with this absurd formulation that `Australians are free to be proud of their country'. As the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, said yesterday, it is not a matter of being free to be proud, we are proud of our country, and why shouldn't this constitutional preamble say so? If he had listened again to the delegates to his own Constitutional Convention, most of them either members of his own side of politics or appointed by him, he would have used as a starting point and as a reference point for his draft not the kind of political and philosophical luggage that he has been carrying around in his head for the last 30 years but that very succinct list of 10 core ideas which the convention—and I say again without a single dissenting vote—argued should be included.He would have had a reference to custodianship. He would have had `We the people of Australia' language in there. He would have had an affirmation of respect for our unique land and environment. He would have had some historical continuity in his draft: a reference to the origins of the Commonwealth and our evolution since to become a genuinely independent and sovereign nation. But he did not listen to the convention delegates, so we have none of those things in this draft.If he had listened to young Australians and those who teach them, he would have come up with a preamble that looked and sounded very different—a preamble that was short, tightly framed, teachable, learnable and memorisable—not the thunking, clunking, unmemorisable, unsayable, lumpy porridge-like prose that he has offered us.If he had listened to someone, if he had listened to anyone who could actually write intelligible, grammatical English prose, he might have avoided some of the absolute horrors that litter this document. He might have avoided language such as `the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted by the equal sovereignty of all its citizens'. What the hell does that mean? He would have avoided, `The Australian nation is woven together of people from many . . . arrivals.' What the hell does that mean? He would have avoided `an equal dignity which may never be . . . invoked against achievement'. This is language, as I have been saying in the last 24 hours, which is known to no man or woman. It is not the English language.If he had listened to those, including a great many Christians in our community, who are concerned not to impose their views too heavy handedly on everybody else, he may well have found a more sensitive and more generally acceptable way of making reference to God in the preamble, perhaps bearing in mind for a start that the constitution of the United States, which is a much more overtly and self-consciously religious country than our own, in fact contains no reference to God at all. I am not suggesting that we go that far. The Constitutional Convention delegates took a different view, but there is a way of doing it—we have suggested one—that makes the reference without ramming it down people's throats for the great many people in our community for whom this is a problem.If he had listened to those urging him to produce a genuinely timeless document, he would not have put into it what he himself acknowledged yesterday to be his `gentle rebuke to political correctness'. What he has put in there is a concession to current conservative political fashion, a concession which is going to read, to put it gently, very oddly indeed in not very many years. It is language that the Leader of the Opposition said is going to come back to haunt us. This generation will be mocked if we put that sort of stuff in there.Finally, let me say this very seriously to the other side of politics: if he had listened to those of us on this side of politics or elsewhere in this parliament, he would have found us absolutely prepared, in a spirit of real cooperation and goodwill, to work with him to produce a genuine consensus document. The Prime Minister's attitude to the opposition, before today, was one of barely concealed derision on this issue. Today he did not bother to conceal it. It was open derision, and that was shared again in the contribution from the member for Warringah.The opposition, he was saying in question time today, `cannot come to terms with the fact that they are not writing it'. Can he not rise just a little bit above himself and acknowledge that we are wanting to leave our mark on this document as a political generation in a way that we can be proud of it in the future, and that we are prepared to work day and night to produce the kind of consensus which is necessary to produce that? We did prepare and offer a draft of our own in that spirit. That draft was prepared weeks and weeks before we made it public. It was made available quietly to the government without an ALP badge on it and without being put into the public domain because we did not want to make it difficult for the Prime Minister to have open regard to it. If he had gone down some of those particular paths, we would have been absolutely delighted to see the product there without any claim to authorship of it.We are not in the squalid, tedious, superficial business of claiming political kudos for this; we are just trying to get it right. Unfortunately, that is not the attitude of the Prime Minister. What he did today was make it clear that he has no interest at all in establishing the joint select committee, which was foreshadowed by the Attorney-General, to look at all these issues. He made it clear today that he has no interest at all in establishing some advisory group of the Constitutional Convention delegates or someone else in the community to assist this process. He is only going to go through a derisory process of `write me a letter by 30 April'.If that is the approach he adopts, if he adopts that attitude to process, if he says, `Here it is. Take it or leave it', that is a very unhappy message he is sending out to the Australian community. It does neither him nor the Australian political process any credit at all. It does nothing more than reinforce that cynicism which is so abundant in our community. And that is not a legacy of which any Prime Minister should be proud. (Time expired)16:11:004246Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—The debate on the preamble and the way in which it is being conducted, particularly from the opposition's side, is an indictment on this parliament and an indictment on the processes by which we ought to be discussing something of great substance and concern. The topic for the matter of public importance today is this:The critical community reaction to the Prime Minister's proposed Preamble to the Australian Constitution.In other words, the debate is being conducted through the prism of partisanship. The opposition are putting up a proposition that we should discuss in the federal parliament so-called community opposition to this preamble when in fact the so-called critical community reaction stems very much from political partisanship, the kinds of facile and, I would suggest, even juvenile remarks of Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, as I saw on television last night. The preamble has been described in the Sydney Morning Herald as:. . . embracing the "mateship" of Australians but declining to acknowledge Aboriginal "custodianship" of the land, prompting both Aboriginal and feminist outrage.In the last 20 seconds of the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition, we really got to the point. The Leader of the Opposition said words to the effect that future generations would be ashamed of us if we passed this preamble. In other words, with derision, some in this place, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and others, look upon a majority vote of the Australian people in this preamble. One of the so-called ordinary Australians—I do not call them that; I call them every day Australians—sent a fax to Mr Laws, and on the John Laws program this morning he quoted it. This woman said:People may expect some pompous piece of rubbish just because this is supposed to be part of some official thing but I do not think we are a pompous people.I could not say it any better. The preamble itself says `with hope in God'. Not all of us are Christians or followers of any religion at all. But my observation of individuals and of nations is that, when we do not believe in someone or something that is more important than ourselves, when we allow ourselves or our country to become the centre of our own lives or our own world, it is that that creates the misery, pain, frustration and unhappiness that we see in the world. So a belief in God or in what any of us believe to be our own god is critical.. . . the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted by the equal sovereignty of all its citizens. I spent almost nine years servicing a public housing estate in the second poorest part of the country, and I can tell you that a lot of those people would know damn well what that means. You do not have to stand over people with limited levels of education and income and say to them that they do not know what it means. I think the member for Holt is insulting the intelligence of everyday Australians when he says that. The next line says:The Australian nation is woven together of people from many ancestries and arrivals.The term `woven' implies diversity but commitment to a common set of values and beliefs. That sentence is a self-evident truth. It goes on to say:Our vast island continent has helped to shape the destiny of our Commonwealth and the spirit of its people.What that effectively does is paraphrase the national anthem of which, I think, almost all of us are quite rightly proud—a national anthem that says, `With golden soil and wealth for toil, our home is girt by sea.' The next stanza says:Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.That says that these are special people. These are people whose circumstances are so unique and highly regarded that they receive special treatment in this preamble to the Constitution. I also say to those who are critical of this that we should not in the preamble to our Constitution confer overtly, or even imply, that any group of Australians has a status which might derive greater or lesser rights and privileges, that a person who takes citizenship today has any lesser right than an Australian who arrived, like me, through the birth canal or an Australian who is an ancestor of the original inhabitants of this continent.I would also like to offer another thought to the debate. One of the principal reasons I went into public life, into politics, is that I am determined to do everything I possibly can to improve the health and living conditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. I say as a human being, a member of the parliament and a member of the government that, whatever else we achieve, if these people in 10, 20 or 30 years from now are living in the same circumstances they do now, we will have achieved nothing.If you try to force the word `custodianship' into the preamble and the preamble is defeated at the referendum, whether it is for that or for any other reason, what does that say to the rest of the world, let alone to Australians, about the regard we have for indigenous Australians? I also say that reconciliation, whatever any of us understand by that meaning, is a process, and this is an important and, I would say, significant step in a process of reconciliation. The preamble goes on to say:In every generation immigrants have brought great enrichment to our nation's life.Who could oppose that? The next stanza says:Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals. We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.Australians are free, but what that actually says is that the responsible exercise of the right to freedom of speech does not, nor will ever, extend the right to make any individual or group of Australians feel demeaned, denigrated or alienated in their own country.In terms of mateship, as Graham Richardson said in his book Whatever it takes, `A mate is someone who puts up his hand even when he knows that you are wrong.' Its colloquial use, often used by men to one another, has nothing to do with this. This is about a defining moment in this nation's history on 25 April 1915. It is about a generosity of spirit. It is about being prepared to put your interests behind those of another human being, even to the point of laying down your life. That is what mateship is about. Those who are arguing that, in some way, it is a term of gender differentiation entirely miss the point. I think they neither understand nor, in some cases, even respect the blood and the lives that were spilt to give birth to what we understand and will always respect as mateship.I would also like offer to this debate some other thoughts. To those people who are disappointed in some way about the preamble, for which I can tell you I will be voting, let us just remember that this is a draft. The government is inviting comment from the premiers, the Leader of the Opposition and anyone else who has any suggestions to make about improving it. For those who are disappointed, for those who feel that in some way it is not delivering perhaps what they want, perhaps the preamble to the Constitution is not the appropriate vehicle for doing it. Perhaps we should also turn ourselves and our thoughts to an Australian declaration of principles, values, beliefs and national aspirations. The preamble may not be the correct vehicle for achieving that common objective, the goals that we have for ourselves and our country and the way we relate to one another and see our place in the world. It may not always be the best place to set out the values, principles and sacrifices upon which the country has been built.In the book by the German philosopher and physicist Bernhard Philberth entitled Revelation, he said of change, which is what this is about:Progress leads to chaos if not anchored in tradition. Tradition becomes rigid if it does not prepare the way for progress. But a perverted traditionalism and a misguided progressivism propel each other towards a deadly excess. . . This preamble takes the fundamental principles and values upon which the country has been built and the sacrifices that have made us what we are and melds them with a set of aspirations and ambitions that we all have for our nation. I encourage the House to support it. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is concluded.Bills4248r7274248Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; appropriation message announced; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4249Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4249r7044249Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4249Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4249r7054249Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4249Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4249r7064249Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4249Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous4249Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999Bills4249r7384249Debate resumed.16:26:004249Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—When I was speaking earlier in the day—just before question time—I was taking issue with some of the comments that had been by the previous opposition speaker, and I want to take up one other point from his speech.He said that the government had tried to claim all the credit for exporters being smart on their feet and moving into alternative markets when the Asian financial crisis hit. I want to correct the record and say that, whilst the government obviously does its best to set up an appropriate environment in these matters, the Minister for Trade—who was particularly attacked by the previous speaker—has been generous in his public comments on innumerable occasions, giving the credit, in fact, to Australian exporters and saying how quick on their feet they have been and what a good job they have done. He was not trying to claim that it was all the government. We tried to provide the environment, of course—and we think we have done a number of things to good effect in that sense—but I think it is important that we all in this place understand that the actual work of exporting is done by business out there and not by people in this place.We are here, of course, to talk about the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill. We have had an EMDG scheme in one form or another since 1974. The current bill was enacted in 1997, and this legislation proposes to make some amendments. On 8 December 1997, the government released an industry statement called `Investing for Growth'. That statement included the proposal that an extra $300 million would be provided to fund the EMDG scheme for a further two years, which would extend the scheme to the year 2000-01. This legislation is all about giving effect to that particular proposal.I think it is important that we understand the basic use that we make of the EMDG scheme. What it does is repay part of the promotional expenses which enterprises incur in pursuing exports where the products exported are of substantially Australian origin. The scheme provides up to 50 per cent reimbursements of eligible expenses where a person has spent over $20,000 per annum on eligible export promotion, although the first $15,000 of expenditure is deducted.First time applicants can combine two years expenses. A maximum of eight grants, of up to $200,000 per grant, is available, although additional grants may be claimed for expenses incurred in new markets. The Australian Trade Commission, Austrade, administers the scheme. To be eligible for assistance, enterprises must have an income of less than $50 million in the grant year with export earnings of less than $25 million for that period. For the purpose of calculating those earnings, related companies are treated as one entity. First time applicants must satisfy certain requirements. The government paid $138 million in grants to 2,933 recipients in the 1996-97 grant year. The ratio of exports to amount of grants paid was 35 to one. All applicants provisionally entitled to more than $50,000 had the full 100 per cent balance of their grant entitlement distributed to them at the end of the financial year.It is important that we understand what we are trying to achieve when we debate this sort of legislation. As I say, the purpose of this bill is to extend the scheme for a further two years to grant year 2000-01, to effect amendments to establish the original intention of a number of provisions of the act and to provide for better administration of the EMDG scheme.The bill goes into a lot of detail in a number of areas and I do not propose to go over all of those line by line. But I think it is important to recognise that the bill delivers on the government's election commitment to support the exporting efforts of Australian enterprises, particularly the efforts of small and medium exporters. This scheme has kept going through the years, during governments of both persuasions, and all members of this House will recognise there is a need to support an export strategy in order to promote our exports, to generate an export culture in Australia and to encourage small and medium sized enterprises—particularly in rural and regional Australia where often there is not a lot of infrastructure—so that they can pursue market opportunities overseas. We are going to spend, therefore, an extra $300 million over two years to help Australian enterprises in their export efforts.There are a number of opportunities for applicants under this scheme, but it is aimed principally at those small and medium sized businesses. When I hear of various grants that have been made, or I visit enterprises in my electorate, I am amazed at the ingenuity, scale and scope of some of those enterprises. A number of companies in my electorate have actually received awards for export activity.I was in Taiwan at an aid conference last week and, as one does when waiting for a flight, one wanders around and looks at the duty-free goods—I have to tell you that at the Taiwanese prices at the moment things are not worth buying, they are cheaper at home—and one of the things I see in every international airport I go to is Patons chocolate-coated macadamia nuts. Patons has a plantation in Queensland where it grows macadamia nuts and it brings them down to Melbourne, to my electorate, to process them. I have a very good election picture, actually, of me in their factory, with a white hat on, tasting their chocolate. It is a good example of a relatively small firm, and it is run by four brothers.In every airport I go to in the world, I have found Patons macadamia nuts. They have a logo for Hong Kong; in Taiwan they have Taiwanese pictures and information, or if you go to Singapore or somewhere else, you will find they are all custom-made. This is a classic example of a small firm that has got out there and done good things. When you are starting to get out into export markets, it is often very difficult for a small firm to afford the costs and you do not necessarily have the expertise. You certainly need support in the early stages and that is exactly what this scheme is all about.It is interesting that, as we travel around, Australian companies are increasingly to be found operating in just about any country that you go to. It is not only the big players but also the small and medium sized companies and that is obviously an encouraging sign. Schemes such as the EMDG scheme—which, as I say, has been operating in one form or another for about 25 years, since 1974—obviously have helped that process. I think Austrade itself has actually helped the process in all sorts of ways.I remember, when I first came to this place nine years ago today, by coincidence, a lot of members had criticisms of Austrade. I want to put on the record that I think Austrade has lifted its game dramatically in the last four or five years and that it provides a very good service to our businesses overseas. The result is that, with a combination of activities—whether it is EMDG, an efficient and effective Austrade with their expertise and their knowledge and their on the ground presence in so many places—we are gradually getting Australian companies exporting more and more. Nevertheless, I think we still have a long way to go to change the culture and the attitude of many Australian businesses. Far too many found it very comfortable to operate in this country for many years, particularly when we had high protection and the various tariff barriers and so on. Operating in the domestic market was simply too easy. Nowadays, of course, you need to look at going overseas much more than you did before in so many areas of endeavour.It is interesting that in so many of the things we do we have a high content of skill, whether it is in the software industry or whether it is in elaborately transformed manufactures. It is often the educational base and the skilled work force that we have developed in this country that gives us the edge. Therefore, I think we need to make sure that we continue to give those small businesses every possible opportunity. It is important that we continue to encourage companies to get out there and compete. This is one of the ways in which this government intends to continue to support small business.We also want to be able to help businesses export with our tax reform package. Part of the new tax arrangements is that export businesses will not pay tax. They will not pay the sales tax and so on that they pay at the moment. When the goods and services tax comes in, export companies in fact will not be subject to the GST. That will bring their prices down quite considerably and will make them much more competitive overseas. That will be another way in which this government is going to help businesses with their export activity.And that, of course, is not just being done as a philanthropic thing for the businesses. Clearly it is important that they succeed, and they need to succeed in their own right, but we need many thousands of those small businesses and large businesses, and we need to give them some assistance and some encouragement and point them in that right direction of exports, because when they succeed in numbers then, of course, Australia succeeds and we start to address the balance of payments problems and we start to address the standard of living problems and all the rest of it. So we need to trade. We, in fact, could not survive unless we sold overseas and, therefore, it is important that we look at a range of measures. And that is why, of course, it is so important that the opposition comes to its senses in that sense and supports the new tax package, because part of that is so important in terms of exports. So I will conclude by merely saying that I think this bill is worthy of support in the form in which the government has brought it to the House. I encourage all members in this place to give it that support.16:38:004251O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I too rise in support of the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . But I also indicate that I am supporting the proposed amendments to the bill which have been placed on the table by the member for Kingsford-Smith seeking what we on the side of the House regard as some enhancements to the legislation.It is interesting that there is some history associated with export market development grants. They were initiated by the Whitlam government in 1974, and they are one of the very few pieces of legislation or government activity from the Whitlam area that have stood the test of time—albeit that there have been some infringements on that over time, which I will come to in a moment. It was very clear back in 1974 that Australia needed to begin to drive an export culture. They were very early days, and it has taken a long time to develop the potential that is now showing. I do not have the slightest doubt that the Export Market Development Grants scheme—from its initial days, though some changes were made during the Fraser years and, most importantly, significant increases in commitment and funding during the Hawke and Keating years—led to the point where Australian small business was encouraged into a much broader view of exports than just commodities and was encouraged to invest on the back of growth from exports.It was unfortunate that with the change of government in 1996 the newly installed Howard government saw a need to cut a swath through everything, irrespective of its merits, and this particular scheme got a cut of nearly $50 million. I do not think there is any doubt that the subsequent downturn in our terms of trade and the fall away in export incomes can be in part attributed to that very silly period from 1996 to 1997 when this particular scheme was cut back along with a number of other programs of investment which encouraged export development, particularly in our region. However, we saw in the late 1997 industry statement by the government a recommitment to this program for the next two years—albeit capped at $150 million, which clearly is insufficient. I have a couple of brief points that I would like to make in support of Mr Brereton's amendments. Firstly, I would like to say that a program that has managed to survive the test of time in this way surely can be given a more substantial guarantee of funding than two years. This current round of legislation provides the funding for only two years. The government ought to look at extending the certainty of the funding for a further period. If the other place passes the GST legislation and business has got to grapple with the various results of that legislation, there will certainly be uncertainty in some sectors of our export industries—and I nominate tourism as a particular one, and I will come back to that in a minute. There will certainly be uncertainty, and one way of providing some further certainty would be to give this legislation a longer time frame than just two years.We would also argue that it is absurd to cap it at $150 million. It is very interesting to note the following information, which must surely be available to the government. I have a young work experience student working this week for me. His name is David Watson, and he did some research for me and found in the Parliamentary Library some very interesting figures from the 1996-97 grant year. That is, that for the 2,933 recipients that received $138 million in assistance through this scheme—and that was the cut back amount—the ratio of exports to the amount of grant paid was 35 to one. In other words, for every dollar that was provided for a small company to be assisted through the EMDG $35 of direct export revenue was earned.What sort of government in its right mind would cut back a program producing returns of that kind? Of course, that is what has been reflected in the furore from us and from business since, and the program has now been reinstated. But where it is producing returns of 35 to one for every dollar invested—particularly at a time when we know our exporters are doing it hard in a world that has tightened up and we know that we have got to continue to encourage the transition to more and more value adding and more and more small business flexibility in the export market—we do ask why on earth would you be capping this at $150 million when it produces that sort of return?This is not just a broad policy consideration. Every one of us in our own electorates sees the direct results of these export market development grants. The previous speaker, the member for Aston, talked about the chocolate manufacturing plant in his electorate which he now takes great pride in when eating the product whenever he is in airports around the world. We have all noticed anywhere we may have been overseas the presence now of value added Australian products, be they food products or be they technical products, in some of the most sophisticated markets in the world.When a former member of this place, Barry Jones, wrote his book Sleepers, Wake! and exalted Australians to start thinking in terms of value adding, I cannot help but think that he was spot on in making the point that elaborately transformed manufactures or sophisticated value added products could only work and could only provide us a presence in world export markets if we gave this kind of assistance. The evidence is everywhere. We ought not be capping it and giving it a two-year time frame every time it comes up. We ought to be expanding the funding, dragging more of that 35 to one return out of it and urging our businesses to go for it uncapped with long-term guarantees about its prospects.There is a small matter in this legislation where we are proposing an amendment that broadens the range of information which can be made available by the department in relation to these grants. That is not because anybody wants to go sneaking around companies that have a grant; it is because there are a number of researchers in trade policy and a number of industry advocates who need more information. My whole point is if we had more information, if we knew where these grants were working most effectively and if we knew the kinds of products that really took off with a bit of assistance like this, then we could focus or expand the funding more with a strong case.I have here a schedule that has been provided by the minister's office which indicates that, in the current financial year, there are six companies in my electorate who will receive a bit over $300,000 in grants. That is terrific. I will know who those six companies are and will find out via my own means the way in which those funds are being allocated. But it would be much better if we had the broader picture. That is what we are seeking to do with our amendments to broaden this legislation.A number of businesses in my electorate such as John Brown socks, a knitwear company in Kyneton, have survived the textile industry reforms that came about through the liberalisation of trade in Australia. They have survived totally by going up the value adding tree, by focusing on very specific markets with high quality design and high quality products that are well marketed and well targeted and with the assistance of a grant through the EMDG scheme. That is at the textile end, which is a very tough industry.Another company in my electorate, Deer Park Engineering, is a major manufacturer of specific high quality metal products. This is another company competing in a hugely competitive market in the world who received assistance through this program for the development of a container crane for export that went to Virginia in the USA. That company is very proud of the fact that they not only are capable of manufacturing large scale metal products which can win their way into markets such as the USA but also are not ashamed in any way to admit that they have been assisted by a grant under this scheme. In fact, they wish there were more of it, and so do I.What I am saying is that no-one is knocking the government for continuing the EMDG scheme. What we are saying is that it was very silly to cut it back in 1996 and 1997. There has been a direct flow-on from that silly decision with a reduction in our export earnings. We welcome the fact that the program has been upgraded again and is being guaranteed funding for another two years. We think it is very silly to cap it at $150 million, particularly when the multiplier ratio is as high as 35 to one. We are urging the government through our amendments to agree to broaden the published information about the application of the grants because there is a sound and constructive use for that information. I am also saying that, in my own electorate, I, like other members, have observed the very beneficial effect of these grants in encouraging businesses who might not otherwise have sought export opportunities to go and chase them.I want to finish with one caution relating to the tourism industry and the flow-on effects from the impact of the GST. The previous speaker, the member for Aston, talked about the benefits for exporters of this new tax regime in Australia, if it is implemented. In theory, it will reduce their input costs and make them more competitive internationally. We will all see how that folds out. I do not believe it for one moment, but time will show the truth or otherwise of that. It is not a debate for now.What is very clear is that the tourism industry, in particular, has been singled out for attention here, because we have driven the tourism industry to attract overseas visitors to Australia. It has been the great growth industry of the eighties, and it continues to be the industry which provides the fastest growing number of jobs for young people, in particular, in the Australian economy. Yet it is not going to be GST free, which means export dollars earned from that industry—from tourists coming here and spending—are going to be GSTed and, as a result, Australia is going to be less competitive vis-a-vis the existing arrangement in other countries now. We believe the government should revisit this, and we believe the tourism industry should be given better access to export market development grants to in some way assist to offset the impact of the GST.The point I am making is that the GST is going to make the Australian tourism industry less competitive in the world market without any equivocation whatsoever. It is my view that, because we expect them to be marketing overseas, attracting overseas tourists and bringing in overseas revenue, they are every bit as much an exporter as my manufacturer who sells a crane in the USA or my manufacturer who sells socks to New York. They ought to be granted better access to compensate for the effect of the GST than is being provided under this scheme.I am certainly going to be encouraging the many small businesses in my electorate that would welcome the opportunity to make more of this scheme to apply and to keep on applying. I will be asking the department to give their applications the best attention they can, but I am asking the government to lift the cap so that more than six businesses in my electorate can receive a grant and, therefore, this 35 to one multiplier can be spread more effectively across our economy.16:54:004254Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—It had been my intention to restrict my remarks to a few specific comments regarding the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . However, the second last speaker for the opposition, the member for Griffith, used the opportunity to try and launch a somewhat unfounded attack on the government's economic management. I am sure he would be disappointed if I did not respond at least partly.I would like to draw his attention to a few facts: for instance, the fact that under Labor unemployment averaged 8.7 per cent, but under the coalition it is now 7.4 per cent; the fact that under Labor real wages grew by a paltry 0.5 per cent in 13 years, but under the coalition so far they have grown by 2.5 per cent; the fact that under Labor inflation averaged 5.2 per cent, but over the last three years under the coalition it has averaged only one per cent; the fact that under Labor interest rates reached record levels of 18 per cent for home loans and 25 per cent for business loans, but under the coalition they are down to 6½ per cent; and the fact that under Labor, in its last five years, it managed to more than treble Commonwealth government debt, from $27 billion to $97 billion.I would also like to respond to the member for Griffith's comments about foreign debt and the current account deficit that were equally as selective and equally as misleading. The member for Griffith tried to argue, crudely and simplisticly by looking at the dollar value of foreign debt and the dollar value of the current account deficit, that these were in some ways worse than what had been recorded under Labor. The point is that, when looked at in real terms and percentage terms, the reality is totally different.It is worth pointing out that, during Labor's term, net foreign debt grew from $23 billion to $190 billion—an increase of some 700 per cent in Labor's 13 years, an increase of 51 per cent a year. During Labor's 13 years, net foreign debt grew by 51 per cent a year, and they have the hide to come in and criticise us, when we have managed to trim that back to a growth of only 10 per cent a year. It grew by 50 per cent a year under Labor.Further, it is worth pointing out that, during Labor's time, net foreign debt as a percentage of GDP almost trebled, from 14 per cent of GDP to 38.4 per cent of GDP. The other point that needs to be made is that under this government our capacity to service foreign debt has improved markedly. In fact, the capacity of export earnings to service foreign debt is now just 11 per cent, the lowest it has been since 1984. For Labor to trot out crude, simplistic dollar figures does nothing for their credibility and simply confuses the issue. The same could be said about their comments regarding the trade deficit and the current account deficit. The reality is that, while in dollar terms the current account deficit might appear to be high, as I have said, in terms of our servicing capacity and in comparison to GDP, it is really relatively low.For the December quarter, the current account deficit was 5.4 per cent of GDP. Certainly it is higher than we would like it to be but, given what is happening in the rest of the world and given what is happening in our export markets, 5.4 per cent of GDP is far, far better than was achieved at several times under Labor—figures under Labor of 6.5 per cent in March 1986, 6.6 per cent in March 1990 and 6.6 per cent, again, in March 1995. These were years during which the rest of the world was growing rapidly, during which Asia was booming, yet Labor still managed to let our current account deficit blow out to over 6½ per cent of GDP. And they dare to criticise us because we have managed to keep it down to less than 5½ per cent of GDP at a time when world markets are in a state of turmoil.I would like to make a few specific comments about the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill in detail. This bill does two things. Firstly, it extends the Export Market Development Grants scheme for another two years, to the year 2000 and the year 2001. This involves extra spending, as we have already been told, of over $300 million over these two years to assist Australian exporters penetrate and get a hold in new markets overseas. Secondly, it tightens the administration of the scheme, which is what taxpayers would expect, so as to ensure its integrity and to enhance its effectiveness by better targeting the grants to ensure they achieve the results that they are intended to achieve.This legislation is further evidence of this government's ongoing commitment to assisting our vital export industries, particularly our emerging export industries. This legislation follows a number of improvements to the scheme which were introduced two years ago, two of which particularly come to mind. The first was making the grants easier for small and medium businesses to access, resulting in over 200 new exporters, who were previously ineligible, becoming eligible for grants because the threshold was lowered from $30,000 in expenditure to $20,000. In total some 3,000 exporters were assisted in 1997-98 through grants averaging $52,000. The second improvement was the extension of access to the grants to tourist operators, our highest export earners. In 1997-98 international tourism generated over $16 billion or 14.4 per cent of total export income.Both of these measures have benefited my electorate. As most of the businesses in Macquarie—in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury—are small or medium sized businesses, the change in the threshold meant that some who previously were ineligible became eligible. Tourism is one of the main income generators in my electorate, particularly in the Blue Mountains. The tourism industry directly employs close to 1,900 people, with many more employed indirectly. The estimated one million international visitors to the Blue Mountains each year generates some $50 million in local income. The extension of the rules for EMDGs to allow tourist operators access to these grants has been of great benefit to my tourist operators. In the 1997-98 financial year businesses in Macquarie received export market development grants totalling some $250,000, much of this going towards allowing our local tourist operators to promote the Blue Mountains to overseas markets.It is appropriate to recognise the great effort made by our export operators, particularly in the difficult times they have had in the last two years. From the middle of 1997 when the currency crisis started to spread through Asia, it was feared that our export markets would collapse. Indeed some markets did take a hammering. Overall our exports held up remarkably well. Although the steady growth which had been occurring in previous years did plateau somewhat, our total export figures have remained remarkably steady, with quarterly totals around $29 billion and accumulated annual levels staying around about $115 billion. Considering what could have happened and considering what happened to other countries' export markets, Australia's export markets have held up remarkably well.The remarkable strength of our exports has been due to a number of factors, including a flexible exchange rate, an appropriate Reserve Bank response to the Asian crisis and a diversification in our export orientation. Clearly a large degree of praise is deserving to our exporters. Their determination to rise above the turmoil in the Asian markets, their flexibility, their effectiveness in locating new markets, the quality of their products, their professionalism and their strategic approach to marketing were all part of the formula that enabled them to survive a difficult couple of years, with an outcome that could have been far worse.The situation with regard to tourism exports illustrates the point. The steady growth in total tourism numbers which had been occurring for a number of years stabilised at around $16.5 billion, a slight fall from the 15.7 per cent of export earnings, down to 14.4 per cent in the last financial year. There was a grave downturn in tourism from our major Asian markets, with arrival numbers declining in Japan by 14.1 per cent, Korea 5.9 per cent, Indonesia 16.4 per cent, Malaysia 4.4 per cent and Singapore 12.1 per cent. However, there was a significant increase in arrival numbers from other markets. For instance, there was a 17.4 per cent increase in the number of tourists from the UK and a 13.4 per cent increase in the number of tourists from the USA.The same trend was in fact reflected in tourism to the Blue Mountains region of my electorate. It experienced a decline of 10 to 12 per cent in total visitor numbers, with a dramatic fall in visitor numbers from some parts of Asia. However, there have been encouraging increases in the number of tourists from North America and Europe.For exports generally the same diversification helped stem the tide of the Asian loss. The 21.9 per cent loss in exports to South- East Asian countries was balanced by a rise of 41.8 per cent in exports to European Union countries and a rise of 30.6 per cent in exports to North America, leaving an overall rise over the last financial year of 4.9 per cent. Again, much of the credit for this belongs to our exporters for their professionalism, their commitment to quality, their resilience, their determination and their entrepreneurial skills. The government's job is to help them as much as we can. The extension and improvement of the Export Market Development Grants scheme will ensure that necessary assistance and encouragement is given to our export industries. We cannot do it for them but we can certainly help them in any way we can.It is equally important that our other policy settings also help our exporters, and they have been. For instance, the low interest rates achieved by this government—the lowest for 30 years—have eased pressure on all businesses, including exporters, making it cheaper for them to obtain finance and facilitating the process of capital investment so vital to improving their productivity and competitiveness.If we, as a country, are serious about helping our exporters, if we are really serious, then we need also to urgently address the tax burdens that weigh so heavily on our exporters and create such a burden for exporters. The current wholesale sales tax system does exactly the opposite. The current wholesale sales tax system to which the Labor Party is committed is a burden to exporters. It increases the cost for exporters. It reduces their competitiveness. The embedded sales tax in the price of inputs where it cannot be rebated and the high costs of fuel and transport greatly penalises our exporters.Countries with value added tax systems generally systematically remove those taxes from exports. They do not accumulate along the line, but Australia does not remove the current wholesale sales tax embedded in products used by our exporters. Our exporters are penalised because of the wholesale sales tax system. Our competitors' products have those taxes removed and therefore have a competitive edge over our exporters. Our exporters are disadvantaged. Yet Labor would seek to continue the disadvantage, to continue to hinder our exporters, to continue to reduce their competitiveness.The government's proposed tax reform package will reduce costs to our exporters by an estimated $4.5 billion a year, a reduction in costs of $4.5 billion a year, which will directly improve their ability to compete on world markets. This is one reason that it is essential that the government's tax reform proposals are allowed to proceed. The staggering thing is that Labor and the Democrats, the opposition parties, are intent on maintaining the cost imposition on our exporters. They are intent on retaining these crippling indirect taxes. They are intent on handing a competitive edge to our competitors. If the opposition were really concerned about our export industries, if they were really concerned about generating jobs, if they were really concerned about the health of our economy, they would stand aside and allow these tax changes, tax changes that would further assist our exporters, that would help Australian businesses and Australian families.Our exporters are working hard to penetrate markets overseas and to gain market share, particularly in a difficult world climate. Our government is striving to do what we can to assist those exporters. The challenge for the opposition is to come on board and to help our exporters, rather than hinder them.17:10:004257Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade, I would like to draw to the attention of this House the ongoing contribution to Australia's export performance of the government's EMDG scheme and this government's ongoing support to improve the performance of that scheme. Export success is vital for the future of this nation. It accounts for 20 per cent of Australia's GDP. For this reason, the coalition government continues to strive to ensure greater access to global markets for all Australian exporters. This government is committed to economic reform that allows Australian businesses to be more competitively on an international scale, particularly tax reform—and we had a very clear vision, a clear plan, about that during the last federal campaign—and the next phase of labour market reforms, which we hope the Senate will also endorse.It is rather disappointing that the opposition should be moving some amendments, particularly about the size of the EMDG. We inherited a substantial deficit in 1996, over $10 billion, which we had to rectify through prudent economic management to ensure that Australia became a success in the international economic environment which has undergone great strain in recent years. This government, through the federal budget, has a sustainable, long-term plan, contributing to our outstanding performance in the face of what was probably some of the worst economic crises—which happened over two years ago with the South-East Asian implosion—since the Great Depression.I do note that the member for Macquarie was very succinct in outlining to the House the economic performance we have achieved in very uncertain times, particularly with our northern neighbours, with the exception of China, showing negative GDP growth. Our economic growth in the last year was 4.7 per cent, one of the fastest in the OECD countries. Our interest rates were the lowest for generations and real wages increased and exports were up substantially in 1998. That is not a bad story considering the extent and severity of the impact of the Asian economic crisis. The opposition should take note of that, particularly the great economic restraint that we showed (a) during the inheritance of their budget deficit and (b) during very difficult trading times.However, the major challenge still confronting Australia in our objective to make it a truly global nation is that only five to 10 per cent of Australian SMEs, small and medium sized enterprises, are in the export market. By contrast, other OECD figures show that 14 per cent of Canadian SMEs export, 25 per cent of Irish SMEs export, and 16 to 20 per cent of UK SMEs export. One of the great factors of the EMDG scheme is that it is geared towards assisting small and medium enterprises get a global foothold. It is extremely important for the future of Australian businesses that SMEs that become internationally competitive take their new found competitiveness to the international marketplace and earn valuable export dollars for Australia. It is very encouraging to see that the pork industry is starting to embrace that strategy with government help.The Export Market Development Grants scheme also complements the broader diplomatic and economic reform efforts in which we are engaging with the rest of the world. It provides major export finance assistance, and it has been a successful mechanism now for many, many years. Indeed, the scheme reimburses exporters for up to 50 per cent of their international promotional expenses of up to $200,000 per year. Grants can be claimed for eight years, with additional grants being available for entry into new markets.By providing an incentive in the formative years of export development and ongoing support for market expansion for up to eight years, particularly to small SMEs, these companies are likely to have a successful exporting and development career during their high cost, early formative years. The EMDG scheme is structured so that it directly supports the majority of promotional expenditure categories likely to be incurred by exporters.The EMDG scheme is not an industry subsidy, as perhaps some abroad would say, but rather a means of facilitating market identification and development. I know the member for New England is certainly very supportive of EMDGs going to that part of Australia. Small business generally finds export promotion expensive, and return on investment takes time. While the range of financial services to small business may be expanding, the Australian financial sector is risk averse and often does not have the infrastructure to adequately access proposals. By providing an incentive, the scheme plays an important role in developing an export culture as well as supporting the market development of small to medium size exporters. It facilitates decisions about expenditure on export by reducing the financial cost associated with export preparation, market entry and market expansion.In keeping with the government's focus on improving Australia's export performance, this government refined and refocused the scheme in 1996 to better meet the needs and aspirations of exporting businesses. Substantial changes were effected that targeted funds to small to medium businesses and restricted large corporations from accessing the EMDG scheme. Very much at the coalition's core is ensuring that small business and not just big business can take advantage of this scheme to get them into the market—and this was not always the case under the previous government.As was outlined also by the member for Macquarie, tourism operators have gained greater access to support from the EMDG scheme, and the range of services eligible for those grants has expanded substantially. EMDGs apply not just in the tourism sector—which is critical to the area that I represent on the north coast of New South Wales, with our very large ecotourism and tourism industry following on from south-east Queensland and the Gold Coast—but also in the performing arts and other industry areas. EMDGs now support the development of real businesses, exporting Australia's culture and at the same time winning for Australia foreign revenue.Many businesses spending less than $30,000 per annum have now benefited from this government lowering the threshold of eligibility to $20,000. Over 200 small to medium businesses which generate jobs, family enterprises, have now been able to access the EMDG scheme. With these busi nesses having spent between $20,000 and $30,000, they were able to apply for a grant for the first time last year. Those businesses would have been precluded from benefiting from this scheme, had the government not reduced that threshold to $20,000 and made that grant payable in those businesses' first year.I would give an example. Mr Colin Toll of North Queensland's Skyrail Pty Ltd, which has been a very successful company, states:As an Australian exporter in the tourism industry, the support provided through the EMDG scheme has been invaluable in assisting with the necessary expenses in promoting our products overseas.Without the initial assistance a push into the international arena would indeed have been limited. Continuing support in the area of overseas travel has been of great benefit, as each year our previous marketing efforts are strengthened and new contacts are made.The Export Market Development Grants Scheme has been invaluable to Skyrail in the past and we consider it essential in our continuing pursuit of export markets and our contribution to promoting Australia in the international market.This government is serious about easing the burden on small business. In addition to policy changes to the EMDG scheme, we ordered a major review of the EMDG legislation which simplified the rules, making it easier and more cost effective for small business to access and utilise these valuable grants.The investment made by the taxpayers in the EMDG scheme is paying off—and paying off impressively. The most recently available performance results indicate the ongoing effectiveness of the scheme, which means more Australian products and more Australian business are getting into the export market.Just to quote, in 1998-99, 3,388 businesses applied for a grant, with over 1,000 of them being new exporters. It is projected that the whole grant program will generate over $5 billion in exports in the 1998-99 year. Of that $5 billion, around one-third would not have occurred without the EMDGs. By using an ABS statistics model, an estimated 60,000 jobs can be attributed to additional export activity from EMDGs. That is, 60,000 new jobs in this country have come from the provision of those grants appropriately and principally to small to medium size businesses.The scheme is delivering, and it is on target. Of the EMDG clients, 70 per cent have a turnover of less than $5 million; 65 per cent have fewer than 25 employees; and 93 per cent of recipients' annual exports are under $5 million. So EMDGs are assisting small businesses very much right across Australia, and particularly in regional Australia.EMDG recipients come from all states and territories and cover all industries—high technology, manufacturing, agribusiness, tourism and IT. The scheme is non-discretionary; that is, it supports all Australian businesses that meet the rules, and it treats goods, services and intellectual property equally.Indeed, in my own electorate of Richmond in northern New South Wales, one particular company for which it was crucial to get into the export market through the scheme was Copemans in Ballina. That company exports beehives. It has informed me that the grant has been central to its program of getting into the export market. As mentioned, a number in the performing arts have been helped by the EMDG scheme. Some of these are now household names. The Wiggles, with which my children frequently bombard me in the very early hours of the morning, Powder Finger, Yothu Yindi and the Sydney Dance Company were all provided with that firepower to the offshore market through the EMDG scheme.Second Skin, on the other side of the continent in Western Australia, is a very good example of a company that got its extra boost through the EMDG scheme. It is a designer and manufacturer of medical custom-made dynamic lycra garments and splints. The garments have diverse applications and work to enhance, improve or optimise mobility functions of patients with impairments due to neurological trauma, such as cerebral palsy, spinal injury, post-traumatic head injury, and on it goes.In the last three years the company Second Skin and its founder, Jenni Ballantyne, have captured significant export markets, with their export earnings growing 112 per cent. During this time the EMDG scheme assisted Second Skin in its export drive, providing the company with in excess of $200,000 in grants. Jenni Ballantyne states:EMDG gave us the incentive to venture into export markets and recoup substantial expenses required to establish a market presence. Without EMDG our personal contact with the market and its key players would have been significantly less.If we look at operational outcomes, the value of the EMDG scheme is self-evident. We are allocating $150 million per annum, and that pays a substantial return to the Australian economy. It has demonstrated effectiveness in encouraging firms to spend additional funds, which generate additional exports—15 to 25 times the value of the grant.I note that the member for Burke claimed a sudden revelation from one of his researchers that $1 generated $35. That is true. That just demonstrates the value of the grant—$1 spent generates $35 worth of export earnings. Approximately 42 per cent of the outlays are returned to the government, which is the other part of the equation, in either tax paid on grants or tax paid on additional export earnings. It has developed a high level of business awareness and support.The most recent survey of 500 Austrade EMDG clients shows that 84 per cent indicated they were satisfied with the scheme and 94 per cent were satisfied with the staff service provided. I congratulate Austrade on administering the scheme and on assessing some new approaches to ensure that it is more cost effective—that is, the introduction of electronic lodgments, the development of computer based tracking systems, focusing on communicational requirements of companies and further streamlining in order to reduce the cost to about five per cent of the scheme in administration.The other interesting point is that there has been extra vigour in detecting fraud, which is now less than one per cent of total program exposure. We are extending the EMDG scheme for another two years, and I note that the opposition would like to see that further extended. This valuable support for our exporters stays. No doubt the government will review it and may perhaps be more liberal in its terms in the years to come.To be able to provide ongoing support to exporters through schemes such as the EMDG scheme, the government needs to witness results and operational effectiveness. I do not think there is anything wrong with ensuring that the program still maintains that integrity for review in a few years time. When you examine what made the difference to many businesses receiving an EMDG grant, it was often the strategic timing of the grant that made it effective. EMDG encourages our exporters, particularly with the downturn in Asia, to be more responsive. That is why we have seen very large increases in Australian exports to the United States and to the EU.In summary, the EMDG scheme has demonstrated its effectiveness in developing exporters and generating export dollars over the years. It is well administered by Austrade at a low cost. The opposition, if they had any real interest in or understanding of the trade policy, would recognise that the interests of Australian exporters are linked to the efficient and targeted operation of government programs. They have to be efficient, they have to be targeted, they have to be kept to ensure that we do not have to again reassess Australia's economic credentials from the very poor ones that we inherited in 1996.By focusing on small to medium enterprises, the EMDG is contributing more than just the sum of the grants. It is contributing to the overall attainment of the government's economic goals, an approach that has already protected us from the worst of the economic crisis. If we had not pulled in our belt in 1996-97, the impact would have been far more severe on the Australian economy and on our exporters from the repercussions that happen through very lax prudential controls and big bang spending, which is exactly what happened to many of our northern neighbours, whether it was Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand.Instead of grandstanding and posturing on this issue, the opposition have not shown any interest in this issue until today. The member for Fraser's article in last week's Australian Financial Review was the first time in quite a while that we have seen his thoughts on the EMDG. The opposition should welcome this government's reasoned and sound approach to the EMDG. This complements our EFIC role in providing that extra security of cover to many of our northern markets that were affected quite dramatically, notably in Korea. It will also complement the review that we are now undertaking regarding business taxation. It will complement the very clear policy that we are now annunciating for our tax package, which is seeking passage through the Senate. When that is passed, as the member for New England well knows, it will result in a $4½ billion saving to the export market once you take back all those imputed costs that are put on through the wholesale sales tax, fuel excise, et cetera.I must acknowledge the real heroes in this. They have been speakers in a bipartisan fashion. They are the exporters themselves—the Australian companies that have taken the risk over the last few years. They deserve a gold medal for continuing to have economic growth and a positive export profile. They have adapted quite dramatically to the collapsing South-East Asian quarter. Now we have had dramatic increases to the European Union, dramatic increases to the United States, dramatic increases to the Middle East and dramatic increases to Latin America.Finally, it is appropriate to acknowledge in this House the ongoing and dynamic work of the Minister for Trade and member for Farrer, Mr Tim Fischer, in relentlessly promoting Australia's trade interest, in opening up new markets and in going to new sectors. At the end of the day, an extra export dollar into those regions means export revenue back to Australia, more jobs and more prosperity, particularly to regional Australia, which often misses out on some of the economic benefits that are experienced in other capital cities. I commend this bill to the House.17:30:004261Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today I, too, would like to speak to the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . The purpose of this bill is threefold: firstly, to extend the Export Market Development Grants scheme for a further two years to grant year 2000-01; secondly, to re-establish the original intent of the provisions of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997; and, thirdly, to provide an even better administration of the EMDG scheme. The EMDG scheme provides financial assistance mainly to small and medium enterprises as an incentive for them to seek out and develop export markets. Currently, the act provides funding for the scheme to operate until the grant year 1998-99 only.In 1997 the government released its industry statement Investing for growth, which included an extra $3 million to fund the scheme until grant year 2000-01, although the administration of the grant will need to continue into 2002. This legislation extends the period of the grant years until the end of the 2000-01 financial year. The EMDG scheme is designed to assist exporters by rebating part of the cost of promoting themselves in targeted markets that are new to them and offer business opportunities that, without the grant, may have been impossible for small to medium exporters to access. Under the scheme, up to 50 per cent of eligible expenditure is able to be rebated where the exporter has spent over the threshold of $20,000 and with a maximum of $200,000 over eight years being available. These amendments will clarify that the provisions apply for each `new market' accessed by the exporter. `New market' is defined as being new country rather than, say, a new product in the same country.The aims of this scheme are commendable. When administering programs involving the amounts of public money that this one does, it is important that the process be transparent and accountable. This means that a lot of information is required of applicants for the scheme. Some information is used to properly investigate the claims of the exporter and other information is used to ensure that the exporter meets the eight key areas in relation to grants entry requirements. These key areas are: planned export activities, achievability of proposed plans, involvement and ability of management, financial capability, staff numbers and skills, production and supply capaci ty, lawfulness or practicality of activity, and realistic export earnings projections.Obviously, these kinds of investigations require time and input from the exporters, which is part of the problem for small to medium businesses. Large businesses that have full accounting systems in place generally have most of the information in a usable format for Austrade to access. If necessary, large businesses can better afford an employee or an accountant to spend some time with officers, ensuring that the criteria for the grant are met and that the exporters' cases are presented in the best light by a professional.However, many medium businesses and most small businesses who teeter on the brink of profitability are working hard to establish and maintain markets and produce their goods and services. They are good businesses, but it takes a quantum leap on behalf of the owner or the managers to move from a hands-on operation to a strategically managed corporate structure. Many owner-managers believe they cannot take the time to identify or apply for grants, because they are working too hard to raise their heads and look at the big picture.I expect most people have heard the story about the fellow in footwear who was so busy gumming soles onto boots that he never knew that boots were out and thongs were in until he went broke. My point is that it does not matter how much we do for exporters, there is a mutual obligation. That mutual obligation has several arms. The exporters have to come to us with feedback if the scheme is not working well enough, and the federal coalition, for its part, has to listen. The exporters have to make time to learn about services and schemes, and we have to interrupt businesses as little as possible and make our messages succinct and easily understood. To do this, people are employed to assist—people such as Austrade's south-eastern New South Wales representative, Peter Pond, and Shoalhaven City Council's Economic Development Manager, Greg Pullen.Exporters, in fact all businesses, need to share information and work together so that each of them has a greater opportunity to prosper. To this end, the amendments includ ed in this bill will allow officers of Austrade to publicise the details of exporters successful in obtaining grants. In this way, potential or smaller exporters will be able to approach exporters to share their expertise. Exporters in like or complementary fields may be able to combine forces in, for example, some administrative areas to reduce costs. The possibilities are endless.I will use the Shoalhaven in my own electorate of Gilmore as an example. There are over 6,000 businesses, many of them exporting now or are eager to export. Forty-four of those businesses have registered as exporters with the Shoalhaven City Council's Economic Development Office so that they might benefit from expertise, advice and services available for which their rates are already paying. Of the 6,000 businesses, 44 of which are known exporters, last year only seven received export market development grants. I am quite sure that we could increase that figure. Just two years ago there were 11, and a couple of years before that there were 13 exporters who were receiving this assistance.In an endeavour to get the ball rolling and begin the interchange of skills, needs and ideas, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your indulgence to list the Shoalhaven exporters in the hope that these businesses, who form a large part of our Gilmore economy, can be further assisted by this government and by me as local member. I would like to list these exporters, their localities, their products and the countries to which they are already exporting their wares.We have Adroit Technology of Shoalhaven Heads who export software development to China, Cambodia and the United States. We have Aimers of Bomaderry who export printed cards to New Zealand. We have Allied Resource Management of Broulee, steel-framed structures to the Pacific region. We have Alstain Sheetmetal of Ulladulla, tuna longline equipment to New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. We have AMB Productions of St Georges Basin who export film and video productions to Taiwan, the United States, Japan and somewhere else—I cannot read that one.We have ARC Graphic Design and Advertising of Narrawallee who export poster and logo designs to Ireland, Greece and the United Kingdom. We have Autumn Solar Installations of Ulladulla, pool solar heating equipment to America, Europe and England. We have Backgate Seafoods of Greenwell Point that exports fish to Japan. We have Barry's Country Guest House of Termeil, overseas visitors to the United States, Europe and the United Kingdom.We have Beach House Stairs of Batemans Bay that actually exports stairs to Japan. We have Berry and Kangaroo Valley Accommodation Services that exports accommodation facilities to Europe, Japan and United Kingdom. We have Carbontech Spars of South Nowra that exports carbon fibre spars to Britain, Chile and Germany. We have Classic Candles of South Nowra that exports candles to Fiji, Hong Kong and New Zealand. We have Costa Engineering of Ulladulla that exports tuna longline equipment to South Africa.We have Deua River Country Guesthouse, bed and breakfast to the United States and Europe. We have Eastcoast Screens of Bomaderry, insect screens to Japan. We have Fosroc Chemfix of Nowra, consumable products to Japan and New Zealand. We have Gran's Fudge of Bomaderry, fudge to New Zealand. We have Gemcell of Ulladulla, electrical goods to Indonesia and New Guinea. We have Hanlon Pty Ltd of South Nowra, aluminium sliding doors to Indonesia and Vanuatu.We have Hobie Cat Australia of South Nowra, Hobie Catamaran to Fiji, Hong Kong and Indonesia. We have Kangaroo Valley Nuts `n Stuff, Gum Nut Potpourri to France. We have Keystone Pacific of Nowra, flow control equipment to Asia and North America. We have Lucas Chakola, training systems to New Zealand, the United States and Switzerland. We have the Manildra Group, one of the largest manufacturing companies in our electorate, of Bomaderry, gluten and starch to China, Fiji, Indonesia and Japan. We have Moorhouse Machinery, who have slashes, posts and hole diggers, to Fiji, Germany, India and Ireland.We have Newkem Australia of South Nowra, polyflex to Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. We have Operation Challenge, who display training schemes to New Zealand, the United States and Switzerland. We have POSM (Point of Sale Material) to the Asia-Pacific. We have Raraflora Nursery of Jaspers Brush, Japanese maples to England, Scotland and Holland. We have Richard Miller and Darren Rymer, photos to Japan. We have Shoalhaven Mechanic Services of Nowra, who have 240-litre garbage bins to the Pacific Islands and Tonga.We have Southcoast Accommodation Services to Japan, Asia, the United States and Europe. We have Testa Water Purifiers of South Nowra, water filters worldwide. We have the Gates Rubber Co. of South Nowra, who have heater and radiator pipes to Germany, Japan and Sweden. We have Unicorn Cheese of Nowra, camembert to Japan. We have Windward Publications, various books to the United States. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the indulgence.In addition, the following companies should also be on the list, but their details are not yet complete. There are a few: Ocean and Earth at Sussex Inlet, surfwear; New South Wales Abalone at Ulladulla, live abalone; Air Affairs at West Nowra, defence target services; Rosebery Spray at Greenwell Point, mining equipment; Pacific Lures at Ulladulla, fishing lures; Bashford International at South Nowra, racing yachts; and Ellison Horticulture at Greenwell Point, native seeds.There is a wealth of talent in those 44 businesses—talent, drive, initiative and dollars, all of which could be further developed, I am sure. During my many years in tourism, particularly as Regional Manager for Tourism New South Wales, I saw the combined forces of businesses succeed where individuals had failed and how these export development grants assisted so many tourism enterprises. I know the value of assistance, whether it be services, rebates, advice or simply networking and support.In tourism especially, I worked to encourage the local industry to promote itself in ways that identified, established and filled niche markets. We combined with seemingly unrelated businesses to expand overseas customers' understanding of the special geographical area we were promoting. Therefore, tourism is still the second largest income earner for the Shoalhaven in the Gilmore electorate.This amendment, allowing people to access the names of successful EMDG applicants, will enhance these opportunities. We know this scheme works for the businesses that can meet the key criteria. On page 38 of the Australian Financial Review on 2 December 1998, Mr Warren Cross, CEO and Legal Counsel, Export Incentives Pty Ltd, stated:This scheme has been reviewed a number of times with all reviews indicating that it provides a significant boost to Australia's export performance, particularly for small emerging exporters.People have asked me why the assistance is available only for promotion in new markets. This is the answer I give them: there was a time when Australian exporters put all their eggs in one basket, so to speak. If their target market suffered a collapse, they came home, lay on their backs, kicked their legs in the air like dead flies and vowed never to export again. Nowadays our exporters are much tougher than that, and I compliment our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade for expanding these opportunities in spite of the difficult economic circumstances being experienced by Australian exporters.Let us look at the situation in South-East Asia. In 1998, our exports dropped 21.9 per cent against the 1997 figures, yet our total exports to all countries rose. Now with assistance to establish themselves in new markets, our exporters have been doing just that. They have been spreading their risk and breaking into new territories. Australian initiative and innovation is well known and respected throughout the world, and these exporters are demonstrating just that. I am glad that the scheme is being extended. I urge all exporters, especially those in my electorate of Gilmore, to examine the possibilities of the Export Marketing Development Grants scheme for the expansion opportunities that it brings. I commend the bill to the House.17:42:004264Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—In summing up the debate on the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , I want to thank the members who have participated in the debate—the member for Kingsford-Smith, the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the member for Cook, the member for Griffith, the member for Aston, who is also chair of the coalition committee on foreign affairs and trade, the member for Burke, the member for Macquarie, the member for Richmond, my parliamentary secretary, and the member for Gilmore.I did hear a good deal of the debate—I was here for some of the debate—but it is a very busy parliamentary sitting day. There seems to be almost every delegation in town that you could possibly imagine. Nevertheless, that does not take away from these parliamentary proceedings the importance of processing of a piece of legislation through the House of Representatives. That is why I have returned to sum up and hand the consideration in detail stage to my parliamentary secretary, as may be required.This is a good scheme. I note all speakers gave the broad tick to the operation of the Export Market Development Grants scheme, the way it has helped our exports diversify, the way it has further built our export effort, especially with the greenfields exporters needing the confidence for that first eight years and the way they can get assistance under the Export Market Development Grants scheme. I also take the opportunity to say that I think Austrade over the years, with the benefit of the last lot of amendments, has been able to really improve and make more efficient the administration of the scheme, and that has resulted in a very efficient turnaround and has also resulted in dealing with those who seek to rort the scheme.A case of some $70,000 of illicit claims for exports, where no exports were truly involved, was caught and dealt with under the due processes of the law in Melbourne recently. We in this parliament are not in the business of operating schemes which can be rorted. I warn the slippery end of town that would seek to put in false applications in respect of the Export Market Development Grants scheme: you have no hope nowadays, under the tougher criteria, under the more clear-cut six areas of rebate and assistance, and due to the professionalism of the small—but very well-focused—numbers of operators who administer the scheme. One unit at Perth was able to discover a certain pattern in a set of applications and put that against other states and, as a result, uncover a major attempted rort before so much as $1 was paid out, and that was dealt with as well.The Export Market Development Grants scheme is, of course, to continue. It will happily parallel, with the extra $300 million that will flow to it, the other activities that the government is contemplating and will help with the tax reform. Incidentally, under the long-running effects and benefits of tax reform, under the MM303 model, which is a set of assumptions associated with tax reform, is shown a boost of around six per cent—a figure of around $4½ billion—tilting the unlevel playing field in the direction of our exporters. I certainly commend the passage of that legislation currently before the Senate.Returning to this bill, I note that the opposition has moved and foreshadowed amendments. I remember well enough when last dealing with the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill that we gave careful consideration to a number of amendments, particularly the focus of the debate on trusts as it applied to the EMDG bill. I was pleased on that occasion to agree to amendments which sorted out in, I think, a fair way, the element of trusts and the eligibility of trusts with regard to the Export Market Development Grants scheme. That was the outcome, and that results nowadays in a given percentage, probably not all that large a percentage but a degree of percentage, of successful applications from trusts in accordance with the amendments previously agreed to by the government and passed by the parliament.On this occasion, we have a second reading amendment which makes a number of statements in relation to the bill—which do not entirely accord with government policy, as my colleague the shadow minister for foreign affairs has probably realised—and then goes on to deal with a specific amendment.The first amendment circulated by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith would have the effect of adding a further two grant years. Standing order 293, reflecting the important principle of the financial initiative of the Crown government, has the effect that an amendment which will increase an appropriation can or should only be moved by a minister. There is a strong argument, therefore, that the amendment would infringe the financial initiative principle. It could be argued that it would have the effect of adding two additional grant years which, on the current budget allocation, would be $300 million more than the $300 million which is indicated to flow under the next two budgets, as per the extension provided for in the legislation. They say that there is another view—that, in a technical sense, the amendment does not infringe these provisions. I am not going to delay the House in dwelling on whether or not the amendment is in order, other than to say that, if it is, it does not accord with government policy. The government may, at a future date, when in a position to do so, and when the budget process is further advanced, give due consideration at that time. I do give that undertaking to the shadow minister—that we will give further consideration to the extension of the Export Market Development Grants scheme at that time, but we are unable to entertain the particular amendment on that score, and the other amendment, which relates to the publication of certain information.On that other amendment, we have moved a fair way to provide a good deal of information. It is, after all, public money which is being given out to exporters who are successful applicants under the Export Market Development Grants scheme. Austrade publishes statistics annually, and the government's bill provides access to additional information of a non-commercial nature. But I want to put a view to the shadow minister that, if you take the extra step of indicating the markets which the exporter is aiming for, you are, on occasions, likely to risk giving away the commercial and strategic plans of the export company involved, particularly in the IT area. You are going to cause them to have their punches telegraphed in a way which could be endangering commercial-in-confidence approaches and the successful prosecution of that strategy by the export company involved.We have picked up, in essence, some other areas which you have put forward with regard to the matter of publication, and putting in the markets they are aiming for is an area for legitimate debate and submission, but I think, on balance, that there are real and genuine concerns. I refer particularly to IT, and I invite the parliamentary secretary to speak more of that in the consideration in detail stage as he has detailed knowledge and responsibility in that area. It is so fast moving and there are so many sensitivities, and it is a whole area of great export endeavour which has come from nowhere to everywhere on the economic and export landscapes in recent years, that we would not want to jeopardise those circumstances of commercial operation and market penetration by those exporters.On an overall basis, let me say that the Export Market Development Grants scheme is, in its own way, helping to facilitate the terrific effort by our exporters to the world. These have been very tough trading times yet, financial year after financial year, our net export figures continue to rise. True, our import figures have risen as well, but they remain at manageable levels.Those of us who have been around in government and opposition for a while know that, if you provide a huge amount of government largesse and companies get onto the government drip, the enterprising endeavour and the spirit of endeavour of those companies can be reduced at the coalface. We want to see that companies are assisted in very focused and specific ways, but in ways where they can build their own momentum after a period of time and move off, or trip out because of the increased turnover, and stand on their own feet and become very successful exporters in that process.Australian exporters cover an enormous amount of economic territory today. The diversity of products and the diversity of markets they export to is an outstanding effort. I salute them and again speak of the gold medals that our exporters should receive for their efforts in these tough times. The government will facilitate their efforts through these amendments to the Export Market Development Grants scheme. I have much pleasure in commending the bill to the House.Question put:That the words to be omitted (Mr Brereton's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [5.57 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4266Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:02:004266Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, item 30, page 8 (line 31) to page 9 (lines 1-2), omit the item, substitute:30 Section 107 (paragraph (a) of the definition of grant year ) Omit "or 1 July 1998", substitute ", 1 July 1998, 1 July 1999, 1 July 2000, 1 July 2001 or 1 July 2002".(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (lines 5-14), omit the item, substitute:1 Paragraph 94(4)(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) the following information relating to payments of grants authorised by the Commission under the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 or the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 : (i) the name and address of a person to whom the Commission has authorised a payment; (ii) the amount of a grant to a person; (iii) the industry to which a grant relates; (iv) the export market for which the grant applies; and The first of these amendments, which has been proposed by my colleague Senator Cook, is to extend the EMDG scheme not just for two years—as the government proposes—but for four years. As we know, the scheme has operated continuously since 1974, which is a darn long time—it is one-quarter of the time since Federation—yet it is still considered temporary. There is no firm legislative footing; it continues to be extended in dribs and drabs. Today, the government proposes to extend it again, but only by two years.In considering this issue, we must remember what the government hopes will be the situation at the end of that two-year period in mid-2001. Under this government's plans, Australia will have had a GST for about a year. Earlier in the debate I referred to the damage a GST will do to exports, but just 12 months after the introduction of that GST the EMDG scheme could be cut out. We know that the Prime Minister is not changing his mind about the GST but equally I know that exporters would value some assurance that they will not face the proverbial double whammy. To assist them in their planning, I think the least the government could do is to agree to this amendment extending the scheme for four years.I listened to the minister's remarks earlier when he said he would not argue about the technical merits of whether or not what I am proposing accords with procedures and to the undertaking he gave that there would be further consideration at the end of this two-year period by the government. We appreciate the undertaking, but we think it is a very poor second prize for exporters compared with the four-year period that we are seeking.The second amendment proposed by my colleague Senator Cook expands the categories of information which can be revealed by Austrade without breaching its secrecy requirements. We know that at present Austrade can reveal only the name of the grant recipient and the amount of the grant paid. The government proposes to extend this to allow for the address of the recipient and their industry sector to be revealed. We certainly support these changes, but we would go a step further by revealing the export market for which the grant applies. We accept that there is a very keen balance to be struck in dealing with these matters. It is a balance between ensuring that taxpayers receive as much information as possible about how their money is spent, whilst at the same time providing protection for commercially sensitive information. We must always work at finding that balance. In striking it, we know there will be a benefit to taxpayers and a clear advantage if everyone can find out which export market a grant relates to. I have said that industry organisations, journalists, academics and members of parliament are all people who will benefit from access to this type of information. For anyone seeking to build up a clear picture of how the EMDG scheme operates, knowing which market each grant relates to is an essential piece of information.I listened intently to what the minister had to say on the question of the publication of information likely to give plans away—to use his words, `to telegraph punches'—and to reveal commercial-in-confidence information. We certainly do not want to run any of those risks, and we point out in support of our case that there is a very significant time lag between when the money is spent and, under this amendment, when the information would actually be made public. The commercial sensitivity of revealing the market to which a grant relates is very significantly reduced—12 to 18 months after the exporter has received the assistance. It is not as if this is going to be released and revealed contemporaneously. (Extension of time granted) I will be brief. I would just like to direct the House's attention to the object clause of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, section 3(2), which provides:(2) It is the intention of the Parliament that the provisions of this Act shall be interpreted so as to further the object set out in subsection (1)—which is: to make information held by departments and public authorities available to the public—and that any discretions conferred by this Act shall be exercised as far as possible so as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information. Amendment No. 2 moved in my name is consistent with that principle, and I commend it and the earlier amendment to the House.18:08:004268Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The government does not support these amendments. Whilst I have listened intently to the member for Kingsford-Smith and to other speakers from the opposition, there are some very good reasons why we do not support the amendment in schedule 1, item 30, or the additional amendment No. 4 in schedule 2. The first one refers to extending the EMDG scheme for a further two years. It is not government policy to give an extension on this at this time for two reasons. Firstly, we believe that it will have an impact on standing order 292 which may infringe the financial incentive principles of the parliament, and these are technical issues which have been referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister. But, as the member for Farrer outlined, certainly in the next two years further consideration will be given to the scheme. Limiting it to two years is prudent, particularly bearing in mind that this scheme was reviewed soon after we came to government due to some of the financial consequences that we inherited from the previous Labor government. And, secondly, whilst I certainly acknowledge the genuine comments made by the member for Kingsford-Smith, we do not believe that it is prudent—as the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned—to telegraph punches to competitors regarding where these EMDG grants are applied in relation to their export markets.There certainly is a lot of sensitivity—notwithstanding that it is a lagging indicator for many businesses—particularly when in recent years there has been quite a change in the trading activities of our exporters away from the principal focus of previous years from Asia and South-East Asia to North America and to the European Union. And, whilst there has been significant progress made in that the names and addresses of persons whom the commission has authorised are now available, we think it is unwise and imprudent to release information regarding the payment, the amount of the grant and the industry as it is sensitive information which could well jeopardise the very exporter that we are trying to assist through the EMDG scheme. That would be contrary to what we are trying to achieve.I note that certainly in the IT sector and in the service sector—where there is a renaissance happening in our export industry which we need to continue to pursue as we have a strategic window of advantage, particularly in Asia—it would be unwise. Certainly these are some of the indications that I have received from industry sectors in my recent stewardship role. Likewise, for food processing, tourism and value adding industries providing this information about the very markets in which they are attempting to win market share with EMDG assistance—whether they are SMEs; most of them are around the 20,000 cut-off point—is not prudent. And, as such, we do not support these amendments.Amendments not agreed to.4268Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony)—by leave—read a third time.Committees42684268426818:14:004268Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—by leave—On Tuesday the Speaker asked the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration to consider the unauthorised disclosure of details of the committee's report Regional banking services: money too far away . That report was tabled in the House on Monday, 22 March this year. This material was reported both in an article in the Australian Financial Review and on the AM program on 22 March 1999—that is, prior to the tabling. The disclosure was raised in the House as a matter of privilege on Monday, 22 March by the honourable member for Cunningham.The committee considered this matter and, despite inquiries with staff and members, has been unable to identify the source of the disclosure. The committee also considered whether the disclosure constituted a substantial interference with its work, the committee system or with the functioning of the House. The committee resolved that the disclosure did not constitute a substantial interference to its work but that it did constitute a substantial interference with the committee system.The committee considers it a serious matter that compliance with the procedures of the House related to the disclosure of a committee report has been breached. The actions bring into question the public credibility of this committee and the committee system and put at risk the bipartisan cooperation that this committee and others have enjoyed and demand for their effective functioning. The committee recommends that the Speaker refer this matter to the Privileges Committee for further investigation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I thank the honourable member for Wannon. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Speaker.Bills4269r6894269Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.18:16:004269O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 we are debating here today underpins in a legislative sense the government's response to the Nairn committee report on Australian quarantine matters. The bill finally gives legislative effect to a review process that was commenced by the former Labor government in 1996. I pay tribute here to the foresight of the Labor agriculture minister at the time, Senator Bob Collins, in initiating this particular review. Like so many other areas of agricultural policy over the 13 years that Labor was in government, we came to grips with the great process of structural adjustment that was taking place in many rural industries over that period and the big issues surrounding marketing structures and expanded market access for the output of the rural sector.Part of the great reform process initiated by Labor over that 13 years was the Nairn review of Australia's quarantine service and procedures, a report which was completed in the first term of the coalition and has now been given legislative backing in its second and what we consider to be its final term of office. I must express some concern yet again about the time it has taken to bring this legislation onto the floor of this parliament.We notice in many areas of government policy, and I refer here to industry policy relating to textile, clothing and footwear and automotive manufacturing, that the government has responded to various reviews and various studies of those industries and yet has taken an inordinate amount of time to put any legislative framework in place to underpin its financial and policy responses to those reports. A similar situation has occurred with regard to Australia's quarantine service. The review was initiated in January 1996. There was a thorough review process and the Nairn committee report was presented to the minister in late 1996. We have had this legislation on the Notice Paper in the parliament throughout 1998 and only now have we had this legislation to debate on the floor of the House.The degree of public interest generated by the review was gauged by the number of written submissions that were received. There were some 167 submissions made to the Nairn committee. Extensive consultations were held with stakeholders. When the report was tabled, it contained some 109 recommendations relating to all aspects of Australia's quarantine policies, structures and procedures.The magnitude of the task undertaken by the Nairn committee ought to be understood against the backdrop of significant developments taking place in Australia's engagement with the world in a trading sense, against our international obligations generated by a significant increase in Australia's trade with the rest of the world, and the massive increase in the mobility of citizens around the world. This combination of events had put great pressure on Australia's quarantine service.Australia, possessing a unique natural environment due to its geographical location, faces a very real challenge in the light of these developments to maintain, through its quarantine policies and procedures, that unique environment free from exotic pests and diseases. Indeed, it has been the pristine nature of our production environment which has delivered us a very strong marketing advantage as a nation in the export of clean foods with a strong, `clean green' image. It is important to the future success of many of those exporting rural industries that our image in this area is retained.We are not opposing this bill on the floor of the House. We had some reservations about aspects of the bill and we referred those to a Senate committee, which has completed its hearings on the bill. We thought it was an important opportunity at that Senate hearing for interested parties to clarify certain aspects of this legislation and for interested parties to offer comment on the bill as presented by the government.We did have some concerns about the scope of the government to privatise the quarantine task. That is not a proposition that we in principle support. I think the Australian public demands a strong public presence in quarantine matters. We concede that there are some low level quarantine functions that can be undertaken very successfully in cooperation with industry, but we believe the high level quarantine functions ought to be undertaken by a body which is expert in the task and which is in public hands. We did have some concerns about the delegated powers in this bill, and the Senate process certainly clarified some of those for us.I will now go through the various provisions of the bill and, if I might, just make some broad comment on the bill and those matters where we are in agreement with the legislation and the intent of the government. The bill enlarges the scope of the quarantine task. There is reference made in the bill—and this is off the back of the Nairn committee recommendations—to the need for the agriculture minister to seek the advice of the environment minister on matters relating to quarantine. Also enshrined in this bill is a stipulation that economic factors relating to the future prosperity of particular regions have to be taken into account when decisions are made in the quarantine area.There was one area of the Nairn committee recommendations that the government did not pick up, and it was certainly one we would not have moved on either—that is, the committee's recommendation to establish a separate statutory authority for quarantine matters quite removed from the government. We consider that AQIS ought to be in public hands and be quite close to ministerial scrutiny. The government has, in this legislation, not moved along the path that Nairn recommended in this regard.I will just pick up a couple of other general points in relation to the legislation, and they involve the increased role of industry in quarantine matters. I think industry has come to understand that, if Australia is to maintain its presence as a quality exporter of produce, it must bear its responsibility to make sure that very basic quality assurance regimes are put in place in agricultural and value adding enterprises that export to the rest of the world. Industry has a very significant and central role in the quarantine task, and the object of the Nairn recommendations was to move government agencies into closer consultation with private industry to ensure the integrity of the quarantine task.My predecessor in this portfolio, the honourable member for Burke, laid down some very important markers in relation to how quarantine procedures should occur and how the quarantine task should be structured. He took the view—and quite rightly so, and I think it is reflected in the government's approach in this legislation—that at the core of the quarantine task must be a very sound scientific assessment and base and that science ought to be in these instances a very strong arbiter when it comes to questions of quarantine and the integrity of the quarantine procedures.This bill also introduces increased flexibility to the pre-border, border and post-border quarantine arrangements and measures. In the past, we had a fortress mentality as far as quarantine was concerned, and we had a very strong emphasis on border measures and the strength of those border measures in protecting Australia from exotic pests and diseases. I think we have come to understand that the quarantine task is far broader than a series of strong border measures. Those ought to be in place as a natural matter of course, but there is much that can be done in other countries as far as the importation of food and food stuffs to ensure that products coming into Australia meet some very basic standards.In the post-border arrangements, the bill introduces quite a degree of flexibility into the quarantine task, which I do not think is onerous on industry—in fact, I think it helps us. Carriers will gain flexibility, for example, in the timing of pre-arrival reporting obligations and will be allowed to make their quarantine reports by exception in certain cases, such as for scheduling of international flights. The power of quarantine inspectors to use dogs to assist them in the quarantine task is finalised in this bill as well.The bill also strengthens the offences and penalties provisions, and I think there would be widespread agreement with this on both sides of the House and in the general public as well. The offences and penalties provisions of the act are brought into line with provisions in the criminal code, and that will bring this legislation into line with other Commonwealth legislation already in place.The legislation also makes provision for special quarantine zones and introduces a significant element of consistency in the way the quarantine measures apply to special zones throughout Australia. A new definition, for example, of the special quarantine zones is included in the bill. These zones exist primarily to facilitate the movement of traditional inhabitants in areas such as the Torres Strait, while at the same time exerting some control to ensure that exotic pests and diseases are not introduced and spread. Existing powers which can intrude unnecessarily on the lifestyle of indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait are replaced by a more flexible approach in dealing with quarantine matters as they arise in these areas. I think that is an eminently sensible position that the government has taken in this legislation.The issue of quarantine in Australia can never be understated. I would hate to see the government of Australia take any legislative initiative to water down the security of the preservation of Australia's pristine, natural producing environment, if I can call it that. In our recent history significant quarantine issues of very real concern to regional communities have arisen, such as the importation of salmon. The salmon industry in Tasmania has grown enormously in recent years, such that it is now worth in excess of $300 million, generating employment in an area of Australia that is having real difficulty maintaining its employment base. We have had problems in other areas. Quarantine issues have been of real concern not only to producers in industries such as the citrus industry, the apple and pear industry and the meat and chicken meat industry but also to the communities which sustain those producers and which rely very much on the economic activity generated by those industries.Any quarantine reforms that are undertaken have to be undertaken in a gradual way and they have to have a sound research base. The Nairn committee prepared an excellent report, putting forward a whole raft of recommendations designed quite specifically to improve Australia's quarantine service. Inherent in any quarantine regime should be the protection, in a very real sense, of Australia's unique environment. A quarantine regime ought to be transparent. It ought to be based, as much as it can be, on scientific risk assessment. It must engender confidence on the part of producers and the Australian public in its procedures.I do not think we ought to walk away from the fact that in the past we have had very real criticism of Australia's quarantine service, especially of the culture that has prevailed within it. But I am of the firm view that over time we can redirect that culture, make it more responsive to the needs of industry and indeed the nation, while preserving public confidence in the integrity of the process.We do not intend to oppose this legislation. As I have said, there are key elements in this bill that we certainly do support. It was the result of a Labor initiative. The extensive review into this important area of agricultural policy and the sensible recommendations that are enshrined in this legislation have been taken up by the government in a way that we agree with. When the government brought down its response to this report, we did have some questions about whether the financial commitment that was made by the then minister, John Anderson, was sufficient to ensure the integrity of the quarantine task.I say to the government that there are legitimate areas in which governments can make savings in public expenditure, but when the razor gang casts its eye over this area of policy and administration, I caution that in making savings it does not emasculate and diminish the quarantine task. We must have resources to make sure that Australia's quarantine structures and procedures are the best that they can be. We need to support the bodies to which we entrust the quarantine task with sufficient resources to make sure that they can carry out the assessments that are required in a very professional and expert way.We ought not to be scrimping in these areas, because they are very important and they do not come cheaply. I am not making a plea for a massive increase in the budget of AQIS. I am merely making an appeal to the government that, when it does cast its eye over its budget and when it has to make very important decisions in these areas, it be mindful of the fact that we are now into more professional risk assessment procedures, and they do not come cheaply, and this particular area ought to be adequately resourced. In conclusion, this is a very important area of policy. We support the major provisions that are enshrined in this legislation.18:37:004272Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I took a few notes on what the member for Corio had to say in this debate on the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 . I think some of the things he spoke about were quite interesting. It was particularly worthy to note that the opposition was supportive of the government's position in relation to the structure that AQIS should continue to operate in terms of its not being a statutory authority, as recommended by the Nairn report. However, I did think it was a bit rich for the member for Corio or for opposition members to talk about reforms in this area as being something to which they in any way contributed a great deal.Over 13 years I think we really did fall into a fairly dozy situation in terms of Australia's quarantine effort. When you talk about the fortress mentality and using border methods to enforce quarantine requirements, that is entirely a product of those 13 years in which there was not the kind of development that I think we need in this country. We need to be very much on top of it because Australia is an area of very diverse environments and with very diverse wildlife and products, and we need to be able to protect those very effectively through an effective and flexible quarantine service.The member for Corio said it was important that we should have gradual reforms. In this area we need to have the capacity to be flexible about the way we reform, otherwise reforms may well be forced on us and on those occasions I think our capacity for it to be gradual would be very limited. We need a service that is capable of responding in a flexible way and responding instantly if that is what is required of it. Through this process we have to, at the end of the day, come up with an AQIS and a quarantine service in general that is capable of instant action but that has its eye on a longer strategic goal.I have with me a copy of the Nairn report, Australian quarantine: a shared responsibility. Professor Nairn is a well-known authority in Australia in the veterinary fields. He was the first vice-chancellor of the Northern Territory University and certainly has earned a great deal of respect for his contribution over the years. I am indebted to the member for Corio for running through many of the aspects of the bill. I will not go over those again apart from to say that it does swing directly off the Nairn committee report. It addresses things under four broad subjects: the scope of quarantine in general; the principle of manageable risk, that is, managing what is going on so you have a focus on what are the prime risks affecting the country; the continuum of quarantine, as we said—not just talking about issues on the border but stretching that from the area of production to beyond the border and its final place within Australia or vice versa. That particular area has been broken down in the Nairn report under four areas. Those areas are: border measures, more efficient performance of quarantine, industry participation and a series of other miscellaneous steps. There are also some comments about compliance and enforcement and some steps taken there.There have been some tough new quarantine measures introduced last year by the federal government. They are having quite a decisive impact on international passenger behaviour. We have on-the-spot fines and X-ray technology. The detector dogs program has been expanded, and that has been fairly well received by the community. That was all part of a $76 million allocation by the federal government, which was announced in response directly to the Nairn report. I think that is another thing that the member for Corio said. He was complaining that the bill had been slow in coming into the House and I think he mentioned funding as well, but the funding has happened. We have had $76 million put in there. The proof of the pudding is in the eating in relation to that.Between 1996 and February 1998 the number of passengers failing to declare items of quarantine concern—in other words, coming through the green lane, that is the nothing to declare channel—dropped from 35 per cent to just over 21 per cent. The number of people coming in and failing to declare high risk prohibitive items also dropped from six per cent to 3.1 per cent. I think those achievements are quite significant. In that $76 million allocation, more than $38.7 million was allocated to the quarantine borders themselves, $13.24 million was allocated to risk analysis, more than $5.6 million was allocated to quarantine awareness, more than $4.48 million was allocated to fish quarantine, $9 million was allocated to quarantine support, and $800,000 was allocated to the Quarantine and Exports Advisory Council.I would like to address in a short form the major disparity, referred to by the member for Corio and others in this debate, between the finding of the Nairn committee report and the actions subsequently being taken by the federal government. That major difference is the decision not to proceed with a statutory authority, as recommended by the Nairn committee, but to proceed instead with basically the existing structure. That was set out by the government in its response to the Nairn report, which was published by the government. The minister said, in response, that the government believed that the general principles put forward by Nairn could be delivered without creating a statutory authority, which would `sever current direct links with other parts of government that are central to the operation of an efficient and effective quarantine service'.In putting forward the argument for a statutory authority, the Nairn report created a list of about nine different points where it thought the operation of a statutory authority would be superior to the operation of a business unit within a department, which is what AQIS is now. It pointed out such things as independence from the department was an advantage, that it had a suitable structure to engender cultural change and mentioned job satisfaction, and so on.Mr Deputy Speaker, if you analyse the argument, I think for every positive in each of those messages there is equally a negative risk. Risk is one thing which I think we have to manage very carefully in relation to the future of AQIS and quarantine services. We cannot allow risks to develop. Primarily, we need to have the capacity for instant change and instant government response.There are a number of statutory authorities that I think members in this place could name that do not perform or communicate as effectively with government departments and with the government in general as perhaps they should. That is something very important that I think we should take into account.If we look in the Nairn committee report itself, Professor Nairn and his group, in relation to one of the models, debunked that particular idea of dividing or separating policy from operations. The report stated:. . . separation of the quarantine regulation and service functions would see quarantine policy development transferred to one or more of the other operating groups within the DPIE with the operational role being retained by AQIS . . . It went on to say what the proponents of that particular model had to say. But the report then stated:In the view of the Review Committee, the development of effective and efficient quarantine policy is compromised if divorced from implementation. In addition, it is difficult to ensure that staff achieve operational objectives if denied understanding or input into policy development.During its visit to New Zealand the Review Committee observed this separation model in practice and noted that New Zealand authorities were experiencing a number of management difficulties. In particular, quarantine delivery staff expressed a feeling of isolation from policy.I think that is significant because it points out exactly what would happen if we were to go down the path of having a statutory authority: it would be divorced from the entire process of policy development.Policy development is the prime responsibility of the federal government. There is no way of getting away from that. You can have all the fine statutory authorities that you like, but they will not be completely in control of policy development. Sure, they will have input. But at the end of the day it is the responsibility of members of parliament, of all the processes of government, to come up with a strategy that will be supported by the community. In that way, a broader view is taken to that which might be preferred, for example, by a statutory authority operating all by itself in a vacuum.In the time left to me, I believe that it is important to look briefly at what AQIS has been doing. I know that from time to time there have been some negative stories told about AQIS. But there are a lot of positives out there, and I think we should reflect on some of the very good achievements AQIS has had.For example, looking at the 1996-97 annual report, AQIS in that time dealt with more than 70 countries developing new or expanded markets for Australian products in Asia, the Pacific, North and South America, the former Soviet Union and Europe. A whole series of Australian exports have benefited from those discussions. Things such as Australian export potatoes now are found in Korea; asparagus is going to New Zealand; Tasmanian apples are going to China, et cetera. There is a whole heap of those things now happening.In the 1996-97 year, AQIS supervised 10,000 ship arrivals and 52,000 first-port aircraft arrivals; it processed 7.3 million passengers and aircrew, one million cargo containers, 1.8 million airfreight consignments and 151 million mail articles. There are a few other facts I could state in relation to that, but as my time is limited I will keep my comments short.Another issue AQIS has been involved with is that of ballast water management which has come about because of alarming developments. This is another example of why it is important that we have a flexible quarantine service in this country. Under AQIS, the Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council was appointed in May 1996 by the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. There has been since then a $1 million per year Strategic Ballast Water Research Program developed by the research advisory group. To support that particular program, the shipping industry has since agreed to a levy on shipping to raise a further $2 million for 1998-99 and 1999-2000. That is just one example of industry support and cooperation and a flexible and effective quarantine policy.I would turn now to another effective strategy that has been undertaken by AQIS and the federal government; it is one that has been strongly developed and supported by the coalition government. I refer to the North Australia Quarantine Service, which is the front line of our quarantine defence up in the Torres Strait. Torres Strait is about 150 kilometres wide and separates mainland Australia from Papua New Guinea. Within that strait there are 19 inhabited islands and many more uninhabited reefs, caves and that sort of thing. There is not much by way of heavy vegetation on those islands, and there has been a long history of human habitation in that area.All kinds of zones have been established to produce the same kind of progressive quarantine strategy that the member for Corio talked about and that I fully endorse and that the government has fully endorsed; that is, pre-border methods, methods at the border and subsequent methods. For example, on Cape York below the Torres Strait area, there is a fence that runs across that cape, marking the northern boundary of what is called the `livestock buffer zone', the administration of which is part of the responsibilities in that area of the North Australia Quarantine Service.A range of threats has been faced by Australia in relation to quarantine. Basically, there are those that threaten animals and those that threaten crop species. Firstly, let us look at those that affect animals.I think the most recent example is that of Japanese encephalitis. This is a virus which is transmitted by mosquitoes. People who get Japanese encephalitis suffer from an often fatal inflammation of the brain. It cannot be contracted by humans through eating cooked meat, but it can be contacted by as simple a matter as mosquito transmission. Japanese encephalitis has an incubation period of 10 to 20 days. A person who gets that infection develops a high fever, backache, severe dizziness and finally convulsions. Any person who is diagnosed with that can be in a serious position. They could wind up handicapped after as little a time of exposure as three days. Animals such as dogs, horses, cows and buffaloes can also be infected with the virus. It is something that is quite insidious. It is out there, and it is definitely a threat to the north of Australia.The North Australia Quarantine Service have developed a range of methods to address this particular issue, and they deserve support for the work that they are doing. They have set up what is called a network of sentinel herds in the Torres Strait and in the northern peninsula area. These are herds of pigs, in particular, and one herd of cattle that are based on places like Badu, Saibai and Darnley islands. Those animals are used to detect the presence of the Japanese encephalitis virus. That has been particularly successful, and it has been expanded by the federal government to address the problem.There have been a reasonable number of outbreaks in recent times. That is not surpris ing, considering that the consensus of participating agencies after studying the findings of the various developments in those sentinel herds and studying the flow and the evidence from other wildlife shot from helicopters is that the incursion of Japanese encephalitis is probably due to windblown infected mosquitoes from Papua New Guinea. So every wet season we are going to face a situation where those kinds of viruses—Japanese encephalitis in particular—will be pushed south because mosquitoes will be naturally pushed south by storms that frequent the area at that time.I want to close by making reference to the fact that Japanese encephalitis is a serious threat to the north. Just how serious a threat it is is best studied by looking at recent developments in Malaysia, where an outbreak of Japanese encephalitis in the last two weeks or so has resulted in 56 human deaths at this stage. They have set about slaughtering 300,000 head of pigs because of the threat posed by the discovery of Japanese encephalitis. That has completely destroyed the pork industry of Malaysia, and it has resulted in the closure of borders between Malaysia and Singapore and Malaysia and Thailand to the pork export trade. That is a significant worry, and it is something that we have to bear in mind when we look at the threat posed by those kinds of animal diseases.Something else that is worthy of a mention is the impact in relation to crops. There are various threats. One such threat is western flower thrips, which has appeared through the importation of cut flowers. We have to keep on our game in relation to that. The basic bottom line is that, unless AQIS is resourced and provided with the flexibility to respond immediately to threats which cannot be anticipated which can appear at the drop of a hat, we will be in a serious situation.I commend the steps taken by the government, particularly the $76 million that has already been allocated, and I look forward to the further development of an effective working culture within AQIS to address serious problems, serious threats like Japanese encephalitis and other threats that I spoke about in relation to Australian crops, crops that provide an important living for Australians and Australian jobs. (Time expired)18:57:004276Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—It is good to enter a debate where there is so much consensus on such an important issue. I listened with great interest to the contributions by the member for Blair and the member for Corio prior to that. I am sure that the member for Lyons will make a similar contribution. As has been pointed out, the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 reflects many of the recommendations contained in the report from Professor Malcolm Nairn's review into the quarantine system. The Nairn report, as the minister states in his second reading speech, found Australia remains relatively free of many major pests and diseases of animals and plants, despite the massive increase in international trade and movement of people and—and this is important—the dwindling government financial support for quarantine services at that time. Thankfully, this situation has been addressed to a significant degree by this government.The Nairn report called for a new focus on quarantine and a shared responsibility between government, the industry and the general public. These are excellent sentiments, but I argue it is the very challenge we as an island continent face from the international marketplace that represents the greatest threat to our almost disease free status. In the increasing competition of the marketplace, we in Australia have an advantage others around us envy and would want to bring down. Our quarantine standards to date have delivered us a natural marketing advantage that we may not have exploited enough but which will surely deliver us an edge in the marketplace if we jealously guard that advantage and not succumb to the forces that wish to destroy that advantage.I refer particularly here to the import risk analysis for apples from New Zealand. Much has been said in recent years of the threat that fire blight would pose to our pear and apple industries. The member for Murray is one in this House who has eloquently argued the case against any capitulation to the arguments of New Zealand on this issue. I do not have to elaborate on the infamous discovery of fire blight in the Melbourne and Adelaide botanic gardens—discoveries that said more about the extent to which our Tasman neighbours will go to open up markets than it did about our quarantine system.Yet the member for Murray and I and other members of the parliamentary committee who received a briefing on this matter from AQIS were appalled at the innocent naivety with which Australia was prepared to accept the New Zealand scientific analysis on this allegedly infected Australian cotoneaster plant taken back to New Zealand. Why would you let the thief provide the security report on your store? That was the attitude prevailing until objective assessments were sought further afield on this so-called naturally occurring fire blight outbreak. Let me recall a meeting I had with apple growers at Nashdale near Orange in 1997 on the night I remember President Clinton was here at a dinner in Canberra. I was listening to another American in Nashdale, a scientist telling local orchardists and me of the devastation fire blight has caused to a significant portion of that country's orchard industry. While New Zealand scientists were wanting us to believe that some 10,000 cells of erwinia bacteria were needed to cause any spread of fire blight, scientific papers prepared as long ago as 1930 consistently show that as little as 10 cells are required for such spread. Let us base our import risk assessments on science, but let us beware of selective data which former partners and now competitors on the international stage will be only too anxious to quote. Let us remember a report from ABARE in 1996 which estimated that the spread of fire blight into Australia could cause crop losses of between 20 and 30 per cent and said it was uncertain whether fire blight could be restricted to one region by quarantine and control measures, should it arrive. Fire blight has the potential to devastate all plants in the Roseaceae family, including roses and thousands of ornamental berry trees.Now the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has submitted a revised import access proposal for the importation of New Zealand apples. The submission, accord ing to correspondence from AQIS, requests the review of available risk management options with a view to establishing phytosanitary measures that are the least trade restrictive in respect of New Zealand apple exports, while ensuring the level of protection deemed appropriate by Australia is met. AQIS is simply following the accepted procedure in this review.This is the third occasion in recent times that New Zealand has sought a way through or around our quarantine position on fire blight. The cotoneaster scare cut short the developing Fuji apple export trial to Japan, something that was only resumed at Christmas after a heartbreaking period for the Tasmanian growers. One good outcome was that Japan was impressed by the way we went around the fire blight detection process to establish that the disease had not taken hold outside the dubiously infected areas it was discovered in by visiting New Zealand scientists. As I have said before, New Zealand has a very questionable record on disease control and eradication and seems to believe that a level playing field is one infected with every disease. That sort of attitude must be taken into account in blindly accepting that international rules and standards will always act in our interests in this important area.A strong case can be argued to the World Trade Organisation against a country with such strict quarantine standards because we could be seen to be using our island status in an anti-competitive fashion. And so we are, but not for the reasons our competitors would argue. We must not give in and accept the lower denominator, because our trade might be at risk.Clean and green will mean billions of dollars in export earnings in the years ahead, more than it has in the past. To sacrifice or risk it now on the altar of free trade would be an absolute disaster. Yet I note we are now grateful to New Zealand for again accepting into that country Australian watermelon after such imports were banned in June last year following the detection of live fruit fly larvae. According to AQIS's March bulletin, we are now hopeful the New Zealand ministry of agriculture may reclassify the fruit fly pest as one requiring on-farm control under `the New Zealand import health standards'. They would not, I hope, ever become typical of Australia's standards—allowing the pest into the country and then making it subject to on-farm control. I think it says something about the New Zealand quarantine standards. I shudder to think what clout this allowing of fruit fly infested fruit into New Zealand may give to their argument that fire blight represents no threat to the Australian fruit growing or horticultural industries.I wonder whether we are being sucked into this fruit fly trap, the reverse side being an argument that because New Zealand accepts our watermelon risk we should therefore allow in their apples. I say, and the fruit growers and nursery operators in my electorate say, that there is a major threat. They are concerned that we are weakening rather than strengthening our resolve and our laws to prevent such infestation.So small are the margins for error in this new era of free trade, one need not go further than the current risk analysis for Korean pear. As AQIS advised many of us and the industry in November last year, a delay had occurred in the finalisation of the import risk analysis on Korean pear due to the detection of a new disease of Asian Pear. This stem blight disease was reported at an international workshop on fire blight diseases in October. We are lucky we had a representative or at least a spy or reporter there.This disease, we are told, is similar to fire blight. AQIS requires further information from Korean quarantine authorities in order to progress this IRA. And so say all of us. Had that workshop not occurred, what if this erwinia disease had not been detected until it arrived on the shelves of the supermarkets and green groceries in Murray or Calare electorates? It shows what we are risking if we relax for a moment our own surveillance of imports and exports. In its response to the Nairn report, the government wisely rejected a recommendation that a new statutory body, Quarantine Australia, be established. The government rightly argued that the objectives such as community ownership of quarantine, cultural change and more efficient use of resources can be achieved without creating a statutory authority. Such an authority would have run the risk of severing direct links between AQIS and the wider community and other parts of government such as customs, health and indeed state governments.The government wisely implemented a $76 million funding package in 1997 that included over $38 million in the ensuing four years to boost border activities. It is interesting to note that the latest Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy news highlights how the early warning network for fruit fly detection is paying dividends in the Torres Strait, with 787 specimens of exotic fruit flies already detected on islands throughout the strait between November last and the first week of February this year. Of the flies detected, all but five were papaya fruit flies. This fruit fly trapping exercise across 23 islands—and one wonders how many might get through to the mainland—is being coordinated by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, an example of the necessary nexus between AQIS and state governments to ensure as tight as possible a link between federal and state authorities on this critical issue.The National Farmers Federation was among those organisations which welcomed the government's response to the Nairn report. The NFF said at the time that a more open import risk assessment process would help deal with many of the issues that have surrounded contentious quarantine decisions in the past. But this should not be read as any encouragement for New Zealand, Canada or any other country to try to circumvent our quarantine standards by using the non-tariff barrier argument at the WTO. It simply means the peak farm organisation in this country recognises the need for our scientific analysis and risk assessment to be more open to public and trading partner scrutiny, nothing more. That is what AQIS is doing now in its risk analysis for Korean pears and New Zealand apples.No-one has an argument with that, but one does, I believe, have an argument with the quarantine standards employed by our so-called trading partners when assessing the risks of their exports. If our risk analysis conflicts with export risk assessments from other countries, that is no reason our standards should be necessarily so severely challenged. Rather, the standards and motives of those exporting countries should really be under the microscope.I do disagree with the NFF argument that AQIS should have been severed from government. The federation argued that cultural change would not occur unless AQIS was divorced from the Department of Primary Industries. It fears this could lead to an increase in WTO challenges to quarantine decisions. If it is good enough for the US to insist on a government funded quarantine system where that government picks up the tab, why should it not be good enough here? What would a privatised inspection service right across the board offer other than perhaps at some stage to succumb to the dictates of market forces? Is it not better for AQIS, with the full clout of government backing, to argue any case before the WTO backed up by the objective government endorsed research?Other parts of this bill are eminently sensible and should attract little opposition such as proposed section 5A, which enables the minister to declare by notice published in the Gazette an area to be specified `special quarantine zone'. Such power is not subject to disallowance by parliament. While I am a passionate advocate of the need for ministerial accountability to parliament, one must surely concede in a case like this that the minister should act quickly and decisively.Similarly, in new section 12A, where emergency quarantine measures are specifically detailed, similar provisions are required. However, parliament would reasonably expect a report at the earliest possible sitting day after the ministerial declarations. Again, in sections 10 to 10B, the delegation of powers by a minister, departmental secretary or director of quarantine is entirely acceptable in the situation of a quarantine emergency.However, I have grave reservations about the provisions relating to ministerial responsibility. Where the minister delegates his or her powers, the proposed provisions do not allow for the minister to be personally responsible for decisions made by the holder of the delegated powers. This, to some degree, I believe, passes the buck. It is not good enough to saddle responsibility with the secretary or director of quarantine, and I would be interested to hear the minister's justification for that particular section.We will have a similar washing of hands that occurs with statutory authorities like CASA. The responsibility must stay with the minister. In the same way as I have grave doubts about parliament's ability to review the activities of commercially operated quarantine premises, so too am I opposed to a minister washing his or her hands of responsibility for decisions on quarantine measures.The Nairn report recommended commercially operated quarantine stations only in respect of animals. This bill extends that commercial operation to goods including animals, plants and any other article, substance or thing. The degree of parliamentary surveillance and scrutiny of such commercial operations in such a competitive commercial environment with the risks associated and the ministerial responsibility handed over to a delegated individual does not say to me that quarantine risk is adequately measured or responsibility is accepted where it belongs with the minister of the day. As for quarantine surveillance in section 34 of this bill, one wonders whether the financial penalties imposed—a maximum fine of $2,200—is really onerous enough to discourage people who risk importing infected matter, whereas section 38 provides for very strong penalties which do send the right message.I am aware of the need to wind up this debate so the minister can sum it up. I say then, in summary, that I have no real problems in any of these areas except my major reservation in the area of delegation by the minister and some of those areas of privatisation. With these reservations and a feeling that inexorably our quarantine standards will be white anted by our competitors unless we are ever vigilant because those competitors who have previously been partners under former trading arrangements are not partners in a true sense anymore, I commend the bill to the House.19:13:004279Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 is a result of the government's response to the Nairn report. Its purpose is to identify and spell out ministerial authority and responsibility in the enabling legislation through the transference of major regulatory powers. In the dying days of the Labor government, former Senator Bob Collins established an independent committee to review Australia's quarantine policies and programs. This was after a number of problems with certain pests being brought into Australia and quarantine measures that had proven to be faulty or insufficiently resourced to deal with this problem. When the new government took over, they continued the quarantine review, which was commendable and sensible. I believe both sides of the House believed that there were some serious problems with our quarantine operations and that we certainly did need a review. Because many of the systems were old and using outdated technology, it was time for an upgrade to modernise certain sections of our quarantine service.The government's response to the Nairn report accepted the majority of the recommendations; however, they did not accept that a new body should be formed to try to separate out the duties of quarantine. Nairn recognised, as I think many of the submissions to the inquiry did, that there was a problem having the political process too close to the risk assessment process, that quarantine measures should remain at defending Australia's borders against the introduction of pests and not be part of the risk analysis process.Many of us by now would have followed the debate about the salmon industry and concerns about the introduction of Canadian salmon. If my colleagues have not actually followed the debate, they would have sampled the product as we have had a number of excellent tastes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can remember you taking the opportunity of tasting Tasmanian salmon, and an excellent taste sensation you would have had. Tasmania has a product that cannot really be equalled anywhere in the world. It is unique, and I believe it is the best product produced in the world—short of looking for the Scottish wild salmon, which is not easy to buy and pretty expensive when you do. The Tasmanian salmon is a unique phenomenon. The industry has worked very hard against all sorts of odds and natural disasters, like overwarm water in certain years and plagues of jellyfish in others, and they have built something that has put Tasmania on the map economically. In fact, it has now become one of the chief primary industry exports in monetary terms and is extremely important to us.Suddenly, we are in a situation of trying to ensure that we do not endanger this resource by the import of disease through another country's salmon—a country that has had difficulties controlling disease. Disease in fish is very quickly spread and, when in water, it is almost impossible to eradicate. Despite all our efforts, it seems that the World Trade Organisation has seen fit to ask Australia why we cannot abide by their recommendations in a time frame of around six months. Some of this time has already passed. To my mind, something has gone awfully wrong with this process, and I am not sure that it will be fixed by the adoption of these regulations.As people are probably aware, in the response of the Nairn report there was a section in which fish quarantine was to be considered by AQIS so as they could meet key recommendations in the National Fish Task Force report over the next four years to review the risks associated with importing fish and fish products into Australia. I think they will receive a substantial amount of money over that four-year period to help them modernise and to have the people to carry out those tasks. This was in 1997. We now have a situation where we are being forced by some other authority—of course, outside Australia—to allow imports because we have no mechanism yet to argue against it. Time has run out before we are half way there. This takes me to the whole issue of world trade and who it is actually run for. I am wondering if Australia is the country that benefits from most of the arrangements and how the devil we can protect our industries from the entry of disease.Quarantine is so terribly important to Australia. We are a nation of islands. I say that because our nation is made up of a number of islands, contrary to what the Prime Minister seems to think when he talks of our vast island continent. He rather leaves Tasmania off the map, something I take great exception to, and I see that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in Tasmania also took exception today by making some reference in the press along those lines—and rightfully so.Islands, of course, have opportunities that other nations do not have in that they are isolated. This is a problem in some areas such as transport but, where we lose, there can be gain. The fact is that we can be isolated somewhat from diseases and pests that move so easily between countries that have land borders between them. So when we have an opportunity, we should do something to boost the ability of Australia to make sure that any risk assessment that is done is done in favour of Australia, not some other nation. We have seen the results of that before, and what we have seen has not been very pretty.There are several issues that I had come across, in a practical sense, which I see are picked up. In some of my work I can remember a flower grower having great difficulties with the cost of shifting flowers to be inspected in the Sydney area—in coming from outside Sydney and having to go into Sydney and having to go to a quarantine area. I see that the act gives authority for approval of commercial places where goods of quarantine interest may be treated or otherwise dealt with. I think that is a new area, to let people have opportunities for officers to perform their duties at a marketplace or something like that. That will certainly save some growers a considerable amount of money in transportation. Those sorts of issues were some of the concerns that I found coming out of industry, such as the actual cost that was being imposed on them. So to take into consideration some of those issues, such as a national scheme of private premises for the use of quarantine purposes, is very good because the quarantine services are extremely important to us.The member for Calare touched on the fire blight issue. I was very involved in that a year or two ago, especially through the House committee. In dealing with that issue, we went to New Zealand. The fire blight issue cost the Tasmanian apple industry a year's export into Japan—a market they had just established and were ready to go with, and that was cancelled at the last minute to make sure that we were fire blight free. I can remember the issues that took place on the borders of Victoria and New South Wales and the cost that was levied on people. People may have played state politics to look after themselves—as these things get going—and people suffered. Truck operators, working people in those areas and the growers of those fruits had extra costs shoved on them.I do not believe governments should be cutting back in our quarantine area. I believe they should be upgrading, getting the new technologies and training the people in the skills that are needed in this area. Another area that came to mind that I dealt with was the great difficulty we had with ballast water coming into Tasmania, and we believe that the starfish that is now reaping its progress across the Derwent River could pose a threat to our oyster industry in the future and certainly some of our scallop industry. These things are now under the AQIS head. They need to be looked after, but they need money and they need people to have those skills.The privatisation of inspection services is also a major concern to me. Other countries pay for their quarantine services and I think we should also do that. We should not be cutting back; we should be giving our quarantine service the support that it needs. We need to have a lot of transparency in it so that people understand why quarantine is important, and education programs are of major importance in that area. It is good to see this legislation come before us, and it will be supported by this side of the House.19:24:004281Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—in reply—First of all, I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions in this debate on the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 , and I accept the support of the opposition. The members for Corio, Lyons, Calare and Blair spoke, and I would like to respond to a couple of comments that have been made.I noted the comment made by the member for Calare with regard to fire blight. The IRA process that is run by AQIS has, I suppose, caused some concern with the New Zealanders in that the science has proven that we do not allow, at this stage, the importation of apples from there. In my mind, that has proven the benefit of the independent nature and the process of import risk analysis in that area.I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Lyons with regard to the situation with salmon. It is a difficult circumstance. He would also be aware that the WTO arbitrator has determined that Australia must bring its quarantine measures into WTO conformity by 7 July 1999. This is seven months earlier than AQIS has estimated that it would take for a full implementation. The government is currently examining the scope for completing the quarantine decision making process on salmon and associated aquatic products within that time. These are complex matters, as members would be aware, and it is important that the implications of any decision are fully taken account of.The Quarantine Amendment Bill is a major advancement in ensuring that Australia has the appropriate regulatory framework leading into the next century. This bill is essential to protect our vital agricultural industries and our environment, and is essential for the development of export products crucial to the nation's economic prosperity. The bill provides a framework for tighter border controls to reflect the extreme importance of quarantine. New powers include the power to order the re-export of goods to ensure quarantine risks remain offshore and a more appropriate emergency power to ensure a rapid response to the entry of unknown diseases and pests.The bill provides a more efficient approach to the performance of quarantine by providing a more flexible and updated approach to the treatment of imported goods. The bill replaces the prescriptive approaches to treating goods by giving the importer a range of treatment options relevant to the importation. These new aspects also ensure that there is scope to adopt emerging technological advancements. The bill encourages a greater involvement of industry in quarantine surveillance by providing a better framework for properly monitored industry involvement through the use of industry developed quality assurance arrangements and the use of approved commercial premises for quarantine purposes. This is consistent with the theme of the Nairn report Quarantine: a shared responsibility. The bill also updates the offence and penalty provisions to reflect appropriate penalties consistent with the criminal code.Again, I thank all members for their contributions in the debate on this bill. It is important that we ensure the security of our borders—as far as imports are concerned—from pests and diseases, and this bill reinforces that. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4282Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Vaile) read a third time.Adjournment4282Motion (by Mr Vaile) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.428219:28:004282Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Employment is a pivotal issue for the electors of Greenway. These residents are situated in the outer western suburbs of Sydney and, with manufacturing no longer being the growing area for employment, our people need to look to other areas than locally for their income. Many of the formerly large employers of local labour have now either closed or at least substantially reduced their work force. This has placed enormous social strains upon our fellow Australians.What we need is a workable plan that will help to retrain our unemployed in such a way as will enable them to at least compete on a level playing field when they seek job interviews. For young people, there seems to be less and less emphasis on training them for employment. Many members of this House seem to have forgotten about, or perhaps never knew about, the Australian traineeship system. The ATS, at its beginning, provided a wonderful chance for young people—and later for older people—to be trained for work.Hundreds of employers, TAFEs, trade unions and community groups came together to ensure that the ATS provided hope for young people. It was a carefully structured program that was different from the usual labour market programs. It provided for employees to attend a TAFE centre for some two to three days a week and to spend the balance of the week in employment. They were paid a special rate which was based on a trainee wage concept and they received travel warrants for their TAFE attendance. The employers received an incentive from the government in the form of cash payments for having taken on a trainee. The trainees were carefully monitored and each one had a record of their progress that was signed by both the trainee and the employer supervisor. The training plans that were operating were known to the trainee, the employer and, of course, TAFE. It is a real tragedy for this nation that the ATS seems to have lost its attractiveness for those who seek to make headlines in the media by expressing their concerns for the unemployed.The ATS had, and still has, the potential to provide a well-trained group of young people who have had their education improved in an atmosphere different from school and who have learned the work ethic that is taught to apprentices. These young people who went through the ATS system became very valuable employees. The certificates they took with them to interviews were a testimony to their good training and their sense of responsibility as potential employees. At this time of high unemployment in areas such as Greenway, we want real programs of work and training that can give young people, and in some cases mature persons, a chance to obtain new employment as a consequence of their retraining and re-education. Committees that oversaw traineeships in the ATS were made up of representatives of employers, unions, federal and state governments, training committees and group employers.I believe that many people today are overlooking the great contribution to training and employment that group employer systems made to assist young people. These facilities are still out there just waiting for a genuinely interested minister and cabinet to reignite their enthusiasm—it is long past the time when we should be doing this. Who can forget the outstanding work performed in this area by a former New South Wales Liberal transport minister and member for the Hunter River area, Milton Morris? The dedication that was given to the ATS system in New South Wales by Milton Morris would be hard to beat anywhere. His devotion to the work of training young people so that they would be better able to meet the needs of employers was magnificent—but he was not on his own. There were many others in the same field and their work and experience should be once again tapped into.A new beginning should be made to genuinely offer a sensible, workable, practical system that employers, the unemployed, TAFEs, trade unions and the local community can get behind and give support to. It is not too late to do so, but it needs money and support, and this must come from the federal government. Unemployment is not a Greenway issue. It is not a Sydney issue. It is not even a New South Wales issue. Unemployment is an Australian issue and we ignore it at our peril for the future of our nation.428319:33:004283Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight to extend my congratulations to the Peninsula Woodturners Guild which hosted a very successful annual seminar of the Ornamental Turners Group of Australia at their premises in the grounds of the McClelland Gallery in Langwarrin over the weekend of 12 to 14 March.I was given the surprising but fortunate opportunity to open the Woodturners Guild seminar. That forced me to acquaint myself with what a wood-turner was and what the group was about. Much to my pleasant surprise, I found that they were a highly enthusi astic and dedicated bunch of people who explained to me they were not artists or tradesmen but crafts men and women. They toil away with timbers from our great country shaping ornamental products which are very popular as gifts to foreign dignitaries and others and which happily adorn the houses of many people on the Mornington Peninsula.The group itself started about 15 years ago with 12 members sharing a common interest. It now has 185 members, including the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, and the group actively operates out of the grounds of the McClelland Gallery. I noted that as a backbencher of the coalition I could not match Mr Fraser's credentials and, as the son of a carpenter, I could not match the craftsmen's credentials, but I was happily invited along—probably as an apprentice—to open the seminar that weekend.It was fascinating, though, to see how far people travelled to participate in the seminar. There were many more people than I anticipated—working with, at times, home-made machinery devices creating the most wonderful ornamental pieces out of natural Australian timber. To make sure everyone enjoyed the occasion, we even had Keith-cam. A former technician from the ABC had rigged up a camera device so that you did not have 80 people climbing over one another to see some of the intricate moves being put to good use in shaping some of the ornamental features. Keith-cam displayed these video pictures on monitors placed right around the guild's facilities at the McClelland Gallery.Bill and Betty Barber were the event organisers and I am sure they would not mind me mentioning the hours of work they put into organising this event. I understand they recruited family members to make sure the event was an absolute success. As I was saying earlier, it was a very attractive opportunity for wood-turners from around our country. People travelled a great distance to be part of the event and participate in what was a very informative and somewhat jovial gathering. I was fortunate to be able to share in some thoughts about wood-turning activities and the frustrations some partners have with their spouses who spend a great deal of time on their hobby. I was reminded of a project that I was associated with, the replica of the Lady Nelson vessel in Western Port. Some family members and spouses of the craftsmen and women who recreated that vessel said that, when they were most frustrated with their spouses, they would refer to their Lady Nelson replica as `neatly arranged pieces of several tons of kindling'. You could imagine that went down quite well amongst the Woodturners Guild—and a number of partners there who also thought some of their products could be described as kindling. I can assure you though that when I saw it, it was just magnificent craftsmanship.Bill and Betty Barber had gone to great lengths to make sure that guests from right around the country enjoyed their time on the Mornington Peninsula. The seminar was very informative. The machinery that was on display was quite fascinating. It was a group of local people doing what they enjoy—sharing their experiences and their creations in terms of both the craft and equipment with many others and sharing with people of like minds some of the product of their hobbies. I would just like to congratulate the Peninsula Woodturners Guild on taking the initiative to host what was the second only of these annual national seminars. It was a great occasion—people travelling from as far away as New Zealand to be a part of it. There was a great atmosphere. I was very pleased to be able to play a very small part in the occasion. I wish Bill and Betty Barber and all of those at the Peninsula Woodturners Guild all the very best. They love their hobbies, and they are doing something quite worthwhile in their spare time.428419:38:004284Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Whether we like it or not in this place we must all be accountable. That is why I again raise the issue of alleged misuse of federal government funds—that is, taxpayers' money—on traineeships under the new apprenticeship scheme. In particular, I refer to traineeships being used for upskilling and training workers already in employment. I first raised this issue publicly earlier this month and have since been contacted by numerous people who share my concerns. They are concerns that also exist within federal and state government departments and job agencies, among training providers and, indeed, among trainees themselves, their fellow workers and the general community.Our collective concern is that money on offer under the traineeship scheme not only is open to misuse but is being openly misused. I appreciate that the definition of misuse may vary on this issue, but that should not override the moral responsibility governments have to be accountable. Since the new scheme came into operation late last year, in Tasmania alone hundreds of existing workers have been put onto traineeships.I want to make it clear that the concept and, moreover, the practical implementation of traineeships and upskilling of workers has my full support. I recognise the importance of financial incentives for employers to offer traineeships and to upskill their workers under the umbrella of the new apprenticeship scheme. There is no doubt that in principle it is a worthwhile scheme, and it should continue. Indeed the scheme allows organisations to upskill workers who in most cases would not have had the opportunity to do so, and I know of many instances where the workers have greatly benefited from this training. But, Mr Speaker, what has alarm bells ringing are allegations that training funds received by some employers are being spent not on providing training, not on upskilling workers, but on buying things like office equipment, filing cabinets and fax machines.I am informed reliably that some existing workers have been put on traineeships and have undergone no training at all. Some have been put on traineeships despite the fact that they have already been trained. In one instance I am aware of, some are currently undergoing training in their own time at educational institutions, while at work they have been signed up for the very same training. In this case, although being signed up to the traineeship in December last year, no training has yet occurred. That is `double dipping' in anybody's language.And where has this information come from? It has come from workers or trainees directly involved. It has come from people training providers. It has come people working within the job agency network. It has also come from the father of two young men—one employed, the other unemployed. He questions the worth of a scheme that offered a traineeship to his son who has a job while his other son cannot get a job at all. To him and to many others there is a perception that a traineeship is an opportunity for a new job.As a federal parliamentarian responsible for overseeing Commonwealth expenditure, I cannot remain silent while some employers are putting existing employees on traineeships and not using the money to upskill them while the genuine unemployed are starved of opportunities. Unfortunately the traineeship system is seen by some as a legitimate rip-off of the system. They are doing it knowing it is wrong, but knowing that they can get away with it.This government, indeed any government, must be accountable if misuse of training funds is occurring. This is an issue of accountability, and that is why I seek a guarantee from this government that all the money for traineeships is being used properly. That is why we must know whether it is this government's intention that money earmarked for training and upskilling be used for other purposes on things such as purchasing office equipment. That is why we have to know what mechanisms exist to ensure full accountability for how the moneys are spent.Those using the traineeship funds legitimately have nothing to worry about, but if there is a loophole in the system and it is being exploited the government should close it. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the scheme is run properly and that the door is not opened to the misuse of funds. There should be strict rules of accountability applied under this scheme so all the money is used properly and as one would expect it to be used under a traineeship scheme. For some employers to be paid what are effectively wage subsidies for existing employees under the guise of upskilling their work force is not acceptable. If the money is there for training, then that is what it should be used for.428519:43:004285Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—As many members in this House would know, my electorate of Robertson has a very high percentage of older residents. The issue of aged care and nursing home accommodation, of course, is one that is very important to my electorate. It is an issue that over the last three years has come to the fore, with the government attempting to make positive changes to the nursing home industry—changes which I believe have resulted in additional beds being created.I mentioned in my maiden speech back in 1996 how concerned I was about the lack of nursing home accommodation and hostel accommodation on the Central Coast of New South Wales. I talked about the fact that many couples were being separated in their senior years when one of the members of that couple had to be put into an aged care accommodation nursing home and they could not find a nursing home bed on the Central Coast. Many of them had to be accommodated either in Sydney or Newcastle. You can imagine the difficulties that causes for the other partner—who, in most cases, is quite elderly as well—who has to find their way and sometimes spend two or three hours travelling to just visit their spouse in a nursing home.I have made it one of my goals to ensure that there is more nursing home accommodation on the Central Coast and that there are, as part of the government's initiatives, more opportunities for people to remain in their own homes. Speaking with many older Australians, including my own parents and other relatives, it is very obvious that most people do not go into a nursing home by choice and that most of them would prefer to stay in their own homes. The government has initiated a considerable increase in home care packages for a little bit of help in the home or for some minor alterations to the house such as a ramp or changes to the bathroom facilities to enable that person to stay in their home for many more years. I think that is very important.Last Tuesday I had the pleasure of attending the opening of extensions to the Woy Woy Community Nursing Home in Woy Woy on the Central Coast in my electorate. It was an opening that was officiated by the Minister for Aged Care, Mrs Bishop, and was attended by well over 100 community leaders and other interested people. This modern facility is a great asset to the Woy Woy peninsula area. It is not a wealthy area by any means. It is a working-class area made up of hardworking people. It is important that we give them the aged care accommodation they need and deserve, and this facility is just that.It is a very modern facility. It has some dementia specific accommodation, which, unfortunately, is a growing need in our community. As people live longer, because of the advances of medical science and the increased care we can provide to older Australians, the need to care for people with dementia in our society is growing. It is important that they have those facilities at the Woy Woy Community Nursing Home. I was involved with that particular dream before it became a reality at that nursing home some 15 years ago now. I remember attending one of the first meetings they had in the Woy Woy Meals on Wheels headquarters in 1983 when I was running as a candidate for a state seat. They managed to raise a huge amount of money from the community to make the Woy Woy Community Nursing Home a reality.I am very pleased that the federal government have been able to contribute through the minister, the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Veterans' Affairs over $1 million towards the hostel extensions that were opened last Tuesday by the minister. It just shows that the federal government are committed to ensuring that we have the types of aged care facilities that we need in the community. They are prepared to put money into the capital works that are needed to provide such facilities. We will continue to work to ensure that we have further aged care accommodation on the Central Coast as the need grows.428619:48:004286Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—We all know there is nothing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation loves more than to come in this House and to dump on a state Labor government over the regional forests agreement process. Generally, it is in response to a dorothy dixer from the member for Eden-Monaro or the member for Page or perhaps the member for Cowper. All of these members are generally embarrassed by the fact that their state colleagues supported the RFA proposal of the Carr government in the New South Wales parliament and it is the federal minister who, as a matter of principle, is opposing it, particularly in the lead-up to the state election in New South Wales on Saturday.What we never hear from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation is the enormous increase in investment that is currently taking place in New South Wales because of the new resource guarantees that are an integral part of that forest agreement. What the minister will not tell us is that since last November, when the New South Wales RFAs passed through the state parliament, $75 million has either been invested or offered for investment in the timber industry in New South Wales. This is for industry development that will add value to our timber products, create skilled jobs, develop new plantations and generally make our timber industry a sustainable one. The most important aspect about these jobs is that they are all rural jobs. That is the part of Australia that is hurting the most because of industrial contraction and the depopulation of country areas.The other thing this minister will not tell us, because of his obstinacy, his absolute refusal to support the RFA process in New South Wales, is that all forest industry structural adjustment plan funding, FISAP funding, has been suspended by the federal government. This means that contractors who agreed to exit the industry in some areas are not being paid. It means that people who wish to invest in the timber industry in New South Wales have to sit on their hands and wait—wait for this minister to decide what he is going to do, just wait at the minister's pleasure.So much of this development unfortunately is being jeopardised by this minister. It is all very well for this minister and some of his cronies to take this typical attitude and enjoy it—enjoy this attitude of playing politics. But, really, it is the timber workers I would like to talk about tonight. Having lived and worked alongside families who have relied on the timber industry for their livelihood, I have listened to their fear of change, listened to their fear of not having a job, of not having a future. It is for the sake of these families that it is so important that the RFAs of New South Wales be recognised by this minister. This is the strongest commitment he could make.As an example, I have seen first-hand in my own electorate of Paterson how timber families have benefited from this. The Dorney family from Bulahdelah is just such an example. This family owns two sawmills. For the past decade they have probably been the biggest employer in a small town. Obviously, over recent years, they have had many concerns because of the uncertainty in their industry. I am pleased to say that they have realised that the future is in value adding and they have invested in excess of $1 million of their own money in kiln drying and dressing. They have built an enormous enclosed workshop and they are bringing permanency to this town—the knowledge that a timber industry will be ongoing in Bulahdelah. Of course, their funding was matched by FISAP funding. Fortunately for them, this agreement was made years ago.I do not know how many times this story could be repeated throughout regional New South Wales. I do know that while this minister adopts this attitude it will not happen at all, because he is ensuring that no FISAP money is going to New South Wales. But it will be interesting after Saturday to see what his attitude is. If, as we all expect, the Carr government is returned in New South Wales, I have no doubt that he will suddenly realise, `I have to come to an agreement, I have to release these funds, I have to create jobs, because the next election will be a federal election.' (Time expired)428719:53:004287Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—Tonight I want to pay tribute to a great Australian. The fact that this great Australian comes from my home town of Ballarat is not the significant aspect, although we are incredibly proud of her. I refer to Robyn Maher, the Captain of the Opals basketball team. Robyn announced this afternoon that she would be retiring. I think it is worth reflecting on the track record of this great athlete, and in this regard I would like to thank Marion Taffe from The Courier in Ballarat, a great local paper. Marion sent me some information on the facts relating to Robyn's career. The Basketball Australia press release, which is headed `Aussie Great Retires', states:After an amazing career of 373 games for her country, including six world championships and three Olympics, Australian Goldmark Opals Captain Robyn Maher has decided it is time to retire.This great Australian has been Captain of Australia since 1989. She started playing basketball when she was 10. She was selected on the Ballarat combined under 14 side one year later. This great ambassador for Ballarat and for Australian sport is quoted in the press release:Bronze medals in Atlanta 1996 and the World Championships last year were fitting testimony that Australia is now World Class.Robyn Maher was formerly Robyn Gull, and the Gull family are a very highly respected Ballarat family. If Robyn had said in 1989 that within a few years the Australian women's basketball team would play for bronze medals in the Olympic Games and the World Championships, I suspect she would have been laughed out of town. This achievement is the mark of a sport that has reached extraordinary heights in a short period of time, in a country that was not a basketball country. Fortunately Australian basketball and Australian sport has had the likes of Robyn Maher, with her extraordinary professionalism, her dedication to the sport and, more particularly, to the young people who will follow her. As a result Australian women's basketball is now up there with the best in the world.I also pay tribute to Michelle Timms, a fellow veteran—although a 41-year-old person is hardly a veteran, but that is how she is referred to. Robyn and Michelle played key roles in the Opals victory over Brazil in the third place play off.Tom Maher is Robyn's husband and coach, and what an invidious position that put both of them in. But it is testimony to those two people that they were able to maintain their relationship at a world class level. Tom Maher is quite rightly extremely proud of Robyn. He is quoted as saying:She has always delivered 100 per cent and was the consummate winner.As a coach it was a privilege to work with arguably Australia's greatest ever player.As her husband I was obviously very proud of her achievements.The Gull family are incredibly proud of Robyn Maher. She is a Ballarat girl and she was always proud to say that she was a Ballarat girl. When she travelled overseas she went there formerly as a Ballarat girl. I would like to pay tribute to a great Australian. To Robyn Maher, a very big thank you from this House, from the sporting community in Australia and from that legion of people who hold you in the very highest of regard.Question resolved in the affirmative.19:58:004288House adjourned at 7.58 p.m.Notices4288The following notices were given:Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 and certain other Acts, and for related purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and for related purposes.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, and for other purposes.1999-03-24Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.Bills4289r7274289Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:004289Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to make a number of significant changes to payments to people who are caring for a disabled person in their home. The bill contains three schedules which I will very quickly and briefly go through.Schedule 1 introduces the new assessment of an adult's disability for entitlement to carer payment and allowance. The schedule also makes a number of significant changes to the carer payment. Schedule 2 proposes to replace the domiciliary nursing care benefit and the child disability allowance with a single new payment to be called the carer allowance. Schedule 3 provides for transitional arrangements relating to the carer payment and carer allowance measures introduced by schedules 1 and 2.Looking at this in a little more detail, schedule 1 of the legislation introduces a new method of assessing an adult's disability—the adult disability assessment tool. It extends qualification for carer payment to carers of disabled adults who have children under 16 where the carer provides care for both the adult and the child and where the child is either disabled or is under the age of six. It allows a person to qualify for carer payment for 63 days in a calendar year whilst the person being cared for is in hospital and the carer participates in that hospital care. It also extends qualification for carer payment bereavement payments on the death of a partner who was receiving a social security benefit, and it applies the full carer payment qualification requirements in cases where the care receivers are two or more disabled children. I also note that schedule 1, parts 2 to 4, include amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.Schedule 2, part 1, introduces from July of this year a new social security payment, a carer allowance. That replaces the child disability allowance—currently in the Family and Community Services portfolio—that is payable to carers of children with disabilities, and the domiciliary nursing care benefit—currently in the Health and Aged Care portfolio—that is payable to carers of adults who would be eligible for entry to a nursing home. The carer allowance represents a simpler and more consistent system of income supplement for carers of people with disabilities of all ages. Also, the assessment of entitlement of carer allowance will utilise two new tools: the child disability assessment tool for the assessment of a child's disability, and the adult disability assessment tool for the assessment of an adult's disability. Schedule 3 is where the transitional arrangements are listed.We generally support the beneficial measures of this bill. However, we do have some concerns that we are being asked to agree to very significant changes to the way in which a number of payments will be assessed before the final version of the adult disability assessment tool—a key part of that assessment—is available. If there are significant problems with the assessment tool, then we may in the future be forced to seek disallowance. The government, I believe, should provide the opposition and others interested in this particular legislation with the final version of the assessment tool as soon as possible so that we could avoid that occurring.We would also seek a commitment from the government to review the operation of the new schemes after they have been implemented to ensure that people who should be receiving the payments are not in fact missing out. Whilst we are happy to stand behind the beneficial measures of this bill, we are concerned about those aspects, as I have outlined, but there are a couple of other brief notes I would like to make as well.I know that there have already been changes to the method of assessment for child disability allowance and I would like to take this opportunity to mention one area that many members of my community have come to talk to me about. It is the cystic fibrosis area, which I am sure other members opposite are aware of, where the new assessment tool for child disability allowance is proving a little bit troublesome, and will in the future, for some people who have children that fall into that category.I have been told—and I would be happy to receive advice to the reverse—that, where there has been a question relating to child disability allowance qualification from this category of client, the overwhelming majority of those who appeal in this area in fact win the appeal. So you would wonder why there would be a need for them to be sidelined in the first place when they attempt to qualify for the disability.I know that there would be very few, if any, members of this parliament who would disagree with me when I say that people who have children suffering from any form of disability where a disability allowance is being paid should not have to face any future difficulty in going through the process of applying for and receiving a disability allowance payment. I am not for one moment suggesting that there would be any intent of any kind by anyone to do this, but, when we make changes to these assessment methods, we must be very cognisant of the fact that, if it is going to create any level of difficulty anywhere, that should be forecast, tested and eliminated. In some cases, where the legislation is fairly complicated, some unforeseen things can occur and action must be taken as quickly as possible to ensure that it does not happen again.Whilst we are talking about carers legislation, I would like to take this opportunity to mention my own personal concern, and I know the concern of a lot of people on all sides of the House, in relation particularly to the child disability allowance; that is, inequity can occur if we change assessment tools of measurement and do not predict carefully or compassionately enough some of the outcomes.Speakers on both sides of the House have recognised the ongoing role of carers in our community and commended them for it. I take this opportunity to join them in those comments. I know from the Carers Association and from my links with the community in my own electorate that the recognition that the community at large now pays to carers has been long in coming not only in a governmental or legislative sense but also in a societal sense. But it is finally happening.We need to recognise—and recompense where necessary—the overwhelming burden that some individuals and family groups find themselves with when they are caring for aged parents or disabled or chronically ill family members and children. Whilst a lot has been done and is continuing to be done in this area—and I commend both government and those in the community for all of the action that has been taken so far in this regard—I still think we need to talk about it more often.I am very pleased that a children's carers supportive group is now being provided by the Carers Association. That is another aspect of caring that has finally been recognised and is starting to receive attention—not only in monetary terms but also in support terms.We know that many children in families are, either directly or indirectly, caring for parents and siblings with illness, chronic illness or disability—an additional load. I cannot think of anything more difficult for an 11- or 12-year-old child than having to come home after school and do their homework—carry on with their own lifestyle—while caring for someone within their family who has a chronic illness or disability. We have to recognise, support and salute those who are doing that. Wherever we can we should ensure not only that the mechanisms around that family, which have been put there by government and by society, are strong and secure but also that the families and people concerned know that they exist.To conclude—my comments this morning are brief—in general terms, we are supportive of the beneficial aspects of this bill. We need to know how the adult disability assessment tool is going to operate after the changes connected to it; that we are not being asked to support something at this point when we are not sure of its implications. If that information is available during this debate, we would be very happy to hear it. It would make our position a lot clearer and a lot safer in terms of our own judgment of this piece of legislation.I salute those people in my electorate and in other areas of the community who are carrying out the caring role. I reiterate my comments—because I do not think we can say it enough—that governments, political parties, the community and society in general simply must continue to be asked to pay more attention, in any possible way that we can, be it monetary or otherwise, to the roles that people take in caring for others within their families and within their communities at large. Anything that any of us in this place can do to enhance and improve the lot of those people, I think we would all agree, we should do and encourage each other to do.10:11:004291Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 delivers on measures announced in the government's Staying at Home package of April 1998 and a related measure announced in the 1997-98 budget. The new and improved arrangements are scheduled for introduction on 1 July.I am very pleased that, under this bill, the eligibility criteria for the carer allowance for carers of adults will be liberalised to achieve a net increase of 14,000 recipients and that the carer allowance will not be subject to any income or assets test and also will be untaxed. Generally, this bill extends the benefit, including the bereavement payment, to all carers, and the minister and the government are to be congratulated on this progressive and enlightened initiative. The extended, more liberal arrangements are reflected in the budget impact, with a rise from an estimated $6.195 million this financial year to an estimated $33.571 million in 2001-02.It is estimated that there are more than two million carers in Australia. To varying degrees, these dedicated people look after older people and those with disabilities. The latest detailed statistics were compiled in 1993 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They showed that there were some 1.5 million people caring for another person in the same household and 728,000 caring for a person in another household. The ABS identified 541,000 of these as principal carers having the major responsibility of caring for another person.The dedication, selflessness, sacrifice and love of a carer can never be underestimated. Carers are that all too rare breed in our often cynical society who have given up so many of their own dreams and aspirations to tend to the frequently very demanding needs of the elderly and those with disabilities. They need and deserve proper and practical recognition and the provisions of this bill go a long way towards making their lives just that little bit better.Undeniably, the need for carers is going to increase—and increase at a considerable and accelerating rate. The number and proportion of the population aged more than 65 years is estimated to double over the next 60 years, from 11 per cent of the total population to 22 per cent. Obviously, a better, healthier lifestyle and advances in medicine will see people living longer and the number of people over the age of 80 will steadily increase. While old age in the future should be more active and more fulfilling, nevertheless even the most independent older person will require care to some degree or another.Running parallel to this reality is the other reality that older people rightfully want to stay, for as long as their general health permits, in their own homes with the comfort of familiar surroundings and established networks of family, friends and social activities. This should be encouraged at all levels, for it gives older people a very real sense of identity and independence, and that makes for a happier, healthier life. The days of shipping old people off to institutions simply because they have reached some arbitrary age are, hopefully, long gone.Those with disabilities, especially those with profound disabilities, need constant care and attention throughout their lives. Equally, they have a right to an independent life as far as is possible, respect as human beings and every opportunity to pursue their special individual interests. Again, if humanly possible, they should be allowed to live in their own homes and know they are part of a loving and concerned family.These emerging changes in the demographics of society and in our attitude to the care of older people and those with disabilities present all of us with an enormous challenge. Our response to these realities, of course, has to be made within the context of those other realities—a low birth rate and a comparatively low immigration intake.As I said earlier, there are an estimated two million carers now in Australia. Our ageing population and our policy of encouraging those requiring care to live at home whenever and wherever possible have enormous implications and policy challenges. In the past, when there were larger families and very different social attitudes, there was reliance upon family members such as maiden aunts, unmarried daughters and so on as the unpaid carer in the family.Predictably, today women are still shouldering most of the carer's burden. A 1995 study revealed that two-thirds of principal carers were women, with 33 per cent caring for spouses, 23 per cent caring for children and 30 per cent caring for parents. While men and women were fairly evenly represented as principal carers for spouses, the principal carers of children were almost entirely—at 93 per cent—women and almost three-quarters of principal carers of parents were daughters.While the author of the study, Mary Lindsay, did acknowledge that the emphasis on principal carers did tend to underestimate the role of male carers who contribute significantly to the care of parents, it was nevertheless true that care by men tended to be more intermittent and less intensive than that provided by the principal carer. Almost all the principal carers of a spouse or child lived in the same household as the recipients of care, but less than half—38 per cent—of the principal carers of a parent lived in the same household.This disproportionate reliance on women as carers does reflect the fact that, generally, women are better suited to this demanding task. However, it also reflects the fact that women are either less likely to be in the work force in the first place or more likely than, say, a spouse, brother or other male relative to give up jobs when a need in the family arises.I spoke earlier about the various emerging realities that provide the context for our ongoing policy considerations for carers, and to those I would add one more. In the future there is certain to be an increasing resistance among many women to sacrifice their own careers and personal ambitions to take care of an aged relative or even a child with disability. In acknowledging that resistance, it would be cruel and unfair to say that this is an uncaring attitude. Rather, it is the not unreasonable request by women that men, too, must make their own contribution and, if necessary, their own sacrifices if a relative is to be provided with the necessary care to remain at home.Therefore, we need to consider how work and other responsibilities can be shared between men and women who jointly have a responsibility for care. There needs to be recognition that equality means flexibility both by individuals and by government. This is reinforced by the fact that the study I referred to earlier also showed that female principal carers are younger than males and more likely to have dependent children. The number of women caring for children and also for elderly parents is expected to increase, especially with the later age of childbirth.Unless we can respond as a community to these emerging realities, the only other option is vastly increased spending on various institutions. While I—and I am sure everyone else in this room—have a great respect for these institutions, which do a magnificent job and generally provide a high standard of care, they will never replace the security and love of the family home.I believe it is far better to adopt the strategic approach of encouraging both men and women to share the carer's responsibilities equally. There needs to be encouragement of a partnership between carers and government agencies at all levels so that the best possible care can be provided while the carers' own lives and outside careers are not put on a more or less permanent hold. I want to congratulate the minister and the government in going a very long way to achieving these most important aims through this sound legislation.10:19:004293Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 proposes a number of changes to arrangements for carers. The most significant of these changes are the provision of a new adult disability assessment tool to determine eligibility for carer payment and replacement of the domiciliary nursing care benefit and the child disability allowance with a single new payment to be called the carer allowance.The changes are extensive, and I raise my concern that they are being implemented at a time when Centrelink's budget and staff numbers are under more pressure. Last year we saw the administrative debacle associated with the implementation of the common youth allowance. Carers must now be wondering how and by whom these changes to carers payments will be implemented when the government is set to cut a further 2,000 staff from Centrelink. The system is already overwhelmed, so further cuts in administrative resources are going to mean serious inconvenience for clients.The adult disability assessment tool will not be welcomed by carers who are already eligible for payments and who are continually dismayed and appalled at the number of times their disabled family member must be tested for eligibility for services. The tool will be another battle with bureaucracy they could do without. The new adult disability assessment tool is going to be more complex than the previous assessment process.We are being asked to pass this legislation before we have seen the final version of the adult disability assessment tool. That would be an act of faith I cannot say I am comfortable with. The government may argue that it will be a disallowable instrument, meaning that, if the parliament finds it unacceptable, it can strike it out. That is not satisfactory for two reasons: the first is the chaos it will cause to carers in the event that it is necessary to strike it out; the second is that there will probably be little time to assess its deficiencies between its promulgation and the last possible day for a disallowance motion.It would have been much better to have the final version presented with this bill so that both could be considered together. The tool attempts to establish the disabled person's degree of independence from any help, physical or verbal, however minor and for whatever reason. Concerns have already been raised that it will not adequately address episodic conditions.It also seems likely that it will not adequately assess the level of care required by a person with an intellectual disability. This is an issue with existing assessment procedures. Carers of intellectually disabled people have often said to me that they feel they would get more support if they were caring for someone who is physically disabled. The reason is that the assessment procedures seem to significantly underrate the amount of supervision that some intellectually disabled people require. That is something the government should consider before finalising the adult disability assessment tool. There are no questions which focus on daily living skills such as shopping, transport and managing menstrual cycles. The government must ensure that the tool will effectively and fairly assess the reality of caring for people with disabilities in these areas.Carers are also concerned that the adult disability assessment tool categories have an emphasis on age related disabilities such as dementia. The government will claim that the changes represent an enhancement of the program extending eligibility to carer payments to a larger group than currently receives them. I suspect that the so-called enhancement is financially motivated as a cheaper solution for the Commonwealth than having to subsidise nursing home beds. The tool's emphasis on age related conditions like dementia adds weight to that suspicion.I recently received some disturbing advice from a nonprofit organisation that are building a new nursing home in my electorate. They have been in the business of operating nursing homes for a very long time and know what they are doing. The home they are building is a modern, efficient design with a secure dementia unit. It will require minimum staffing. They told me that had they known what the Howard government's funding arrangements for nursing homes were going to be they would never have committed to the project. They believe that it will always run at a deficit and have to be subsidised by their other operations. If that is the general case, the present funding arrangements for nursing homes will not facilitate sufficient growth in the supply of nursing home beds. A growing gap between demand for nursing home beds and their availability will mean increasing dependence on carers.The government needs to remember that there is not a free market for carers. People do not do it for money, certainly not the kind of money the government provides. They do it because they love the people they care for. The payments they receive from the Commonwealth make it possible for them to provide that care which, in many cases, means giving up paid employment. Those carer payments are not payments for services rendered and were never intended to be. I have a real concern that the government is not moving far enough or fast enough in providing support services and respite for carers from their caring roles.The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill represents significant changes to the new carer payment in respect of caring for a disabled person in hospital for up to 63 days in addition to the 63 days respite period currently available. While these changes are a welcome improvement of the rules for carer payment, they raise the issue of respite availability. The government must recognise the difficulties facing carers when seeking respite from their caring role. I remind the government of a key initiative of the Liberal Party's family policy which promised a better deal for carers, but which it has failed to deliver. The experience of carers in my electorate is that 63 days a year respite from their caring role is a dream and nothing like a reality. It is simply not available to them.The problem is that the demand far outweighs the ability for the system to respond. This is particularly so in relation to high-level care for the disabled, and more specifically for dementia sufferers. There are current unmet needs in the community and carers are calling for an immediate increase of funding to support full-time carers with regular respite. Waiting lists are long and range from weeks to months, depending on the assessed level of need. This is the case both for those carers seeking respite services and any other services subsidised by HACC.Carers need respite services that are cost effective. While there are some commercial providers of care services, the costs are often beyond the means of most carers. They need those services to be acceptable to the service users. There needs to be more long day care to allow full-time carers to remain in, or have some access to, the paid work force. With a rapidly ageing population the disparity between needs and services has to be addressed.The HACC program's objective is to keep people in the community and out of nursing homes and hostels. Support services are a prerequisite for preventing or delaying institutionalisation. The Howard government's cuts to HACC have reduced its growth rate and resulted in the imposition of fees, in many cases on families with very low incomes. These amendments to carer payment and carer allowance are an important step but cannot be considered in isolation from the support necessary for carers to provide that care in the community. In real terms the government has not addressed HACC funding, especially not in the long term.During 1998 the Intellectual Disabilities Services Council in South Australia undertook a review of services aimed at providing family support to families with an intellectually disabled child. Although the final report has not been completed, the review has so far raised a number of important considerations for families, services and governments in planning for future services. It is worth mentioning some of them here.There is a lack of transport services. The average age of family carers, which is approximately 50 years, is increasing. That means the carer's capacity to provide care will diminish. Many older parents are extremely concerned about what will happen to their son or daughter in the future, given the lack of accommodation support services. It is an unacceptable situation where support is so lacking that an aged mother tells you she hopes her disabled late middle aged son dies before she does because she does not know who will care for him when she is gone.The median household income of families interviewed was $300 to $400 per week. That compares with the ABS median of slightly less than $1,000 a week. The number of parents who are sole carers is more than double that of the population in general. And 27 per cent of families with an intellectually disabled child have more than one person with a disability within the household.Family care-givers, who are the primary carers, experience a significantly higher rate of health related problems due, of course, to stress. Many families experience social isolation and said that their social life and personal energy level could be improved by better quality support services. They need the option of being able to return to the work force and to have some of their personal concerns addressed in order to increase their coping capacity. Families indicate that the biggest unmet need is for behaviour therapy, living skills training, assistance with the care or management of the person with an intellectual disability, and sibling training and support.There are significant waiting lists for host family respite, an interchange where each family is linked to another family that provides opportunities for their son or daughter to stay overnight regularly and participate in family activities and occasions. There are more host family arrangements through self-employed contractors than there are through accredited agencies such as Interchange and CARA. There are issues about the level of training for host carers and checking procedures to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults.The median level of support available to families who do have access to services is four to five hours a week. However, only 47 per cent of families with a son or daughter living at home use family support services provided in the disability sector. The age profile of the population of people with intellectual disability clearly indicates a significant increase in the number of adults continuing to live at home with families over the next decade. Planning for this increase is critical. Along with increasing the availability of respite services, my primary concern is the lack of long-term accommodation options for young people living in the family home or for older adults whose parents are themselves ageing.I would like to share with you some stories from my own electorate. They show the frustration and stress on families resulting from unmet needs for accommodation, respite and support services. The first example is a family with two children, a boy of 13 and a girl of 11. The daughter has a mild intellectual disability involving developmental delay in all areas of her life. She was diagnosed at seven months with eye problems and a delay in her intellectual development. She has worn glasses since she was seven months old and has just completed a three-year course of drugs to help prevent staring seizures. One of her parents' major goals is to develop and drive a program teaching her independent living skills. This is essential if she is to ever be able to live independently. The hardest and largest hurdle her parents have had to conquer is obtaining a negotiated curriculum plan for her. This is a not uncommon problem in South Australia where limited resources mean that many needy children who would benefit greatly from some special education assistance are classified as ineligible. In this case, the child is able to write very simple words and names. This has been the result of seven years of education.Behavioural management is a major problem for her parents. Understandably, she can be very erratic and antisocial. Her parents have a constant problem reinforcing good social behaviour because of her exposure to behavioural problems in the other students in her special class at school. One of the parents' major problems has been the frustration of not having a one-stop shop. On approaching any new service provider, they have had to go through the process of application, as well as another assessment to assess eligibility and the degree of their daughter's disabilities. She has had to sit through many tests to show someone new that she suffers a disability. She cannot explain her feelings and is constantly being subjected to the attention of professionals wanting to assess her abilities and being put through medical tests to determine the cause of her disability.The pressures on her brother are equally, if not more, intense when it comes to him coping with a sibling with a disability. There are many times when his life is disrupted because of the fact that his sister has disabilities emotionally, socially and physically.Carers face a life of enforced hardship and battles with bureaucracy. They always have to justify their demands on an overstretched support and respite system. They have to deal with constant changes to legislation and Centrelink staff often not able to keep up with the details. They have to fill out the same application and criteria form for the child disability allowance on a regular basis. It is a complicated and involved document. It is perhaps not as involved as the new adult disability assessment tool, but for most the disability does not get any better; it only deteriorates. I must say that the same frustration is shared by the doctors of the disabled who also have to participate in that process all too frequently.Carers face endless administrative frustrations, such as incorrect correspondence informing them that they have been cut off benefits. They are unable to speak to anyone experienced enough in their particular area. They may be given incorrect answers concerning taxable pensions. Departmental inefficiency means inquiries numbers are interstate. It is frustrating for any beneficiary not to be able to talk directly to their local Centrelink office. No matter what political persuasion the parents of children with a disability are, the changes this present government has initiated in the social security area have made the primary caregiving role harder and more stressful. People get sick of having to fight for so-called benefits for their child. Every step of the way is a fight for things that a normal child receives without question. The incidence of not being able to find emergency care for the person being cared for, when the carer falls ill and needs respite, is very high in most areas. Acronyms separate the professionals from the consumers.Carers go through not knowing about services or how to access them. They want to see action to make their lives and the lives of the people they care for have the quality they deserve. Carers sacrifice their own life opportunities, access to paid work, education, leisure, dignified retirement and meaningful relationships. Most full-time carers are tired, isolated, ill and poor. They have urgent unmet needs for support services.The second example I want to refer to are friends from my own electorate: a single parent with three daughters. Two have left home. The third remains at home to be cared for by her mother. She has a degenerative muscle disease, is confined to a wheelchair and needs assistance with most tasks. She is frail and has medical problems associated with her disability. She needs 20 hours of support per week but only asks for 10. She receives six. This is used to assist with bathing and toileting transfers. Her mother can never go away for the weekend unless the daughter is prepared to be in her wheelchair all night.Besides caring for her own daughter, her mother fostered a child with an intellectual disability and mental health problems for 14 years. Sadly, this year she had to relinquish care of her foster child because she felt she could no longer cope without more support. The competition for support hours is fierce and even assertive parents do not receive adequate care. The government expect the community to care for its own. How can they expect this when inadequate funding means little or no support?The third example from my own electorate is a family with a 4½-year-old son who suffers from epilepsy, hypotonia and cortical vision impairment. Their son is totally dependent on them to the extent that he requires constant care for all his bodily functions. The father eventually found it necessary to give up his job to help his wife care for their son. They know that they will eventually require a hoist to enable them to lift him and they are concerned that one suitable to their requirements will cost $1,000. He is currently fed Osmolite, a prepared formula, via a gastronomy button overnight through a tube with a pump. He requires various medications that are all administered using the tube. He is not mobile and must be pushed everywhere in a wheelchair, which currently needs replacing as it is becoming too small. He has to wait for a new one to be supplied by the Crippled Children's Association because its funding is stretched to the limit. In addition, he requires special exercise and visits to the physiotherapist, occupational therapist and dietitian on a regular basis. As he is continually having seizures he must be monitored at all times, day and night.This is the reality for carers and they despair of being able to make people understand the cost of disability both economically and otherwise on their families. I have spent a considerable amount of time in the last few months visiting local support services and trying to get an appreciation of the unmet needs just in my local area. It is hard to get an accurate view. People are assessed as eligible for respite services but they cannot find a place. Service providers are constantly shuffling resources and are too busy dealing with crises to get a total picture of the needs they are desperately trying to satisfy. The limited extension to carers' payments provided by this bill will do little to address the real needs for respite services and more accommodation for the adult disabled.10:38:004298Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I was very interested earlier to hear the contribution of the member for Dawson, Mrs De-Anne Kelly, who came up with some very thoughtful and well-researched areas about the number of people who would be affected by this legislation, the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . She clearly did deal with the bill and not with unrelated matters. I also congratulate the member for Kingston, Mr Cox, on his well-researched speech—although it was a little suspicious that this was just a cheap way to get out of providing nursing home beds in his electorate. He stated that our policy promised a better deal for carers. I think he would know, from his reading of the bill, that an extra 14,000 carers will be catered for, which is obviously a better deal for carers not catered for before.Interestingly, on Monday of this week the director of one of the largest—if not the largest—nursing home complexes came to my office and talked about the problems that they were having there. He said that every application that he had put in to the federal government—both Labor and Liberal—had been approved, indicating that he thought the government was fitting in with his plans for nursing homes in that area. He is in control of a very good complex down in Mount Gambier. Also, local government—along with two councils—was involved in the funding that he received for the last lot of 24 beds, each providing about $400,000, thus ensuring that the capital costs were taken care of.One of the greatest crosses people have to bear is when they are forced or choose or feel duty bound to be a carer for another person in our society who is usually, but not always, a relative. If they care for that person at home, it means that there is considerably less cost to the taxpayer than if that same person was institutionalised or hospitalised. It is only fitting that society, through our government, provides some assistance to that carer so that that disabled person can cope better in familiar surroundings and is not torn away from family and friends.One of the complaints that I have received in Barker is that the parents of children with disabilities seem fairly satisfied with the help and support they receive when the children are of school age, but that upon those disabled children reaching the age of 16 they quite dramatically lose most, if not all, of that support. This is often at a time when parents are ageing themselves and have other worries such as sick parents and the worry about what will happen to their disabled children when they themselves are no longer able to care for them.What I particularly like and support about this amendment bill is the combination of two existing payments—namely, the child disability allowance for carers of children up to 16 years of age and the domiciliary nursing care benefit—into a new social security payment that is simply called the carer allowance. Not only is this term `carer allowance' simpler and more easily understood by mere mortals like me; it almost certainly ensures that carers do not get lost in the system when their children reach the age of 16 or more. This is a great relief to the parents of disabled children nearing that age who are concerned about having to go through the system to assess qualifications and about dealing with different bureaucrats and departments.We are informed that this amendment bill will liberalise eligibility criteria for carers of adults so that there will be a net increase of some 14,000 recipients. This recognises the problems out there in the community and shows a caring attitude by our government for those people giving care to their family members.This amendment bill is also to be commended for recognising that disabled dependants come from all types of families and that this new carer allowance will not be subject to any income or assets test and will not be taxable. This is especially important to the families on the land in my electorate of Barker who are often cash poor and asset rich, which often stops them qualifying for social security in its many forms. My electorate is the third most rural seat in Australia, with 22 per cent of the work force in Barker being directly employed in primary industry, so quite a few of those extra 14,000 recipients will come from Barker. This can be warranted because if a dependant had to be looked after by the government full time, for example in a nursing home, it would cost the taxpayer more than the carer allowance and would not be as satisfactory as care in the home, amongst family and friends in familiar surroundings. Therefore we are catering for a group of people who volunteer their services for their loved ones.Often it is the case that an aged spouse is looking after a disabled spouse and they have made that choice because of the commitment they made many years ago to wed for life, in sickness and in health. Often in country areas it is also not convenient to use nursing homes or other care facilities because of their distance from the family home. Often the aged carer may have problems with driving long distances to see their disabled spouse or dependent child. And in the bush, of course, public transport is virtually non-existent, so that option is not available.This amendment bill also recognises that employment opportunities are greatly reduced or non-existent for the home carer. The carer allowance gives some recognition for that situation. It will allow the family to manage more easily and it will help pay for some of those extra costs that often occur as a result of care giving.My only concern about care giving at home is that those parents with children afflicted with attention deficit syndrome, or ADD, may still not qualify for this carer allowance. ADD qualifies as a disability under the federal Disability Discrimination Act but not under the Disability Services Act which provides the funding. In a speech I made in an adjournment debate in the House of Representatives on 15 February 1999, I raised this same concern that ADD, because it is not considered permanent, does not qualify for funding. As any parent of an ADD child will tell you, they have the same sorts of problems and needs as any other care-giver.I commend this bill to the House because it does show a willingness on our behalf to improve the system, the benefits and the outlook for home care-givers. I also commend this bill because it makes best use of our resources and taxpayers' dollars while still giving improved care for our disabled.10:46:004300Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I am pleased to speak in support of the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . It introduces the carer allowance and it makes changes to the carer payment. This legislation acknowledges the special people among us who give up their lives, career opportunities, travel and personal goals to stay at home and look after a loved family member or friend who has a disability or a chronic incurable illness. These unselfish people save the government millions of dollars in public health expenditure because they accept the responsibility of care, very often to their own personal detriment. These wonderful people are known to us as carers and we have all met quite a few of them as we travel around our electorates.Since 1983, successive Australian governments have been increasingly mindful of the great contribution made by carers, not only to their own families, but to the wider community. Since its election in 1996, the coalition has continued to provide support for carers including, amongst other things, allowing an increase in the amount of time they may take away from their caring role while still maintaining their eligibility as a carer.This bill gives effect to several improvements in government assistance to carers, including those measures announced by the government in April 1998 in the Staying at Home package and other measures announced in its 1997-98 budget. The measures in this bill will take effect on 1 July 1999 and by the year 2002 will increase the government's commitment to the support of carers from $6.195 million in 1998-99 to $33.571 million in 2002. These measures in this bill show that this government is fair dinkum about supporting carers.The carer payment is a means tested income support payment made to people who, because they provide full-time care, are unable to undertake full-time employment. By way of history, the necessity for financial support for carers was only recognised at government level in 1983 when the spouse carers pension was provided to husbands of a severely handicapped, aged or invalid pensioner or rehabilitation allowee who needed constant care and attention. The strict conditions that applied were that the care had to be provided by the husband in person and in the matrimonial home and the husband only received the spouse carers pension if he was ineligible for age, invalid or service pension.By 1988, this payment had been renamed the carers pension and it could be paid to a non-relative of the person in care and, while some strict requirements like the constant care and attention were removed, they were replaced by others regarding personal care and constant supervision. The requirement to live in the same home still applied. By 1991, provision had been extended to allow the carers pension to be payable to people caring for a severely handicapped person in receipt of any income support. It also allowed carers who live in neighbouring dwellings to be eligible for payment.It was only relatively recently in 1993 that the rules eased to allow carers to be still eligible for the payment yet cease care for 42 days in a calendar year, which was an improvement from the previous 28 days. Overseas travel, part-time study, employment or training for up to 10 hours a week was also allowed without the carer losing entitlement. The easing of eligibility conditions continued. By 1997, when the carers pension was renamed the carers payment, the number of hours the carer could spend in non-caring activities like employment or voluntary work, or their own education or training, was extended to 20 hours a week and the number of days the carer might temporarily cease the caring role was increased to 52. As a special initiative of the coalition government, eligibility for the carers payment was extended to carers of profoundly disabled children under 16 years of age and the number of non-caring days was again increased, to 63 days. By July 1998, there were 33,983 people receiving the carers payment, with total government outlays of $27 million.This legislation also provides for a new social security payment to be known as the carer allowance, which will combine two existing payments. One is the domiciliary nursing care benefit and the other is the child disability allowance. Eligibility for the domiciliary nursing care benefit is determined by the need for continuing nursing home care, without which the care recipient would have to reside in a nursing home. This definition has sometimes excluded those people who may require constant supervision and have high needs but who do not necessarily need to enter a home. This bill now recognises the different caring circumstances which may face carers as they look after people with high special needs.This important legislation will also provide for those carers who have been looking after their relatives who may be frail aged or disabled, or suffer from one of the dementias or from a chronic illness. This includes parents who may have intellectually impaired adult children. The bill increases this benefit from $58.30 to $75.60 per fortnight. In the 1997-98 program expenditure, there were 45,675 carers—some 46,124 recipients—at a cost of $72 million.The other payment which will be absorbed into this new carer allowance is the child disability allowance, which was created in December 1973 as the handicapped child's allowance. This allowance assists parents of severely handicapped children under the age of 16 who are at home and in need of constant care and attention on a permanent or long-term basis. This allowance is not taxable, nor was it ever subject to an income test. When it was renamed the child disability allowance in 1987, the distinction between `handicapped' and `severely handicapped' was removed. By January 1999, the rate of the child disability allowance had been increased to $75.60 per fortnight. In June 1998, there were over 101,377 children and students receiving the child disability allowance.It seems that the 1990s is the decade of awakening to the problems and personal sacrifices made by carers. Their role and contribution have been increasingly recognised across the wider community, and parliament has reflected this concern and has approved of the new measures to increase assistance to carers. This includes more funding for respite centres for carers, so that carers have a much needed opportunity to have a short break away from their charges, be it a few hours or a few weeks. As we now have some 540,000 people who are carers in our community, it is vital that they have this kind of support from governments.The successful Staying at Home package is seen as a real option in the community, but an option in which the role of the carer is still pivotal. This package provides a real option for older Australians to stay in their own homes and receive community care packages if they choose to do so. This bill will allow an additional 14,000 newly eligible people who care for adults to receive the new payment, at a cost of $92 million over four years. The eligibility of carers for children under 16 years of age, while it remains much the same, will be tightened. This legislation also creates a new assessment method, known as the adult disability assessment tool. However, this new assessment tool is currently being evaluated and submissions from special interest groups may modify its application in the future.There can be no doubt that this amendment bill provides only a minor recompense to the carer for their personal contribution and self-sacrifice in the care of their relative or friend. This is especially so when we consider the high level of care that is provided. I note that this legislation does not address the adequacy of the payments to the carer. As some have said to me, carers are the only pension recipients who have to actually work for their payment. I think that if we were to pay carers on contemporary hourly rates for the work they do, it would still go only a small way towards recompensing them for everything else that they give up.I am very mindful of a wonderful woman in my electorate, Mrs Karen Hair, of Heathcote, who has been the carer for her intellectually and physically handicapped disabled son for some 18 years. Karen and her husband Robert have had the support of Robert's parents in caring for their son Andrew and their three younger children. However, of recent times, Andrew's aggressive violent behaviour has added further stress and worry to this struggling family. The Hair family are really little Aussie battlers in every sense of that expression. Andrew has been known to just snap and physically hurt whoever is in his path. He frequently rages out of control and has knocked his mother to the ground and attacked his siblings; he hurls objects and smashes and pushes furniture around, seemingly determined to do as much damage as he can. While Andrew is almost 18 years old chronologically, his intellectual and adaptive skill has been assessed at around 19 months.The family's problem is that Andrew is becoming too strong and too much to handle, especially for his tiny mother who is around five feet tall. When Mrs Hair reluctantly came to the reality that Andrew and the rest of the children would be better off if Andrew went to a group home, she was stunned to realise that there were no places for Andrew. The group homes that are available were full and the waiting lists seemed interminable. Mrs Hair has reached the end of her tether. I read from the letter she has sent me so that the House may understand the weight under which this little mother is labouring. She says:We would never have been able to give Andrew a loving and caring home life if we hadn't had the support of my husband's parents. But they are now in their 70s and can no longer help us as they have done before.We get other support from Homecare in the mornings to dress, and feed Andrew and put him on the school bus. Andrew has had a lot of respite lately. Although we welcome the break, I feel very sad for Andrew as he gets trundled from one place to another. He gets very upset when he realises he is going into respite and feels very unsettled and insecure. If we could just get Andrew settled in a permanent group home he would be more content and I know he would adjust well. We would have him at home at weekends and spend quality time with him as a family. At the moment we live in fear of what he will do next. I haven't coped over the last few months and this has put an enormous strain on our marriage and our other three children as well. My husband travels a lot with work and is finding his job is suffering because he can't do it properly and can't leave me with the children unless I have outside help.Andrew often displays socially inappropriate behaviours and so we are restricted as to where we can take him and whether the other children can have friends over. It makes our home life far from normal. We love Andrew dearly but the strain of caring for him at home has become too much.This family has been in crisis for many years but, as their child gets older and stronger, he is creating a further stress which is threatening the future of the family.There is a severe lack of accommodation for people such as Andrew. I think it is time that state and federal governments reviewed the policy of allowing only group homes and not accommodation facilities which could take greater numbers of residents. For some decades, especially after the Richmond report, the New South Wales government has rejected institutions as a means of looking after people with special disabilities or a mental illness. For the sake of many families like Mrs Hair and families with adult children who have severe disabilities, I respectfully suggest that governments review this policy.No-one wants to return to the strict institutionalisation of the past, but there is another way. Just as many of our senior citizens sell their homes and enter purpose-built retirement centres which they purchase themselves, why could it not be possible for those families who can afford it to purchase a unit for their child in a purpose-built home centre? This home centre could have individual units owned by the families of the resident and, like the senior citizens, could have common dining rooms and activity rooms, and garden areas could also be incorporated.In this scenario the disabled resident would not just be an inmate, as they were in the old institutions, but would be the owner of the unit. The home centre could also have available a certain number of other places for those who could not afford to purchase the unit, but some recognition of the right of occupancy should be accorded to the resident. The units could be sold back to the managing organisation when the resident dies in a similar way that the units of retirees are sold back to their managing organisations for use by another retiree.There are many ageing parents of adult children who are exceptionally well off financially in the community and who would be grateful for the opportunity to provide secure accommodation and care for their child in their own declining years. Yet the present policy environment makes no provision for such people and these parents have to worry for the rest of their lives as to what will happen to their adult disabled children when they themselves die.If the government allowed these people to provide home centres for their adult disabled children, it would certainly allow the government to better provide for those people who do not have wealthy parents who could provide for them. It seems to me high time the problem of accommodation for these special people in our community was reviewed. The state cannot, and is not, properly supporting these people and their ageing parents. Indeed, it is the ageing parents who are labouring under an unfair burden of unending responsibility and worry right up to the time of their own death. There are many families who desperately need a review of this situation so that other supportive environments could be properly explored which would care for people like Andrew and help families like Mr and Mrs Hair.Having said that, I would also like very briefly to raise the situation of disabled children after they do leave their school environment. There seem to be very few post-school options for children with severe disabilities. I will be speaking on this subject at a further time because I do think it is something which we as a government have to address. This legislation certainly is an important measure in the government's support for carers and their families. I welcome and commend it to the House.10:59:004303Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—in reply—May I thank all of those members who have contributed to this quite extensive debate which has, I think, recognised the important role that carers play in our community. I have listened with interest to the reports of members about particular cases, about the particular difficulties that are confronted by families when they need to address the issues of caring for a loved one, a loved one with disabilities, or someone who is reaching the end of their life after being a much loved and integral part of the family. Appropriate care and facilities for carers and appropriate recognition of their needs are important.I would like to thank all of those members who have demonstrated their personal involvement and commitment to this cause through their contribution to this debate today and yesterday. The government is also committed to carers and recognises the important role they play in supporting and caring for children and adults with disabilities and elderly Australians. In each budget since coming to office the government has improved the benefits provided to carers and care recipients in terms of income support, respite and access to information. This includes the $280 million Staying at Home package announced in April 1998. An additional $98.5 million in financial assistance has been allocated to carers over the next four years.The government has provided additional resources for carer respite centres as well as more assistance for ageing carers. The government is committed to maintaining the single rate of all pensions including the carer payment at no less than 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. The partnered rate will also be maintained similarly.This bill contains six major measures aimed at improving assistance to carers, including the measures announced in the government's Staying at Home package in April 1998. The measures represent the final stage of a three-year program of reform which commenced in the 1996-97 budget.As part of this package of measures, a new social security payment known as carer allowance will be introduced from 1 July 1999. Carer allowance will combine two existing payments—the child disability allowance for carers of children up to 16 years, and the domiciliary nursing care benefit for carers of adults, 16 years of age or more. Carer allowance will be paid to people caring at home for a child with a disability, or an adult who has a disability or is frail aged or chronically ill. It is expected that introducing more liberal eligibility criteria for carer allowance for carers of adults will see a net increase of some 14,000 recipients. Provisions for the two payments that will form the carer allowance are to be broadly aligned, but there will still be separate adult and child components with their own eligibility conditions. Carer allowance will not be subject to any income or assets test and will not be taxable.A new basis for assessment of eligibility for a carer allowance for carers of adults, and for carer payment, will be introduced in the form of an adult disability assessment tool. The adult disability assessment tool will assess the functional ability of the care recipient on a more consistent basis than the previous domiciliary nursing care benefit arrangement. The adult disability assessment tool provides a simpler, more objective and comprehensive way of measuring functional ability. The current test of `constant care and attention' for carer payment purposes, and `nursing home level of care' for domiciliary nursing care benefit, are considered too subjective and lead to inconsistent decision making.The adult disability assessment tool will better measure the level of functional disability of a care recipient by considering areas such as cognition, behavioural problems and special care needs as well as issues of physical functioning and need for assistance in activities of daily living. The adult disability assessment tool requires the input of both the carer and the treating health professional to assess the extent of the care recipient's functional disability, therefore providing for a more comprehensive disability assessment.The introduction of the adult disability assessment tool is expected to result in more cost-effective medical assessments and less frequent medical interviews. The adult disability assessment tool was developed in consultation with, and is overwhelmingly supported by, a range of disability and carer support organisations and treating health professional and customer reference groups.I noted the comments of the member for Lilley that he has not had access to the disallowable instrument. I think the member for Lilley is overlooking the fact that the adult disability assessment tool was developed in consultation with almost 30 peak disability and carer organisations, including the Carers Association of Australia and ACROD. All these bodies have given their endorsement to the tool. The adult disability assessment tool was field tested on more than 5,500 customers. It was positively received and proven to be an effective measure of functional ability. The government will make the adult disability assessment tool available as soon as it is drafted. The government has nothing to hide in this matter and members of the opposition, or other members of the public who have an interest in this matter, will be able to assess it once the drafting is complete.The member for Cowan raised an issue about a constituent. From the information he provided, I think it was probably a taxation matter and, therefore, not one about which I can respond to, even though he did ask for a specific response in his summing up. If Mr Edwards is able to pass on the information to me, I will naturally be happy to provide it to the Assistant Treasurer or the Treasurer and seek a response to the issues that he has raised.The bill will extend qualification for carer payment to a new category of carers. When a person is caring for a mildly disabled adult who fails to qualify the carer for the carer payment, and that disabled adult has a child under 16 who requires care—being either disabled or under the age of six—the carer may qualify for carer payment for both the adult and the child. This measure addresses an important shortfall in current income support arrangements by allowing full-time carers access to carer payment in a situation where he or she provides care to an adult who has a child and the adult's disability alone does not qualify the carer for carer payment.The bill introduces provisions for carers to claim carer payment for up to 63 days in a calender year when the person being cared for is hospitalised and the carer participates in the hospital care. This measure also applies to the carer allowance. Currently a person cannot make a claim for carer payment or for child disability allowance or the domiciliary nursing care benefit while the care receiver is in hospital. A carer payment or child disability allowance recipient can only continue to receive the payment when the care receiver is hospitalised by using their respite care allowance of 63 days in a calender year. Under the new qualification provisions, a person will be able to claim and receive payment for 63 days of hospitalisation in a calender year, in addition to respite care days.The bill extends qualification for carer payment bereavement payments to carers whose partners were receiving a social security benefit. Under present arrangements, bereavement payments have only been available where the partner had been receiving a social security pension or certain other payments. This amendment will bring carer payment into line with other social security payments.The bill also provides for amendments to ensure that the general qualification conditions for carer payment that currently apply when a care receiver is a profoundly disabled child will also be applied to cases where the care receivers are two or more disabled children. These amendments remove an unintended loophole created by previous amendments and provide for consistent and fair treatment of carers of two or more disabled children and carers of a profoundly disabled child.This legislation advances the arrangements and the care that is available to support carers in the important work that they do in their community. I thank members for their contribution to the debate and commend the bill to the committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4306r704Billsr705Billsr706BillsBills4306Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.11:10:004306Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, when I was last speaking on the appropriation bills I was talking about the Prime Minister and his refusal to acknowledge Gerry Adams. Just as the Prime Minister's refusal to acknowledge and meet with Gerry Adams was an indication of his inward-looking philosophy, his inward-looking politics, and his outlook on life, so too is his attempt to produce a preamble to the Constitution. It really represents his view of life, a view of life that is very backward, inward-looking and based back in the fifties. It is an embarrassment to a number of Australians; as yet I am unable to find anyone who has had anything favourable to say about this preamble. The preamble is, you could say, the republic you have when you do not have a republic. It is his answer to the republic; it is his substitution for a new Constitution.There is no significance whatsoever in this preamble to our Constitution. It will not change anything. All it does is put forward John Howard's view of Australia and I must say I find it a very disrespectful view of Australia for a number of Australians. I do not see that we, in Australia, can use that to base our future on.What I would call a good preamble is the one that has been produced by Gareth Evans, which really sets out a vision for the future: proud of our diversity, loving our unique and ancient land, recognising indigenous Australians as the original occupants and custodians of our land, believing in freedom and equality, embracing democracy and the rule of law, and committing ourselves to our Constitution. That is what a preamble should be about: something with vision that says we are Australians, what Australia is about and where we are going.Mr Deputy Speaker, if this government continues along the track that it has followed to date, it is going to continue to create inequity within our society rather than to work to bring our community together. All the legislation that has been passed by this government since I have been a member of the House has been legislation aimed at creating divisiveness and a two- tiered society. It has been about looking after the mates of the members of the government and those in business at the expense of the workers, average Australians, the pensioners, the unemployed and all those people that are less fortunate. You have only to look at some of its legislation, like legislation that affects unfair dismissal. Who is that looking after? Business. What about the people that work? What about those workers who will lose the protection that that unfair dismissal legislation gave? What about youth wages? Once again the government is attacking the conditions and the wages of those people in a less powerful position within the community.Look at the Private Health Insurance Incentive Scheme: 30 per cent to people that are members of private health insurance; 30 per cent to people that previously were means tested, people that have a higher level of income, people that are able to afford insurance. It is not going to do anything towards making it easier for those people that cannot afford health insurance to access the hospital system. No, it is looking after those people that are in the most affluent position.Look at the changes that have taken place to the youth allowance, at how that has placed so many young people back in a situation where they are dependent on their parents; a situation where, rather than being independent, they are now deemed to be children. It is okay for them to vote. It is okay for them to be responsible for their actions in any crime that they may commit. In that sense they are adults; in that sense they are deemed to be solely responsible for their own acts. But when it comes to the youth allowance they are deemed to be dependent on their parents; when it comes to the youth wage they are not deemed to be an adult.Then we move to the GST, the government's answer to tax reform, tax reform that is going to help Australia, help Australians. Well, I ask which Australians it is going to help. How can it help the pensioners who are going to have to pay more for their food? How is it going to help the pensioners who have to pay GST on funeral expenses? How is it going to help those people that live in relocatable homes in parks and who will now have to pay a GST component in their rent? How is it going to help young families who are going to have to pay GST on their food, GST on their children's haircuts, GST on their children's books? How is it going to help all those average, everyday people? How is it going to help them to survive? How is that going to improve their quality of life? And the small businesses that are operating within the community will now become de facto tax collectors.All you have to do is look to the submissions that have been taken in relation to the GST to see that it is a failed concept. It will create hurt for very many people within the community. I urge the government to rethink their proposal to introduce a GST. I urge them to be repentant about the $19 million that they spent on advertising their GST, to be repentant and to apologise to the Australian people for using their taxation dollars to sell their election promise. And in doing that I might just remind the members of the government that 51 per cent of the people in Australia did not support their GST, and if you look to the Senate vote it was in excess of 60 per cent. So I hardly think the government can say they have got a mandate to introduce this horrendous, draconian tax on the people of Australia.I mentioned relocatable homes and the people that live in residential parks. In doing so I pointed out to the members of the government the problem and the hardship that their GST tax will cause those residents, who will now be forced to pay GST on their rent—GST to live in their own homes within these residential parks. I would also like to point out the contrast with what has happened in New South Wales, with the reforms that the Carr government has legislated in recognising that these people that have chosen this lifestyle option of living in residential parks deserve to have security, deserve to be able to predict what happens to their rent, deserve to be able to have their mail delivered to their house and deserve to be treated as first-class, not second-class, citizens. Never has there been a greater contrast than between what the Carr government is doing in New South Wales for people that live in residential parks and what this government is doing: one is creating security and one is creating insecurity.Whilst I am talking about the commitment of the Carr government as opposed to the commitment of the Howard government here in Canberra, I will turn to an issue of great importance within the Shortland electorate and that is the remediation and restoration of Lake Macquarie. For many years a succession of governments have refused to take any responsibility for the lake that is right in the centre of Shortland electorate and that divides the electorate of Shortland from the electorate of Charlton.Following a recently completed study and a task force of all the people involved in caring for the lake, a series of recommendations were developed and the Carr government committed $7.7 million to the lake over a three-year period. This is in stark contrast to the commitment that has come from the federal government. Lake Macquarie City Council has applied for a $194,000 grant for immediate work. In the recommendations of the task force, it was stated that there should be an ongoing commitment from the federal government to work together with both local and state government to ensure that this wonderful lake is healthy into the future and is restored to its past glories. Guess what? This federal government has not even been prepared to give that $194,000. To date, there has been no commitment of that $194,000: the Carr government, $7.7 million; the federal government, nothing.I would like to place on record my disgust and, whilst doing that, I ask the Howard government to respond to Lake Macquarie City Council's application, to give that $194,000 and to move away from its partisan politics. I might add that there were some very good applications to the Federation Fund by Lake Macquarie City Council looking at improving the environment in the lake area. But, once again, they were unsuccessful. I am sure that Lake Macquarie City Council's lack of success in those applications, once again, went to the core of the partisan politics that is played by the government here in this place.The one thing that the government did not acknowledge, though, is that Lake Macquarie Council is not under the control of the Labor Party. The government's friends are the majority party on the council and the government disappointed them as well as all the other people within the Lake Macquarie area.I will touch on Centrelink and some of the problems that the people of Shortland and the office in the Shortland electorate have been experiencing. The thing that concerns me more than anything is the undue pressure that is being placed on staff. The staff at Centrelink have been told that they are not allowed to talk to our office. The staff at Centrelink have been told very definitely that they are only allowed to release very specific information to my electorate office in Shortland. We rang and made a constituent inquiry of a family allowance department and were told that they were not allowed to release that information.A staff member at that office was threatened with dismissal if they attended a meeting that was held at my office last Saturday. This is disgusting. This is really intimidation of staff. Not only is it working against the interests of the constituents, the people that live in Shortland electorate; it is creating undue stress for those people that are working within that office. My understanding is that stress claims are up considerably and that a major occupational health and safety issue has been created by this government.This government needs to concentrate on delivering services. This government needs to think about the people in the community. This government needs to stop practising partisan politics and looking after its mates in big business. This government needs to deliver some outward looking policies rather than trying to take Australia back to the 1950s, back to a world that no longer exists. It needs to develop inclusive politics and move away from the politics of division and attack.11:26:004309Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—We are here today to debate a number of appropriation bills. As members would be aware, but those who are listening may not be, appropriation bills are an aspect of debate within the parliament which does not have any strict rules about relevance. This means that we can go across a wide range of topics while still being in tune with the debate, so I intend to go across a wide range of topics.I note the presence, on the other side of the chamber, of my friend the member for Sturt. The member for Sturt is a fine member of this House. But he has a problem. He is from South Australia. That is not generally a problem in itself, but he is also a member of the South Australian Liberal Party and, further, a member of, I think, the wet faction. I often think of the member for Sturt when I see the movie The Power of One, because he is there alone against many others. I note that he is nodding with some chagrin. I wish him all the best because I know he stands for a range of things and, although I may not always agree with him on them, I commend his dedication to his beliefs. Nonetheless, I do not wish his circumstances upon me. Being from Victoria, I have my own problems—and that is another story.In this debate on the appropriation bills I would like to go over a couple of issues. One is something that I have raised in the Main Committee previously in this term: the way the government has been running the main chamber of the House of Representatives since the election. A number of bills of significant national importance have been gagged. Several bills in relation to health and to employee relations have been gagged. We have also had a situation where the address-in-reply was gagged, which is another precedent but is not something we would like to see continued through parliaments into the future, because it does say something about what this chamber is supposed to be all about, which is to give members an opportunity to raise issues and to debate issues of national importance through to a conclusion and to ensure that all the various issues in the conduct of legislation get on the record. But that has not been the experience since the election.One of the other things that I would like to raise is the arguments that have occurred since the election. It happens on an ongoing basis that, once an election has occurred, we have an argument about winners and losers. The media reports of a party's win are very much like the reports of a tennis match or a football match where one side has won by a goal or a point. Reading the media reports, we might think a party had won by 1,000 points or 10 goals, because the whole nature of the way reports are written post the event is emphasising the winner versus the loser. We have the same situation in politics in this country, particularly in the context of the last election.A point made by speakers on this side on a number of occasions recently is that the Labor Party, on a two-party preferred basis, received in excess of 51 per cent of the vote and so the support of a majority of the Australian people of voting age who cast votes at that election. This is not the first time it has happened that a party has, in fact, gained a majority of the vote but not a majority of the seats. It has happened on several occasions. It happened once to the coalition in 1990 and it happened to the Labor Party on several occasions prior to that. But the interesting thing is that it has been something like 50.2 per cent, 50.1 per cent and 50.3 per cent of the vote. This is the first time a party has gained 51 per cent of a two-party preferred vote and not been elected to the treasury bench.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Even 52 per cent.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—As the member for Port Adelaide points out, it was quite considerably in excess of 51 per cent. That happens, but we have got to make a point about that. It relates to electoral boundaries which are drawn with the intention of fair play—no doubt about that from the independent Electoral Commissioner's point of view—but in that context it, in fact, produces a result where there is at least a reasonable argument that it is not going to accord with the majority view of the Australian people. If we take the point of the taxation legislation that this government are bringing forward in terms of the goods and services tax, they say and quite proudly claim—and I do not blame them; I guess if I were in their situation I would proudly claim it too—that they won the election; they received a majority of support in a majority of seats and on that basis they have a mandate.But I think we have got to be very clear on this. If the taxation legislation had been put to a referendum, it would have been defeated because very clearly a majority of people voted against it, particularly in the way they voted in terms of the upper house, the Senate, but also in terms of the lower house. So, if there had been a vote of the Australian people on the issue of this set of taxation legislation in the context of a referendum to measure national support, it would have been defeated. So to argue that it has majority public support is just foolish because in the context of the recent election some six months ago an actual position was taken. It was a vote taken and the position was clearly put and the Australian people clearly rejected it. That is an issue that this government has got to take into account. I think it is also something that they have to take into account in a range of other legislation that they are pursuing or have proposed since the election. On a range of those issues the claiming of a mandate is tenuous at best and, in some respects, quite disingenuous.But beyond that I would like to talk a little bit about my electorate, the electorate of Bruce in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and some of the issues that have been before us in that area in recent times. I am proud to have in the middle of my electorate AFL Park, Waverley. It is just across the road from my office, with the freeway between us. It is a fine football ground and the home of the St Kilda Saints and the Hawthorn Hawks. I have been known on occasions on Sundays to go in there and on Saturdays and Sundays I sometimes take my children and watch the Saints and the Hawks gloriously flog teams from Adelaide on occasions. I think that is something that even the member for Wannon and I can unite upon.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—It should happen more often.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—It should happen more often, and hopefully it will happen in September—for anybody from Victoria. But the issue of AFL Park, Waverley, raises a range of concerns about the operation of the AFL and the question of planning for the future in relation to the sporting public of Melbourne. I think that the Docklands is a fine site but the arguments about the Docklands versus AFL Park miss a key point about the organisation of the demographics of Melbourne, and that is that the demographic centre of Melbourne is actually approaching the south-eastern suburbs. It is getting out now past Hawthorn towards Waverley itself. The fact is, if you are looking at distances, at times for travelling and so on, and if you are looking at trying to actually engender a spirit within the young Victorian public that football is their game and that they should have the opportunity to go and see their heroes on a Sunday afternoon without taking a camel ride and a cut lunch, then there needs to be a ground in the south-eastern suburbs. There needs to be a ground at Waverley. To have a situation where that opportunity that exists is removed is a very unfortunate thing for football in Victoria. I hope that the issue of money, a key issue in the considerations of the AFL, will be thought through again although I have got grave doubts that that will be the case.The previous speaker, the member for Shortland, mentioned the Federation Fund. I am on record as having some problems with the Federation Fund in terms of its actual program and set-up. We recently had a number of applications to the Federation Fund from the local area for a number of projects that I think are quite worth while. The local committee has considered those issues and a range of applications have gone to the minister's office for consideration. I am hopeful that we will hear in the next few weeks as to the success of those applications. I think they will produce some well needed activities in the local area around projects that are worthy, although I would state that, as a project, I think it is very unfortunately organised in the spread of funding, it is quite arbitrary and it also misses the point about the question in local areas of really getting joint funding applications going that produce real infrastructure and development possibilities in communities. It would have made more sense for the government to look back to some of the programs followed by the Labor government previously—for example, the local capital works program, which the member for Port Adelaide would be well aware of.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Hear, hear!VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—This produced a range of very fine projects throughout regional and metropolitan Australia and provided local communities with very important and needed infrastructure and assets. I will leave it there today. I note the member for Batman is here to entertain us with some very important information regarding his portfolio area, and I look forward to listening to that. I commend the bills to the House.11:36:004311Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In opening, I would suggest to the member for Bruce that if he wants to see some real football he need only go to Olympic Park this Friday night to see Melbourne Storm, the leading Melbourne Rugby League team, actually perform. They are a credit to Melbourne and a credit to Rugby League. I suppose we could all learn, and I urge the member for Bruce to actually go and watch a decent game of football this Friday evening.In that context, we should also acknowledge that the entertainment and recreation industry is an area of growing employment. I am pleased to say that, when Labor was in government, in an endeavour to actually create training opportunities for young people we established a decent traineeship program that supported young people in the sporting and recreation industry.It is on that note today that I want to raise and place before the Main Committee what I regard as the failure of the government to develop meaningful training programs for people needing skill upgrades to re-enter the work force and the failure of the government to recognise the lack of training goals. I refer to the high level of unemployment in this country and the lack of proper courses and facilities to provide adequate training and job skills which I believe are essential to enable people to rejoin the work force. In this context, it is of overriding concern to the community.I therefore think it is appropriate that I also deal this morning with the failure of the Howard government to create jobs after three long years in government. I want to do some comparisons of Labor's last three years in government with the Howard government's first three years in government. Firstly, I go to the issue of total jobs growth. The Howard government has created 382,800 jobs as against 729,900 jobs created by Labor in its last three years. In essence, the Prime Minister's government has created only 52.4 per cent of the number of full-time jobs that we created in our last three years in government.I go to the question of full-time jobs. The Howard government's record is 169,700, or only 38.9 per cent of the total jobs that we created of 436,200 in our last three years in government. As far as I am concerned, a permanent part-time job is as good as a permanent full-time job, and the Howard government has created 213,100 jobs as against 293,700 jobs created by Labor, or only 72.6 per cent.Dealing with the question of unemployed people, after three years, February 1996 to February 1999, the government has reduced unemployment by only 67,600. It has reduced unemployment amongst males by 45,500 and amongst females by 22,100. We should also acknowledge that, during this period, a very significant number of Australians—both men and women, young, old and middle aged—have given up any hope of finding a job. That is largely reflected in the participation rate, which has dropped by 0.7 per cent since the Howard government was elected in March 1996. That is a very telling point—the fact that the participation rate has fallen by over one half of one per cent—and it represents a very significant statement that, out there in the labour market, a lot of people have given up any hope of finding a job.I raise those issues because we on this side of the House, like most Australians, welcome the recent reduction in the overall unemployment figures. But they have to be placed in the context of what progress has been made, and the truth of the matter is that we have made very little progress, despite the suggestion in the ABS figures that we are now under eight per cent. Well, there is a huge drop in the participation rate of over half of one per cent—actually, 0.7 per cent—which, in no small way, has contributed to a seeming improvement in the figures. I suggest that the problem, unfortunately, is that we have made very little impact on reducing unemployment. I refer to the fact that, after three years, this government has been able to reduce unemployment by only 67,600. Frankly, the Australian community expects more—the employment situation should have improved by more than a reduction of just on 65,000 in three years.I also have major concerns about the plight of the long-term unemployed. They are the forgotten masses out in the suburbs and the regions of rural Australia who are really doing it tough at the moment; they are the ones who are not being assisted by the Job Network. One of my major outstanding criticisms of the Job Network is that, despite the very significant payments that are made available by the government to the Job Network providers for the most disadvantaged in the community, there is no accountability on the part of network providers and no obligation on them to invest some of that money—for example, by giving job subsidies to employers to assist in getting the long-term unemployed back to work, by paying for them to get a licence to be able to operate mechanical equipment or by providing a training program to assist them with improving their literacy or numeracy.A big issue after you have been unemployed for a very significant period and you do not have a lot of money in your pocket is the cost of going to and from a job interview and meeting the government's requirements for the work test. It imposes a significant financial burden on the long-term unemployed and their household. I believe that, in the review of the next tender round, this government has to put pressure on the network providers to spend some of that money in order to be accountable with respect to the needs of the long-term unemployed. Until the problems of this group are adequately addressed, and until the proper training programs are devised to meet their needs, we cannot feel confident in any way that we are finally coming to grips with a major problem in our unemployment mix.While there is concern in the community for all long-term unemployed, you also must understand that the largest groupings are amongst the young and the over-45s, especially blue-collar males. They are the ones, as we have opened the Australian economy up—and there is no turning back—who have suffered most, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, would know from your own state of Tasmania, when it comes to being dislocated from jobs that they performed well. They were dedicated workers but, for a variety of reasons—changes in tariffs and technology—they have been made redundant. We owe those very decent Australians assistance through the Job Network and targeted programs to give them and their families a better chance in life.The government have spelt out their policies on denying young unemployed the rights of benefits unless they sign up for literacy and numeracy tests and training. But they do not tell us—and this is a very serious question—how or where this training will take place, and I think the Australian community is entitled to an answer to that question. Who is going to provide all the training? What has happened to the $143 million in contracts the government awarded to private sector organisations for the provision of 36,000 places in literacy and numeracy courses for the unemployed—where is it? They have not been filled. The work test alone, the question of the reciprocal obligation—or the mutual obligation as this government calls it—is not enough. In essence, what policies is the government putting in place to deal with this issue? It goes to accountability—accountability in the Job Network and accountability with respect to the provision of and access to literacy and numeracy places.From what we understand on this side of the House, there has been a drastic dearth of takers for the courses offered through these private agencies. Yet there are tens of thousands of young people out of work and we know that many of them desperately need this sort of training before they can get a chance to participate in the work force. It is a basic requirement to get back into the work force.Why can't the government get young people into these programs? That question has to be answered. Is it because the programs do not actually achieve their goals? Is it because the training offered is inadequate and provides no real skills? Is it simply a coordination problem and a failure to get the information into the right hands? It is not about playing politics on the issue today; it is a question of trying to get answers to this very serious issue. The places were supposedly provided and yet we are not filling them. You know that, Mr Deputy Speaker, from what is happening in your own state.Under the terms of its contracts with the 69 private sector providers the government guaranteed payment for 6,000 places, but as reported in the newspapers recently they only had 108 applicants. In essence, this means that the government is obliged to pay out $14 million as a result of its guarantee. Unless the government can fill these places by the end of the financial year we will be put in the ridiculous position of each of the 108 applicants costing the taxpayers about $130,000 per place for the training that is so vital to getting them back to work.Perhaps this is the reason why the government has come up with its literacy and numeracy scheme for young people, a scheme that we now know will be expanded to take in all unemployment benefit recipients. While many of us are aware of the problems of young job seekers and the problems that are put in their paths by an uncaring government, we also have an equally soul destroying situation with workers aged over 45. As the House knows, these people are extremely vulnerable and many of them are stuck in a rut in rural and regional Australia. The end result of long-term unemployment is a loss of pride, position, status and a lifetime of loyalty and commitment, and they are a real problem in the family household.According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics there are also more than 1.2 million Australians wanting to work and yet they are not counted among the unemployed. That goes in tandem with the fact that I raised at the outset. The actual reduction in unemployment, when it comes to the overall percentage, not only has been assisted by the fact that there are 1.2 million Australians who want to work; it also largely reflects a drop in the participation rate over the last three years of 0.7 per cent. The ABS found that many people have just given up. They are discouraged because of the lack of suitable jobs or because they lack the skills needed or were considered too old by employers.I would argue that the Australian community has to rethink its attitude to middle-aged people. Those people want to work. Our commitment as a community must be to provide training opportunities for those people and reskill them. It also means that employers, and especially personnel officers when they do job interviews, need to change what has become the Australian belief that people are too old, that they are really past it, and that they are not entitled to a second go in life despite a long history in the work force. It could have been with the railways, a clothing factory, a steel factory, an automotive factory, or it could have been on the local council. A lot of those jobs have gone.Those people want to work. We, as a community, have to equip them for work through government programs. That can be done by using a combination of programs provided by government, the community sector and the private sector. It also means that, if we do it as a community, if we invest in getting those people equipped to come back to work, then the whole community will have to rethink its attitude. Unfortunately, that attitude in respect of giving middle-aged people another chance to get back into the job market is a negative attitude at the moment.I believe that the plight of this growing group is largely overlooked by the government, unfortunately. It is referred to in the letters of December last year of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to the Prime Minister, which we made available to the community. He basically says, `Look, if people think there is a middle-aged unemployment problem if we are pressured, then we will rebadge a couple of programs to make it look as if we are doing something.' That is not a real commitment. It is a major problem. You know it, Mr Deputy Speaker, and people on the other side of the House from regional Australia know it. Go to places such as Wide Bay in Queensland. Just walk around there and you will see a huge regional unemployment problem and a lot of middle-aged people crying out for help.I simply urge the government today, in thinking about the Job Network, to think about the most disadvantaged, rejig the tender round and make sure that we go out of our way to assist the middle-aged unemployed. They all have contributions to make to the nation as a whole and to their local communities. More importantly, none will be able to make a contribution equal to those of us who are fortunate enough to have a job to the wellbeing and future of their families, to the next generation and their children. Unfortunately, they are denied decent training opportunities. A negative attitude in a lot of employers' minds is not only denying these people a second chance in life but also condemning their families more often than not to no real opportunity in life, pulling down regional Australia, both suburban and rural Australia. It is basically pulling down Australia because we are losing wonderful economic capacity to take Australia forward.I think we have to front up to this problem. Let us try and crank up job growth in Australia but also make sure that the jobs that do come through do not just go to the households fortunate enough to have a job at the moment. Let us try and spread those jobs to the households that just have not been able to access the job market. The problem is that, the way the labour market performs, it tends to reinforce itself. All the evidence suggests that, as we crank up job growth, unfortunately the jobs tend to go to the households with a job in them already because they are attached to and participating in the labour market. We have to bring into the labour market in future those households and suburbs and areas of rural Australia that are missing out on the benefits of job growth to date and require some government assistance.I, therefore, indicate that the despair felt by those young and old alike is compounded by their knowledge that there are very few programs to assist them. There are no, or very few, structured training programs and they have a government that continues to cut back on services and resources while attempting to bludgeon people into ill-conceived literacy and numeracy programs that have yet to see the light of day. I do not raise these issues as a person who is opposed to literacy and numeracy programs. I have campaigned in support of them not just for the unemployed but also in workplaces where people are fortunate enough to have a job, because improving literacy and numeracy is a benefit not only in getting back to work, but also in seeking to develop a career opportunity. When you come in on the ground floor, those skills then help you to assume tasks and skills of greater benefit to the employer and of greater benefit to yourself, so people develop a long-term career opportunity in a given workplace or a given industry.I then indicate in that context that there are also some weaknesses with the New Apprenticeships scheme. Yes, they have lifted the number of what I still describe as traineeships, and what the government calls apprenticeships, in the non-traditional areas of training. I welcome the special benefits in that context amongst the 20- to 24-year-olds. I would also point out that in the traditional apprenticeship areas—the building, metal and electrical trades—around Australia where the department of employment has now established that we have major skill shortages, we are actually going backwards when it comes to training and encouraging people to pursue apprenticeships. There is nothing wrong with being a bricklayer, an electrician, a welder or a boilermaker.I would also suggest that, on that basis, we have to try and change the attitudes of parents, vocational education teachers and the community at large. There is nothing wrong, for example, with working in the manufacturing industry. We should be doing everything possible to encourage not just the new traineeships and apprenticeships but also traditional apprenticeships in what we regard as the traditional trades.Mr Deputy Speaker, I then go to the issue of work for the dole. I want to clearly say that, from the Labor Party's point of view, reciprocal obligation is labour at work. The Labor Party does not believe in handouts. It believes in people fronting up to their responsibilities. I urge the government to think more about training that is relevant to a job. All too often some of these programs are light on training but heavy on discipline. I accept the issue of discipline—fronting up to your responsibilities—but I also regard it as being a responsibility of government to participate in a two-way street, with discipline and responsibility but also decent training relevant to a job in a local community. I think the area consultative committees in regional Australia have got to have greater involvement in trying to point these programs into areas that are relevant to the growing job market in that community.We still have a major problem on the employment front. We have made some progress. The figures are assisted by a reduction in the participation rate. But if we want to get to the heart of it, which is the long-term unemployed and the fall-off in the traditional trades, the budget is coming up and the second tender round for the Job Network is coming up. Here is a chance to pick up where the weaknesses are and to actually build on our success to date. It has been a success by successive governments, Labor and Liberal, with respect to some of these issues. Learn from the mistakes on both sides. Fix the weaknesses that are emerging and clearly evident to the community. Thank you.11:56:004316Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I must say I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on the appropriation bills. Owing to my job as Deputy Speaker I very rarely get to speak on anything and so it is very pleasing—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—With good reason.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—You may think so. Before he leaves I would just like to say to the member for Batman that I was very interested to hear what he was saying in the conclusion to his contribution. I do applaud him for making the points that we should be avoiding handouts and that the training should be relevant to actually getting jobs. I think he is talking great good sense there. I do not always agree with him but I always take the opportunity, if I believe anybody—government or opposition—is doing the right thing, to be fair enough and fair dinkum enough to acknowledge that.That leads me into something else. We have a large number of new members in the parliament at the moment, most of them of course on the opposition side.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Not enough.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—You may think so. I think you have far too many. But, as I do spend so much time in the Speaker's chair, I have the opportunity of listening to a great many contributions from both sides. One thing that has struck me—and I want to do this in a spirit of goodwill; I am not going to name any particular member; I do not seek to embarrass any—is that a significant number of the new members, most of them on the opposition side, tend not to have a spirit of goodwill about them.I think the essential thing about this parliament is that everybody who has a seat here, either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, is concerned for the good of Australia. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a large number of school groups who come from my electorate to visit Parliament House. I go out of my way to give them the special Garry Nehl tour. I bash their ears about democracy. In fact, if they are coming down when the House is not sitting, if I possibly can I journey down so I can be with them.One of the things I make a point of saying to every school group that comes is that while we may disagree and have different policies and beliefs from those on the other side of politics, what must be acknowledged is that every member of this place is here for the good of Australia. While I may think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you are misguided and you may think I am wrong, you and I both will acknowledge that everybody here is here to do their best for Australia and that is the way it should be.But I detect in the contributions of some of the newer members and—God help me, I will probably be in great trouble for this—particularly the new women members on the other side that there is a lack of goodwill, a lack of understanding that everybody is here to try and help Australia. There is even a degree of nastiness, viciousness even. I want to say to them, and to anybody on either side of the House who does not understand that we are all here to help Australia, that there is good and bad in all things.I just praised the member for Batman for his contribution. Over the years that I have been here I have always taken the opportunity, where appropriate, to praise members on the other side. One that comes immediately to mind is the honourable member for Bowman, who was Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the last Labor government. While he was minister I praised him in this House and in my electorate, and in fact since he left the House and before he came back at the last election. I have done that in this place and I have done it in my electorate in the presence of the present minister, Bruce Scott.I say to everybody that you should be prepared to acknowledge people doing a good job. Con Sciacca did a fantastic job as Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Bruce Scott is doing a fantastic job, with the same feeling and the same application of goodwill. This is what we are here for. While it is okay to attack each other's policies, I think it is very important that all members should be aware that we are here to play the ball, not the man, and we should always be prepared to try and be positive.I would like to mention a few things. As I said, I will name nobody; I seek not to embarrass any particular member. But we have had instances where, time and time again, particularly the new members—aided and abetted, I think, by the members for Hotham and Batman—make the most outrageous statements about the government policy and the government activities. One of the most constant ones is that we are seeking, so they say, to cut wages. If you stop and think about that with the slightest degree of logic, what government in its right mind would seek to cut wages? You would be out on your ear at the first opportunity. Yet it is that very negative approach that comes across again and again.One member claimed that the government had systematically chopped, hacked and slashed Centrelink staff levels. But I would like to say to the committee and to the community that we announced only in January another 100 Centrelink outreach agencies and services being established right around Australia. In my electorate I am very fortunate: we have Centrelink services at the Dorrigo Multipurpose Service; we have a Woolgoolga agency, which the Minister for Community Services, Warren Truss, will be opening early next month; and we have one at Bellingen. These are of tremendous benefit to the electors of Australia. I am lucky, I have got three. I would like more because it provides the service on the doorstep of the people that need it. That is a good step, a great development.I will use my own electorate to give an example—and I am sure it is the same in every other electorate—of somebody living in, say, Bellingen or Dorrigo and having to go to the Centrelink office at Coffs Harbour. Very often, people who are in this situation have very few assets, very little money—they are on a very low income—and there is no public transport and many do not have cars. How on earth do they effectively travel that distance to do a basic part of their living if they are on benefits of any kind? So I applaud the government because what we are doing is providing service on the spot for the voters and the constituents of Australia. I think that is very important. We are spending over $5 million on that over three years and there has been a very positive response to it.Another thing we have been charged with, as I said, is cutting wages. And there is the continuing onslaught about the new tax system. It is a fair target. But if we are going to attack a major initiative which is designed to benefit all Australians, I think we should do it on the basis of logic and on the basis of a fair go.There are constant calls to say that we are going to make the pensioners worse off. People should realise that Treasury has estimated a 1.9 per cent increase in costs across the board. Everybody, even blind Freddy, knows that Treasury estimates can be wrong. They can be wrong if you have a Labor government; they can be wrong if you have a coalition government. But, at this point, that is the basic data on which we have to work. So we expect in total sincerity that that increase across the board will be 1.9 per cent.To more than compensate for that, we are increasing welfare payments, unemployment benefits and pensions by four per cent right at the start on 1 July 2000. That is a four per cent increase in advance. This is the very first time that pensions of any kind or payments of any kind have been increased in advance of any price rises and anybody of goodwill would agree that is a good thing to do.On the other side of it, people say that it will be higher than the 1.9 and they will be disadvantaged and will miss out. Again, this is wrong because we have had pensions on the CPI, as they have been traditionally. Of course, in many cases, this has meant that the pensions have not kept up with the reality of costs. We have changed the CPI basket to benefit pensioners and others. We have removed mortgages from the CPI basket because, let us face it, if you are on the age pension, the likelihood of your having a mortgage is most remote and the reality is that you either own your own home or you are renting and presumably receiving rent assistance as well. It was wrong to have that there, so we have changed the basket. More importantly, we have made it law that pensions will be increased on the basis of equalling 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings or the CPI, whichever is the higher.As far as the introduction of the new system is concerned, we have a safety net there and the Prime Minister and Mr Costello, the Treasurer, both spoke about this on Tuesday. I am very pleased that they did because it has been concerning me that you have these untruths about what is going to happen. We already have that safety net where, whatever the increase in the CPI or the costs, there will be a 1.5 per cent buffer above that every time. This happens twice a year in March and September.So, the reality is that the safety net is already there and people on welfare payments or support payments are well and truly covered. Even if it were to blow out beyond the wildest expectations, it would still rise and still be a buffer beyond that. I appeal to those on all sides to exercise moderation and to be fair.The opposition's focus on the GST is rather like Britain with its mad cow disease. They have got mad tax disease and it is affecting their judgment because they are consumed with a passionate aim to attack the government. That is the prerogative of the opposition, but I think this parliament and this wonderful nation of ours would be better off if every member of this place exercised a little more moderation and a little more fairness.I raise a couple of items of significance to my electorate. One in particular is the closure of the Midco Abattoir in Macksville last year. Estimates vary, but there have probably been about 300 jobs lost. For a small community like the Nambucca Valley, which includes the towns of Nambucca Heads, Macksville and Bowraville, it is a very major blow to the local economy.The mid-North Coast, of which Cowper is part, has an unemployment rate of around 13 per cent, much higher than the national average. It is coming down. It has come down progressively since we have had a change of government. But it is still far too high and most people do not realise that, in Cowper and the whole of the North Coast of New South Wales, unemployment is a growth industry. Some people find that concept difficult to comprehend, but the reality is that we import unemployment. If you have to be unemployed, would you not rather be in Coffs Harbour with the beaches and the equable climate? After all, CSIRO describes my electorate as having the optimum climate for the human animal.So you have cheap fruit and vegetables, and a marvellous fish co-op where seafoods are quite inexpensive. The reality is that if you have to be on the dole you would rather be on the mid-North Coast than in Broken Hill or Griffith or Geelong. Anybody of a fair mind will agree with that. So we import a lot of unemployment. And that unemployment brings an enormous amount of money into the local economy and creates jobs—it really does—but people do not tend to associate with that.The other thing is that we focus on unemployment. If nationally we have got a seven per cent unemployment rate, that means we have a 93 per cent employment rate. While we always concentrate on unemployment figures, there is no announcement, no real consideration of the number of jobs that have been created. In my electorate, and indeed up and down the whole of the North Coast—even, I will say, as I practise what I preach, in the period of the Labor government—the growth in jobs in that area has been quite significant.We should be aware that unemployment is still an enormous problem. As far as the Nambucca Valley is concerned, following the closure of Midco, we desperately need some new industries, a new incentive, a shot in the arm which will enable that unemployment to be relieved. Such a loss of jobs can be disastrous for any community.I want to talk also about some constituents. I would be the first to agree that the Howard-Fischer government is doing an excellent job. We have got shortcomings; there are areas where we still need to do more. I would just like to highlight one of those, which is to do with somebody in an old persons home. I will read a little bit of a letter from Mrs Margaret Thain regarding her mother:My mother had lived on her own for twelve years after my father died only receiving the aged pension. She developed dementia and gradually got worse to the stage where we were advised she could no further live on her own.We arranged for support systems through welfare, which she refused—and that happens more often than people realise, that you get an older person, particularly with dementia, who does not want to accept help—so we had no other option but to bring her to live with us. After fifteen months we could not manage . . . Those of us who have been listening to the earlier debate about carers are very much aware of the difficulties created, particularly for elderly carers of much more elderly parents. It is very difficult for them. Mrs Thain's letter continues:. . . so arrangements were made to get her into the local aged hostel. Her house had deteriorated over the period since my father died and would have cost too much to fix it up to enable us to rent it so we had no option but to sell.Soon as her assets were declared her pension was stopped. After ten weeks of negotiating with Centrelink where we spoke with people in Tasmania, Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and finally Coffs Harbour . . . This is another of the things people do not realise: the service that is provided is the important thing, not where it is provided from, and this is spreading the employment around. Certainly in Coffs Harbour we have a very useful telecall centre for Centrelink, and I understand we are getting some more places there. The letter goes on:. . . she was given a concession card and a thirty five dollar pension.My mother entered the hostel in October 1998 and because of her assets she was assessed to pay fifty thousand dollars bond and a fortnightly rent of four hundred & five dollars seventy three cents. What concerns us is the fact that the bond is assessed as assets and she is being deemed as earning 4.5% per year on the bond where in fact she is earning nothing. This effects the level of pension she is paid.The Thains believe that if that were not the case, she would receive a pension of $174.05, not $35. So I just want to highlight, for the benefit of the government, that this is an area of anomaly that I believe we should do something about.I am concerned too about the reports of union disruption of the Work for the Dole program. This has been one of the most successful and popular initiatives of the Howard-Fischer government, and it has certainly been very effective in my electorate of Cowper.There was a report in the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, 10 March that planning by training companies for a further four schemes had been abandoned because union objections were likely. Just in Cowper, projects threatened included a 12-month program for 240 people in the Coffs Harbour-Dorrigo area. I know everybody is not enthusiastic about work for the dole—that is fine—but in my area it is working very well. The young people who are involved in it are receiving very many benefits.I would also like to talk about the rural transaction centres, because, again, this is another significant initiative. I would like to have them in places like South West Rocks, Crescent Head, Bowraville and other areas of the Cowper electorate. We need to bring the services of government in a convenient, easy way to the people. The old word used to be `decentralisation', and that is effectively what we are doing. I believe our government deserves a great deal of praise for this and I am delighted that we are getting Centrelink agencies and rural transaction centres so that the services of government are freely and equally available to all—not just for those with a public transport system as in the cities and not just to those with cars. Everybody in Australia has the right to be treated equally, and everybody has the right to expect equal access to the services of government. That way we can bring government closer to the people.12:16:004320Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I thank the honourable member for his advice to new members. I certainly hope that I am never able to be accused of viciousness in my criticism of government policies. One of the things that is frequently asked of new members is, `How are you settling in?' One of the frustrations that I often describe to people is the fact that we sit on the opposition benches when decisions are made that we have heartfelt and sincere objections to, and the strength and logic of our arguments and our convictions are not taken into account and, of course, we lose on the basis of the numbers. That is the nature of Australian democracy and it is something to be treasured and valued—AE4NEHLMr Nehl—But you will have wins—83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK—Let us hope so. I look forward to those wins and I believe that we have had some of them already. They are not frequently on the actual voting in the House though.I wanted to address my comments today to the issue of public accountability and government contracting. Outsourcing, or contracting out, is a growing trend in the provision of services in Australia, and I think that it raises a number of problems in terms of the efficient delivery of services and the contracted agencies' accountability to the people who are paying the bills—who are, of course, the taxpayers of Australia.I think that one of the dichotomies that is occasionally set up is that increased efficiency will inevitably lead to decreased accountability. In fact, that is often welcomed because the argument is that with less accountability comes less red tape. It means that services can be delivered more quickly without the interference of the public servants who delivered those services in the past. Unfortunately, I do not believe that there is, inevitably, increased efficiency with decreased accountability and I think that in many cases recently we have seen both the decrease in accountability and a decrease in efficiency. And, of course, the public are the big losers in such a scenario.The trend towards contracting out is driven by an underlying ideological belief that the private sector does everything better. According to this theory, markets are the best mechanism for allocating resources—the market will discipline the use of resources generating a leaner and usually meaner delivery of services.This is contrasted with public sector delivery which, as the theory goes, is subject to pressure from its work force—public servants. Public servants are thought to have more influence on the delivery of services than the clients of the agencies that they work for—according to this theory.What this theory misses out on are the benefits of coordination and the corporate knowledge that the public sector has. This model ignores the benefits of economies of scale. This theory ignores also all the evidence that we have seen of inefficiency in this method of service provision. We have got numerous examples from other states and from overseas that I will allude to later.Contracting out, rather than decreasing the need for accountability, actually increases the need for accountability. In his 1990 article, `The limits of privatisation,' Starr noted:the most common privatisation proposals, such as contracting out . . . would hardly diminish the domain of special interests.He went on to say:. . . preference for private provision actually reflects a deep underestimate of the skills that private firms can deploy. They underestimate the capacity of contractors to manipulate to their own advantage the incentives that are held out to them for better performance. And they underestimate the contractors' capacity to influence political decisions, either illegitimately through bribery or legally through campaign contributions and lobbying. Missing from the case for privatisation is a clear sense of the feedback effects—the influence on government of the enlarged class of private contractors and other providers dependent on public money. With this ideological push for contracting out and privatisation across the board, it is fair for us to ask: who benefits? Is this just an opportunity to open up all sectors of the economy to the potential for profit making? I ask that because the people who are interested in making the profits are the natural constituency of the government that is driving the process.It is certainly true that contracting out weakens day-to-day accountability, a characteristic of the Public Service. While the minister retains overall responsibility for the provision of services, the process of contracting out places a definite break in the chain of command. You quite often have the contracting department pointing the finger at the service provider and the service provider saying, `It's not our fault, the contractor wasn't specific enough.'Richard Mulgan, in an article called `Contracting out and accountability,' says:Responsibility for service provision is placed in the hands of people who are not under the day-to-day control of department managers and are not subject to open-ended direction from ministers or their officials. Contractors are accountable to public officials for the performance of the terms of the contract but not for many of the acts of discretion which are not covered by the contract. Accountability is therefore limited in terms of the contract.The issue of the writing of the contracts is very important because there are some services for which it is impossible to write detailed contracts. It may well be possible to write detailed specifications for the type of road a government wants built, or some major infrastructure project, although there are some arguments that it is not particularly easy to do that either. However, that is much easier to write detailed specifications for than, for example, the delivery of Meals on Wheels services, as has happened in Victoria.The Meals on Wheels deliverers in Victoria used to take it upon themselves to check that people were well, to make sure that they had some social contact, to run occasional errands, to act as a point of contact with the broader community, and to be a friend. When these services were contracted out the evidence has been that the contracting agency deliverer has turned up, dumped the meal on the doorstep and left. If there was a week of meals piled up on the doorstep then they have not taken it upon themselves to knock on the door and make sure someone is not lying with a broken hip in the bathroom. That is because it is not written into the contract that they should actually care for the people to whom they are delivering a service.There are many implications for the contracting out of government services. There has been quite a dramatic increase in the level of public concern because of a number of problems that have been highlighted recently. There have been problems to do with efficiency.I think the recent news report of the person contracted to the Department of Finance and Administration who ended up siphoning $8.75 million into his private bank account is a very good example of where government is making a small saving in contracting out services but, if the people who are employed to undertake the service do not perform that service properly and engage in criminal activity—and there is certainly no guarantee that they will not—there is a dramatic cost to taxpayers. Someone who is contracted to provide a service over a short period of time has no investment in not behaving in this way. They do not have a 40-year career to think about; they have no corporate loyalty to prevent them behaving in this way.Just briefly, I will speak about decreased efficiency and decreased services in more detail in a minute. There is also a real potential for contracting of government services to have a role in the development of Australian industry, in the development of small and medium enterprises, or to ignore that role because the companies that most easily undertake this sort of work are quite often large companies and in many cases they are overseas companies.Contracting out also has the potential to dramatically decrease the work conditions of people undertaking particular work. It is imperative for government to say that, even though these people are subcontractors of the government and not directly employed by the government, they have minimum standards of employment. These people should be employed under award conditions and under award wages. We have heard many examples where cleaning services, for example, have been contracted out to subcontractors who do not pay award wages and who do not have employees operating under award conditions. It is vital for us to make sure that does not happen.The community is legitimately entitled to properly scrutinise the way that public money is spent. It is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. We have had numerous examples recently where the protection of commercial-in-confidence has been used to protect proper scrutiny of the way services paid for by taxpayers have been delivered.I wanted to briefly go through some examples of where that commercial-in-confidence provision has been used to prevent the release of information that would perhaps be detrimental to the government but which Australians should expect to be able to access. The Victorian government is certainly guilty of using commercial-in-confidence provisions in a number of very serious cases, including the death of 11 people in privately run prisons in 1997, where government was saying that the day-to-day running of the prisons, including security arrangements, was commercial-in-confidence and could not be released to the public. In a very serious instance like that where lives have been lost, for the government to say, `We are not responsible because we have contracted out the delivery of these services,' is a shocking abrogation of responsibility.The other more recent example that we have heard a lot about federally is the tendering process conducted with the establishment of the Job Network. Example after example of decisions appeared, on the surface, to be questionable at best and irresponsible under some interpretations. I will just go through some of those. One of them received a lot of coverage at the time. Mr Khader Roude, a man without an office, without a telephone, without staff and without experience in working with the long-term unemployed, was awarded a $1 million contract in south-west Sydney, the region with the highest unemployment in the greater Sydney metropolitan area. This gentleman won that contract, despite having no previous experience, on the basis that he put in the lowest tender price for the delivery of these services. It is very questionable that the people whom he was supposed to help and who should have been able to expect help from him would indeed receive any of the services that he was contracted to provide.The other example is WorkSkill Inc. in Adelaide. The organisation won a $10 million contract even though, at the time tenders closed, it was in deep financial trouble. Unable to pay its employees' wages or other entitlements such as superannuation, they were running a controversial fundraising lottery with a BMW as a first prize in an attempt to stave off their financial problems. The lottery was eventually cancelled and the ticket purchasers were reimbursed because the company could not afford to buy its BMW. This company won a $10 million contract.There was a $15 million Jobsearch contract to a Sydney company called Hospitality Horizons. This company had previously been banned by the department from working in this area for two years because it was found to be repeatedly offering inadequate training on the New South Wales North Coast area. The company owns a 51-site contract but has now off-loaded its work to other contractors.These cases are indicative of problems that can arise in a process where services are delivered at arm's length from government. There is another example that I wanted to discuss briefly which is the Glenorchy SkillShare which further illustrates the problems of scrutiny in relation to the awarding of these contracts. Glenorchy SkillShare was actually an organisation which had a great deal of experience with the long-term unemployed. It was chosen to pioneer case management for the long-term unemployed in 1994. It failed in its bid to get Job Network tender Flex 3 contracts which were for intensive assistance for the long-term unemployed. Those contracts were price fixed. Price was not the reason that the bid was rejected. Unfortunately, Glenorchy SkillShare cannot find out the reason that their bid was rejected. Freedom of information applications were filed. They were told that the information was commercial-in-confidence. At the initial debriefing session after they found out that they had not won the contract, the only information they were given was that the decision making was commercial-in-confidence and they would not be told why they were unsuccessful. They were refused access to the assessment instruments. They were refused access to assessment details even for their own bid. Although there were a number of contracts given to organisations that were, on the face of it, perhaps not incredibly well suited to the delivery of these services, organisations that on the surface appeared to be extremely well suited, when they were unsuccessful in their tenders, were not given information about why.The other aspect of contracting out that I briefly wanted to mention was the development of local industries and competitiveness. The government's role as a purchaser of goods and services cannot be underestimated. Indeed, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is at the moment undertaking an inquiry into this matter. One of the issues that has been raised in the past in relation to government contracting is the expense of putting in a bid in this competitive environment. The cost of putting in a bid can quite often be $5,000 or more depending on how much technical work has to be done on the bid. This, of course, discriminates against small and medium enterprises and it advantages large companies which are used to putting in bids for the delivery of government services.One of the big concerns about this is that there are a number of companies that operate internationally in this area, most of them got their start in the United States, which for some time has been contracting out the provision of welfare services, and in some states this has had very dramatic effects on people accessing those services. Because global budgets are given to companies to deliver a particular benefit—for example, pensions—as well as the money they are paid to administer the service, if they manage to return a surplus then they get to keep the extra money. That is quite often written into the contracts in this area. And the only way, of course, to turn a profit in the delivery of welfare services is to make sure that the people who should be getting the services are not getting them.Access to information in this area is unfortunately not covered by freedom of information legislation. There is some suggestion that documents that are held by subcontractors should be treated as documents held by the government department where they relate to the direct provision of that service. I think that we very much need to examine how the public can continue to scrutinise the delivery of these services, which taxpayers continue to pay for, in the spirit of representative democracy and openness. (Time expired)12:36:004325McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I would like to take the opportunity to address a couple of matters in debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , a bill on which a wide ranging debate can occur where members can usually talk about things that concern them. One of the things that I have had considerable concern about in recent months is the way the government is winding back the facilities for and entitlements of new migrants to Australia.As we see a tightening up of the whole of the social security system, a tightening up of the whole of the employment provision system and a tightening up of all the government service delivery, I find the group of people in my electorate who are missing out all the time are new migrants. With people who come to Australia, many now, because of the government's crackdown on family migration, find that they have good qualifications in their own homeland but take time to get a job here. They find that they do not get access to any of the social security benefits that they might have had in the past. They find that they do not get access to any of the employment benefits that they might have in the past.They are also finding that what is happening across the board is a lot of interrelationship between Commonwealth benefits and state benefits, the Commonwealth benefits being the gateway to other benefits provided by state governments. So someone who does not have a health care card, for instance, does not get the transport concessions that state governments provide and does not get the electricity rebates that state governments provide to people who have been here a bit longer and are in the same circumstance.While there are good and cogent reasons for saying that people should not come to Australia to become dependent on benefits, and while there are good reasons for wanting people to stand on their own two feet, if we have a selection system that says we will select people who we believe will be able to get a job here, then if they cannot get a job here I do not see why they should be treated any differently from other Australians who cannot get a job.I have had the experience of people coming into my office who have good engineering degrees from universities outside Australia, but because there are surplus engineers in Australia at present they are finding themselves on the end of the list. They will keep getting an interview because their CV is good. But they find—and it might be because their command of English is not as good as some other candidates' and the employer thinks that they might not be able to impart instructions as well, or for various reasons—they are not getting up to the stage of getting a job. When they do not get the government assistance that someone else does, it creates a very bad feeling among people. I think it creates a very bad record for Australia if we are saying to people, `We think we have got a system that fairly assesses immigrants, but, once you get here, we are not going to consider you to be the same as others.'The thing that disturbs me about the Prime Minister's suggested preamble to the Constitution is that it does that. The Prime Minister might not be aware—he should be, but he might not be aware—that a great number of people in this country are permanent residents and are not citizens. His preamble talks about `sovereignty of all its citizens'. If people have come to Australia and have not taken out citizenship, I do not know whether it makes them second-rate people in this country.The Prime Minister is one of the great empire royalists. We all know that the largest number of people who have come here and remained permanent residents and have not taken out citizenship are not Greeks, Italians or Lebanese. They are not people from Africa or from the North Pole. They are people from Britain. The English are the ones who do not become Australian citizens. Far be it from me to ever come to the assistance of the English with all of my family's history of being from Ireland. But these people have got a vote. There are a large number of people on the electoral roll from Britain and Ireland, who came here before the Electoral Act was changed. They get a vote but, according to the Prime Minister, they are not part of the deal.I suppose there are a whole lot of problems with the Prime Minister's proposed preamble. A person said to me this morning that, if you went through the Prime Minister's preamble and looked at what it really said, it could be paraphrased to say, `I love a sunburnt country, a place that is really great, where migrants, Aboriginals and sheilas are your mate,' because that is about all it says.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Been reading the cartoons again, Leo?4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—You are one of the twits who agreed with it. You are one of the people who stood up in the party room and applauded him when he came in and brought you this poem of stupidity. The poet whom he paid to be in it with him has been madly saying, over the airwaves in Sydney today, `No, no; to all those things, I said, "Don't be in it; don't do it, John; don't do it"'. But the coalition party room, because they are being led like sheep to the slaughter, all agreed with this.83MPLIBERSEKMs Plibersek—It's not grammatical.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—As my colleague the member for Sydney says, it is not grammatical.83MPLIBERSEKMs Plibersek—It doesn't rhyme.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—And it does not rhyme. Paul Kelly, in the Australian , said that what they ought to understand is that this is not about a song and it is not about a melody. He said:This is a Constitution, not a song or a poem. Does the Cabinet know the difference? Apparently not. A preamble must deliver constitutional direction.And he want on to say:Mateship is not relevant any more than our deep attachments to fatherhood, motherhood, Aussie Rules or sun-worshipping. Its male bias is manifest.Some of my colleagues in the Labor Party would say, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you and I from New South Wales and the group of people that we are associated with have a copyright on this phrase. I have to say that the Prime Minister did not ask us whether he could use the phrase. If he had asked us, we would have told him certainly no, because we would not want to have anything to do with him. But the important thing is that I do not think the Prime Minister even read the dictionary when he thought this up. I am sure that, if the Prime Minister was looking up the dictionary, he would look up the Concise Oxford Dictionary but, maybe, now that he is disenfranchising the English, he might not even read the Concise Oxford Dictionary . The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a mate as `a companion', `a fellow worker', `one of a pair', `a partner in marriage', `an officer on a ship', `an assistant to a worker'.On the radio the Prime Minister said he thought the spirit of mateship was something to do with the Anzac spirit. There are certainly a whole lot more inclusive, uplifting ways we can talk about that than by this rather poor proposal that we had floated yesterday.It is a sad day for Australia when the Prime Minister says that he is going to sit down and pen a preamble to the Constitution but the majority of the country then think that that preamble is a joke. All we have had on the radio now is people making jokes about this. I just do not think that sets a good tone for our country. It certainly makes us look a bit silly.I was the alternate for the Leader of the Opposition at the Constitutional Convention and I sat through most of the convention. I will not go into all the eulogies that the former member for New England went on with at the Constitutional Convention but I did think that more members of this parliament should have had the opportunity to go there and see it. Most Australians watched it on the television. I found it amazing that there were so many people watching the convention when it was broadcast on the ABC.The people who went to that convention went there with good hearts. There was only one person who went there as a spoiler and a disrupter, and unfortunately he was a former leader of my party. But the rest of them, even the monarchists and the `elect the president' people, actually all went there with a good heart to try to get something done, to try to get some change. But there was disagreement and disputation.The only issue there that I recall as actually passing on acclamation, the only issue about which everyone agreed—or, even to put it as a negative, no-one disagreed—was the call by the Constitutional Convention to include in the preamble some elements about the concept of the custodianship of this country by the Aboriginal people. Instead, what do we get in this mean-spirited document? We get some wishy-washy statement that the Aboriginal people have been here from time immemorial. They tell you that is a joke. They have been here for a lot longer than the rest of us, but from `time immemorial'? That is a ludicrous proposition, as even they will say to you. We hear from the Prime Minister's apologists—round the back door—`Really, I wanted to put in something about stewardship but the cabinet would not let me.'If this really low-life proposal that we have got before us about what a preamble ought to be has started out as a second-rate piece of prose written by the Prime Minister and then been emasculated completely by the cabinet, it really makes us look silly in our own country. Further, I am sure that this sort of thing is going to get picked up by the international press and we are going to look like a bunch of hicks.That did not have to happen. If the Prime Minister had not had this attack of hubris himself, in that he was going to be the only person who could write a preamble to the Constitution, and if he had been inclusive and listened to other points of view, then we might have had something that we could all be proud of. But what we have here is something which will cause, in the end, even those spineless people who applauded it in the government party room to go back to their electorates this weekend and just be made a joke of.It makes a joke of all of us that someone is able to say to you that: `I love a sunburnt country, a place that's really great, where migrants, Aboriginals and sheilas are your mate,' paraphrases what is proposed to be in the preamble to our Constitution. And you think, `No, that is not really right. It is pretty bad but it is not really right.' Then when you go and read it, the reality is that that paraphrasing is what he said. That is just not good enough. It is a wonder he did not come up with the idea of kangaroos, meat pies, football and Holden cars. It is in about the same vein.I think it is a shame that we do not have something better to talk about than this preamble. The Constitutional Convention talked about a new preamble for what they believed was going to be a new Constitution, the republican constitution. What we have got here is the Prime Minister coming up with a second-rate preamble for our current Constitution.Why do we need to redefine what our current Constitution is, particularly if are going to redefine it and put small print along the bottom—which this does—which says, `By the way, this means nothing'? No court in the land can take it into account when interpreting this Constitution. No international body can take it into account when interpreting this Constitution. This is nothing because that is what it is doing. It is going to have no force in law anywhere and it is just a bit of bad prose. The people who actually framed the original Constitution would have come up with something better. It would certainly not be hard to come up with something better than this.It really is hypocrisy, I think, for the Prime Minister to say, `We are going to have a referendum in November that the government is going to spend a lot of money on.' He is going to support the anti-republican cause which would trigger a new Constitution. He is going to go out there to campaign to vote down the new Constitution, but at the same time ask people to vote for his new preamble. We are going to have the greatest piece of non-constitutional reform of all time. We are going to have no significant reform about whether we change the way our country is, but we are going to have a preamble that the co-author was busy running away from this morning. The co-author does not want to have anything to do with this. He said he told him that mateship was a bad idea. He said that he told him putting in `island nation' would make the Tasmanians upset—but it could be said that the continental shelf really covers Tasmania. As for Aboriginal custodians, there was something about stewardship in there, but the cabinet took that out, he said. Basically, I reckon that if the poet had been paid for it, he should have sent the money back because you would not actually want to have your name in any way, shape or form attached to this tawdry piece of prose that is not even good English.A lot of women see `mate' as a male word. You do not find many women calling each other mate. The Oxford dictionary talks about it as a work related term that grew out of the days when most of the people who were in employment in the work force were men. There is the plumber's mate, for example. As you would know as a former tradesman, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, the plumber's mate term came up at a time when neither of us would have ever have seen a woman plumber out there. Plumber's mates were always blokes. This is a very blokey term. I do not know why he did not say `cobbers', or something like that. Cobbers at least has a bit of an old-fashioned ring which he might have liked.I think the money that the government spent on having this little document produced has been wasted. It has been a waste of effort. For our country to have put forward a shambling preamble like this is really something. After all the hype from the Prime Minister telling us about how he was going to sit down at the desk and write something good, he just has not.One of the things that we all should be big enough to do if we have made a mistake, or if we have not quite got it the way we think we should, is admit that it might be time to start again. It might be time to do what the Constitutional Convention did, which was to get people of goodwill together, to see if they can come up with a preamble to the Constitution for the year 2000.Some of the people doing that should be the people who will be the leaders of our country in the next millennium. To have the preamble to the Constitution written by an older man—I am 53-years-old and I feel old, sometimes—is not good enough. Why don't we involve some of the young people of Australia? One of the things that was most terrific about the Constitutional Convention was the performance of the young delegates. They did not have any of the cynicism that there is in this building and they demonstrated that they genuinely wanted to do something for their country. Why, for goodness sake, can't we have them involved?I hope the Prime Minister might think again and decide to do something like that. The preamble is one of the big issues for us as a nation. That the Prime Minister should come up with something third rate is a shame. (Time expired)12:56:004329Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise in this wide ranging cognate debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 , and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , to pay tribute to a Labor hero, John Brumby, who from June 1993 until Monday last served as leader of the Victorian state Labor opposition.Let me make it clear at the outset that this is not an ode to a fallen political soldier because I am confident that John Brumby is at no more than the midpoint in what will continue to be a long and distinguished political career. However, at this midpoint it seems fitting to note on the record John Brumby's achievements as Victorian opposition leader and to place those achievements in their proper context. Let me paint this context first.Recent newspaper reports, which have been almost exclusively and somewhat breathlessly devoted to matters properly internal to the Victorian branch of the Labor Party, have ignored the wider context of the shabby state of democracy in Victoria under the Kennett government. In Victoria we have a government that has systematically and ruthlessly swept away democratic norms in its quest to exercise power. A quick look at the functioning of the Victorian parliament demonstrates starkly the truth of this claim.The Victorian parliament sat yesterday for the first time in 130 days. Parliamentary sittings have been cancelled because of the federal election campaign, and more recently for the unbelievably spurious reason that the royal commission into the Longford gas disaster was in progress. In 1998 the Victorian parliament sat for a mere 42 days in the course of the calendar year, the lowest number ever in the history of the Victorian parliament in a non-election year.YK6WILTONMr Wilton—Shame! It is disgraceful.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—As my friend said, it is disgraceful. In comparison, this House, even though it was an election year, sat 54 days. In 1997 the Victorian parliament managed to sit 43 days, just one more than the record low. Compare this with the fact that this House sat 76 days in that year. By the end of June this year this House will have sat 37 days. The Victorian parliament, provided that the Premier does not take it into his head to cancel any further parliamentary sittings, will sit a mere 18 days in the same period.In these circumstances it is no wonder that an opposition that is striving to put under scrutiny government actions and government arrogance, as it is in Victoria, can struggle to find a parliamentary opportunity to do so. Indeed, the failure to sit by the Victorian parliament can only be explained as a deliberate strategy by the government to avoid opposition questioning and the media focus that necessarily comes when parliament is in session.Even when parliament is sitting the Kennett government does all that it can to avoid any opposition questioning. The Victorian parliament sits for three-day weeks with question time limited to 45 minutes on Tuesdays and a half an hour on the other two days. There is no requirement for a minimum number of questions, which thereby invites ministers to talk question time out with long and irrelevant answers.In 1997, this House dealt with 1,482 questions without notice. The Tasmanian House of Assembly dealt with 1,017, the South Australian House of Assembly with 935, the Western Australian Legislative Assembly with 875, the Queensland Legislative Assembly with 561, and the New South Wales Legislative Assembly with 420. In contrast, the Victorian Legislative Assembly dealt with 331 questions, less than a quarter of the number processed in this place.The problem with allowing democratic debate does not stop there. While in this House in 1997, 10 private members bills were debated over 84½ hours, in Victoria not one such bill was debated. The opposition in Victoria is limited to one matter of public importance debate per week and occasional grievance debates, compared with the weekly grievance debate and three MPIs per week in this place.These grave problems are compounded by the fact that the Victorian upper house is not elected under a proportional representation system, and has been relegated to no more than a rubber stamp for government. Indeed, Victoria is the only state which functions without the checks of either a PR elected upper house or a criminal justice commission.Simple mathematics tells you that the method of election for the Victorian upper house is a travesty. Despite polling 46.04 per cent of the two-party preferred vote in the upper house at the last election, the Labor Party holds only 10 of the 44 seats available in that house. There seems little doubt that, if Victoria had a history of proportional representation in its upper house, rather than an arrogant government unchecked by parliament, we would have an upper house in which Labor, Democrats, Greens and Independents could wield sufficient power to force real review and scrutiny.To the extent that parliamentary processes offered a potential for scrutiny of Kennett government excesses, lapses of standards, waste and mismanagement, the Premier has set about systematically destroying that potential. Witness, for example, the gutting of the Office of the Auditor-General in Victoria, where we now have the only Auditor-General in Australia who does not have the power to undertake audits. The then Auditor-General, Mr Ches Baragwanath, described the government's plans, which were subsequently implemented, in the following terms:In my eight years of reporting in the public interests without fear or favour, I view this government action as representing the greatest threat to the independence and even the very existence of my role, and to the Parliament's and the community's right to know.In Victoria, it is clear that the parliament and the community have no such right to know.The list of vital statutory office bearers and the like sacked or attacked by the Kennett government does not begin and end with the Auditor-General. Remember these Kennett government democracy wrecking highlights: the Equal Opportunity Commissioner sacked; the Equal Opportunity Commission threatened, after a decision the government viewed as unfavourable, and then subjected to a punitive round of legislative amendments; the Director of Public Prosecutions, Bernie Bongiorno, hounded from office; the Children's Court magistrate hounded from office; the Victorian Law Reform Commission destroyed; the Accident Compensation Tribunal judges sacked; tenancy groups terminated; and the Land Conservation Council abolished.This is in a setting where we have experienced the decimation of the Freedom of Information Act, now better known as the freedom from information act, which has been amended time and time again by the Kennett government to make it almost impossible to get government information in the public domain. We have also seen the legal right to appeal to the Supreme Court removed in almost 200 pieces of legislation, and the judiciary subjected to constant attack.As devastating as this list is, it shows only the highlights and only part of the story. As we all know, parliament, the judiciary and statutory office bearers are not the sole custodians of democracy, the sole sources of scrutiny or accountability of government. The media and community groups also play a vital role in the working of our democracy but, once again, even the most casual appraisal of the situation in Victoria shows that the Kennett government has systematically silenced and stifled these potential critics.With the media, Jeff Kennett has blatantly played favourites, barring access to those from the media who asked questions he found too hard. Jeff Kennett's personal hatred of the ABC state based 7.30 Report meant neither he nor his ministers would appear on it. The Premier accused the national broadcaster of `slime and bias'. In March 1996 the Premier said of the ABC, `If I had my way I would close it down.' It is no secret in Victoria that Jeff Kennett campaigned for the removal of Bruce Guthrie as editor of the Age. From these actions, from his frequent defamation claims—which, of course, have turned up substantial dollars for the Premier until his recent misadventure—the message to the media was clear: stay in the information loop and play his game or perish on the outside.Even with the most robust media, how are difficult issues to get proper exposure when the government has gone on a deliberate campaign to silence knowledgeable information sources? Teachers in Victoria are banned by law from speaking out, community organisations which receive government funding have to sign contracts requiring public silence, and church and other community critics have been abused in the most savage and public ways.Against the community silence enforced by the Premier through abuse and punitive measures, Victorians are subject to a barrage of government funded, taxpayer funded propaganda designed to feed the Premier's cult of personality and push his simple sloganeering answers to the real problems facing Victoria.In a state like this, in a state in which long cherished democratic norms have been swept aside and community participation and debate has been silenced, it is the toughest job of all to be leader of the opposition. Whilst my greatest goodwill and sincere best wishes go to Steve Bracks and to his wife, Terry, and their children—and I am confident that he will ably hold and fill the office of leader of the opposition—as I said at the outset, I intend today to note the achievements of John Brumby in that position.Let me say that I am not a disinterested observer. From May 1996 until the commencement of the 1998 federal election campaign, I was proud to work as John Brumby's chief of staff. I did not know John Brumby well when I commenced that position but would now count him as a very dear friend. There were three very significant things about my appointment by John Brumby as his chief of staff. First, it gave me the opportunity of a lifetime to work in a political office in a senior role, and I will always be grateful for that. Second, despite the fact that much has been made in recent days in the media of the factionalism of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party, the decision to appoint me as his chief of staff proves John Brumby was not one who looked to factional considerations in making decisions. Third, my appointment at a time when female chiefs of staff were most certainly not the norm in Australian politics shows that John Brumby had then, as he has demonstrated clearly since, a passionate personal commitment to merit and to gender equality.In working with John, I found him to be the most tenacious and focused of politicians, with an unbelievable capacity for hard and consistent work. He has a quick mind, an amazing ability to master a brief and recall facts and figures, and an intuitive grasp of complex questions of strategy and policy. His commitment to Labor ideals and his captivating enthusiasm for education policy, in particular, inspired those around him. In hearing him speak, you always knew that from his days as a teacher at Eaglehawk High School he was driven by the need to ensure every kid had the benefit of the best possible education and the best possible start in life. It is therefore no surprise that during his seven years as the federal member for Bendigo he served as chairman of the parliamentary employment, education and training committee.With hard work and determination, John Brumby achieved some important milestones in his time as state opposition leader. These included pushing through tough new policies on financial management so Victorians can rest assured that a future Labor government will not spend money it has not got; leading the affirmative action debate in the Australian Labor Party and ensuring that Victoria was the first state to get an affirmative action rule and has now conducted its preselections so that a record breaking number of women are candidates in winnable seats for the imminent state election; restoring the ALP's finances, with a $2 million deficit at the commencement of his leadership being turned around so that the party now has available to it a substantial war chest to fight the imminent election campaign; managing a complete overhaul of the party's policies, with a new platform as the product of that overhaul adopted at the recent Victorian state conference; and achieving a degree of change and renewal in the shadow cabinet team which outstrips that achieved by any other parliamentary party in Australia.He achieved further milestones in winning each by-election contested by the Labor Party under his leadership and ushering into parliament important new political players, including Steve Bracks, the now leader; Rob Hulls, the man who is systematically exposing the Kennett government's appalling lack of probity; Monica Gould, the first woman ever to be elected to a leadership post in Victoria's upper house; Mary Delahunty, Labor's education spokesperson; Tony Robinson; and Carlo Carli.These by-election victories included the victory in Mitcham—a by-election occasioned when a Kennett government member resigned in disgust over the proposed changes to the Auditor-General situation, which I referred to earlier—when a swing of 15.8 per cent came to the Labor Party. That was, of course, the largest ever by-election swing in Victorian political history, certainly a major achievement for John Brumby as Labor leader—and I well remember his able leadership of that by-election campaign. Also among his list of achievements is the development of a comprehensive reform agenda to rehabilitate Victoria's democracy, as detailed in his booklet Restoring democracy: proposals for a new Victorian constitution.In valuing the worth of these achievements, we must be clear about the circumstances that confronted John Brumby when he took the Labor leadership in 1993. John Brumby had the courage to take the Labor leadership just four months after being elected to the Victorian upper house. Indeed, for several months he served as Labor leader even though he did not hold a lower house seat. This occurred because of a spiteful by-election delay engineered by Jeff Kennett to make it as difficult as possible for him to make the transition from the upper house to the lower house and be able to act fully as Labor leader.John Brumby was forced to take the leadership at such an early time and in such difficult circumstances because Jim Kennan, having agitated for the Labor leadership, found the job too tough and resigned. At this point, the Labor Party's stocks and morale were at an all-time low, it having sustained a very large swing against it and a very difficult defeat in 1992, and with the last leader having just given up the challenge of leading the Labor Party.In such difficult circumstances a lesser man may well have shirked the challenge, but not John Brumby. And for that courage, for having the guts, for the hard work that followed, for achieving so much in such difficult circumstances, the Labor Party owes John Brumby an enormous debt and the recognition properly accorded to true Labor heroes. At every stage, from his election as Labor leader to his recent resignation, John Brumby put the Labor Party first, rather than his own self-interest. In doing so, he has set a fine example for us all. In particular, he has set a fine example for members of the Victorian branch of the ALP who now face the task of supporting Steve Bracks and the Victorian parliamentary Labor team in the forthcoming state election.Let me say that, having been with John Brumby for more than two years—he was there as Labor leader for six years; I shared in only 2½ of those—in the most difficult of circumstances, it was always a pleasure to work with him. He is a man of almost unbelievable good humour and complete unflappability in times of great stresses and strains. For all the moments of difficulty, there were some moments of great laughter and great enjoyment, and I was certainly very pleased and proud to work with him throughout that period.As is always the case in politics, perhaps the largest burden is not borne by the participants themselves but by their families. John has a wonderful wife in Rosemary, who has supported him fully throughout his political career, including moving from Bendigo to Melbourne as he made the transition from federal to state politics, and including being the primary care-giver for their three children who were very young when John accepted the challenge to lead the Victorian branch of the Labor Party and the Victorian parliamentary party in such difficult circumstances.I wish to conclude by wishing not only John but Rosemary and their children, Georgia, Lizzie and Nick, the best for the future. I am sure that the kids are going to be very glad to have their dad back home for longer hours than he has probably been able to be home for the last six years. I look forward over the course of the coming months and years to sharing our continued friendship. I am very confident, too, of some very good times to come.13:15:004333Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—in reply—I am pleased to bring the debate on the additional estimates, the appropriation bills, to a conclusion. I note that there have been a number of contributions on these bills; in fact, I understand some 57 speakers have participated in this debate which indicates quite clearly that the parliament, broadly speaking, pays considerable attention to matters of management by government, particularly of the economy. The debate itself was wide ranging and I think that was probably exemplified by the most recent contribution from members opposite, that of the honourable member for Lalor, Ms Gillard.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I think she admires Mr Brumby.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—I do acknowledge that in her contribution she has paid tribute to the role she has played in her former life and events which have taken place in Victoria. I think perhaps one could say that there is a degree of lament in that process. That tends to happen from time to time in politics, as all of us who have been there for some time would acknowledge.Contributions have ranged over what the government has failed to do and what the government has failed to provide for in the additional estimates. I think it is fair to say that all members would like to see many problems in the Australian community addressed by virtue of the appropriation of funds. I think it is also fair to say that the management of the budget process over the past three years has brought about a remarkable recovery in the Australian economy and it has placed the Australian economy in a position which is the envy of so many other countries in the world. That, of course, has been spoken of on numerous occasions by the Treasurer, who deserves great credit for the manner in which this economy has turned around. It has occurred simply because the government, to a man and a woman, have recognised the need for fiscal responsibility.It is not a case of simply saying, `Let's spend money here, there or anywhere,' but a case of ensuring that it is prioritised correctly, that where the spending does occur that happens within the capacity of government to spend and that constantly the bottom line is the objective that government sets out to achieve. The bottom line that this government has achieved has brought about this recovery in no uncertain terms. We set out to achieve a balanced budget within that first term. We achieved that objective one year ahead of schedule. In the course of doing that, we have in fact started down that road of reducing the debt, the Commonwealth general government debt, that has accumulated over a series of deficit budgets, particularly in the last five years of Labor. We also set about to get other factors in the economy that benefit the men and women of Australia into line. Throughout that process we have seen a number of factors which have flowed through and which have done much to stimulate the growth that we have experienced.We have seen some six official reductions in interest rates in that first period of the Howard government—a vote of confidence from the Australian financial markets which benefits every Australian family. We have seen inflation reduce significantly, which gives some degree of certainty to all men and women in Australia—knowing that it is not a case of wages chasing prices as we saw under Labor in those peaks and troughs that were so predominant throughout their 13 years in government.The bottom line that I think is most pleasing to all on the government side is that growth has continued to occur. The national accounts showed a 4.7 per cent growth in the economy through the year to December—an outstanding result that again is the envy of all other OECD nations and, in fact, every nation in the world. It is not just a case of those national accounts, though. There are other indicators that come through from outside government. The February Westpac-Melbourne Institute survey of consumer sentiment showed that consumer sentiment was at its highest level since September 1994, with an expectation among consumers that economic conditions will improve over the coming year.Is it any wonder that commentators who are recognised and respected throughout the world continue to look at Australia and speak of it in glowing terms, such as `the miracle economy', based on its geographical location and what can only be described as an expected fallout from the events of Asia. We have certainly not escaped the impact of that fallout in Asia, but at the same time we have been able to go through this period in the best possible way simply because the government that came into power in 1996 in this country were prepared to take the hard decisions and live within their means.Another indicator, the Yellow Pages Small Business Index for the quarter ended February, indicated a significant degree of optimism in the small business sector. That is something which we are extremely proud of as a government as well. That is the area which is the future for Australia; it is the area that Australians have always looked to to provide the employment opportunities and the growth that benefits every community. Big business may benefit certain communities in the jobs that it provides; the small businesses that back it up spread throughout the towns and suburbs of all the states and territories of this country and are so important for those communities.The Westpac-Melbourne Institute leading and coincident indexes both suggested that the economy is likely to stay strong for the short term. And, perhaps the most important of all, the Reserve Bank noted in their most recent quarterly report on the Australian economy that:. . . the economy has been stronger than expected . . . and appears to have entered 1999 with considerable momentum.Another quote:Recent employment growth has been consistent with general economic developments . . . forward looking indicators . . . suggest that labour demand remains robust.Finally:Inflation remains lower than forecast . . . Those factors indicate that the economy is sound. It is moving along in a way which, in the current circumstances of the world economy, Australia should be rightly proud of. That does not mean, of course, that we can rest on our laurels. It does mean that we must continue to ensure, as the forward estimate shows, that we remain in balance, that we remain in surplus. That is what is forecast in the additional estimates and that is what this government will continue to work towards. It means that we must continue to ensure that we spend within our means and that we prioritise in a way which benefits the Australian community in the best possible way.I think it is fair to say that the documents that are being debated, the additional estimates appropriation bills, are testimony once again to the fiscal management and the strategy of this government in bringing about that outcome. I again thank all honourable members for their contribution. I am pleased to say that there is a confidence in the Australian community that I have never seen or experienced in my adult life. I am proud to be part of a government that has made such a significant contribution to that outcome and I commend the bills to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4335r7054335Consideration resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4336r7064336Consideration resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Main Committee adjourned at 1.26 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4337The following answers to questions were circulated:4337(Question No. 109)1094337Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the Minister, his or her predecessor or his or her Department appoint a (a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament or (b) member of the secretariats of the national offices of the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Greens as a (i) statutory appointment, (ii) consultant or (iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998; if so, in each case, (A) what was the person's name and the position to which he or she was appointed, (B) to which political party was he or she affiliated, (C) what remuneration was involved, (D) was the appointment (I) full-time, (II) part-time or (III) casual, (E) what fees were applicable and (F) with respect to (I) travel allowance, (II) vehicles, (III) telephones and (IV) attendance fees, (aa) what entitlements were claimable, (ab) how often were entitlements claimed and (ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement.4337Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No appointment that I or the Department made during the period 30 April 1996 to 31 August 1998 falls within the terms of the question. However, one appointment made by the Governor-General falls within the terms of the question. Details in relation to that appointment are as follows:(A) The Honourable Sir James Killen was appointed to the Council for the Order of Australia, pursuant to Letters Patent issued by Her Majesty The Queen;(B) Liberal Party of Australia;(C) no remuneration was involved;(D) the appointment was on a casual basis;(E) no fees were applicable;(F) (I) (aa) $320 per day travel allowance was claimable for meals and accommodation, less any meals provided;(ab) four claims were made between 11 September 1996 and 6 August 1998; (ac) a total of $2,352 was paid for travel allowance; and(II)—(IV) no entitlements were claimable.In responding to the question:. part (b) of the question has been taken to refer to persons who, immediately before their appointment, were members of a party secretariat; and. the response is based on information provided by potential appointees which might not include the information being sought by the question.4337(Question No. 120)1204337Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the Minister, his or her predecessor or his or her Department appoint a (a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament or (b) member of the secretariats of the national offices of the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Greens as a (i) statutory appointment, (ii) consultant or (iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998; if so, in each case, (A) what was the person's name and the position to which he or she was appointed, (B) to which political party was he or she affiliated, (C) what remuneration was involved, (D) was the appointment (I) full-time, (II) part-time or (III) casual, (E) what fees were applicable and (F) with respect to (I) travel allowance, (II) vehicles, (III) telephones and (IV) attendance fees, (aa) what entitlements were claimable, (ab) how often were entitlements claimed and (ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement.4337Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Yes(b) No(i) No(ii) No(iii) Yes (A) Mr Donald M Cameron. He was appointed as a member of the National Procurement Board in December 1996 and reappointed in December 1997 until 31 March 1998.(B) The Liberal Party as Member for Griffith, Queensland 26.11.1966 until elected for Fadden; Member for Fadden, Queensland from 10.12.1977 until 5.3.1983; Member for Moreton, Queensland 5.11.1983—24.3.1990.(C) Sitting fees, travel, travel allowance and taxi fares.(D) (I) No(II) Yes(III) No(E) Board members fees and expenses were determined according to rates applicable to "Part Time Holders of Public Offices under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973."(F) (I) Refer to answer (E)(II) Refer to answer (E)(III) Refer to answer (E)(IV) Refer to answer (E)(aa) Refer to answer(C)(ab) Mr Cameron attended twelve meetings during his tenure with the NPB.(ac) Refer to answer (E). Information not readily available for individual board members following the abolition of the NPB in March 1998.4338(Question No. 218)2184338Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) How many countries are a party to the Unesco Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954).(2) Which countries have become a party since 1988.(3) Which parties to the convention are not parties to the companion protocol.(4) Did Australia send comments to the meeting of experts held in Vienna from 11 to 13 May 1998 to consider revision of the convention.(5) Who will represent Australia at the Diplomatic Conference that is being convened at The Hague from 14 to 26 March with a view to adopting a new instrument complementing the provisions of the convention.(6) Did Australia in July 1994 assure the USA that it was still considering whether to become a party to the protocol and that the matter was being reviewed by relevant Commonwealth and State departments.(7) On what occasions and with what results has (a) Australia consulted with States and Territories and (b) his Department consulted with other Commonwealth departments concerning the protocol.4338Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 79.(2) Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Peru, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.(3) Of the 79 countries party to the convention, the following are not party to the Protocol: Argentina, Australia, Cte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Oman, Panama, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tanzania and Uzbekistan.(4) Yes.(5) Issues relating to the protection of cultural property are not the primary responsibility of my portfolio. I understand, however, that Mr Peter Scott, who attended the meeting of experts held in Vienna in May last year, will represent Australia at the Diplomatic Conference that is being convened in The Hague from 14 March to 26 March with a view to adopting a Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Government has provided detailed written comments to UNESCO on the draft of this new instrument, and UNESCO have advised, by letter from the Secretariat dated 21 December, 1998, that our comments will be reflected in the documentation for the Diplomatic Conference.(6) Yes.(7) (a) and (b)There is ongoing consultation between relevant Commonwealth departments and with States and Territories concerning the protocol and matters relating to the Convention. Most recently, the States and Territories have been notified, through the consultative mechanism of the Commonwealth-State Standing Committee on Treaties, of the drafting of the new protocol to complement the provisions of the Convention. Detailed consultation between relevant Commonwealth Departments occurred recently in the preparation of the written comments on the draft protocol submitted to UNESCO in the lead up to the Diplomatic Conference. 4339(Question No. 363)3634339Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many persons have accessed the new temporary migration program since its inception.(2) What are the work or skill categories of the persons who have entered Australia under the temporary migration program.(3) In which locations have persons who entered under the temporary migration program settled.(4) Has his Department investigated whether the temporary migration program is being used as an alternative to the employer nomination program or a means to avoid training unemployed Australians; if so, with what result.(5) How many persons who entered under the temporary migration program have subsequently applied within Australia to change their migration status to allow them to stay permanently in Australia.(6) What were the (a) countries of origin, (b) work or skill categories and (c) places of residence in Australia of the persons referred to in part (5).(7) Are persons entering Australia under the temporary migration program discouraged from seeking to change their migration status after arrival; if so, how.4339Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There have been 75,434 persons granted temporary business (long stay—subclass 457) visas between 1 August 1996 (when new entry arrangements commenced) and 31 January 1999. Approximately 50 per cent of these persons were principal visa holders and the balance members of the family unit. It is estimated that the stock of principal visa holders in Australia at a point in time is in the order of 20,000.(2) The main occupational categories nominated by business sponsors in 1997/98 are detailed at Table A below.(3) There is no readily available data on specific geographical locations of temporary residents. However, incoming passenger data (on State of intended residence) and onshore application data in 1997/98 indicates a proportional spread of 45 per cent to NSW; 20 per cent Victoria; 12 per cent Queensland; 17 per cent Western Australia; 4 per cent South Australia; 1 per cent Northern Territory; and 0.5 per cent Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory.(4) The 1997 Report by the `Lin' Committee of Review of the Employer Nomination Scheme and Labour Agreements confirmed the business preference for sponsored temporary entry of overseas personnel. This reflects the increasingly internationalised economy and skilled labour market. It provides for expedient entry of key personnel critical to business prosperity and a period of time for employers to assess the performance of staff ahead of any more permanent employment relationship. Australia is competing globally for highly skilled workers with cutting edge skills and knowledge and these workers are increasingly mobile in their employment.The Government accepted the recommendations of the Lin Committee (legislative changes introduced with effect 1 November 1997) including removing any bar on temporary residents applying for permanent residence on skill grounds, and removal of a 12 month aggregate period for which qualifying visas must be held in Australia before applying for change of status. The Lin Committee otherwise confirmed the appropriateness of higher level criteria for permanent residence under the Employer Nomination Scheme with the resultant strengthening of entry criteria.Temporary business entry arrangements require sponsoring employers to demonstrate a satisfactory training record or commitment to the training of Australian residents or, that they will be introducing, utilising or creating in Australia new or improved technology or business skills. Business sponsors are also required to give formal undertakings including with respect to creating career opportunities and supporting training of Australians. Any breach of undertakings may result in cancellation of an employer's sponsorship and cancellation of related visas.All temporary business entry sponsorship applications are referred to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB) for assessment in respect of the employer's training history or proposed training plan.(5) In 1997/98, there were 2,573 applications for permanent residence in Australia from persons holding temporary business entry visas. Some 66 per cent were on occupational (skill) grounds, 16 per cent on spouse grounds and 12 per cent related to establishing a business in Australia. In the first six months of 1998/99 there were a further 1,903 applications for permanent residence made in Australia from persons holding temporary business entry visas. Approximately 70 per cent were on occupational (skill) grounds, 17 per cent on spouse grounds and 12 per cent related to establishing a business in Australia.(6) (a) and (c) The top ten countries of origin and State distribution of the applications mentioned at Question (5) are at Table B below. (b) There is no data available which tracks the occupational categories of onshore permanent residence applicants holding a temporary business visa. However, with the roll out of the department's new integrated client service environment, it is expected that this data will become available.(7) Persons entering Australia under temporary business entry arrangements may seek to change their migration status after arrival. As indicated under (4) above, business sponsors are increasingly relying on skilled temporary residents. In the relatively small number of cases where there is a subsequent permanent residence application, employees are required to meet the same higher level criteria applying to offshore applicants.Table ATOP 25 OCCUPATIONS NOMINATED BY BUSINESS SPONSORS FOR A TEMPORARY BUSINESS (LONG STAY) SUBCLASS 457 VISA HOLDERS—1997/98NoOccupationNo of Nominations1.General Manager15032.Applications and Analyst Programmer8953.Specialist Manager8834.Sales and Marketing Manager8145.Chef6786.Accountant5017.Registered Nurse4908.Engineering Manager3969.Finance Manager36610.Systems Programmer34211.Production Manager33712.Management Consultant30213.Information Technology Manager28914.Petroleum Engineer25115.Software Designer23316.Systems Designer20217.Mechanical Engineer18618.Systems Manager18219.Tour Guide16120.Marketing Specialist15721.Civil Engineer15522.Business and Information Professional15423.Electronics Engineer15324.Mining Engineer15025.Sports Specialist Coach140Table BAPPLICATIONS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN AUSTRALIA BY CLASS UC (TEMPORARY BUSINESS ENTRY) VISA HOLDERS—1997/98StatecodeSkill GroundsSpouse GroundsBusiness GroundsOtherTotalACT12100022NSW710197305781290NT1320116QLD1764503224SA17514025214 TAS1200012VIC319108047474WA2853204471TOTAL170240830515825731 July 1998—31 December 1998StatecodeSkill GroundsSpouse GroundsBusiness GroundsOtherTotalACT460010NSW54616922220957NT830112QLD1044003147SA269700276TAS54009VIC20359016278WA1852900214TOTAL1324317222401903Table B contdCITIZENSHIP OF TEMPORARY BUSINESS ENTRY VISA HOLDERS APPLYING FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCECitzenship1997/98Citizenship1 July—31 December 1998United Kingdom 694United Kingdom506South Africa, Republic of 356South Africa, Republic of279China, People's Republic of 330China, People's Republic178United States of America 158United States of America83Japan 118Japan73Canada 84Canada60India 67India58Korea, Republic of 61Philippines58Taiwan 56Korea, Republic of51Germany, Federal Rep of 56HKSAR, of the PRC51Other 593Other506Total 2573Total19034341(Question No. 378)3784341McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) Does the Government require child care centres which receive Childcare Assistance payments to meet minimum standards of practice.(2) Is the Government working towards national standards in the child care sector; if so, how is this being effected.4341Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the follow ing answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Government requires child care centres to be licensed by the relevant State or Territory Government before being approved for Childcare Assistance.(2) All Commonwealth funded child care services are required to comply with the provisions of any relevant statute, regulation, by-law and requirements of any Commonwealth, State, Territory or local authority as may be in effect from time to time.The Commonwealth has worked together with the States and Territories and with child care service providers to develop national standards for children's services.National standards for centre based long day care were approved in 1993. National standards for outside school hours care and Family Day Care Carers were agreed in 1995 and standards for family day care coordination units were endorsed in July 1998.Implementation of national standards is a State and Territory government responsibility.4342(Question No. 383)3834342Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:Did the Minister's Department assess applications for funding (a) for major projects from the Federation Fund and (b) from the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program; if so, in each case, (i) how many applications were made in each State and Territory (A) in total and (B) by or on behalf of indigenous organisations, (ii) will the Minister provide a list of all applications made by or on behalf of indigenous organisations in each State and Territory, (iii) how many applications made by or on behalf of indigenous organisations were successful and (iv) will the Minister provide a list of all successful applications made by or on behalf of indigenous organisations.4342Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) Federation Fund ProjectsThe Department of the Environment and Heritage did not assess applications for funding for major projects. A small Task Force was established in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in 1997 to assist the Government in assessing Federation Fund proposals.(b) Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program (FCHP)The Federation and Cultural Heritage Projects program (FCHP) is jointly administered by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. All eligible projects submitted for funding under the FCHP were assessed by the Federation Task Group (FTG), which was made up of officers from the two Departments. The FTG did not recommend specific projects for funding. It advised the Ministers of 114 projects which strongly met the criteria outlined in the program guidelines. The Ministers forwarded a list of their recommended projects to the Prime Minister for approval.(i) (A) The total number of applications made in each State and Territory is listed as follows:ACTNSWNTQLDSATASVICWATotal143002097434913583741(i) (B) For the purpose of this question, those organisations which clearly identified the inclusion of a predominantly indigenous cultural heritage element in their exhibition, site interpretation, education or other materials related to the project and directly referred to a process of consultation or partnership with indigenous communities in their region were counted. On that basis, the total number of applications made in each State or Territory by or on behalf of indigenous organisations is listed as follows:ACTNSWNTQLDSATASVICWATotal0179107141260(ii) Those organisations identified under (i)B are listed in the Table below:TABLE 1: APPLICATIONS MADE BY OR ON BEHALF OF INDIGENOUS ORGANISATIONS.ORGANISATIONPROJECTSTATEBlacktown City CouncilAboriginal Cultural CentreNSWWutuma Keeping Place Aboriginal CorporationWutuma Keeping Place Gallery and MuseumNSWMimaga WajaarCultural Awareness Complex and Educational ComplexNSWEden Local Aboriginal Land CouncilCultural and Heritage Keeping PlaceNSWGilgandra Shire CouncilGilgandra Centennial Celebration of FederationNSWMoree Plains Shire CouncilMoree Aboriginal Cultural CentreNSWOCTEC IncAboriginal Cultural Centre/Keeping PlaceNSWWestern Institute of TAFEAboriginal Arts and Cultural Development CentreNSWGandangara Local Aboriginal Land CouncilGandangara Cultural Centre and Keeping PlaceNSWNSW National Parks and Wildlife ServiceKurnell Meeting and Keeping PlaceNSWArmidale and Region Aboriginal Cultural Centre and Keeping Place Inc`Stage 3 Development of Aboriginal Cultural Centre and Keeping PlaceNSWMarrickville CouncilOld Marrickville Town Hall ProjectNSWMetropolitan Local Aboriginal Land CouncilAn Aboriginal History and Cultural CentreNSWThe National Aboriginal and Islander Skills Development AssociationNAISDA Indigenous Performing Arts ComplexNSWTullagulla LtdContemporary Aboriginal Cultural CentreNSWWellington Local Aboriginal Lands CouncilWirathuri Floral, Fauna and Aboriginal Culture ParkNSWNSW National Parks and Wildlife ServiceConservation and Interpretation of Sydney Basin Aboriginal HeritageNSWThe Friends of Araluen IncCommunity Gallery at Alice Springs Cultural PrecinctNTBarkly Regional Economic Development Committee IncNyinka Nyunyu Interpretive CentreNTBorroloola Community Government SchoolBorroloola Cultural CentreNTBula'Bula Arts Aboriginal CorporationMapping and Documenting Arafura WetlandsNTYilli Reling Regional CouncilConstruct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Culture CentreNTArrernte Council of Central Australia Aboriginal CorpCentenary of Federation Working TogetherNT Yothu Yindi Foundation Aboriginal CorporationGarma Cultural Studies InstituteNTElliott District Community Government SchoolElliott Conservation and Heritage ProjectsNTPirlangimpi Community Government CouncilFort Dundas Accommodation and Archaeological ProjectNTNational Trust of QueenslandJames Cook Museum—Cook Gallery DevelopmentQLDKombumerri Aboriginal Corporation for CultureYugambeh Museum, Language, Heritage, Research CentreQLDTownsville City CouncilAboriginal and Islander Cultural CentreQLDFoundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action Aboriginal CorpKey Centre for Indigenous Cultural EstatesQLDMareeba Shire CouncilKuranda Cultural CentreQLDTorres Strait Regional AuthorityTorres Strait Museum Cultural Centre—Thursday IslandQLDCairns and District Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation for WomenFederation 100 House Technology for Youth QLDAng-Gnarra Aboriginal CorporationThe Split Rock Interpretive CentreQLDDouglas Shire CouncilKuku Yalanji Cultural Interpretive CentreQLDMackay South Sea Islanders CommunityMandarra Cemetery Restoration and Museum ComplexQLDCity of Holdfast BayCelebrating Federation and First Settlement LinksSACity of SalisburyNorthern Region Aboriginal Community CentreSAKoonibba Aboriginal Community CouncilScrubcutter FestivalSAMannum Aboriginal Community AssociationNgaut Ngaut Rockshelter Culture Tourism ProjectSAIga WartaIga Warta Cultural CentreSACity of MarionThe Warriparinga Interpretive Centre IncSADept of Human ServicesAboriginal Records Access CentreSATasmanian Aboriginal CentreRisdon Cove Cultural Sharing PlaceTASAborigines Advancement LeagueKeeping Place Fit-out at the Aborigines Advancement LeagueVICSonglines Dreaming IncSonglines Dreaming IncorporatedVICKoorie Heritage trust IncAdditional Construction for Koorie Cultural CentreVIC Western Murray Development IncUniversity of Stars, Indigenous Astronomy ProjectVICWarlyirti ArtistsNew Art/Cultural Centre—Balgo HillsWAUniversity of Western AusBerndt Museum of AnthropologyWAGascoyne Development CommissionCarnarvon Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural CentWAShire of Kojonup Kojonup Federation Park ComplexWAWarburton Community IncNgaanyatjarra Cultural and Civic CenteWASwan Aboriginal CorporationAboriginal Cultural Centre and heritage TrailWATown of NarroginGnarojin Cultural Heritage CentreWAAboriginal Advancement Council of Western Australia Aboriginal CorpAboriginal Cultural PrecinctWAAboriginal Affairs DeptCultural Centre, Capital InfrastructureWAThe Bennett Brook Catchment GroupBennett Brook Cultural and Environment CentreWANoongar Language and Cultural CentreNoongar language and Cultural CentreWAAboriginal and Islander College of Music (ABMUSIC)ABMUSIC'S Cultural AuditoriumWA(iii) There were 7 successful applications made by or on behalf of indigenous organisations.(iv) Successful applications made for or on behalf of indigenous organisations are listed below:ORGANISATIONPROJECTSTATEGilgandra Shire CouncilGilgandra Centennial Celebration of FederationNSWCity of MarionThe Warriparinga Interpretive Centre Inc.SAWarlyirti ArtistsNew Art/Cultural centre WAShire of KojonupKojonup Federation Park ComplexWAThe Friends of AraluenCommunity Gallery at Alice Springs Cultural PrecinctNTNational Trust of QueenslandJames Cook Museum—Cook Gallery DevelopmentQLDCity of Holdfast BayCelebrating Federation and First Settlement LinksSA4345(Question No. 401)4014345Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 10 February 1999:(1) Will the Minister provide a list identifying each coal mine operating in the Hunter region, New South Wales, and its beneficial owner.(2) What is the nature of the coal produced in the Hunter region. (3) Where is the coal from the Hunter region exported.(4) Has there been collusion in the sale of coal from the Hunter region.4345Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1)—MineBeneficial Owner(s)Bayswater No. 2 and No.3INGWE Australia Pty Ltd;KEPCO Resources Australia Pty Ltd;Nippon Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd;Nippon Steel Australia Pty LtdCamberwellNavidale Pty Ltd; Toyota Tsusho Mining Australia Pty Ltd; Dia Coal Mining (Australia) Pty LtdCumnock No. 1Glencore International AG; Itochu Corporation; ANZ Nominess Ltd; Shenzen Energy Corporation; China Coal Import and Export Co LtdDartbrookShell Coal Holdings (Australia) Ltd; Marubeni Australia Ltd; Ssanyong Resources Pty Ltd; Showa Coal (NSW) Pty LtdDraytonShell Coal Holdings (Australia) Ltd; AMP Society Ltd; Mitsui & Company Ltd; Mitsui Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd; Daesung (Australia) Pty Ltd; Hyundai (Australia) Pty LtdHowickRio Tinto Ltd; Mitsubishi Development Pty LtdHunter ValleyRio Tinto Ltd; Ube Industries; Nissho Iwai Corporation; Joban Kosan Ltd; Westpac Custodian Nominees Ltd; ANZ Nominees Pty LtdLemingtonExxon Coal & Minerals Australia LtdLiddellSavage Resources Ltdl; Mitsui Matsushima Australia Pty LtdMount OwenGlencore InternationalMount ThorleyRio Tinto Ltd; Ube Industries; Nissho Iwai Corporation; Joban Kosan Ltd; Westpac Custodian Nominees Ltd; ANZ Nominees Pty Ltd; Pohang Iron and Steel CompanyMuswellbrook No. 2Idemitsu Kosan LtdRavensworth EastPeabody Resources LtdRavensworth NaramaPeabody Resources Ltd; RGC LtdRixs CreekBloomfield Collieries Pty LtdSaxonvale/Bulga and South BulgaCyprus Australia Coal CompanyTomen Corporation; Nippon Oil; Kawasho Corporation; Nippon Steel Australia Pty LtdUnitedSudelektra Holding; White Industries Australia Ltd; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) Mining & Energy DivisionWamboWambo Mining Corporation Pty LtdWarkworth No. 1Peabody Resources Limited; Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd Ticor Energy Pty Ltd; Nippon Steel (Australia) Pty Ltd; Mitsubishi Corporation(2) Metallurgical and thermal coal.(3) Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Pakistan, United Kingdom, Belgium/Luxembourg, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Italy, Israel, Turkey, Chile, New Caledonia.(4) No. The Commonwealth Government has no involvement in the marketing or sales of any Australian coal.4346(Question No. 403)4034346Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 10 February 1999:(1) Did ministerial responsibilities prevent her attending the International Olympic Committee World Conference on Doping in Sport; if so, what responsibilities.(2) Is she satisfied with the outcome of the conference.(3) What strategies will she implement to ensure that Australian sport and the Sydney Olympics are drug free.(4) Will responsibility for the outcome referred to in part (3) be delegated to another person.4347Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The International Olympic Committee World Conference on Doping in Sport was a meeting of anti-doping experts from around the world regarding Olympic sports. It was not an inter-government conference on all Australian sports. Australia's senior anti-doping official attended the meeting after a thorough briefing by me.(2) There were a number of positive outcomes, but more work needs to be done to achieve uniformly strong sanctions for doping across all international sporting federations.(3) and (4) The Government's strong anti-doping policy, which provides for a broad range of strategies, is laid out in our sport and recreation policy—A Winning Advantage. The implementation of these strategies falls to a range of organisations, including the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA), through its testing and education programs, the Australian Sports Commission, through its management of doping policies of national sporting organisations and the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory (ASDTL), through its research into drugs in sport issues.In 1998-99, $4.9 million has been provided to ASDA to undertake its drugs testing and education responsibilities.In addition, since 1997-98, the Government has provided $3.8 million specifically for the purposes of sports drug testing and research associated with the Sydney 2000 Games and the period leading up to the Games. This will be enhanced by the use of ASDA and ASDTL services by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, ensuring the Sydney 2000 Games has access to state-of-the-art technology and world's best practice in sports drug testing.4347(Question No. 417)4174347Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 15 February 1999:(1) Is the Government considering the report of the Review of Funding Arrangements for Long Service Leave in the Black Coal Mining Industry; if so, (a) at what stage is its consideration, (b) when did he receive the report, (c) what were the report's recommendations, (d) which organisations were consulted during the review and (e) which organisations made submissions to the review.(2) Will he initiate reviews for long service leave arrangements in other industries; if so, which industries.4347Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(a) The report was released in December 1998 for public comment. It is expected that all comments in relation to the report's recommendations will have been received in the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business by the end of February. These responses will then be considered together with the findings and recommendations contained in Mr McLaughlin's report.(b) 26 June 1998(c) The report recommends that the current arrangements be wound up over the next 12-18 months and replaced by voluntary funding arrangements under which:- producers who wish to manage their own long service leave obligations can do so; and- other producers can participate in a voluntary collective fund if they so wish.(d) ARCO Coal Australia Inc; Australian Collieries Staff Association; Australian Manufacturing Workers Union; BHP Coal Pty Ltd; Camberwell Coal Pty Ltd; Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation; Coal Operations Australia Ltd; Colliery Officials' Association; Communications, Electrical, Plumbing Union; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Ensham Resources Pty Ltd; Esso Australia Resources Ltd; MIM Ltd; Muswellbrook Coal Co Ltd; NSW Minerals Council; Oakdale Collieries; Pacific Coal Pty Ltd; Queensland Mining Council; Rio Tinto Limited; QCT Resources Limited; Shell Coal Australia Limited; Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd; United Collieries; Wambo Mining Corporation Pty Ltd.(e) ARCO Coal Australia Inc; BHP Coal Pty Ltd; Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation; Coal industry unions— Joint Submission (Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Communications, Electrical, Plumbing Union, Australian Collieries Staff Association, Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, Collieries Official's Association)NSW Minerals Council and Queensland Mining Council—Joint Submission Powercoal Pty LtdRio Tinto LimitedThiess Contractors Pty LtdWestfarmers Coal Limited(2) On 3 August 1998, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, the Hon. Dr David Kemp MP, announced that the Government would examine amending the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 to allow employees in the Commonwealth public sector the opportunity, as part of agreement making, to negotiate whether they wish to retain long service leave as part of their terms and conditions or to vary those provisions. The Labour Ministers' Council has also noted that a research paper on Long Service Leave issues is being prepared for the Council by the Western Australian Government.4348(Question No. 434)4344348Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:(1) Which Prime Ministers of Australia have addressed the General Assembly of the UN.(2) Which of them have mentioned Portuguese overseas possessions in their address.4348Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In order to answer the Honourable Member's question, extensive research would be required into the publicly available Official Records of the United Nations General Assembly over a period of more than 50 years. In view of my Department's work on other priorities for the Government, it does not currently have the resources to undertake this research.4348(Question No. 435)4354348Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:(1) Did the General Assembly of the UN on 14 December 1960 adopt and proclaim the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.(2) Did the Menzies Government instruct the Australian delegates to abstain from voting on the declaration.(3) Which other countries abstained.(4) Did the General Assembly in 1961 establish a special committee to examine the application of the declaration and to make suggestions and recommendations on the implementation of the declaration.(5) Did the Gorton Government take Australia out of the committee in 1969.4348Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Honourable Member's question asks about matters in the publicly available Official Records of the United Nations General Assembly, and about the record of the Menzies and Gorton Governments. In view of its work on other priorities for the Government, my Department does not have the resources to undertake the historical inquiries necessary.4348(Question No. 436)4364348Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:(1) What were the texts of the letters that Prime Minister Menzies wrote in October 1961, February 1963 and October 1963 to Prime Minister Salazar about Portuguese Timor.(2) What were the dates and texts of Dr Salazar's replies.(3) Has his attention been drawn to the submission to the Menzies Cabinet on 21 February 1963 in which his predecessor, Sir Garfield Barwick, revealed that the USA had prompted the letters; if so, (a) how and when were the letters brought to the attention of the USA and (b) what responses were made by the US.4348Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As the correspondence sought by the Honourable Member is more than 30 years old, it should be available on request from the National Archives of Australia.4348(Question No. 437)4374348Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:(1) Does his Department have records of discussions between Prime Ministers of Australia and Presidents of Indonesia; if so, in respect of which conversations does the Department hold such records(2) Does the Department have copies of letters between Prime Ministers of Australia and Presidents of Indonesia; if so, what are the dates of the letters. 4349Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As a general practice, records of discussions between Australian Prime Ministers and the Presidents of foreign countries are always made.(2) To ascertain which letters between Australian Prime Ministers and Presidents of Indonesia over a period of almost 50 years are held by my Department is beyond the current resources of the Department.4349(Question No. 438)4384349Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:(1) On 12 December 1972 in the UN General Assembly did (a) Australia vote in favour of the resolution on the rights of peoples to self determination and the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and (b) France, Portugal, the UK and the USA vote against the resolution.(2) On what dates had there previously been votes on the resolution on these issues in the General Assembly and the Fourth Committee.(3) How did Australia vote on the previous occasions.4349Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:See the answer to Question No. 434.4349(Question No. 439)4394349Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:What sums did (a) Australia and (b) Portugal pay in 1973-74 and each subsequent financial year to (i) the Red Cross and (ii) other international organisations to support their activities in East Timor.4349Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Australia's contributions to international organisations are a matter of public record, and are detailed in the Budget Papers. The extent to which international organisations which have received budgetary support from Australia have, since 1973/74, supported activities in East Timor under their programs is not readily ascertainable. My Department is currently devoting its resources to current and future developments in East Timor. 4349(Question No. 440)4404349Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:On what dates, in what places, in what circumstances and with what outcomes have the boundaries of the territorial sea and seabed between Australia and its northern neighbours been discussed by Australian Ministers or officials with foreign authorities who accepted or claimed responsibility for parts of the sea and seabed.4349Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Discussions between Australian Ministers or officials and authorities of Australia's "northern neighbours", which the Honourable Member is taken to refer to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and France (in respect of New Caledonia), on delimiting territorial seas and other maritime boundaries have taken place since the 1960s. The outcome of these discussions has been a number of treaties the texts of which are available through the Treaties page on the Department's web site (www.dfat.gov.au/index.html).4349(Question No. 441)4414349Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:On what occasions and in what circumstances has the UN considered the question of Macau.4349Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Any consideration by the United Nations of the question of Macau would be a matter of public record, and be available in the Official Records of the United Nations General Assembly.4349(Question No. 452)4524349Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:What was the cost to the Commonwealth in each year from 1988-89 to 1997-98 of (a) Members' and Senators' salaries and ministerial supplements, (b) parliamentarians' entitlements including superannuation, travel allowances, provision of vehicles, office rent, telecommunications, office equipment, stationery and newspapers, (c) parliamentarians' staff including salaries, overtime, superannuation, travel and training, (d) domestic and international conveyance of parliamentarians and their staff, (e) the operation of each of the five parliamentary departments and (f) other costs associated with the running of Parliament and Members' and Senators' electorate offices.4350Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The information sought in the honourable member's question is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to coordinate and collect the information from several departments and agencies. The practice of successive governments has been not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in assembling such information on a general basis. However, should the honourable member wish, I will ask my Department to discuss with him the information, that may assist the honourable member, that may be drawn from annual appropriation documentation.4350(Question No. 457)4574350Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) What sum did the Australian Tourist Commission spend on international advertising in (a) 1996-97 and (b) 1997-98.(2) What sum was spent on promoting Australia as a holiday destination in (a) England, (b) the UK, (c) Singapore, (d) Indonesia and (e) Japan in (i) 1996-97 and (ii) 1997-98.(3) To what extent have the advertising campaigns increased the number of overseas tourists to Australia.4350Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 1996-97: $88.3m(b) 1997-98: $101.8mFigures relate to ATC international advertising and promotional activities.(2) (a) and (b) (1) 1996-97: $9.8m; (ii) 1997-98: $12.3m.For purposes of promotional activities, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of expenditure for England separate from the rest of the United Kingdom.(c) (i) 1996-97: $6.9m(ii) 1997-98: $6.8m(d) (i) 1996-97: $1.7m (ii) 1997-98: $0.7m(e) (i) 1996-97: $19.5m(ii)1997-98: $17.8mFor UK, Singapore, Indonesia and Japan these costs are country specific. Additional marketing activity relating to cross Regional projects would also have taken place with their expense recorded as a Regional cost.(3) A number of studies have been undertaken to determine the effectiveness of the ATC's activities.- A February 1997 study, for example, found that an increase of $1 million in ATC promotion could generate between an additional $8 million and $10.7 million in tourism income per annum ('The Economic Significance of Travel and Tourism and Is There a Case for Government Funding for Generic Tourism Marketing?', Tourism Council Australia, Property Council of Australia, Tourism Task Force, February 1997.)- An earlier study by the then Department of Finance, the then Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories and the ATC found that the Commission contributed to tourism receipts which benefited tourism industries and the community as a whole ('Evaluation of the Australian Tourist Commission's Marketing Impact', March 1991).4350(Question No. 464)4644350Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:Has the Commonwealth provided funding to Equal Vocational Employment Network (EVEN) Inc. and its associated organisation, Zenith Employment and Training; if so, (a) what sum did it provide in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99, (b) on what programs, activities or products did EVEN and Zenith spend the funds and (c) was portion of the funds used to finance a proposed contract with the Eden Fishermen's Recreation Club under which EVEN/Zenith would assume responsibility for managing the club; if so, (i) what sums and (ii) on what items.4350Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:This question should have been directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator The Hon Jocelyn Newman. For Mr Tanner's information, the Department of Health and Aged Care has provided no funding to these organisations.