1999-03-313912REPS480501999-03-31Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous48054805Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—There are, as we are all aware and as we all acknowledge at the end of every parliamentary year, a lot of people in this house whom we do not see but on whom we rely for all the services we receive. Perhaps one area where this is most marked is the switchboard where there are people with whom we regularly confer but whom we rarely see. They are, of course, in many ways the front window of Parliament House. They are the ones who provide the first contact for many constituents who are seeking to catch up with their members and, of course, they also receive a large volume of work from outside people who are calling in to express an opinion about Parliament House.I rise to acknowledge the work of Ms Marlene Armstrong, who left last Friday after 23 years as a switchboard operator in Parliament House. She joined the parliament in 1976 and she has in fact been the supervisor of the switchboard for much of that time. Marlene has accepted a promotion in Telstra and will be taking another office in Canberra. On behalf of all members and all staff members in the parliament, I want to record our thanks and appreciation to Marlene for the service she has rendered over 23 years and wish her well in her new appointment.FB6THOMSONMr Andrew Thomson—Mr Speaker, if I can have your indulgence: where is the switchboard in Parliament House?10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member asks a valid question. It is in fact conveniently located just behind the post office.09:33:004805Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Can I, on behalf of members on this side certainly and, I am sure, on the other side, also extend our thanks and appreciation to Marlene Armstrong for her work. Business480509:33:004805Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That Notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.This is a motion which would allow for the timely passage of certain tax measures through the House this day. There has been an agreement between the parties, and so I do not seek at this stage to rely upon the motion. That agreement will see the matters dealt with expeditiously and we appreciate the cooperation that has been extended on this matter by the opposition.09:34:004805McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I support the motion, of course. As with the Leader of the House, I wish to join with you, Mr Speaker, in thanking not only Marlene but all the others who work on the switchboard. Not only do they provide an excellent service to the parliament but at least half of them are constituents of mine, so this is a very important issue that should not go unnoticed.In supporting the motion, I wish to say that the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip have come to a sensible set of arrangements and had last night when we received advice that the motion which has now been postponed was to be proposed. It certainly caused a little bit of mayhem as it appeared an agreement was coming unstuck. I am pleased to see that it has not. I understand the outline which the Leader of the House has given and we are confident that these agreements that we have reached will give everybody a fair chance to have a say in this and get the government's business through. Also, the Leader of the House promises to get us all home on time.09:35:004805Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Obviously the government has a particular responsibility to ensure the passage of this legislation, so this notice provides some security about the passage of legislation without in any way reflecting adversely on the opposition, of course. We would not want to do so on our last day, would we, Mr Speaker?Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4806r754Billsr755Bills4806Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.09:36:004806Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The process leading to this debate quite frankly has been a disgrace. The government quite deliberately delayed the introduction of these new tax bills until last Wednesday, giving the opposition minimal time to examine them and generally treating the parliament with contempt, something we will not continue to tolerate. It is not as if the government could not have brought these forward earlier. These should have been brought in last December. There are still more parts of the tax package legislation outstanding, including new fuel and tobacco legislation and fringe benefits tax legislation. This should have been in the parliament today. We have not yet seen any of the anti-avoidance legislation that was also announced as part of this government's great new tax reformation of the century.The Treasurer rails against supposed obstruction by us, but we have met the timetable the government has laid down. It is Mr Costello who has been the delayer. Today's debate is an example of how he leaves until the last minute the scrutiny by this House of those bills. Little wonder more time has to be spent in another place undertaking what should be done here.These are not technical taxation bills but essentially states grants bills which should have been introduced last December with the main GST legislation. It leads to the situation where we have insufficient time. It also severely limits the ability of the Senate GST legislation inquiry to properly examine it. Unfortunately, this simply continues the trend of the Treasurer—hide and conceal everything to do with the GST for as long as possible in the hope that the people will not find out. Despite his attempts, people are finding out and we will continue to highlight the deficiencies of the government's plans.The bills before us today are proposing something truly historic, that in fact we look backwards on ourselves. These are not history making bills in a forward looking sense but rather looking back in history. I would like to be here today debating proposals which are bold and visionary reforms and which are appropriate for the next century, something that Labor could embrace and support. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do it. I move a second reading amendment to these bills:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that the rate of GST has increased in almost every OECD nation with a GST and the same will inevitably occur in Australia;(2) notes that the proposed lock-in mechanism is totally ineffectual and will not prevent future Commonwealth Parliaments from increasing the GST rate or removing exemptions;(3) notes that the GST will be more unfair as the rate increases, as international experience is generally that no compensation is paid when the rate of GST is increased with or without the agreement of the states or territories;(4) notes that the GST revenue is only forecast to increase by 2.7% in 2002-03 which is less than under the current financial assistance arrangements, suggesting that the GST rate will need to be increased in order to finance the needs of the states;(5) condemns the Government for the funding model in the Bill as it will inevitably limit the ability of the Commonwealth to ensure minimum national standards apply for basic community services, and will therefore lead to a more unfair and uneven delivery of public services to Australians;(6) condemns the Government for the funding model which, over time, will force the Commonwealth to restrict the specific assistance granted to states in respect of health, education and other community services thereby leading inevitably to the contraction of Medicare and other vital services;(7) condemns the Government for the lack of equality of opportunity that will inevitably result from the removal of significant national involvement and national standard setting in the delivery of basic community services;(8) condemns the Government for the New Tax System package which, far from reducing, actually worsens, vertical fiscal imbalance, thereby increasing the reliance of the states and territories on Commonwealth revenue sources;(9) condemns the Government for the proposal which seeks to replace the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation, based on an independent assessment conducted by the Commonwealth Grants Commission—which operates to ensure that all Australians have the opportunity to enjoy equal levels of services wherever they live—with a system under which the Federal Treasurer will have the absolute right to determine the future general purpose funding levels of each state and territory and the apportionment of relativities under it without their agreement".Unfortunately, we are debating proposals which are truly awful, which seek to permanently diminish the role of the national government and to inexorably turn Australia from a cohesive nation back to merely a collection of states and territories. Make no mistake, the proposals contained in these bills are designed to and will lead over time to the cessation of national standards for service delivery and equality of opportunity for all Australians. In this plan are the seeds of the Commonwealth being forced to withdraw from Medicare, withdraw from education, withdraw from providing housing and other community services. The mechanism through which this withdrawal will be done is the granting of the GST revenue to the states proposed in these bills.The philosophy is clearly atavistic. This model of financing government does not consider national goals and national outcomes as desirable. It is based on the past rather than on the future. We will continue to oppose the heart of this proposal, the GST, until we succeed in defeating it and, with it, the associated plan to dismantle the activities of the Commonwealth. We are not weakening in our resolve to oppose the GST. We will use every argument and every tactic to defeat it.The underlying justification for this proposal to alter Commonwealth-state financial arrangements is the so-called problem of vertical fiscal imbalance. I say `so-called' because this complex sounding term merely describes the situation where the revenue collections of the Commonwealth exceed its direct spending responsibilities and, by extension, the own source revenue of the states falls short of their direct spending responsibilities. But is vertical fiscal imbalance really a problem? The answer is no. There are actually considerable benefits which flow from Australia's VFI system. First, by definition, it means a more uniform national taxation system than would occur with more state based taxes. As well as lower compliance costs for businesses and taxpayers arising from a more common national tax regime, there are also significant economies of scale in having a centralised national tax administration.Critics argue that VFI then supposedly leads to the situation where the states are not really accountable for their level of spending because they do not have to wear the political odium of raising their own revenue. This is simply wrong in practice. When states wish to make additional discretionary expenditure—for example, in their state budgets—the additional revenue has to be financed by the state. They are totally accountable for that financing task. In practice, the lack of accountability argument under significant VFI is wrong. The Federation has operated under this supposed handicap for many decades. What has it achieved? Relative to the rest of the developed world, it has delivered a low tax, low public debt country with high levels of public services. The great Australian nation we enjoy today was built under this system.VFI is not a serious problem. It is simply an excuse for those who advocate a lesser role for the Commonwealth. VFI simply requires a sound system of general revenue funding for the states from the Commonwealth. Such a system is already in place. It involves the Commonwealth annually providing a real per capita increase in the total level of general purpose funding to the states. This system gives certainty to the states by allowing proper budgetary planning and adequate resources. The first full year growth in GST revenue in year three of this package is only 2.7 per cent, less than the level of real growth and much lower than the alternative under the current system of real per capita growth of around 3.5 per cent. The states are being dudded.The advantage of the current system to the states is that in periods of economic downturn when revenue collections fall considerably state budgets are largely insulated from the fall in revenue due to the Commonwealth maintaining its grants. Quite literally, the Commonwealth budget takes the hit and the states face less pressure to cut their services than they would if they copped the full loss of revenue. So is there a pressing need to fix VFI on economic or other grounds? We say no. However, even if one considered VFI a problem, this legislation does not fix it. It actually makes it significantly worse because the Commonwealth will be collecting more of the states' revenue than it currently does.The states are not actually obtaining a new tax base under the GST. They are actually giving up some of their existing tax bases, such as stamp duties, and thereby becoming more reliant on the Commonwealth budget. VFI will be getting significantly worse under this plan despite the fraud of the Commonwealth classifying the GST revenue, and the safety net revenue for that matter, as state own source revenue. It is not; it is Commonwealth revenue.The states have no guarantees that the revenue from the GST will flow to them. That risk is a dual one. First, at any time in the future the Commonwealth parliament can amend this legislation to limit or remove the appropriation of moneys to the states. It only takes a four-page bill to do this—essentially, four bills but four lines in each of them. First of all, it can create a situation that repeals section 10 of the amendment to A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act—a single line repeal bill that says `repeal the section'. Similarly, in schedule 1 of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition-General) Act, an amendment to section 4 could omit 10 per cent and substitute 15 per cent. There could be a similar amendment to the other two bills that are before us in this chamber. In other words, four bills of one line each—four lines—repeal the lock-in and increase the rate.Secondly, even the bill as drafted does not provide any real guarantee to the states in respect of revenue flows. The reason for that is simple: in the end, the Commonwealth Treasurer retains complete control over how much GST money the states will be allocated. Clause 17 of the main bill reads:. . . financial assistance payable to a state under this act is to be paid in such amounts and at such times as the Treasurer determines in writing.So states only get the money if the Treasurer says so. So much for the greater independence of the states. This is really making them become vassals. The Treasurer is also empowered under the legislation to determine what the per capita relativities are that will apply to each state. There is no mention of the acknowledged expert independent arbiter, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, in the legislation at all. The fate of the residents of the smaller states is quite literally in the Treasurer's hands. And I ask them: would you buy a used car from that man?What are the Treasurer's obligations concerning the derivation of these various relativities under this legislation? The answer is under subclause 9(2). The only check on the Treasurer's powers is that simply before making the relativities factor determination `the Treasurer must consult each state'—that is, a phone call telling them how they have been dudded. What will happen is that he will simply tell the states what they are getting after he has made the decision. In addition, the position of the states is made even more precarious by the need for annual determinations to be made by the Commissioner of Taxation before 15 June in respect of the amount of GST revenue to be paid. What is the situation if such a determination is not made? It appears that no GST revenue would flow to the states. To argue, as the Treasurer has done, that these new arrangements will mean that the states will have greater inde pendence from Commonwealth funding is completely wrong. Indeed, it would be naive to believe so given the track record of this government.During the recession and the budgetary problems that entailed, Labor honoured in full its general revenue commitment to the states. On the contrary, the Howard government reneged on its pre-1996 election commitment not to cut state grants at its first possible opportunity, the 1996 Premiers Conference. We all remember the dog day afternoon on 12 June 1996 when the Commonwealth ripped $1.5 billion off the states. In the end, the Treasurer was humiliated and excluded from the final meetings. The Prime Minister had to conduct the final negotiations on his own.In the last election we saw the unseemly blackmail of the Prime Minister in not freeing up funding to the states but forcing Tasmanians to sell their Hydro if they were to get debt relief. Labor made the same commitment without requiring the sale. For the states to accept on trust the Treasurer's word on this issue is naive. Labor argues that this is not a good deal for the states for revenue security.As well as being risky for the states in revenue security terms, the government's package is also a bad deal in terms of actual revenue returns. We have the Treasurer's claim that `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'—that is, he is saying that these new arrangements will be a fiscal bonanza for the states.Let us look at the truth. In fact, this system does not even give the states the same amount of revenue as the current system provides for at least the first three years, either individually or in aggregate. Pages 35 and 155 of the ANTS document detail that the Commonwealth has to provide a grant of almost $1 billion in 2001-02, a third of a billion dollars in 2000-03 and an interest free loan in 2000-01. So even the government admits that there is no additional revenue to the states in aggregate for the first three years. Furthermore, some individual states are expected to be in deficit from this package for years beyond the first three. But of course these figures actually understate the true revenue losses to the states.The real position is hidden by the fiscal fiddles which are included in the package to make the states' position look better. There are two of these: a growth dividend which yields $200 million a year in year one and supposedly grows to $400 million in year three, and a reduction of costs of $540 million in year one rising to $600 million by year three. So these add to an additional $1 billion of revenue shortfall per year that the states are simply assumed to pick up. How convenient. Some growth tax! In year three, it is 2.7 per cent—below the real rate of growth in the budget papers. The only way to make it a growth tax is to lift the GST rate, and that is what they will do when they get it in. The states are being conned.One state in particular is being singled out for particularly savage and unfair treatment, and that is Queensland. This discriminatory treatment is meted out through the so-called transitional provisions. In fact, these provisions are specifically designed to rip off Queensland taxpayers. These proposals are a $465 million heist on Queensland taxpayers.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Don't believe what Peter Beattie says.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We will believe what Alex Somlyay says, my friend, because he admits this.Mr Truss interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He did say it. You lead with your chin and you'll get it! This led to the Queensland government quite properly rejecting the Commonwealth's offer and refusing to sign the Premiers Conference agreement.Queenslanders are currently enjoying low tax in that state. They will have to pay more indirect tax than they currently do, and they are not going to get their fair share of the new unfair GST. In effect, they are going to be forced to pay for the repeal of higher levels of indirect tax in other states. They are being penalised for running a tighter ship than other states. The government's claim that the Queensland government will be no worse off is a fraud. The point is that Queensland taxpayers will be worse off.Understandably, Queenslanders totally reject this discriminatory treatment. This has led to an unprecedented campaign by Queensland business leaders in the form of an open letter to the Prime Minister from Queensland business leaders calling for a fair deal for Queensland. Even the member for Fairfax has been reported in the Sunshine Coast Sunday paper:"He agreed with the Qld Labor Treasurer's . . . assessment that the state could draw the short straw of GST revenue" and "he could find no fault with the state government's submission on GST funding."To add insult to injury, the government does not even know how long the transitional period is going to be. This an extraordinary botch-up.Clause 1 of schedule 1 of the bill defines the transitional period as `the first three GST years and'—wait for it—`other years that are prescribed'. So the government is giving itself a blank cheque to extend the transitional period for as long as it likes beyond three years, and it can be extended by regulation without even having to come through this parliament. Why would the Treasurer be trying to give himself the power to permanently rip off Queensland unless he wants to make use of it? This is extraordinary treatment, and it graphically illustrates that, as well as the tax package being unfair, it simply does not add up.But it does not end there. There are many other problems with the GST for state budgets that require further compensation. Just a few of these involve: additional public housing costs of hundreds of millions of dollars a year under the Commonwealth-state housing agreement, the cash flow costs with the new financial arrangements, the states' costs of complying with the GST, the loss of state imposed wholesale sales tax equivalents revenue and attribution to state budgets of the claimed embedded savings to local government. So this proposal is basically a shambles. But all of these problems pale when we consider the greatest con in this GST debate—the so-called lock-in mechanism. The lock-in mechanism is a completely cynical strategy engaged in by the government to attempt to deal with the undeniable reality that the rate of the GST will increase. Everyone knows the international facts. All 26 OECD countries with a GST have now increased the rate, with the exception of Canada, the most recent country to introduce one, and probably with the exception of Japan, and Japan has put theirs up.The latest country to increase its GST is Switzerland on 1 January 1999. No doubt it is just a matter of time in Canada as well. Some famous examples are the UK from 10 per cent to 17½ per cent, New Zealand from 10 per cent to 12½ per cent and Denmark from 10 per cent to a whopping 25 per cent. So the government's claim that a 10 per cent rate is high enough to stop it going up is shown to be completely baseless. Put simply, if the GST comes in, the GST will go up. And, as it goes up, it gets even more unfair than it will be at 10 per cent.Remember that the estimate is only for the GST revenue to grow in year three by 2.7 per cent, below the real rate of growth in the budget papers. The lock-in mechanism is a fraud, and any future Commonwealth parliament can remove it with an ordinary, very short act of parliament, and I demonstrated that before. Similarly, it can amend the rate of the GST just as easily: a bill to repeal the 10 per cent, a bill to take it up to 15 per cent—simple one-line bills. The public relations stunt is a transparent fraud and it is symptomatic of the misleading campaign the government has run in promoting its GST.This legislation also seeks to repeal the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act by bringing to an end a 25-year history of Commonwealth-local government partnership. Who was it that introduced local government financial assistance? It was Labor. We introduced those direct payments because of our long held commitment to local government. Commonwealth funding is a way of recognising the roles of councils in our community and of building their capacity to provide the facilities, services and infrastructure that every community needs.When the Whitlam government introduced the local government grants bill in 1974, its purpose was clear. That purpose was set out by the then Special Minister for State, Lionel Bowen, in his second reading speech when he said:The government recognises that many councils are faced with financial problems in providing a full range of municipal services of proper standards. The government believes that these grants will go a long way towards alleviating these deficiencies.There can be no doubt that Commonwealth funding has been essential to the development and improvement of local government services over the past 25 years. The Australian community benefits from competent local government participating as a partner with the Commonwealth and the states. The Commonwealth currently provides untied financial assistance to local government consisting of financial assistance grants and identified local road grants. The grants are distributed to the states on a per capita basis for passing on to local government.In 1997 these general purpose grants amounted to in excess of $1.2 billion. The Local Government National Report for 1997 lists the purposes, and they are important: the financial capacity of local governing bodies; the capacity of local governing bodies to provide their residents with an equitable level of services; the certainty of funding; the efficiency and effectiveness of local governing bodies; and the provision by local governing bodies of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. These are important principles and ones that the Commonwealth should not be walking away from.Around two-thirds of the grants currently go to rural and regional councils, with over half to rural councils. But the National Party is voting to disadvantage these rural communities because it believes that local government is simply a creature of the states.This is a government that has cut local government out of the picture at every step of the way. It has shown utter contempt for local government, and this bill is simply another example. As a final insult, the government seeks to hand local government over to the states on the basis of an agreement with the premiers—an agreement that local government is not a party to.Local government has strongly objected to this proposition. That opposition has been voiced by the Australian Local Government Association. The government has consistently ignored local government's serious reservations about the GST package. Quite simply, local government has been excluded. At the general assembly of local government last year attended by some 700 local government representatives, a very detailed resolution was carried.But the entire package of legislation that is before the House today ignores every aspect of the motion that was carried by those 700 delegates representing local government. Not one part of this request made by 700 local government representatives has been met by this government. So much for the commitment to regional services. This legislation is further evidence that the Howard government has abandoned the regions. The legislation before us now has significant long-term ramifications for local government, especially in regional communities.Local government is fundamental on a number of levels. Local government touches the life of every Australian—providing vital infrastructure, local roads, sporting facilities, rubbish collection, recycling, footpaths, and in some states sewage and water and public transport. In addition, it delivers an enormous range of services to families and communities, to the elderly and to people with disabilities.Why does the coalition want to belittle and ignore local government? Indeed, why did the coalition, led by Peter Reith, disgracefully oppose the constitutional recognition of local government proposed by Labor? It is because the coalition does not understand the benefits of working in partnership to achieve national goals. The coalition is good at tearing things down, but it does not know how to build for the common good.Labor will not let the regions down. We will support and champion regional development. It is fundamental to our future. Regions must be supported and further empowered. Labor is totally opposed to cutting local government adrift. We will move amendments later in the debate to defeat this proposal. We will oppose the provisions of this legislation that seek to hand over local government funding to the states. We will move consequential amendments to reduce the amount of GST revenue to the states by the amount of the local government financing to enable the moneys to be granted to local government. The coalition has comprehensively dudded local government, and the Labor Party will not stand by and watch 25 years of history destroyed.I have shown in this debate that the proposals in these bills do not deliver what the government claims. They treat the people and government in the state of Queensland with contempt. If implemented, the funding model is designed to limit future specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth. Inexplicably, they also involve ridiculous proposals to terminate a successful quarter century partnership with local government. Finally, they will not stop the GST rate from inevitably rising over time. These bills are part of a plan—the GST plan. It is the wrong plan, and it should be defeated. (Time expired)83VEMERSONMr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later time.10:07:004812Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to speak to the GST bills, not to the amendment. I look forward to the minister at the table debating that issue if he wishes. It is very clear from listening to the member for Hotham how much the Labor Party are into retropolitics. It is about justifying their fifties look in this House. They are not concerned about providing the states with a stable source of income, a growing source of income which all states and territories around this great country have been asking for for decades. It is clear that the member for Hotham has not been listening to the various premiers as they outline the problems that they face with vertical fiscal imbalance and the regressive range of taxes that are available. Those taxes will be abolished as a result of this particular piece of legislation. Nine taxes will be abolished, and in their place will be a much more efficient regime. The whole of the GST will be allocated to the states.Whether it is a Labor state or a coalition held state, there is no difference in the response from the various premiers and from the treasurers in each state and territory. The reality is that each of the premiers in the states agrees that this is the way to go, this is the way to remove the inequities, this is the way to remove the vertical fiscal imbalance, this is the way to remove regressive taxation right throughout this country. It will put the states in line with a tax system which is going to grow over time and which will meet their various infrastructure requirements for hospitals, schools, roads, bridges and a whole range of services, including police services and social welfare services, that each state is required to provide throughout this country.Those involved in state governments are aware of how inept and regressive the taxes are at the state level. If you go to any taxation seminar, you will be told very early that the taxes available to each of the states are regressive and are often invisible to the consumer. Yet they provide different levels of regressive taxation. For example, with stamp duty, as you develop an apartment block, each level requires a stamp duty payment. So the overall cumulative cost of the taxation continues to increase. It is, by any count, a very regressive regime of taxes that is available. I am sure many in the business area would like to see the payroll tax included. That was not possible because of the restriction of the rate of taxation to 10 per cent, but there is no doubt that this is the most significant change in the federal-state taxation arrangements since Federation.Because of that, the Treasurer and the government should be congratulated on introducing these bills into the House. The first bill provides the 30 per cent concession in private medical funding to make it more affordable. The second bill will remove the wholesale sales tax and will provide $13 billion worth of tax cuts. At the same time, it will make our industries more efficient because many of the taxes that currently burden it will be removed, such as the wholesale sales tax. The requirement of taxation will be removed when businesses move into the international marketplace. There are some $4.5 billion worth of tax cuts in the manufacturing and the mineral sectors when they move into the international scene.This piece of legislation improves the relationship between the state governments and the federal government. The first reason why this legislation needs to be supported is that it removes nine very inefficient taxes. It provides a stable source of revenue for the states and provides them with a growing source of revenue. That is very significant.Secondly, the states will no longer have to rely on an inefficient range of taxes. They will no longer have to rely on the general purpose grants which they need to line up for every year. There is the great charade of the Premiers Conference when all the state premiers come together and make various demands about the needs of their particular state. The formula for the allocation of grants is based on fiscal equalisation. It will be set out in the formula. There will be three years of transition in putting that formula in place. They will be guaranteed the revenue that they otherwise would have had through the existing system, but it will remove that whole charade we have each year of lining up for the general purpose grants. Instead, we will have a much more efficient system. The whole basis of the GST is efficiency, clarity of understanding and lack of regressive taxes in the tax mix overall.It is also important to recognise that this tax was not imposed on the state and territory governments but one voluntarily and willingly embraced. At the meeting held last November between the Prime Minister, the chief ministers and the premiers, they agreed to these proposals. While there may be some differences at the edges, there is no doubt that premiers, whether in coalition states or Labor states, very much embraced this. For example, the Premier of New South Wales has been silent on this issue. He would know what a bonanza this is for the state of New South Wales. Premier Beattie would know that this is going to provide him with a growth tax to provide all those roads, hospital requirements, policing requirements and maintenance requirements of government facilities that have been so long needed.This is about a revolution in taxation arrangements. On this side of the House we are confronting the taxation issues that have been a great challenge for the states for the past 99 years since Federation. They have been grappling with these issues and this government has faced up to these issues and come out with a sensible tax arrangement which is embraced by all the heads of states and territories.The states can use their grants for any purpose, which of course allows them flexibility. The member for Hotham's claim that, if any change is going to be made, all that is required is a simple one-liner piece of legislation ignores the fact that this legislation requires the agreement of the heads of the states and territories for any change in the GST arrangements. Secondly, it needs to go through the upper house. So you would have an agreement of all the states and territories to any change and an agreement of both houses of parliament. So this whole nonsense that it requires in the late night hours a one-line piece of legislation and all will be changed, ignores the reality of this piece of legislation.There is no doubt about what this bill provides. It provides for 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 the First Home Owners Scheme by the states and territories. All this is sensible and appropriate legislation. It is also important to recognise that, when this legislation comes through, bed taxes around Australia will be removed. This has been one of the principal reasons why we have seen a lot of our international visitors shift out of Sydney and go to other parts of Australia. This legislation will remove those bed taxes not only in Cairns but also in the Northern Territory and Sydney and provide a great incentive to international visitors.It will remove the FID—the financial institutions duty; the debits tax; and the stamp duties on marketable securities, business conveyances, lease mortgages, debentures, bonds and other loans security. In other words, it is a wide ranging reform, removing a whole raft of regressive taxation measures that apply in the various states. What we are going to have is a sensible, appropriate, equitable system of taxation around Australia, providing a growth tax to all of the states which will ensure that the infrastructure that they require for the provision of services will continue on a strong basis. I commend the bill to the House.10:17:004814Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 purports to lock in the proposed 10 per cent rate for the GST and to give the entire GST revenue to the states. It also in effect gives the Treasurer the unfettered power to determine what the distribution of that revenue is as between the states rather than with reference to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, as has always been the case in the past. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved a second reading amendment which I support, which outlines in some detail the concerns that Labor has with this legislation.I turn first to the question of the lock-in proposal. This is in effect an entirely fraudulent proposition, by seeking to suggest that in some way this parliament can bind future parliaments not to amend legislation without the consent of the states. That is an absolute nonsense. It is simply not constitutionally possible. The government knows it; every commentator in the country knows it. It is ludicrous that this should be put into legislation, because it is quite clear that any future Commonwealth parliament may choose to amend this legislation or the other GST bills without reference to the states even though this provision purports to say otherwise.In virtually every OECD jurisdiction where a GST or an equivalent tax has been introduced it has been subsequently increased, and the threat of that occurring is still very real, irrespective of what this government puts in this piece of legislation. It is important to point out that the more a tax of this nature increases, the more unfair in relative terms it becomes and the more likely that compensation for the impact of the GST will erode further over time. It is worth pointing out in parenthesis that, of course, a substantial proportion of that compensation is already effectively a phantom compensation, particularly for pensioners who are guaranteed a rise of 3½ per cent under the provisions of minimum pension increases relevant to the rate of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. So there is a massive double counting going on here anyway. The compensation is already grossly inadequate on a number of fronts and, if the GST does increase in the future, it will be further eroded in value.The second theme that it is important to acknowledge—and perhaps in some respects from a longer term point of view it is just as important—is the question of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states. In this regard, this legislation is doubly deficient. First, because it increases the problem of vertical fiscal imbalance by increasing the extent to which the states are reliant upon the Commonwealth to raise their revenue.At the moment, the states raise roughly 57 per cent of their own revenue—the balance, of course, comes primarily from the Commonwealth. Under the proposals being put to this parliament as part of the total tax package of this government, that figure will drop to roughly 42½ per cent. In other words, the existing problem—which has been the subject of many commentaries in recent times—will actually be exacerbated, and the states' responsibility for raising their own tax revenues will actually diminish quite substantially.The reason why this is doubly bad legislation is that it reduces the Commonwealth parliament's power to set a national agenda to develop uniform national standards to ensure that across this country there is some degree of minimum access to resources in areas like health and education. What will almost inevitably occur as a result of this tax system will be that specific purpose payments to the states—which at the moment are only slightly less in total than the financial assistance grants—will be squeezed because over time the GST revenue will rise and the federal government, particularly if it is a coalition government, will be forced to reduce the specific purpose payments in respect of health, education and the like. So we end up with the worst of all worlds—less state responsibility for revenue raising and less Commonwealth responsibility for setting national standards to ensure minimum equal access to resources across the country in areas like health and education.It is also noteworthy that as part of this process, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the direct federal financing to local government will finish and this will now all notionally occur through the states. As we have such well-known friends of local government in charge as the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, I am sure that local government is trembling at this prospect.Currently, in the 1998-99 fiscal year, financial assistance grants to the states total $16.9 billion and specific purpose payments total about $15 billion. Some 46 per cent of the total Commonwealth payments to the states are specific purpose payments, and 68 per cent of those are for health and education. It is easy to see what is going to happen in the longer term as a result of the introduction of the new tax system. The traditional role of the Commonwealth as a setter of standards and an equaliser of resource provision across the country will be eroded. That is no accident; it is a deliberate strategy of this government to reduce the role of the Commonwealth in areas like health and education and to allow the deficiencies that tend to occur in particular state governments to flourish.According to government figures, the initial shortfall from the GST for which the states will be compensated occurs over the next three years or so and then, from 2003-04, the equation goes into surplus. According to their figures, it will be $370 million extra in 2003-04, building up to $1.25 billion extra over 2004-05. New South Wales challenges those figures but, even under its figuring, clearly it goes into the positive for the states after about five years.The impacts of this will be variable in different states. In particular, Queensland is entitled to be aggrieved at what this government is doing. Queensland has a lower tax base—which is a matter, ultimately, of political choice for the people of Queensland—and hence it has a tax advantage in terms of business competition. Being a Victorian, I may not like this and we may well debate the merits of it, but it should not be attacked by stealth. If there is to be a debate about this issue and if there is to be change, it should ultimately be as a result of decisions taken by the people of Queensland and should not be done by stealth by this government.Queensland also suffers because it has a lower per capita income than any mainland state. In fact, in 1995-96 the per capita income of Queensland was $18,910 compared with the national average of $21,103. This means that the already regressive impact of the GST will be substantially more regressive for Queenslanders because they have a lower per capita income. Queensland suffers in addition because it is a more services dominated economy, it has less manufacturing; therefore it stands to benefit less from things like the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and the shift in emphasis to taxation of services.There is a double straitjacket in this legislation for future governments at state and Commonwealth level. Individual states will have less autonomy because less of their tax resources will be coming from within their own revenue raising capabilities and more will be coming from the Commonwealth, and they will not be able to make the decisions by themselves to change that level of tax revenue—either down, as Queensland has chosen to do, or up, as other states may wish to do.Equally, the Commonwealth is restricted in its access to indirect taxation for the future because it has effectively handed over its indirect taxing power to the states, without the responsibility that goes with it, and it will be unable to provide the vital national leadership that the Commonwealth parliament needs to provide in areas like a national curriculum in education or sorting out the mess in the health system so that one body is ultimately responsible for ensuring that people get decent universal access to a proper public health system and the like.These things are going to go backwards as a result of this legislation. We need a national presence in health and education. We need national standards. We need a Commonwealth parliament that actually ensures that people are not subject to the vicissitudes of particular state governments making decisions that will disadvantage their state or parts of their state on these issues. Over the medium to long term, this tax system will diminish substantially the capacity of the federal parliament to do this.It also ensures that the Grants Commission is sidelined. In the past we have had a transparent, albeit rather complicated, process for carving up funding to the states on a fair basis. On page 84 of the tax package it is stated that the Grants Commission will develop new allocation processes to:. . . reflect the capacities and needs of each State as it currently does, as well as the fact that not all States currently levy the whole range of taxes to be eliminated.That last bit again has some dangers for Queensland. There was a suggestion that not only was the Grants Commission going to be involved but the formula was going to be changed to reflect the actual taxing behaviour of individual states. However, in this bill the Treasurer is aggregating to himself the entire power to determine the distribution of the tax revenue between the states. He may choose to ask the Grants Commission in the future. Who knows. Clearly, this should be spelt out in the legislation. Once again, particularly Queensland but also New South Wales and Tasmania—states that have Labor governments—are entitled to be nervous about the intention behind this particular provision.The tax package statement contemplates that new component in the carve-up process. Where is it? What is the approach going to be? We do not see it in this legislation. There are reasons for concern about that proposal. We now see that the Treasurer seems to have dumped it and is simply taking the approach of saying, `I will just do it. I will get out there with the ruler and the set square and say that you can have this bit and you can have that bit, and away we go.' Sadly, I do not think any of the states can trust the Treasurer as the independent arbiter of who should get what resources.In conclusion, I support the second reading amendment that has been moved by the shadow Treasurer. This bill is an attempt to fraudulently persuade people that the states can lock in a rate on a GST when actually any future Commonwealth parliament can change the legislation without reference to the states. It reduces the role of the national government to set the agenda and to set national standards in health and education. It increases vertical fiscal imbalance and it removes, in effect, the protection that the states have from the Grants Commission that ensures that the national cake is carved up in a way that looks after all of the states and the people within them.10:29:004816Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—Members on this side would acknowledge that the member for Melbourne is one of the more thoughtful, reflective and erudite members of the opposition. As a consequence, he is one person on the other side to whom I listen carefully whenever he makes a contribution in this place. But I have to say that that last contribution was the most half-hearted, limp-wristed, incoherent, faint and unconvincing performance I have ever heard him deliver. There is a simple reason for that: he does not believe it. He has been saddled with the difficult task of walking into this place, sent in by the leadership team, to argue a position in which he has absolutely no confidence or conviction.We as members are often called into this place to speak on one piece of legislation or another which is essentially a housekeeping measure, an administrative change, a finetuning—some necessary but nonetheless uninspired legislative intervention. Very occasionally—perhaps once or twice a decade—we come into the chamber to speak to a piece of legislation which genuinely touches on a moment in Australia's history, which touches on a step forward, a break with the past—a truly innovative, creative, exciting development in Australia's public life. The A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 is legislation which I would put into that category.I would have loved to have been in this place in December 1983 when the former government, to its very great credit, legislated for the floating of the Australian dollar. There was a moment at which the Australian nation turned away from its inward preoccupations and looked out to the rest of the world and set off on a path from which it knew it could never return, and thank goodness it did. As a consequence, we saw the inevitable deregulation of the financial industry in Australia; we saw the breaking down of centralised wage arbitration, which simply could not survive once that initial moment in history had taken place.Today we stand on the brink, on the verge, of a reform which has been a running sore in the life of this nation since the time of Federation. What we have seen is the gradual erosion in the autonomy, the dignity and the self-reliance of the states and a weakening of the spirit of federalism. That has been concentrated on an attack on the ability of the states to raise their own revenue. The member for Cook preceded me by saying that this bill represents the most significant change in federal-state financial relations since Federation, and he is absolutely correct about that position.It was M.K. Ghandi who said that the greatest expression of power is to give it away. This bill is in that tradition. It is the Commonwealth saying to the states after decades—in fact, four generations—of taking power from the states and centralising power in Canberra, `Today, in a gesture of peace, in a gesture of justice, in a gesture of faithfulness to the spirit of the Constitution, we hand back so much of that which we have abrogated unto ourselves.'In a few moments time I want to touch on a couple of the remarks made by both the member for Hotham and the member for Melbourne, but first I wish to develop the question of vertical fiscal imbalance. This is one of the terms about which perhaps some of my constituents in Parramatta would say, `This is government jargon which reflects how out of touch all of you people in Canberra are.' Vertical fiscal imbalance is just talking about the extent of the discrepancy in the ability of one level of government to raise the revenues it requires to fund its own expenditure. Where you get an increasing imbalance or dichotomy or divergence between the capacity of local government, state government or federal government to raise the revenue it requires to deliver its own services all manner of inefficiencies and abuses come into play.In Australia we have seen a further exacerbation of this imbalance with the High Court's decision in 1997 in relation to the state tobacco franchise taxes, which were struck down as unconstitutional. That happened because when the Commonwealth took exclusive responsibility for the raising of income tax in 1942 during the Second World War and never gave it back, the states were forced to get increasingly ingenious at raising revenue through indirect means and often with a questionable constitutional warrant for those fiscal adventures. We saw that again in the decision to strike down the state tobacco tax in 1997.The member for Melbourne was correct in saying that Australia has a very substantial problem with vertical fiscal imbalance. In fact, it has the worst problem of any federation in the world as far as vertical fiscal imbalance goes. I would like to quote a paragraph from a paper by Denis James, of the parliament's own research service, entitled `Federal and state taxation: a comparison of Australian, German and Canadian systems' of November 1997. Mr James says:Australia is characterised by the largest degree of VFI—vertical fiscal imbalance—between its tiers of government of any federal nation. In 1996-7 the Commonwealth raised $130.7 billion in revenue, representing 76% of total Cth and State general government revenues. On the other hand, Cth outlays for its own purposes were only 58% of total general government outlays. As a result, in the same year the Cth provided the states with grants amounting to $34.6 billion. . . Overall in 1995-6 Cth assistance comprised 45.8% of state and territory revenues.The results of that imbalance are several, one of which is cost shifting whereby the states, because they do not have the revenue base to fund their own expenditure, look for ways to push more and more of their constitutional responsibilities underneath the fiscal branch of the Commonwealth. So, for example, in the roads area you will have, in some instances, a deliberate neglect by the states of funding for key arterial roads in the hope that the Commonwealth will then reach out and classify that stretch of road as a federal road—as a national highway—and thereby the states avoid having to reach into their own revenue to fund that expenditure.I recollect a former life, as I follow today the member for Cook, and there is a certain closing of the circle, if you like. As a humble minion on his staff when he was one of Australia's most effective and successful ministers for roads, I remember the frustration he experienced in trying to map out the forward projections on expenditure for the RTA. Funding a major piece of road infrastructure required a forward capital program of three, four or five years if you wanted to get good rates from the contractors. But the problem was that the Commonwealth was funding roads on an annual budget cycle, so you simply never knew from year to year how much funding was going to be available. The result was that the contractors always fleeced the governments because we could only ever contract short stretches of road and we could never make strategic planning decisions. This piece of legislation today again takes this revolutionary step forward to hand back to the states certainty of funding.In health you get cost shifting. The states have responsibility for public hospitals and the Commonwealth has responsibility for Medicare, so you get the public hospital administrators trying to find the most ingenious ways to push their costs under the umbrella of Medicare. This bill touches on the question of local government funding. You have situations where local governments, in order to generate further revenues, will approve residential housing zonings in areas which are flood affected, and then they will go to the Commonwealth and seek for the Commonwealth to provide funding to mitigate the damage caused by the flooding.All of these kinds of inefficiencies flow from uncertainty of funding and from vertical fiscal imbalance. Aside from cost shifting we have a culture of blame shifting, and this is perhaps even more damaging. So what you see at each year's annual Premiers Conference and meetings of the Council of Australian Governments where the Commonwealth comes together with the states is that, instead of having a paternal or family spirit, they degenerate into a slanging match, an undignified spectacle of name calling, finger pointing and, for want of a more decorous expression, `arse covering'—83VEMERSONMr Emerson—Dear, oh dear.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—where nobody wants to take responsibility for their decisions. The people who suffer are political leaders as a class because the public get so cynical and they say, `When are these guys going to take responsibility for their own actions instead of, constantly, the states blaming the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth blaming the states?'The member for Melbourne again raised the chestnut about the certainty of the 10 per cent rate. I just want to give you four reasons for which the people of Australia can be guaranteed it will stay at 10 per cent: (1) this act provides that there can be no lifting of that rate without the unanimous agreement of states, territories and the Commonwealth; (2) it will be supported by the Commonwealth-state intergovernmental agreement; (3) it would be political suicide for the Commonwealth or for any individual state to advocate a rise in the tax; (4) and this is the most critical, the Commonwealth does not get the revenue. It all goes to the states, and that is why this is such a dramatic and historic step forward. This is a measure I strongly, wholeheartedly and with passionate conviction commend to the House, and I urge other honourable members to do likewise.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Before calling the next speaker, I caution the member for Parramatta to in future be a little more decorous about the word he was searching for. Whilst I was not willing to intervene on this occasion, I caution him to be more careful.10:40:004818Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 and the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 are about more than an efficient and equitable tax system, critical though this is. The implementation of these bills will lead to a stronger Australian federation and a stronger Australian democracy, for real democracy depends on the dispersal of legislative powers as well as administrative authority that only the federal system can provide. A true federal system automatically provides checks on the power of central government, introduces healthy competition in government decision making and caters for diverse regional and local issues. A strong federation is dynamic, flexible and responsive.We have before us the first real prospect for many years of enabling the states to fulfil the responsibilities that the Constitution lays upon them, by reducing vertical fiscal imbalance. It is not equitable that the decision of the High Court in 1997 abolishing state franchise fees left our second tier of government with control of just over 50 per cent of their revenue. It is a recipe for less accountable, less efficient government when the states can raise little more than half of their necessary revenue and must rely on regressive taxes like the financial institutions duty and the debits tax. State governments will support a national tax system that is efficient and equitable and which promotes the international competitiveness of Australian industry. The current regime does not satisfy these criteria. Many of the worst taxes that fall heavily on the business community are presently state taxes.Genuine reform, as we have before us, must include abolishing the worst state taxes. This cannot be done without addressing the financial relationship between the states and the Commonwealth. The states cannot give up even their most inefficient taxes without access to an alternative tax base. It is true that vertical fiscal imbalance has been present in Australia to some degree since Federation. Over the century the states' dependence on the Commonwealth has, however, increased markedly.We should all remember that the Australian people have never voted to transfer full income tax powers to the Commonwealth. It was a decision of the High Court. The uniform tax case was taken, significantly, in the first half of 1942 when Australia was in its time of greatest peril and, subsequently, it has been a political impossibility for the states to re-enter the income tax field. The people were not asked. Indeed, in December 1984 a majority of Australians in every state, including over 55 per cent of Western Australians, rejected a referendum proposal to allow the interchange of powers between the Commonwealth and the states. On the surface such a proposal might appear to facilitate cooperative federalism. But the electors knew that, with control of the purse strings, real transfer of powers could only move in a centralised direction, a direction to which they had never assented. In fact, in most comparable federations the regional provincial governments raise half or more of their revenue from income tax.So we must never fall into the trap of thinking that fiscal centralism is inevitable, if not desirable, in a federal system. We must, rather, keep reminding ourselves that other federations avoid vertical fiscal imbalance or succeed in limiting it. We can surely learn from Germany and Canada, and from the United States, in particular, where the 50 states have access to more than enough revenue for their needs, where federalism is an unchallenged principle and where solid economic growth is achieved in the absence of vertical fiscal imbalance.Australians have the right to elect state governments in the expectation that they will be able to implement policies and to stand accountable for them. This requires a stronger and more certain revenue base—the foundation laid by this bill. It also requires the firmness and flexibility needed to negotiate an established intergovernmental agreement for reform of Commonwealth-state finances. True federalism in Australia is about balancing the principle of fiscal autonomy with that of fiscal equalisation—the compensation of the less advantaged states. It is fair that there is some cross-subsidisation so that fellow Australians are not left in a national poverty trap, but equalisation and sacrifice on the part of the better performing states is a fact that needs to be better understood.I will take my home state of Western Australia as an example. According to a Western Australian Treasury analysis, in 1996-97, Western Australia contributed $15 billion in revenue, a calculated share of the deficit of $515 million and received $13 billion in outlays. This amounts to a subsidy of over $2 billion, or $1,417 per head—the highest of any state second only to the ACT with its higher income and lower dependency levels. I do not state this fact by way of complaint but in order that our contribution be recognised so that economic success is not automatically penalised in reforming fiscal arrangements. It is hardly in the national interest to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.Western Australia has gone from being a recipient to a donor, and the cumulative subsidy provided by Western Australia reflects the strong growth in Western Australia's economy over the decade. We have been only too glad to forfeit our status as a recipient, but the strength of our economy must be balanced against the cost of providing services and infrastructure across a vast geographical area. In revenue terms and per head, we have increased our contribution to the federation steadily since 1990-91. Our contribution per capita has risen from $923 in 1993-94 to $1,417 in 1996-97. The reduction in the per capita share of financial assistance grants to Western Australia over four years to 1997-98 amounts to $543 million. I acknowledge that the distribution of Commonwealth grants is only one element in the complex web of redistributional impacts arising from the totality of Commonwealth tax and expenditure policies.Access to a broad based tax will, in time, give the elected state governments an improved revenue base. It presents an historic opportunity for the states to access a GST so that state revenues more closely match growth in the economy and the demand for state services. It is equally important to ensure that in transition arrangements fiscal equalisation is decided with justice so that economic growth and the fiscal responsibility of, for example, the Court coalition government do not further reduce its share of the Commonwealth revenue. All states and territories stand to benefit in significant and substantial ways from the introduction of these bills as part and parcel of the federal government's entire package, A New Tax System.The rate of GST can be altered only by a unanimous request of all states. If the opposition were ever in a position to do so, it could seek to legislate to remove this requirement but, even if it passed the Senate, such a government would likely seal its own fate. The impossibility of either side of politics simultaneously holding government in every state, together with the electoral cycles of state politics, will ensure that no state government will be far enough removed from an election to incur the backlash of agreeing to raise the GST above 10 per cent. It is noteworthy that the checks and balances of federalism can be put to such a constructive use.Those who support our federal system of government will welcome the statement that, from July 2000, responsibility for the financial assistance to local governments will be transferred to the states and territories. This is getting back to a great truth of the Constitution that local government is foremost the responsibility of state parliaments, a responsibility that should neither be usurped nor discarded. In 1974, 53 per cent of Australian voters and 59 per cent of Western Australian electors rejected a constitutional amendment that would have recognised local government as a third tier of government. In 1988, a similar proposal was rejected by a two to one national no vote—in Western Australia the no vote exceeded 70 per cent.Australians do not undervalue local government, but they do not want to see it used as a centralist lever by the Commonwealth. My seat of Curtin has more separate local authorities than any other metropolitan division in Western Australia—seven wholly within its boundaries and parts of three others. Many dedicated people serve as unpaid councillors or work as professional staff. I am equally gratified that this legislation will ensure that there is no funding loss for an essential component of our free society.There will be real and positive impacts on the Australian community because of our new tax system. The greater economic stimulus from the GST-free treatment of exports, reduced fuel taxes and the improved incen tives to work, save and invest, together with the restructuring of the Commonwealth-state financial arrangements, will be of enormous benefit to our federation. This is, indeed, a history making bill. I commend the bill to the House.10:50:004821Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The member for Curtin was talking about vertical fiscal imbalance. Let me say to the House that those who worry about vertical fiscal imbalance are generally states using this as part of their ambit claim in terms of bargaining for extra money or ideologues who want to reduce the role of the Commonwealth. There has been vertical fiscal imbalance for decades; it has served this nation, frankly, quite well. We have very good standards of service. We have low rates of taxation. We have a very successful economy.The extraordinary thing about the member for Curtin's concerns about vertical fiscal imbalance is that in fact the GST package exacerbates that very problem. If you are worried about vertical fiscal imbalance, this makes it worse: the Commonwealth is collecting all the revenue in the shape of GST and then handing it all over to the states for them to spend. It was an extraordinary series of comments by the member for Curtin, and she should really wake up and understand exactly what is going on with this GST package.In the brief time that we have available to speak on this important GST legislation, I essentially want to speak to the opposition's second reading amendment, which talks about our concern that the proposed lock-in mechanism is absolutely ineffectual and will not prevent future Commonwealth parliaments from increasing the GST rate or removing exemptions. I also want to pick up the part of our amendment which notes that the GST will become more unfair as the rate increases and the part of our amendment which condemns the government for the new tax system package.The lock-in mechanism is a completely cynical exercise. This government knows perfectly well that no parliament can bind a successor parliament. All it will take for a GST to rise is for a successor parliament to come in here and introduce legislation to undo this legislation. In virtually every country in which a GST has been introduced we have seen a subsequent increase in its rate. The latest of those was Switzerland, on 1 January.Mr Hockey interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The minister interjects concerning Canada. I always enjoy discussion about Canada. As I recall, Canada was the country where a conservative government introduced a GST and then lost of the order of 160 seats and was reduced to two.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Then why don't you just let us introduce it? You should support us.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—On political grounds that would be a temptation, but in the public interest we reject it. It is all very well for the member for North Sydney to be interested in this. If his side of politics were reduced to two his might be one of the two surviving seats. In every country that has introduced a GST we have seen the rate of GST rise: in the UK from 10 to 12½ per cent; in New Zealand from 10 to 12½ per cent; and in Denmark from 10 to a whopping 25 per cent. So the idea that this legislation is going to lock in the GST is absolute nonsense.The other place where a GST has come in is New Zealand. I was intrigued recently to see the minister announcing a range of measures designed to stop New Zealanders from coming to Australia. The report of this suggested that New Zealand's plunging economy had brought almost 20,000 Kiwis to settle in Australia last year. So much for the impact of the GST on New Zealand.The government, and perhaps some other people, think that the Labor Party should be giving it away and suing for concessions in the Senate and elsewhere. Why would we do a fool thing like that? It would be a fraud on the voters, to whom we as Labor Party candidates and representatives went at the last election and said, `If you vote for us, we will oppose a GST: we will oppose a GST in the House; we will oppose a GST in the Senate.' This government might be happy to break its election promises but this opposition is not and we will continue to oppose the GST.What is the evidence concerning the GST and its impact post-election to emerge through the Senate's inquiry processes? We have seen evidence that the compensation package as it impacts on pensioners will be absolutely worthless. All the evidence is that the rise in pension rates to occur over the next few years with a GST is absolutely the same as the rise which would occur in the absence of a GST. So the effective value of the government's compensation package for pensioners is zero. That is the first thing to come out of the Senate inquiry.The second thing to come out of the Senate inquiry is the GST's impact on jobs. I talked in the House last week about the modelling of Professor Peter Dixon from the Centre for Policy Studies at Monash University which indicates that if workers were to endeavour to achieve compensation for some of the price rises which will come from a GST we would see a scenario in which up to 120,000 jobs would be lost, many of those jobs in regional Australia: 16,000 in regional New South Wales, 11,000 in regional Victoria, 12,000 in regional Queensland, 2,500 in regional South Australia, 1,600 in regional Western Australia and 2,200 in Tasmania. So the GST will have a severe impact on people in regional Australia—and this from a government which claims to have an interest in their wellbeing. Similarly, the GST will have severe impacts in health, education, tourism, forestry and fishing, food, drink and tobacco, and textiles, clothing and footwear. So there will be some real problems from the GST package in the employment area.We have also seen from the Senate inquiry the impact of the GST on local government. Prior to the election the government claimed that the non-commercial activities of local government would be outside the scope of a GST so that, if a service was provided for a nominal charge, GST would not apply. Senator Ian Macdonald subsequently told the relevant Senate committee that a GST will apply to all local government services, even those with a nominal charge. So the swimming pools, the sporting fields, the community halls, the equipment hire, the nurseries, the publications, recycling charges and waste charges—all those sorts of things—will be GSTable, and ratepayers will face either diminished services or increased rates as a result.The other area where we have heard alarming evidence in the Senate inquiry concerns the impact of the GST on charities and fund-raising efforts. St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare, Yooralla and the Helping Hand Association for the Intellectually Disabled—all those sorts of organisations—have come before the Senate and produced evidence that, notwithstanding what the Treasurer claims, they will be worse off as a result of the GST. To try to put them on a level footing with a business is fundamentally unfair. Unlike a business, the profit from their activities is not a private profit; it is used to provide more services for people who need it most. To burden them with the paperwork and the membership fees and all the other things that will come with a GST is totally unfair.Similarly, the evidence is that a GST will have a catastrophic effect on the fund-raising efforts of bodies such as schools. I went along to the Coburg West Primary School fete recently. The kids were being charged $2 for a go on the mini-golf. What we will see with a GST is a charge of not $2 but $2.20 and, much more seriously, a requirement that each transaction be reported. That sort of red tape would completely throttle the efforts of schools and any other organisations which engage in charitable and fund-raising activities to raise money for these important services. As a result, the GST will threaten school fetes and have a catastrophic effect on them.The other part about the GST which has become clearer with time is that it amounts to a redistribution of wealth in reverse—a transfer from the poor to the rich. I received, and others may have received, a letter recently from Brian Clarke of Guildford in which he put forward two alternatives to the GST. He said `increase income tax from 20 to 60 per cent for all taxpayers earning less than $15,000' and then give half of the money raised as tax deductions to the top 20 per cent of income earners while the other half goes as deductions to the 50 per cent who are middle income earners.So this package is about a massive transfer of wealth—something like $6 billion—with over 50 per cent of the income tax cuts going to the top 20 per cent of income earners. As a result, we are opposing the GST package. We are not opposing the legislation before the House, but we are moving amendments which specify our concerns and I urge the House to accept those amendments.11:01:004823Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—Labor opposes the GST for reasons that are self-serving and small-minded. These measures to share power and sources of revenue more equitably between the states and the Commonwealth bring two of these reasons into sharp relief. The issues are the transparency and simplicity of the GST system and Labor's continuing agenda to centralise power in Canberra for the benefit of its union mates. The member for Wills was a walking, talking example of that. In 13 years in office, Labor relied on the murky recesses of the old tax system to hide its dealings and its deals. It did not want to support the states or share power with them, and it did not want to be accountable.I am sure that people would want to believe that if there was a realistic alternative to the government's tax reform package it would reside over there with the opposition. It is therefore instructive to consider their proposal, which is to maintain the current system, and their track record of operating the current system when they were in power. In 1985, for example, the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, abolished tax sharing agreements and introduced financial assistance grants. He then promised there would be a two per cent real increase in financial assistance grants for each of the next two years. He then reneged. The treatment of FAGs by the Commonwealth over the following three years was completely arbitrary. Funding was actually cut in 1988-89 by 2.8 per cent, in 1989-90 by 2.9 per cent and in 1990-91 by 3.7 per cent. There was also a series of so-called technical adjustments, but all of them were negative.Labor relied on a compliant and often sycophantic media to force the states to toe the line and to further its agenda for centralised power in Canberra for its own purposes. Labor cannot live with a GST. If ever they were in government, they could not stand the open public scrutiny that would be applied through a system with one tax rate and a transparent administrative structure. State government will be reinvigorated. No wonder Labor shrink from the idea. You would think they had seen a few cloves of garlic or a silver bullet. With these changes, their agenda of centralising power, of abolishing the states and running the country like a giant soup kitchen, a la Paul Keating will be further away than ever.Members would recall that Labor's agenda for centralisation was thrown into the open during Bob Hawke's last few weeks in power. After systematically ripping off the states year after year and trying his darnedest to diminish their budgetary strength, he finally offered them a whole new contract. It was futile of course. The Keating mates plunged in their knives and Hawke's offer of a new deal, which had been greeted with a shout of acclamation Australia-wide, was never seen or heard of again. In power, Paul Keating set about developing his vision of a nation on welfare, and just about succeeded. Sure, he offered states a three-year rolling allocation of those financial assistance grants, but the states often found themselves facing cuts to general purpose payments. For example, in 1994-95, the states received guaranteed payments, but general purpose capital funds worth $330 million were abolished. That is the way Labor played the game. It is a far cry from the new deal now being offered in the government's tax reform package.I do not think it is overstating the situation to say, quite clearly, that the GST will save the states. It will save them from irrelevance. It will save Australians from Labor's plan to centralise all power in Canberra. It will save us the continuing embarrassment of state based services being duplicated ad nauseam, and heaven help us from future Labor budgets following the Labor pattern and growing out of control like Paul Keating's piggery. Ask the average Australian where the old concept of trust between Australians and their parlia mentary representatives went wrong and they will name Paul Keating faster than you can write it down.In my book, the legislation we are reviewing today does more to re-establish a meaningful relationship between parliaments and the people than any amount of huffing and puffing about parliamentary standards of debate. The way to a better relationship, a better representation of democracy, comes by providing parliament with resources adequate to prepare, present and implement a long-term strategy to manage the future. We are talking about the competent management of services, welfare, economic growth and social development in our community by Commonwealth, state and local governments working effectively together. That is precisely what we have not got today.The GST is a growth tax. The Commonwealth will provide this money direct to the states. They will receive $27 billion in 2000-01, $32 billion in 2001-02 and $33 billion the following year. I believe those amounts are conservative, but what is important is the trend in the amounts provided to the states under this system. They actually increase. That is a revolution in the financial management of the states. For decades, Australian states have managed their affairs based on a system that provided them with less revenue each year—especially under the paternal policies of the former Labor government. Each year, they were more and more reliant on the FAGs and other Commonwealth payments allocated from the Commonwealth soup kitchen. Now I am sure members can go to their state budgets and find, year after year, steady increases in state revenue funding a steady increase in state services.But that is not the point. The real scandal of public financial administration in this country over the last few years have been the lengths to which state governments have been driven in their efforts to prop up their failing sources of revenue. We have seen speed cameras, tobacco taxes, gaming taxes, toll roads and rules that forbid expenditure on infrastructure that does not generate revenue. We have seen asset sales appear out of the blue. We have seen corporatisation. We have seen the otherwise sensible policies of economic rationalism taken to absurd lengths. These seemingly increasingly crazy short-term and desperate measures have popped up unheralded on budget nights from one end of the country to the other. States starved of a meaningful growth tax have been beating themselves and their residents over the head with downright stupid schemes. They say and do anything just to fill the many new holes in revenue every year. States have hospital construction and road building programs that stretch for years into the future without any current means of paying for them. Without the change that is so long overdue, the only certainty in state planning is the trend to absurd impromptu decision making will accelerate.We will see more crazy schemes designed just to boost revenue. In Queensland, for example, we have just seen our speed limits lowered to 50 kilometres an hour. Why? I am sure it has nothing to do with road safety and everything to do with the coming state budget. We have the on again off again sale of the Queensland TAB and the stinking absurdity of retrospective state gaming legislation that is so transparently contrived to increase the value of the TAB when it is sold. We have the spiralling state tobacco taxes, and today they remain under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and still used to prop up the states' failing finances.State bureaucrats Australia wide still share the desperate hope that no matter how high those tobacco tax rates are lifted people will keep smoking. It is a joke to present these taxes as a health measure. They raise revenue and nothing else. If it was otherwise and the motivation had anything to do with health, the rates of the tobacco franchise fee would be 10 times its current level. The fact is that traditionally increases in the tobacco tax rate are just enough to maximise the return to state governments. In their own best interests, states have worked to ensure that the number actually giving up smoking is kept to the bare minimum. I am sorry if I sound overly cynical, but it is no wonder that people are cynical with politics and no wonder that for a while people were prepared to grab the dangerous and inept policies espoused by my main opponent in the October election in the federal seat of Blair.We owe it to our constituents to establish a system of taxation that provides for the present and future needs of Australians without resorting to the cockeyed opportunism that is now trotted out by the states. Sure, year after year they eventually find enough to make ends meet but in the process they regularly insult their residents, local authorities and industries with a whole range of new injustices. I am not surprised people are fed up. I should say that under the current system the Commonwealth is often similarly afflicted. The important difference between the government's proposals and the existing system is the sanity and certainty we will restore to intergovernmental relations in this country. In the future, people sold a 10-year hospital rebuilding program should be able to see at the outset where the money for such an ambitious scheme will come from. If a $1 billion water infrastructure scheme is proposed, the same principle should apply.The big question today should be to the states: on what will they spend the billions of extra dollars they will receive as the GST grows and the discriminatory pre-emptive state taxes of the past are phased out? The defence minister, the member for Ryan, made this point very well in August last year. Because of the strength of the GST revenue stream, he said that states will be in a position a few years down the track to completely eliminate payroll tax. In Queensland's case, that represents something like 26 per cent of current state revenue which is now being gained through an unfair discriminatory tax on jobs.The Victorian Premier, quoted by AAP, in response to the member for Ryan stated the date by which states could be weaned off payroll tax. He said that, assuming a five per cent GST revenue growth rate, payroll tax in Victoria could be history by 2006. That is just six years to supplant a major discrimatory tax that is a huge disincentive to employment Australia wide. That is not the only option. Roads, schools, hospitals, seniors' entitlements—all these options—can be finally addressed by states utilising the GST. They can choose where they will spend the dividend. Councils are another option particularly deserving of greater financial support. Fat chance for any of this unless the GST is endorsed.I pity those, if the GST does not proceed, who will have to put up with the lame excuses and downright lies that will continue to characterise budgetary planning, particularly at the state level. It is a simple choice. It is future planning versus guesswork. It is accountability versus responsibility. It is transparency versus mud.11:11:004825Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The GST is bad for the nation, but it is especially bad for Queensland. So I was astonished to hear the member for Blair failing, yet again, to stick up for Queensland in the face of the impact that the GST will have on our state. Queensland did not agree at the Premiers Conference in November to the arrangements that were proposed by the Treasurer. That did not stop the Treasurer standing up here in the parliament at question time asserting baldly that Queensland did agree to those arrangements. I checked as late as this morning to confirm that Queensland did not agree. The member for Cook asserted in this debate that Queensland agreed to these arrangements. That is completely untrue. It does no service to this parliament to have government members of the parliament asserting something as truth which in fact is completely untrue. Evidence was given to the Senate GST inquiry by the Queensland Treasury that they did not agree at all to the arrangements that were proposed last November.The impact of the GST arrangements on the state budget in Queensland will be to reduce state government revenue effectively by some $465 million. Earlier this week 32 leading businessmen and women in Queensland wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister pointing this fact out and imploring him to look after the interests of Queensland, but I am afraid that has fallen on deaf ears. Authors of the letter included representatives of the Bank of Queensland, Morgan Stockbroking, BHP Coal, Queensland Investment Corporation, the Canegrowers Association, Sir Frank Moore, Bell Morgan Securities, Southern Pacific Petroleum, Ariadne Australia and MIM Holdings. The letter said in part:Dear Mr HowardQueensland's business community urges you to treat Queensland with equity and justice when implementing the Commonwealth's tax reform package.Under the current proposal, Queensland will lose $465 million of revenue generated by the Goods and Services tax during the new tax system's transition period. This revenue will effectively be used to subsidise the removal of taxes and charges in high-tax States such as New South Wales and Victoria.Because Queensland is a low tax jurisdiction, the implementation of the GST will lead to overall higher per capita taxes being paid in this State. This is because the State taxes that the GST is to replace are considerably lower in Queensland than elsewhere, but all Australians will pay a uniform rate of GST.The letter goes on. Queensland is the low tax state and therefore will be disadvantaged by these arrangements. In addition, amongst the mainland states, as the member for Melbourne has pointed out, Queensland has the lowest per capita incomes. Therefore, the regressive impacts of the GST will be felt more severely in Queensland than in any other state.That is not the end of the story, however. Queensland will again be especially hard hit by the impact of the GST on jobs. Even the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Mr Chris Murphy, has quantified an impact on Queensland five times greater than on any other state of Australia. The Prime Minister's preferred modeller is indicating that Queensland will be especially disadvantaged by the GST. Professor Dixon was commissioned from Monash University to do work on the employment impacts of the GST. He has found that in Queensland job losses of up to 22,680 can be contemplated. In Brisbane alone, there is the prospect for almost 11,000 job losses. The entire GST package is ill-conceived. As I say, in the context of the nation as a whole, Queensland is the big loser from the GST package.The arrangements that are being debated here today in the legislation also put into grave doubt the future of the Federation. The reason I say that is this: by effectively allocating the $32 billion of revenue from the GST to the states whilst removing the financial assistance grants, what will happen in the future is that when advocates legitimately arguing for increased expenditure in health, education and family services come to the doors of Canberra ministers, Canberra ministers will say, `No. The states have got the GST. Go and see them.'The pressure will be on the states to deal with these things and in very much a non-uniform way. The pressure that ultimately will come to bear will be a pressure to increase the rate of the GST. As advocates for increased spending on health, education, Medicare and family services approach the states, they will then be saying, `Well, if you don't have enough revenue, maybe we have to increase the GST rate.' That underlines the point that the lock-in mechanism being debated here today is nothing but a sham. We have seen the reality of what happens in nations that introduce a GST. In 22 out of 23 countries with a GST, the rate has been increased.What about the impact on local government? In my own area, the Logan City Council has had an analysis done by accounting firm KPMG with the Local Government Association of Queensland which indicates that more than 40 per cent of Logan City Council's charges will, or may, bear the GST. Again, local government is going to be disadvantaged by the GST arrangements.If this is such a great tax, why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to mention those three little letters—GST? I have done a bit of analysis of the Prime Minister's responses to a vast array of questions that have been asked of him in questions without notice in this parliament since the beginning of this year. In response to those questions without notice, the Prime Minister has spoken almost 4,000 words. It may interest this parliament to know how many times he has mentioned `GST'. The answer is that he has let the word `GST' slip just six times. He had a very bad day on 9 March when he mentioned it four times. It is quite clear that his pollster has told him not to talk about the GST and to use the euphe mism of `tax reform'. He did have a very bad day in the parliament in letting it slip, but it is quite clear that the Prime Minister is avoiding the use of the word `GST' because he knows what we know—that is, it is a tax that is bad for the nation. If it is such a good tax, why is he so reluctant to even mention the word?It reminds me of the episode of Fawlty Towers when Basil Fawlty was told, `For goodness sake, don't mention the war.' After a tragic set of events in the restaurant, he came back at the end of that particular episode and said, `I only mentioned the war once, but I think I got away with it.' That is what our Prime Minister is doing. He only mentioned the GST once, but he thinks he may have got away with it. In fact, he has not got away with it at all.This is the last day of sitting before the Senate GST inquiry is due to report. I would like to briefly review the evidence that has come forward to the inquiry. Firstly, in relation to the adequacy of revenue under the current arrangements, we hear that the wholesale sales tax is incapable of contributing to generating the revenue needs of Australia's future. In relation to the wholesale sales tax, analysis performed by Access Economics shows that the base of revenue is eroding by only $100 million a year. So we have a $32 billion tax to deal with an erosion of $100 million a year. Indeed, Professor Peter Dixon of Monash University has shown that the revenue projections from the existing system are as healthy as those from the proposed GST arrangements. That completely exposes the myth that we must have a GST to deal with Australia's future revenue needs.In relation to the economic impacts, there has been a litany of evidence about the adverse economic impacts of the GST. Again, the Prime Minister's preferred modeller has shown that in the most optimistic circumstances the GST will contribute just 65c a week per family—that is, in the absolutely most optimistic situation of no short-term job losses, a full passing through of indirect tax reductions and, in addition, that there would be absolutely no GST paperwork burden. We have heard from Arthur Andersen and other accounting firms that the GST legislation of some 200 pages is far more complex than the New Zealand legislation which is 75 pages. They summarise it as being an administrative nightmare.We know therefore that the GST fails the test on revenue and fails the test on economic impacts. There will be large-scale job losses from the GST. It is an incredibly complex tax and is difficult to administer. Most of all, it is a very unfair tax. We heard from ACOSS and various church groups yesterday about the unfairness and the unacceptability of the tax package. There is no doubt that this is one of the most unfair proposals ever put before the Australian people. I can assure you that the Labor Party will continue to do everything it can to stop the GST proceeding.11:22:004827Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—This legislation introduces the most far-reaching reforms to Commonwealth-state financial relations since Federation. This legislation is an integral part of a much larger plan for reform of Australia's taxation system—a taxation system that rewards effort with incentive, provides a secure source of revenue for Australia's states and territories, establishes a taxation system that is fair and consistent and simplifies taxation obligations for Australian business by harmonising taxation payment dates and reducing their frequency.Since Federation, states and territories have battled with the problem of having to budget without a secure revenue base. This has resulted in an inconsistent system of indirect taxes levied by the states and territories and financial assistance grants provided by the Commonwealth. This inadequate financial relationship between the states and the Commonwealth has resulted in a range of inefficiencies and inconsistent taxes between different state and territories. Under this legislation, the Commonwealth will transfer the entire GST revenue to the states and territories and, in return, the states will abolish nine of their current taxes and accept greater financial responsibility for their affairs.The introduction of the GST will fund the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and nine separate state taxes. This will reduce the tax burden on Australian business by just on $10 billion each year from 2001-02. With access to the entire GST revenue, states and territories will have a secure and growing source revenue. This will give the states and territories greater autonomy in their own financial affairs and greater financial independence from the Commonwealth, providing certainty in revenue and eliminating debate over the general purpose grants at the annual Premiers Conference.An important area of reform covered in this legislation is the assumption of responsibility for the funding of local government by the states and territories. The states and territories currently have legislative responsibility for local government, and it is only appropriate they assume financial responsibility for local government as well. Under the measures contained in this legislation, responsibility for local government financial assistance grants will be transferred to the states and territories from 1 July 2000. The reforms to Commonwealth-state financial relations contained in this legislation will provide the states and territories with a strong, growing tax base that will improve their financial position. In return, the states and territories will forgo the current financial assistance grants and a range of inefficient taxes and assume additional expenditure responsibilities such as funding for local government.11:25:004828Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I am going to take this brief opportunity prior to a vote to point out that the government will not be accepting the proposed second reading amendment put forward by the member for Hotham.Mr Crean interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Oh, what a great surprise! Here we see the member for Hotham again going back to the future, as he did last night in an address in Sydney when he talked about the vague, esoteric principles of the new, modern Labor approach to economic reality.I am here to inform the House that the bunch of proposals put forward in the amendment by the member for Hotham will be rejected because they are inaccurate and because they will not apply, because we have put forward a package which sets out that the GST will be 10 per cent, and that the states will receive all of the GST revenue.The package replaces nine taxes. Importantly, of those nine taxes, three relate to financial services. They are: financial institutions duty, debits tax and stamp duty on the transfer of shares. If you ever wanted for a moment to be reminded of the insidiousness of some of those taxes, particularly debits tax, then I remind people that, if you have a chequebook attached to your bank account, every time you make a deduction from that bank account you pay debits tax because you have a chequebook attached. That is 30c per withdrawal less than $100. If you have two bank accounts—a chequebook account and a normal savings account—on each withdrawal from your chequebook account you will have to pay debits tax. On each withdrawal from your normal savings account, you do not have to pay debits tax. So there is an incentive not to have two bank accounts, but to have one bank account.This insidious tax, which so few people know they are paying, raises $1 billion a year. The great irony about this tax is that, during the debate about referral of debits tax from the Commonwealth to the states in the Debits Tax Termination Bill 1990, the then Minister Assisting the Treasurer, said:This Bill will facilitate transfer of responsibility for debits tax from the Commonwealth to States and Territories. It does this by amending the Debits Tax Act to terminate imposition of the tax by the Commonwealth. The transfer of the tax base to the States has the potential to rationalise the taxation of financial services and provides the states with an additional revenue source.In 1990, debits tax raised $390 million. In 2001, it will raise over $1 billion. Who was the minister that referred it at the time? Who was the minister in Hansard ? The current member for Hotham. What a surprise!The current member for Hotham is giving us this gratuitous lecture about the tax base, about revenue stream, about growth taxes. He knows what a growth tax is because he was responsible for the transfer of a so-called `narrowing base tax' from the Commonwealth to the states back in 1990. The interesting thing is that the states continue to deliver the hospitals, the schools, the police and most of the roads, yet they have a revenue base that is in effect deteriorating overall. That is why the states have started to increase the amount of gambling allowed in individual jurisdictions; that is why they have been searching for new revenue sources to plug the holes of their existing revenue base. That is why we have seen enormous growth in the number of casinos and poker machines in Australia. It is because the states are desperately searching for a revenue base that will support their existing continuing-to-grow expenditure items, such as hospitals, schools, roads and police.As a result of this, the government is replacing nine taxes with one. We are replacing a narrow revenue stream with a growth revenue stream. Until such time as members of the opposition recognise that there needs to be fundamental reform in Commonwealth-state relations, until such time as members of the opposition recognise that the states cannot continue to rely on a redundant dirt-road taxation system when we have a Ferrari like economy, they have no credibility coming into this House and opposing each of our bills that form part of a package that the Australian people have endorsed—and endorsed overwhelmingly.An incident having occurred in the gallery—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—That's right.UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—Hear, hear!Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [11.36 a.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs D.M. Kelly) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4829Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:41:004829Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Page 11, section 12, (line 8), omit the formula:SubstituteAdjusted StateGSTTotal hospitalx +populationrevenuegrants _State hospital _State localAdjusted total populationsgrantgovernment grant(2) Page 11, Section 12 (after line 19), insert: State local government grant means the grants of financial assistance for the State for the GST year payable under the provisions of the local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995;These amendments will remove from the formula the quantity of money which is currently applied as state and local government grants. During my first speech, I spoke about the dependency of small states like South Australia on horizontal fiscal equalisation. Put simply, one of the functions of a federation is to provide some redistribution of income between the states making up that federation. In South Australia's case, historically we have almost always been dependent on some redistribution of national income to maintain the standard of living which is equivalent to the national average.I made the point that the only practical alternative to horizontal fiscal equalisation would be a system focused on ensuring adequate Commonwealth funding of individual services like health, education and police to ensure that they are maintained at an appropriate national standard. The Liberals, on the other hand, have always favoured states' rights and state taxing powers. The so-called new tax system proposed by the Howard-Costello government uses the GST to provide a de facto new taxing power to replace financial assistance grants.The undertakings which have been given to the states do not provide an adequate assurance that specific purpose payments will not be cut. All that has been said is that the Commonwealth has no intention to cut specific purpose payments. Any competent state negotiator would have demanded `will not' or `shall not' cut specific purpose payments as the necessary undertaking to be contained in the agreement on access to GST revenues. This bill represents the first cut to specific purpose payments. The Commonwealth has taken the decision to stop funding local government. It wants to hand all of that responsibility to the states. Funding is currently provided to local government through the states in the form of per capita financial assistance grants plus identified local road grants. The local government financial assistance grants were the creation of the Whitlam Labor government. The states have used their own processes of horizontal fiscal equalisation to distribute the money. In 1997-98 general purpose funding for local government amounted to $830 million and road funding to $380 million.Local government have rejected the Howard government's proposal to put responsibility for their funding entirely within the hands of the states. Why? Because they do not trust the states to provide them with adequate funding. Once local government funding is entirely within state hands, it will be more vulnerable to cuts by the states and vulnerable to future Commonwealth cuts to the states because they will look to local government rather than their own activities for reductions in expenditure. Once responsibility for local government funding has been transferred to the states, this will be a matter of total indifference to the Commonwealth Treasury. In fact, they will probably see it as a convenient way of spreading the burden of any future fiscal consolidation. It is the antithesis of the Commonwealth providing either horizontal fiscal equalisation or adequate funding of services to ensure that they meet appropriate national standards.The Labor Party's policy is to continue Commonwealth funding of local government. Labor's position is to maintain the current arrangement of the Commonwealth providing a per capita grant. In the context of this legislation, that means reducing the amount of funding allocated to the states from the GST by an amount equivalent to the value of general local government funding and identified road grants. In that way, the present system of Commonwealth local government funding can be maintained and the effect on Commonwealth outlays is neutral. Local government has put two main propositions to the government, and I will deal with these in the course of the committee stages of the debate.11:46:004830Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 is all about providing some certainty and updating the taxation system that this country has endured—and has watched being changed and basically perverted over a long period of time—so that we can go into the next millennium with some certainty about funding for schools, roads, police and all the basic essential services that state governments are required to provide.I know that in my own state of Queensland, there are a lot of false tears being cried by Premier Beattie. We have seen the sort of approach before that Premier Peter Beattie is offering on this matter from previous incarnations of premiers of all colours. When Premier Beattie is looking at year 4 and saying that Queensland is going to be worse off for the first three years, he is looking at the $460 million-plus that Queensland is going to have up its sleeve in year 4. He is not complaining about that, but he wants it in year 1, year 2 and year 3 as well.The government's proposals are going to maintain the current level of income and funds available for the Queensland government. It is not going to be $1 less. The Queensland government is crying crocodile tears over this matter for purely political reasons. We have seen it all happen before. In year 4, Queensland is going to be well off—$465 million extra. I know what Premier Peter Beattie is currently doing; he is playing a simple game of politics to try to look tough and to bash Canberra to try to pick up a few votes.The Labor Party is completely bankrupt morally on this issue. Those opposite who have spoken this morning about where Queensland's position lies and who have entered the debate in recent days—such as the member for Rankin; I heard his contribution before—are morally bankrupt on this issue. They are denying Queenslanders the chance to be a part of a system that is going to be good for this country and good for Queensland. It is very important to know that the stunt that Premier Beattie pulled at the Premiers Conference on 13 November in disagreeing with just one paragraph of the transitional arrangements, was exactly that: a simple stunt.There is a guarantee that over the next three years Queensland will get no less than they currently get and more for every year after that. In fact, a windfall is what they are going to get as a result of the changes to the taxation arrangements that the Howard government is bringing into place.Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Blair has got it right. There is a great con that is going on, and it is so sad to see normally intelligent and forthright members of the business community in Queensland signing up to a stupid letter that the Queensland government hoodwinked them into signing just the other day in advertising in the press in Queensland.Nobody in this place should be under any misconceptions about what is really being unveiled by those opposite yet again. It is another attempt to try to deny the people of Australia a fair tax system that is going to bring benefits to other levels of government—local and state—and particularly to my state of Queensland. It is a tax system that is going to bring about certainty so that governments, particularly the Queensland state government, can plan to provide more police on the beat in my electorate of Moreton—and heaven knows we need them. We certainly also want to see proper funding for schools in my electorate and, I am sure, also in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—Hear, hear!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Blair and all Queensland coalition members are standing up strongly for Queensland on these sorts of issues. But what is absolutely outrageous is to think that the Premier of Queensland is quite happy to have this tax system in place because, at the end of the day, that is the central premise of his argument.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—He wants it.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Blair is right—the Premier wants it. He wants this taxation system. All he is simply trying to do is to create some cheap political point scoring in the first three years of its operation knowing full well that in the fourth year Queensland is going to pick up a windfall. It is a sham; it is a joke, and it is very sad to think that the Premier of Queensland would spend thousands of Queensland taxpayers' dollars to run an ad to try to criticise this government's attempts to provide more dollars to Queensland.It is an outrage that the people of Queensland are not being dealt with fairly by the Premier. It is an outrage that individual families in the wonderful state of Queensland are going to be denied some of the means that are contained within the government's taxation reform agenda that will end poverty traps and provide greater certainty to lower income earners and to social security beneficiaries. The matters before the House are important. Those opposite continue to be morally bankrupt on the issue of taxation reform—cheap political points instead of a decent tax system. (Time expired)Question put:That the amendments (Mr Cox's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [11.55 a.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs D.M. Kelly) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.4832Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4832r7554832Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4832Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:02:004832Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Title, page 1 (lines 1 to 2), omit "to amend and to repeal the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, ";(2) Schedule 1, items 1-8, page 3 (line 6) to page 6 (line 14), omit the items;(3) Schedule 1, items 9-16, page 6 (line 15) to page 9 (line 5), omit the items;(4) Schedule 2, heading to Schedule , page 10, line 2, omit "2—Repeal of Acts", substitute "1—Repeal of Act";(5) Schedule 2, before item 1, page 10 (line 4), omit "Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 ";(6) Schedule 2, items 1, 2 and 3, page 10 (lines 4-15), omit the items; and(7) Schedule 2, item 4, page 10, (line 17), omit "4", substitute "1".These are consequential amendments that were predicated on the previous amendments. The Australian Local Government Association has put on record its dissatisfaction with the government's position, and I think it is probably worth the time of the House to go through those arguments. Its submission proposes that local government receive a fixed share of GST revenue, specifically six per cent. It made the point that general pur pose Commonwealth funding for local government had fallen as a proportion of total Commonwealth tax revenues from 1984-85 until now. A six per cent GST share would quite quickly restore that.Fairly shortly after that, because the GST is a growth tax, it would provide local government with a larger share of Commonwealth revenue than it has ever had before. If it were maintained at six per cent, it would provide hitherto undreamed of revenues for local government—so much revenue that, after completing every possible public work and providing every possible public service, local government could contemplate gradually reducing or abandoning its own traditional revenue base of rates on property value.In reality most functions of government do not require a fixed share of total Commonwealth tax revenues to provide an adequate service. There are some areas of public expenditure that require a growing share of total Commonwealth tax revenues to provide an adequate standard of service. The obvious example now is health with our ageing population. When the baby boomers were growing up it was education. It is to make room for these sorts of needs that growth in expenditure in other areas as a share of total Commonwealth tax revenues must be constrained if we are to avoid both waste and an unacceptably high level of taxes. The last federal Labor government recognised the growth needs of local government when it shifted from same real to same real per capita funding in 1994. Growing population is a good indicator of the actual need for growth in funding.The second submission was received from five state and territory local government associations. It is not coincidental that they are the smaller states and the Northern Territory. What they propose is that the Commonwealth Grants Commission extend its assessments to include the local government sector on a whole of state basis. That would require the Commonwealth Grants Commission to identify the local government component of the total grant to each state and the Northern Territory. This would change the relativities of Commonwealth local government grants between the states from per capita to the Grants Commission's assessment of need and revenue capacity relative to a theoretical national standard. That is a concept which has considerable conceptual merit and is certainly consistent with my own strong views about the role of the Commonwealth in our Federation. However, it would be extremely difficult to implement and my amendments do not contemplate that here.The submission from the local government organisations recognises that there are transitional difficulties which would make some states and therefore local governments worse off than they are today. To deal with that they propose that any redistribution be subject to the agreed transition guarantee that no state be worse off than under the current arrangements. The redistribution would take place over time and only out of the surplus which the GST is expected to produce. That brings me to a particular concern for both state and local government. GST revenues will fluctuate with the economic cycle.I was amazed by the attitudes of conservative state premiers who seemed to believe not only that the Howard government will not cut specific purpose payments but also that GST revenues will continue on an inexorable growth path. By taking that blind step of faith they have left themselves in the position where they face, first by cuts to SPPs, a substantial diminution of the assumed growth benefits of the GST, then a slowing of that growth at a time determined by the economic cycle.To date it has been the Commonwealth which has carried the fiscal burden associated with those parts of the economic cycle where growth is neither positive nor growing. State and local government revenues will, if this bill passes unamended, no longer be protected from the downturn by the Commonwealth. Most of their expenditure, as service providers and constructors of capital works, is wages. Any adjustments state and local governments make to compensate for declining revenues will inevitably mean cuts to services and cuts to capital works, and that means jobs.Local and state government will be forced under the Howard government's funding arrangements to respond to recession in a way which compounds the problem. Inevitably, the states will put more of the burden on local government when they are faced with the choice of cutting their own services or cutting those of the third tier of government which they are funding. The fiscal stabilisers have, up until now, been where they should be—in the hands of the Commonwealth. Under Labor they have in difficult times been supplemented in recession by short-term funding to the states and, particularly, to local government to undertake capital works to stimulate economic growth. The obvious implication of the Howard government's funding arrangements and of its philosophy is that a Commonwealth response to assist both the states and local government will no longer be appropriate.12:07:004833Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The member for Kingston probably should recognise that local government in this nation is a creature of the states. In Queensland, my own state, the City of Brisbane Act creates Brisbane City Council and the Local Government Act creates all of the various local government authorities. Some change their shape and size, some amalgamate, some exist and some cease to exist over a period; nevertheless, it is the state government which actually administers local government.The federal government has in the past been setting aside a certain amount of federal assistance—a certain amount of the FAGs grant money has been set aside specifically so that local government are able to do some of the things that local government should do. It is still a statement of fact that as a result of the tax reform of this government, of the Howard government, we are going to see a growth tax in the hands of state governments and, therefore, the pressures will be on state governments to pass on a greater share, or the correct share, of that growth tax to the local authorities.It is not the role of the federal government to decide whether or not the kerbing and channelling in Tarragindi in my electorate is going to be upgraded in the way it should be. Heaven knows, the Labor administration in Brisbane City Hall cannot get it right, the member for Blair might like to know. It is not the role of the Howard government, the federal government, to decide whether or not the bus routes in Yeronga should be changed despite the fact that local residents do not want them to be changed. It is not the role of the government to tell the Soorley administration that they cannot spend tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars on glossy brochures to send around the letterboxes of the suburb of Yeronga and the suburb of Moorooka telling them that, despite what people might have said about their concern about bus route changes, their opinions have been ignored.In other words, matters such as local government expenditure and access to share of revenue really are more in the bailiwick of the state governments. It is fine for those opposite who may have centralised ideals—I cannot say that the member for Kingston said those words, but it is worth noting that he did say he had some strong feelings about the role of the Commonwealth. Perhaps he wants us to start doing kerbing and channelling. Maybe he wants us to start doing road patching.83UCOXMr Cox—It's not our job.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I take that interjection. It is worth noting that the member for Kingston concedes that it is not our job. But, if you listen to those opposite, one suspects that we should be the ones, as the minister at the table suggested, who pay for it and know where it is being spent. It is not our role to do that. What is important to note is, as a result of the tax reform proposals, this government will be providing to the states, including to the state of Queensland, a growth tax—a tax which will increase the amount of money available to states to provide police, hospital services, school services and all the services that we expect state governments to provide.The Queensland Premier has not disputed the fact that Queensland will be $460 million a year better off after the third year of this tax reform. The only dispute he has is that he wants today the money he is going to get in a few years time. He wants to get it for each of the next three years as well as for the fourth year, and that is the only dispute he has. It is one paragraph of the agreement that was put to the premiers at the Premiers Conference on 13 November. It is an absolute nonsense.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—He is looking for something to complain about.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Perhaps he is. The member for Blair is right—the Queensland Premier is looking for something to complain about. It is simple, cheap politics and it is being perpetuated in this chamber here today. As the Treasurer said in his article in the Courier-Mail on 19 November:There is only one way Queensland will be unquestionably worse off. That is if the federal Labor Party defeats tax reform altogether.I think that is worth quoting on the record in this chamber. All of those who read and listen to this debate should understand that the Labor Party are simply trying to defeat the prospect of a future in Australia which is debt free, which is certain as far as income stream is concerned, which has sensible, fair and transparent tax reform. Labor are trying to defeat this legislation for the sake of politics only.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.4834Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4835r761Billsr765Billsr763Billsr764Billsr757BillsBillsBillsBillsBills4835r760Billsr758Billsr759Billsr756Billsr7624835Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.12:14:004835Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The process leading to this debate, as with the earlier ones today, has been a disgrace. The government quite deliberately delayed the introduction of these bills concerning the wine equalisation tax and the luxury car tax until last Wednesday, giving the opposition minimal time to examine them, given their complexity, and generally treating the parliament with contempt. As I indicated earlier, we are not going to allow this to continue into the future. These bills are very important to both the wine industry and the car industry. It is not fair to those industries that they should have been forced to deal with so much uncertainty over the past many months.As well as the GST, the wine industry is facing a second tax—the wine equalisation tax. This second tax is very complex—around 86 pages of legislation contained in five bills. It arises for one reason and one reason only—that is, the arrogance of the Treasurer. The Treasurer would not embrace the idea of a multirate direct tax. He wanted a single rate GST, and he does not care about the consequences. The consequences for wine producers are more complex legislation, as acknowledged by Arthur Andersen in its submission on the GST and the inquiries attached thereto.Furthermore, the GST is applied on top of the WET—the wine equalisation tax—so wine consumers are facing a tax on a tax. This tax package represents a huge revenue grab on the wine industry and wine consumers. It is estimated that these proposed arrangements will increase the tax on wine by around $147 million from the current level. To maintain current revenue effort plus cover the additional service component, the industry estimates that the wine equalisation tax should be 24.5 per cent, instead it is being slugged 29 per cent under this bill—some equalisation when, in fact, the end result is to increase the tax! It is a funny definition of equalisation.This will lead to an increase in wine prices across the board of around four per cent, with over the bar prices set to increase by around six per cent. But where was the admission of this price increase in the tax package? The answer is, like so much else, it was not there. The only figure mentioned in the tax package was 1.9 per cent, which is all that the cask wine will increase by under the most favourable of assumptions. We all know that the general inflation claim of 1.9 per cent is completely false. Even the Treasury, the government's own department, has admitted that the inflation impact of the GST is going to start at 3.1 per cent and rise because that 3.1 per cent assumes that there will be a 100 per cent pass-on of the state taxes being abolished. Not one witness before the Senate inquiries believes that assumption, not one, and the government has demonstrated no evidence by which that assumption can hold up.So, instead of the 1.9 per cent inflation effect of this GST package, by the time the Senate inquiry has completed its business, we will have the inflation effect of this package of between four and five per cent. The fact that the wine industry says it is four and six per cent is just further evidence that the government has understated the inflation effect. That inflation effect is terribly important because not only is it bad for the economy if inflation goes up because it is off the back of higher inflation that interest rates go up, but it also means the compensation package for the GST is inadequate. This is the con that this government has been perpetrating on the Australian public. The wine industry is confirming that the price impact of this package will be in the four to five per cent category.So, as usual, the government has not disclosed the full impact of its tax proposals to the people. But, in the case of the wine equalisation tax, the issue gets worse. Not only did the government not come clean with consumers about the real effects, it did not even say what the rate of the wine equalisation tax would be nor what types of sales it would apply to. So the industry has been held in limbo since August last year. It did not know the new tax regime that it may face until last Wednesday, and the point made by the industry is that the 29 per cent hike is too high.To maintain current revenue and the increased GST related service component, a rate of only 24½ per cent is needed; instead the industry is being slugged 29 per cent. The industry was not told about the high rate that it would face before the election. Like so much in this package, people were not told before the election. Some wine producers have even come before the Senate GST inquiry and stated that they were not even aware of the wine equalisation tax proposal. Understandably, they were very upset when they found out.The Treasurer runs around saying that he is abolishing so-called hidden taxes. In fact, he is trying to introduce what he normally calls two new hidden taxes. That is what is involved here. The level of hypocrisy from him in this debate is astonishing. We are told by the Treasurer that the wholesale sales tax is broken and no good, that the world will end unless we get rid of it, but on wine what do we find? We find that the advantages of the wholesale sales tax have been used in the development of the new wine equalisation tax. Indeed, the conclusion on page 68 of the explanatory memorandum of the wine equalisation tax bill states:The familiar concepts of the WST have been incorporated into the WET to simplify the introduction of the WET to the wine industry. So suddenly the wholesale sales tax has gone from a broken down 1930s type tax which is only relevant in African countries to a tax which will `simplify the introduction of the WET to the wine industry'. What hypocrisy. In addition, the Treasurer has often told the House how we must move to a value added tax. One of the so-called claimed benefits is that each transaction in the chain will be fully taxed—in fact, this is the reason for the massive explosion in compliance costs associated with the GST.But, in introducing the new wine equalisation tax, which model has the Treasurer chosen? The efficient, current sales tax system where taxpayers can simply quote a number and get goods tax free, thereby deferring paying tax until the last wholesale sale, or the supposedly superior GST style system? Which one? You have guessed it. The Treasurer has chosen the wholesale sales tax model, the one he comes into this parliament and denigrates. The explanatory memorandum quietly notes:The opportunity has been taken to incorporate quotation for the WET within the GST framework.That is an admission that the current wholesale sales tax exemption system is simpler and more efficient than the cumbersome GST. As Arthur Andersen has stated to the Senate GST inquiry:. . . the ATO—the Australian Taxation Office—has publicly acknowledged that in order to collect $30 billion in net revenue—that is what the GST will raise in net terms—it will collect $40 billion gross.It will collect $40 billion to collect $30 billion. The wholesale sales tax exemption system is a much more efficient system than the GST, and that is the system that is now being chosen by the government for the wine equalisation tax.I want to also go to the amendments that the shadow minister for small business will be moving later in the debate. He will be moving some important amendments to this legislation, because he represents one of the premier wine regions of Australia and he knows first-hand the needs of the wine industry.Before the last election, Labor announced we would look at the exemption for cellar door sales. That was our policy. We have done that, and we will be moving an amendment to exempt the first $100,000 in sales from the wine equalisation tax in order to encourage wine tourism and to benefit small wineries. We have also taken particular care to address the special situation which often occurs in Tasmania—that is, cellar door sales being run on a shared basis. Often very small wineries do not have their own resources to be able to conduct their own cellar door sales, so they combine with other wineries to have a common cellar door sale facility. This legislation treats these sales as a sale which will qualify for the exemption.The second amendment concerns an attempted con by the government. In the tax package, they said that there would be no GST on samples and other promotional uses of wine. Yet in the wine equalisation tax details released only last week we find that the government want to tax wine used for samples and other promotions through the wine equalisation tax. If the GST is out, why isn't the wine equalisation tax out? That is obviously an inconsistency and it is opposed by Labor. The tax regime should be consistent and that is what is proposed by our amendment.Finally, on the issue of the luxury car tax, the opposition does not oppose the luxury car tax proposal before the House. Given that the House has already passed the GST, it would not be just to argue against this equalisation tax. The only result would be that the price of luxury motor vehicles, which are overwhelmingly imported, would go down. Clearly, that would be unfair and Labor does not argue about that position.However, what we do argue is this: whilst we are totally opposed to the GST, it would have been far more efficient to have a multi-rate GST to achieve the government's aims, rather than a forcing of the industry to deal with a whole new tax on top of the GST. This double taxation model has been criticised by leading international accounting firm Arthur Andersen as being more complex than a multi-rate GST system. It will lead to cascad ing, as no credit is allowed to business in respect of this tax. Whilst I am not arguing that this is inappropriate, I am merely pointing out the further hypocrisy of the government in relation to this issue. If a Labor tax cascades, then it is terrible. That is the argument of the government. But if a coalition tax cascades through the economy then they do not want to mention it. What hypocrisy. We do not oppose the legislation. We merely point out the double standards that it represents.12:28:004837Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—The importance of this part of the government's tax reform package—A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Bill 1999 and the cognate bills—is quite significant. What we are setting out to do here is iron out some of the corners of discrepancy between the existing ridiculously complicated and archaic system and the new system, which seeks to come up with a minimalisation of tax requirements across the economy.There are areas where no doubt we will get into difficulty, because from time to time there will be wrinkles in the system. The pure fact about it is that if you do not have a wine equalisation tax then the price of your favourite drop will go down significantly. If you are a person who is into the odd tipple, you might think that is a pretty good thing, but in the general community I do not think there would be widespread support for the Commonwealth endorsing a massive drop in the price of bottles of wine, cask wine or anything of that sort.So what we are setting out to do here is merely to come up with a system where the impact is neutral. The government has set out, in organising the whole of its tax reform package, to organise a crossover between the old system and the new system, and between one and the other no doubt there are discrepancies that need to be dealt with specifically. The wine equalisation tax and the luxury car tax are two such examples.The wine equalisation tax is set at a rate of 29 per cent. The purpose of that is to catch up and re-collect the amount of money that was being collected under the old system. Currently, there is a 41 per cent sales tax on wine which includes a 15 per cent state share. The impact of this—and I know the member for Hotham went on at some length about this—on the price of cask wine is 1.9 per cent which is the general increase in CPI forecast for the whole of the tax package. I do not think that is unfair. I think people would expect, if the CPI goes up by 1.9 per cent, that the price of a cask would go up 1.9 per cent. In fact, there is also an estimated impact on the cost of bottled wine of between two and three per cent. I realise that people would argue that perhaps that should be 1.9 per cent too, but I do not think that it is possible to be entirely prescriptive in this process. At this stage we do not know, for example, just how effectively the government's introduction of these various tax reform measures will assist the wineries, the grape growers and all the other people who rely on the wine industry. I think there will be a tremendous boon to those industries flowing from the GST itself.If we look at one particular issue, the wine equalisation tax, in itself, will not apply to exported wine. That is a tremendous incentive for the wine industry to export. That is a situation which does not currently exist. There is, at the moment, a wholesale sales tax and, if wine is being exported, it bears the cost of that as well. I think what we have got here is a tremendous opportunity for the wine industry that it will seize with both hands. On top of that, there is also the added cost of wholesale sales tax embedded in the various other goods and bits and pieces that those industries buy as part of their operations. They rely on those, so when the GST comes into play they will accrue all the advantages that flow from the wider GST implementation.The introduction of the wine equalisation tax is a good example of the government setting out to establish the best way forward—a system under which we are seeking to minimise tax, to minimise the red tape that goes with it. Look at what we are doing. We are replacing the present wholesale sales tax and a state sales tax with something that is based completely at the federal level and which is rebated to the states and which, I might add, the states can then choose to rebate back to cellar door operators, if they so desire. I would urge them to do so. The states will have a huge amount of cash coming to them under the GST and, really, it is up to them to start saying how they are going to spend it. Rebating cellar door sales is something that they could choose to do. They could go beyond their pre-existing part of 15 per cent of the current 41 per cent if they wanted to. If they wanted to give an incentive—particularly to the wine industry—and I would urge them to do so, then they could rebate beyond that. That is entirely up to them. They certainly will be bearing the benefits of the government's improved position in relation to the goods and services tax. That is an important issue. Exporting is something that we all want to see more of.I note that the income forecast under the wine equalisation tax is $595 million in 2000-01, $695 million in the following year and $724 million in the year after that. Those forecasts are designed to come up with a situation of neutrality. We have looked at the forecast situation under the existing arrangements. The idea is to try to smooth the change—not to provide one section of the industry either with a huge advantage or to take it away, to undercut an advantage they already have. It is a very important measure by the government and one which people should wholeheartedly support. The states should bear it in mind when they come to look at rebating cellar door sales, for example.I turn now to the luxury car tax, which is arranged under exactly the same principles. The idea of the luxury car tax is that we should organise a crossover that is basically cost-neutral. Luxury cars are defined as being cars above the car depreciation limit. Currently, that is set at $55,134 and annually indexed. The problem at the moment is that currently luxury cars are taxed under the wholesale sales tax at 45 per cent and other cars at 22 per cent. So that is above and below that figure of $55,134. The government is setting out to avoid the obvious, terrible ramifications of introducing a tax and not compensating, so that luxury cars overnight would go through the floor from a 45 per cent tax down to a 10 per cent. Hallelujah to the fact that we have got a drop from 22 per cent to 10 per cent in relation to ordinary cars, and it will be good to see that flowing into the system, but the idea that luxury cars should become so much cheaper all at once would seem a bit obscene to the average Australian. The relativities should be maintained and that is what the luxury car tax is all about.Important things to bear in mind about this part of the government's tax reform package are that it applies at the retail level and it applies so that businesses will not be able to claim input tax credits on the luxury car tax component of what they pay, and that it is flexible enough to ensure that, for example, if a car is modified to accommodate the needs of a disabled person, then those modifications are not taxed by the luxury car tax and also that vehicles like emergency vehicles are not subject to the luxury car tax.Overall, the government's tax reform package is an important incentive to the business community. It is an important incentive to average Australians. What I think gets up the nose of average Australians at the moment is the obsession that members opposite and members participating in the Senate inquiry have with the minute details of the package as opposed to the important broad sweep of the improvement that it provides for our country. We are in a position in which under this tax reform package we are going to be able to plan with certainty for the future. There is not a man or woman in the country who would oppose that idea. But to come in here and start carping on like this about some obscure part of the package, in terms of whether or not cellar door sales will be rebated, I think really demeans the whole purpose of what we are on about here. We are setting up a situation that will enable this country to go forward into the new millennium with a much improved position that will apply not only for average businesses—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Have you got small wineries in your electorate?84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—I certainly do have small wineries in my electorate and they are doing very well, thank you. They will do even better because of the advantages that are provided by the government's goods and services tax and by the improvements that they will see in their average daily business activities, particularly when it comes to providing material for export, which is something that small wineries can do just as the larger wineries do.12:38:004839Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My respect for the member for Blair has just grown enormously. For him to be so brave, given that he has small wineries in his electorate, to come in here and say that the proposal to protect those small wineries represents nothing more than a bit of carping on the part of the opposition is just crazy. A brave man he is indeed to come in here all alone—I notice there are no comrades on the other side, and I notice the minister is here on duty but I did not hear any words of support—and express that view about the small end of the wine industry. That is very courageous indeed.The opposition remains opposed to the regressive GST. We opposed it before the election. We promised the electorate that in government we would not follow the course of the present government and we promised the electorate that in opposition we would do all in our power to knock over a regressive tax—a tax, as the Senate inquiry has shown, which does nothing to boost the Australian economy but does lots to hit people for six—those people least able to afford the burden that that tax will impose upon them.However, the arrangements this tax bill seeks to put in place will be necessary if the Senate passes the government's GST bills. On that basis, the opposition is not opposing them but, as has been mentioned by the member for Hotham, we will be proposing some amendments which seek to make the wine equalisation tax much fairer. In terms of the luxury car tax, the opposition will not be opposing that either, but it just goes to show what an untidy arrangement the goods and services tax will be if ever given effect.The importance of the wine industry in Australia cannot be overstated. It now employs more than 60,000 Australians directly and, of course, many more indirectly. Most of those people are employed in the regions. In my own electorate of Hunter, the wine sector is one of the main industries which underpins the local economy. The wine industry is a significant export industry for this country. One billion dollars in wine is expected to be exported from this country next year, and the projections are that the export side of the industry will continue to grow at a rate of about 25 per cent per annum.The GST bills provided the government with an excellent opportunity to revisit the issues of tax on wine—to have a debate about the impact of the taxation system on the industry, to have a debate about how it affects consumption decisions, to have a debate about how it affects investment in the industry, to have a debate about how it affects export growth, and to have a debate about how, if it all, it addresses the public health issues and social issues that flow from alcohol consumption. But what did we get? No real community consultation, no inquiry, no submissions invited. We got 368 words from the Treasurer during his second reading speech—368 words about a massive tax change in an industry crucial to this nation's economy; 368 words about an industry now exporting its head off.There was no debate about price elasticities, no debate about import competition, no debate about public health, no debate about those social impacts of alcohol consumption which I mentioned earlier—just a measly 368 words from a Treasurer who, I admit, focused on the big issues but who has no concern whatsoever for an industry which is experiencing some exciting growth and, in particular, he has no concern at all for the smaller wineries which are going to be disadvantaged as a result of the government's decision to choose an ad valorem system. There was no concern at all expressed about the fact that the impost will be 29 per cent, even though the Wine Federation in Australia has demonstrated quite clearly that a tax of around 24½ per cent would have been sufficient to make this a revenue neutral proposal.The debate over the relative merits of an ad valorem based wine equalisation tax and a volumetric based tax is one we should have had. We should have had it in this place and we should have had it in the wider community. There is no doubt that, relative to the big players, the smaller wineries are going to be disadvantaged by an ad valorem based wine equalisation tax.I have already mentioned the fact that the member for Blair was quite brave to come in here all alone without qualification to support the WET, but I really have to ask myself: where is the member for McEwen? Where is the member for Ballarat? Where is the member for Eden-Monaro? Where indeed is the member for Forrest? There is a very interesting trend running through this parliament. Whenever we have a debate in this place on an issue on which the backbench is offering no support, it is reflected in the speakers list. It was reflected when we were debating the petroleum repeal bills and it is reflected again here today. Where are those members with small wineries in their electorates? On our side we have the member for Lyons on the speakers list—which is not unexpected—and I look forward to his contribution. We also have the member for Bass. Again, she is someone who represents a wine region very well.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What about the member for Barton?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The member for Barton does not mind a bit of regional wine I might add, but he does not represent a wine region. Yet from the other side we have had one speaker—I repeat, one speaker—from a wine region who was prepared to come in here to support a proposal which will disadvantage their local industry. The wine tourism industry is a major employer in this country, particularly in the regions. When people visit those regions—when they come to the Hunter or when they go to the Barossa, to Margaret River and to the Tamar Valley—they do so to visit the small wineries. They go there to experience the pleasure of wine tasting and all those other things those small wineries have to offer. Of course, while they are there they visit our restaurants, they take up accommodation and, generally speaking, spend lots of money.I would have thought that the wine tourism industry was just so important to the regions that the government would have had it at the forefront of its mind when considering the form of the wine equalisation tax. More attention should have been given to the impact of the WET on those industries. We should have had, as I said, a full parliamentary inquiry. We should have given the smaller players an opportunity to appear and to put their case. They represent some 550 of the 1,000 wineries which traverse this country and they should have had an opportunity to be heard. It is not surprising that the big players like the Winemakers Federation of Australia have had their day—and the government has been very quick to jump on the ad valorem train—but those small wineries should have been given an opportunity.I have to concede that, without that inquiry, the opposition is in no position to be advocating here today that we should shift to the volumetric system, but we should have had that opportunity. We are proposing amendments which, as the member for Hotham mentioned, will go a long, long way to compensating those small wineries that are going to be adversely affected by these changes. The amendments will do basically two things. The first will exempt from the wine equalisation tax all cellar door sales up to an amount of $100,000 of wholesale value each year, and the other will exempt from the wine equalisation tax all promotions and those wines given away at wine tasting.The member for Hotham made a very important point. The wine equalisation tax is supposed to be about topping up the GST to ensure that, for those public health reasons and those social policy reasons, the price of wine does not fall. That is probably a reasonable community expectation. But how do you justify putting an equalisation tax on something that does not have a GST upon it—that is, wine tasting and promotions? There is no logic to that whatsoever. I can only assume and hope that it was a mistake in the drafting. I do appeal to those on the other side to at least support that part of our amendments today. This was a wine equalisation tax which was supposed to be revenue neutral: it is not. Not enough thought has been given to it. I appeal to members on the other side to support the opposition's amendments.12:49:004841Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It was a very good point made by my colleague at the table, the member for Hunter, that when we get into an issue on which some regional areas and regional industries need to be represented, the presence on the speakers list of those members on the government side who represent those regions is always very scarce—very scarce indeed. They just do not come in and speak on the bills. We have had one speaker from the other side on this wine equalisation tax legislation. All the members from those regional seats who should be here speaking and giving representation to their areas have failed to do so. They just butt out and do not bother coming into the debate. That is an indictment of them, of the way they are representing their seats and of the way they are representing their constituents and the industries important to their constituents.The honourable member for Hotham and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke of the timing of these bills and the lack of time we have had to prepare for a very complex debate. The honourable member who preceded me, the member for Hunter, was quite right to point out that it would have been much better to have a debate after we had had a parliamentary inquiry to look at these different levels. It is beginning to emerge that there are really two wine industries in Australia. There is the large wine industry which represents the large players who have done extraordinarily well to give this country great export dollars and who need to be praised. There are also the smaller wineries who are playing a very important part in not only regional areas of our country but also employment in regional areas. Sometimes it is casual employment, but sometimes up to 200 people work in the small wineries I know of that exist around Tasmania.There are people that are utilising small amounts of capital to give themselves a return on very small wineries. They should have been given some consideration by the government. They have not been. The government just does not care about them. It has passed them over in this debate—just as the members that represent those regions have done so in this House today.The wine equalisation tax has become quite an issue in Tasmania. We have some of the best boutique wines in Australia. It is a relatively new industry. There have been a lot of teething problems in putting us on the right track and getting the Tasmanian wine industry going. But now it is really starting to pay off.The wine industry in Tasmania can be traced back to our well-known family the Alcorsos. Just after the war, Claudio Alcorso started a hobby, a side industry, at his textile company in Derwent Park and developed a little vineyard around where he lived in Berriedale. Since those small beginnings, the Alcorso family have certainly made their name in wines in Tasmania. They are still there making very good wine. Others then saw the potential, and recently many people have started growing grapes and developing wines.The Sydney Morning Herald features page undertook a feature article about Tasmanian wines recently, and I recommend it to everybody. They reported that there were 56 producers in Tasmania but that most sell all their wine to tourists or locals. The average vineyard is just a few hectares. All are developing their new lines and making the most of developing the tourist trails that are seen as part and parcel of wine selling these days. In the West Tamar in my electorate in the north of the state there is a wonderful wine trail which is well signposted. A very good map exists for tourists these days to take people along that wine trail. Tourists can wander from Legana right through to the bottom end. Then they can cross to the other side of the Tamar River into the top end of the Bass electorate and the East Tamar area, across to the Piper's Brook Winery. The wines themselves have done very well recently, winning local medals with great aplomb around the country. A lot of the bottles of Tasmanian wine you buy now have a medal or two on the label. I was really pleased to introduce one of my favourite brands, Fishburn and O'Keefe, the other night to a number of people. They make an excellent drop. They are now moving their centre of operations from the south of my electorate to the north to extend their range of wines and to expand.When there was a suggestion by this government of repealing the wholesale sales tax and replacing it with a 10 per cent GST, the wine industry saw there might be some advantage for them in that happening because of the tax burden that they were carrying. However, there was no intention to withdraw the wine equalisation tax, put in place to avoid luxuries falling in price when basic necessities were going up. Suddenly, the smaller winemakers saw themselves being put out of business by those who sold in bulk—and rightly so. They realised that the big boys would have been looking at what the trends were, they would have been looking at what the GST meant to them and they would have been able to position themselves and get their arguments into the government debate. The small wineries were not, of course, in a position to do that. They have not had the opportunity to get their arguments into the debate as well as they should have been able to.The Tasmanians are represented in the argument by the Tasmanian Independent Winemakers. They believe that the GST and an ad valorem tax would be disastrous for their small wineries. They believe a top-up tax on wine, over and above the GST, should be volumetric, based on volume, and not ad valorem, based on price. According to them, the ad valorem tax increases the price of quality wine and hurts small wineries. Their growth and future depends on the production of low volumes of high quality wines at an economic cost. They also believe that the corporate giants of the wine industry and the Winemakers Federation of Australia are lobbying hard against a volumetric tax and promoting an ad valorem tax, which actively discriminates against small wineries so that a litre of cask wine may be as cheap as a litre of soft drink.The Tasmanian groups have given evidence to the Senate inquiry and made it quite clear that they oppose the wine equalisation tax completely. I can understand that. Here is an industry which is just about to break through another development barrier, and they are facing being cut off at the knees. They need something much more sympathetic to their current position. At the very least, I will be looking for a generous exemption from WET for wine used in tasting and wine sold genuinely at the cellar door. The latter can be the lifeblood of many small wineries that are the basis of wine tourism.My colleague Michelle O'Byrne, the federal member for Bass, and I have been working with our local contacts to try and secure a better position for our Tasmanian wines and those small wineries. We have had long discussions with our colleagues to get a position that is acceptable to our mainland colleagues. In Tasmania, few wineries sell over $100,000 worth of wine wholesale. It is this factor that we have pushed to make sure there was an amendment that excluded tastings and promotions on the first $100,000 in cellar door sales.I believe there are other areas that we could improve on, and I will be looking to the future when we have a Labor government in here to have a good look at the wine industry as a whole to see how this can be further assisted, particularly things like research and development and initial support for small wineries. This is not a criticism of the present research or promotional effort, that is fine, but it is directed more at the large corporations and holding our position on the world stage.There is a tendency now to see the wine industry as two industries, large and small. The small industries also need to look at their promotional opportunities. They could be very small, but the levies that they pay should be used positively in their development as well.I just wanted to touch on the significance of tourism in the regional areas. Small wineries can really generate the name of a region. They can lift its name quite considerably in the public domain and, therefore, really assist in the promotion of that region or small town. Food can do the same. If wine and food combine together, they can certainly give a small region which might be really struggling an opportunity to get a focus on how they can achieve some economic development and they will most probably be able to retain the young people in that region for another generation.The employment opportunities which I touched on earlier can be quite large at times. The work can be on a casual basis, but it can certainly put dollars into the region or the town. Wine tourism is a industry of the future and will continue to grow. An inquiry really should have occurred at the parliamentary level and looked at the needs of small wineries, as opposed to this tax. We could have touched on a considerable number of other issues, but we certainly would have given small wineries the opportunity to have some input, which this government has very arrogantly denied them.I will certainly be supporting the amendments which my colleagues will be moving during the consideration in detail stage of the bill. I would ask the parliament to support the amendments in order to assist Tasmanian wine growers and those in other parts of Australia, whose businesses are really being put in jeopardy by this legislation and this very arrogant government.13:03:004843Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I wish to inject into this debate some of the concerns of smaller wine producers in my area about this wine equalisation tax. I am persuaded by the arguments of these producers that any top-up tax on wine over and above the goods and services tax should be volumetric and not ad valorem. To base the tax on the price of wine directly impacts on those smaller producers who create a high quality, relatively high cost product compared with the lower price bulk wine sales of the corporations. The National Coalition of Small Wineries rightly point out how this taxing approach subsidises cask wine.Small wineries are a large part of the burgeoning wine industry in this country. One has only to travel between Young, Cowra and Orange these days to see the dramatic increase in grape plantings, with several thousand hectares having been planted from early this decade. Much of those plantings have been done by smaller wine producers and their object is quality rather than quantity. Yet small wineries are now set to pay at least four times more tax per litre that the corporate wineries pay for their cask wine.One of the most successful wine producers in the Orange district is Stephen Doyle with his Bloodwood product. He has set out for me in great detail the argument against the manner in which this tax is being imposed. He points out that the 20 largest producers of wine in Australia account for over 97 per cent of production, while the remaining 900 small producers share the balance. Mr Doyle's Bloodwood Wines sells approximately 25,000 litres per year on which he currently collects about $100,000 in wholesale sales tax. Proportionately, Bloodwood pays much more of its income to the federal government than does a corporate producer like Southcorp.Small producers have already been struggling by having to fund the wholesale sales tax in advance. While having to remit the tax by the 20th of each month, most clients of the small wineries do not settle their invoices for 90 days, thereby creating an enormous cash flow problem.Mr Doyle and other smaller producers believe that the WET further discriminates against smaller operators. He asks why we cannot exempt small wineries as California does as recognition of the role they play in supporting fragile rural communities across Australia. In fact, the US government provides a full rebate of volumetric wine excise taxes to its smaller wineries as part of its policies to promote small business and expand fine wine exports in an expanding world market, notwithstanding the downturn in Asia.Growers I have spoken with in my area believe that, if we are going to improve this important part of regional industry, export sales and tourism, the WET proposal—the prepayment of the wholesale sales tax and the discrimination by dominant corporate wineries against smaller producers—needs to be addressed if we really want a fair tax system.In the same way that the GST discriminates against the lower income earner with no discretionary spending or tax minimisation opportunity, so too does this wine equalisation tax discriminate against smaller wineries and producers. It risks nipping in the bud one of the few success stories in rural and regional Australia in recent years.The measures in this bill are designed to ensure that a representative four-litre cask need not rise by more than the estimated increase in the CPI. As well, a carton of regular strength beer also need not rise by more than the estimated CPI, low alcohol beer will not go up, whisky remains the same and a so-called representative bottle of wine is not expected to go up by more than three per cent.That is all very well, but according to the National Coalition of Small Wineries—whose detailed submission to the Senate GST inquiry deserves close reading by all those interested in the non-corporate wine industry—any reform of wine taxation needs to take account of the fact that there are two distinct sectors in the wine industry. The submission says:. . . regrettably, if the current unbalanced discrimination is to continue, then not only will the small wineries become further marginalised, with the consequent loss of jobs in rural and regional areas, but also it is predicted many hundreds of existing small wineries will be forced out of business.The submission goes on to say:The proposed ad valorem top-up tax will also discourage new investment in small wineries.That, indeed, it will do. These small wineries have been worth many millions of dollars to rural economies right throughout Australia in the past 10 to 15 years, helping support a rural economy that was in sad decline in other commodity areas.Not only are small producers defending their own patch but the Industry Commission's 1995 report into the wine grape and wine industry came down with a finding in favour of a volumetric tax. The Industry Commission report recommended a composite approach to the taxing of wine for domestic consumption. The ad valorem or GST component would be coupled with a specific volumetric tax collected at the consumption stage. The commission's inquiry committee considered that this would most efficiently address both the revenue raising and cost of alcohol abuse objectives of wine taxation. That is exactly the point that has been made to me by a great student of the wine industry, Stephen Doyle, in his submission and in the long discussion I had with him a fortnight ago, and also with a group of local wine producers as recently as last Friday.They point out that the growing small winery industry, with its export potential, is exactly the sort of industry we should be fostering for both its export potential and its tourism potential in regional Australia. If we are going to crush it with an ad valorem tax, we are crushing job opportunities by the hundreds and we are beginning to strangle an industry that is just starting to grow, particularly on the tablelands and slopes of central western New South Wales.So the burgeoning small producer industry is under real threat from this tax. I hope members in the House are listening to the logic of those small producers and not to the well-oiled campaign of the corporate dominated Winemakers Federation. I trust that those members in seats with wineries dominated by the large corporate winemakers will not succumb to their assessment that this is a fair tax for the industry, because it is not.Much of the cask wine placed on the shelves by the corporate wine makers in this country is not the product of careful grape vine management and vigneron expertise. All of that effort and expense and investment goes into an elite—not an exclusive; an elite—top of the market international wine market. Much of the cask wine is, in fact, an overseas product. It is imported, much of it disguised as apparently local, with former private local labels bought up by the corporations and still named so as to give them a user-friendly, happy, small family type appearance. But the wine is imported from France or Spain. Orlando's cask is a Spanish dry red. You can find imported wine right through the bulk and cask wines that are on the shelves. So much for a tax system supporting the local industry. Again, it is all about looking after the major producers at the expense of the growing little producers who are producing the quality product.In comparison to the big wineries, the production costs of small wineries are obviously far higher while volumes are low. The proposed ad valorem tax will force many out of the market. My electorate and many parts of rural and regional Australia, which are gaining so much from this growing industry, will not forgive any government or opposition that fails to recognise this. You might ask: why opposition? While the amendments that I have here and have looked through are reasonable, I do not believe they attack the major problems of this tax for smaller operators.The member for Lyons, the distinguished Deputy Speaker, alluded to these problems in his contribution, but I do not see any amendments that are relevant to the comment he made that the smaller wine industry is being cut off at the knees. These amendments certainly do not substantially address that. The major wineries, the corporate wineries, have leant on the major parties. These amendments do not go far enough. I will certainly make my electorate's concerns known in the hope that this bill will be attended to substantially and fairly in the other place.Promotions and door sales exemptions are important concessions, but the suggested amendments just do not go far enough and do not address the imposts this ad valorem tax will have on the smaller operators. Nonetheless, I will support these amendments. But they are minimalist. Because I oppose the GST in principle, I then cannot support the body or thrust of the bill anyway.13:13:004845Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I would like to compliment the honourable member for Calare on his brief but very erudite talk on this issue. As you have already stated, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, this is really impacting on Tasmania. As Tasmanian members—we have five seats down there—I think it is incumbent upon us to really stick it to the government today. It is a well-known fact that small businesses in Australia are essential to our country's survival. Everywhere you go in rural Australia—and I have a fair chunk in my electorate—country towns are facing tough times. Everyone in this place is trying to strengthen the small businesses in rural communities, for without them towns start to die.The wine industry, as you stated, has developed at a rapid pace over the last few years, especially in Tasmania, and it is a very important employer in the rural sector. Aus tralia has gained worldwide recognition for its quality wines. Such a reputation is undoubtedly well deserved. However, in the government's legislation they are looking after the big guys. As the member for Calare said, we are being leant on enormously by the huge players, the ones who have gobbled up all the small wineries.I remember when I first went to South Australia on exchange in 1976. I was living in Edwardstown and I delighted in going down to the southern vales in the car with my wife and my newly born daughter to spend the weekends enjoying the delights of the many small wineries. In 1976 it was very similar there to Tasmania—small wineries with little cellar door sales where you actually met the maker, you shared a few bottles, and he showed you what he was proud of. It was a wonderful time. Since then they have grown and grown and, unfortunately, have been swallowed up by the big guys.As you stated in your speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, the role played by small wineries in Tasmania—those producing less than 1,350 tonnes of grapes annually—is a critical one, for they produce many of the fine wines for which Australia has become renowned. As you stated—and I totally agree with you—the Tasmanian wines are world's best. I have been lucky enough to wander around the world and taste just about everybody's wines, and I can assure you that Tasmanian wines are world's best.Why then is the federal government determined to destroy these small wine producers in Tasmania? I cannot believe it. Like you, I am appalled that there are no Victorian members here. I can assure you that there are lots of areas in Victoria whose small wine producers have been screaming just as loudly to their local members as the wine producers in Tasmania have been to us.The proposed introduction of a GST combined with an ad valorem, or per volume, tax will mean that small wineries will pay four times more tax on their premium quality 750 millilitre bottles of wine than the major corporate wineries pay on equivalent quality cask wine. I reiterate: this is the big sell-out to the huge players. The Winemakers Feder ation of Australia, looking after the big guys, has been very quiet when it comes to supporting its small members. It is no surprise to anyone in this place that these growers are feeling alienated and let down.The wine industry in Australia is one of our great success stories. But instead of being rewarded, it is now amongst the highest taxed wine producing countries in the world. Due to the relatively small volumes of wine produced, especially in Tasmania, the small growers are in no position to weather this proposed burden. An independent federal government report by the Industry Commission in 1995 recommended a tax comprising a form of GST linked with a volume based tax. What happened? The big wineries and the Winemakers Federation of Australia lobbied against the recommendations so they were not implemented, a case of twisting the arms up the back of the neck.Why are our small producers being so unfairly treated when in countries such as France, the United States, New Zealand and South Africa a system of volume based taxes is in place? Furthermore, in the United States small wineries receive a full rebate of wine excise tax in recognition of their vital role in regional communities. This government harps and harps about small business and what it is doing for regional and rural Australia, yet in other parts of the world governments in France, the United States, New Zealand and South Africa are looking after their small producers. In the United States they get a full rebate of the wine excise tax. Our small growers are feeling alienated and let down by the Winemakers Federation of Australia and by many of the politicians in this place.I find it hard to believe that this government is determined to deliver such a blow to one of our most successful, albeit sensitive, rural industries. As you stated, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your electorate of Lyons—and I am sure the member for Bass has similar stories to recount; I do, too, in my electorate of Franklin—where rural industry is struggling and where regional unemployment is rife, one of the small rays of sunshine has been the success of small wineries. But understandably, their costs are high and their profits modest.I have three of the best wineries in Tasmania. Sharon and Michael Vishacki in Panorama Vineyards, Eric Phillips down at Elsewhere Vineyards and Rob and Anthea Patterson at Hartzview have been fighting this government and trying to convince the Tasmanian Liberal senators Gibson, Abetz, Watson and Calvert that this is bad for Tasmania.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—It's not bad for Tasmania.AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—It is bad for Tasmania. These Tasmanian Liberal senators have been very quiet indeed. The producers at these wineries are not your local Labor supporters and voters; they are usually coalition supporters. In the last federal election, what happened? Five-zero, because they were so disgusted with the proposed treatment the Tasmanian wine producers would receive from this coalition government, which is always trumpeting that it is about small business protection and rural and regional Australian development. Why then is it imposing this tax that is honestly going to bring the Tasmanian wine industry to its knees?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Oh, rubbish!AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—The honourable member is interjecting that it is rubbish; I invite him to come down to talk to the wine producers any day he likes. There has been some discussion in our party room about this whole thing, and I will put it on the public record now. Whilst I support these amendments, as the honourable member for Calare says, they are minimalist and I think in all honesty they do not go far enough. Ad valorem is the only way to go.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Why don't you move it?AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—Volumetric is the only way to go, and ad valorem is—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order! The minister should direct his remarks through the chair.AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am getting rather upset about this whole thing, and understandably so. Volumetric is the only way to go and, as I said, I agree with the honourable member for Calare that these are minimalist amendments. They do not go far enough. If we are going to look after Tasmanian wine producers, I think we need stronger amendments. We will be rolled on the numbers, that is quite understandable—we are a dozen short—but, as I said previously, I would like to see what is going to happen to the Yarra Valley member. What is he going to say to salve his conscience when this vote takes place shortly?13:22:004847Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—If the previous speaker, the member for Franklin, had any courage, he would move some amendments instead of being straitjacketed as usual by the organisation that is widely known as the Labor caucus. If you really believe in what you say, do something about it! But do not come in here to say: `You are adopting a minimalist approach.' When you have the relevant minister at this table who is moving amendments that you say do not go far enough, stand up for your constituents! Do not do them in the eye the way the Labor caucus always makes sure the marginal seat holders do their constituents in the eye.AV5QUICKMr Quick—Rubbish!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The sole response is `Rubbish'. Gee whiz, that hurts! In this situation, the government's bill is going to ensure that current arrangements can continue for cellar door activities. There is no doubt about that. The rebate scheme in place for cellar door sales will continue because the rebate scheme is provided by the states. Under the compensation arrangements of the GST, where all the revenue of the GST goes to the states, the states can continue with their tastings and promotions. That is what the wholesale sales tax does at the moment: it treats them as applications to own use and therefore they are taxable. Under the wine equalisation tax, the treatment is indeed similar.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Similar.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Similar treatment, as I am advised. Under those circumstances, under a GST, a wine producer, I am advised, would be entitled to an input tax credit for the cost of making the wine used for promotion and tastings, the same as if the wine were to be sold. Therefore, under those circumstances there is no difference. The rebate scheme can still be applied by the state government. And, as we know, the state government in Tasmania is a Labor government. Only a second ago, the previous speaker was boasting about how the Labor Party had a five-nil whitewash in Tasmania. If the Labor government and the Labor Party really care about Tasmania, they will continue with the rebate and there will be enough compensation in the GST package—in fact, more generous compensation than in the GST package—for the state of Tasmania than currently exists. So Tasmania is better off. If they really care about the wine producers of Tasmania, then I urge you to go and knock on the door of the Labor Premier of Tasmania and say, `Please give us a guarantee that you will continue with the rebate scheme.' In fact, I launch a challenge today. I challenge the Labor Premier of Tasmania, and all the state premiers for that matter, to make a commitment that they will continue with the rebate scheme. That is not difficult.There is one other point I wish to make in relation to this debate. Small wineries not registered or not required to be registered for a GST will of course not be subject to the wine equalisation tax. This will cover wineries with an annual turnover of less than $50,000. So the issue raised by the member for Hunter relating to small wineries is not applicable.Finally, I want to make this point, and I remind the House that this is a critical point in all of these individual bills. We are discussing a package of reforms; they are different fingers on the one hand. When it comes to issues such as the wine equalisation tax and all the other initiatives, the Labor Party has a great history of being cherry pickers. I will be saying a little more about that in a further debate during the proceedings in parliament today, but I want to make the point that this is part of the overall package. For that reason, we strongly support this bill and we will continue to oppose the amendments proposed by the Labor Party.13:28:004848Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I am sure you would join with me, as a fellow Tasmanian, in supporting very strongly the amendments that have been foreshadowed by the opposition. The government has proposed a set of measures which will impose grossly unfair consequences on small and medium sized wineries around Australia. Cellar door sales in Australia account for about $216 million in sales annually and provide many of the smaller wineries with over half their income.Tourism and regional development in many places in Australia depend on the health and viability of the small wineries industry. The direct benefit of wine tourism is about half a billion dollars each year. When you consider all the indirect effects, it amounts to an industry that employs thousands of Australians. The wine industry itself employs about 30,000 people, and grape wine production has grown from 780,000 tonnes in 1994 to nearly one million tonnes in 1998.Eighty per cent of the thousand wineries rely extensively on cellar door sales. Labor-held electorates with wineries include Hunter, Kingston, Bendigo, Burke and three Tasmanian electorates: Braddon, Lyons and, of course, Bass. Tasmania has concerns to make certain that the industry is better addressed and the opposition is proposing a series of amendments which will specifically go to that sector of the industry. I understand time limits are significant in this debate, but I am anxious to make certain that the interests of the Tasmanian vineyards are properly represented.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4848Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:31:004848Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) After Clause 7.10, page 21 (after line 15), insert:7.11 Exemption for cellar-door sales(1) A sale is not taxable if (a) the *manufacturer sells the wine, by *retail sale, to the purchaser, at the prem ises at which the *manufacturer manufactured the wine; and (b) the purchaser purchased the wine for consumption by the purchaser; and (c) the total value of retail sales by the *manufacturer at the manufacturer's premises, to purchasers for consumption by the purchasers does not exceed $100,000 in a year, being a year beginning on 1 July and ending on 30 June the following year, providing that, where the total value of such sales exceeds $100,000 in a year, only such sales of wine in excess of $100,000 in the year are taxable.(2) The regulations may provide that, for the purposes of this section, where a number of manufacturers provide wine for sale at the premises of one *manufacturer, each of the manufacturers specified in the regulations is deemed to have made the sales at the manufacturer's own premises.(2) After Clause 7.10, page 21 (after line 15), insert:7.12 Exemption for tastings and promotions A sale is not taxable if (a) the wine is provided for the purposes of consumption at a wine tasting or a wine promotion; and (b) the person consuming the wine does not pay, whether directly or indirectly, for the wine.I concede that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, the minister at the table, made a very good point when he referred to me as `the shadow minister responsible'. I am here as the shadow minister responsible for two very important sectors affected by this wine equalisation tax—the tourism sector and the small business sector, often one and the same. But where is the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and where is the Minister for Sport and Tourism? What submissions to the Treasurer did they make, if any, with respect to how this ad valorem wine equalisation tax will impact on the small business community and the tourism sector?The minister at the table, in winding up, made another point. He informed us, `You don't need to worry about these small wineries. There is a GST threshold of $50,000 and, if they do not pay the GST, they do not pay the wine equalisation tax.' If a winery crushes 50 tonnes or less, it is pretty small. I think the minister would concede that that makes it a pretty small winery. Those wineries are 550 of the country's 1,000 wineries. But what is the average wholesale value of a tonne of grapes? I suggest it is around $13 to $13.50. If the minister does his calculations he will then determine that the wholesale value per year for that winery is $64½ thousand. I do not know which of the wineries the minister is so confident are not going to be hit by these arrangements, but there are not many of them.Mr Hockey interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Yes, 50 tonnes or under, with a wholesale value of $64½ thousand. The minister for small business was going to do all these—Mr Hockey interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I have made my point. What point does the minister want me to make other than that? Fifty tonnes of grapes I am talking about. He comes in all gung-ho and so I start questioning him across the table about some of the details of the matters he has been raising. Suddenly he has been `advised' and suddenly it is not the same but `similar'. He comes in here without a clue about the bill, when the minister for tourism or the minister for small business should be dealing with this matter.The minister for small business, on coming into government, was going to do wonderful things for small business. He whined about how Labor had brought the small business community undone over 13 years—a load of rubbish. Small business growth in the last 10 years of the Hawke-Keating governments was just amazing. What has the minister for small business done? He has introduced a GST. He is going to burden small businesses with a GST and all the paperwork and the administrative costs involved. He has failed to deliver on some of the key recommendations of the Reid report. Rather than reduce the burden of red tape, he has increased it exponentially. And now he wants to whack the small business community in the wine industry with a wine equalisation tax which is going to hit them for six.It is of no surprise to me that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation chooses to leave the room. He must be feeling very embarrassed about his government's contribution and its refusal. Good, he is coming back; I have embarrassed him into coming back. No, he is going again; this whole issue has him very confused.What have they done? They have swept this under the carpet. There has been no parliamentary inquiry, no opportunity for the small wine producers to have their say and make their submissions, no community consultation, no debate about the impact of the taxation system generally on the wine industry, no debate on how it affects investment, consumption and decisions and no debate on the social and public health consequences. There has been none of that. The WFA rang and said, `We want ad valorem and that is it.' There has been no opportunity to debate the issue. And the WFA said something else. They said, `We think that if you are going to make this revenue neutral it is going to have to be at about 24½ per cent.' What do we get? We get 29 per cent. (Time expired)13:36:004850Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—Every so often people get elected to this place who have the hide and the audacity to stand up here and make a contribution such as that we have just heard from the honourable member for Hunter. He was part of a government which really brought small business to its knees. He is part of an opposition which is currently refusing to carry the government's unfair dismissal laws. He is also part of an opposition which is refusing to maintain youth wages.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order! I ask the honourable member to come back to the detail of the bill.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to point out, though, that the member opposite is being hypocritical, and I think it is appalling that he could stand up and accuse the government of taking the course of action that it is when he was part of a government which brought small business to its knees.It will, of course, be no surprise to the opposition to know that the government does not support its amendments. The opposition, including the honourable member for Hunter, simply has failed to understand that the states are currently provided with revenue to fund the existing rebate arrangements. Most members who read the newspapers—and maybe the honourable member for Hunter cannot read the newspapers—will recall that there was a High Court decision which found that certain business franchise fees, including those imposed on wine, were prohibited by the Constitution. Since the High Court decision, the Commonwealth has incorporated the franchise fee revenue previously collected by the states into the wholesale sales tax and has distributed this money to the states. It is this government which was prepared to stand up and be counted and to continue this arrangement, which we believe is very equitable.Because the goods and services tax will replace Labor's wholesale sales tax, and as all GST revenue will be passed onto the states, it follows that the states will receive, as part of the GST revenue, sufficient funds to continue the rebate schemes that currently exist. We believe that that is fair, equitable and appropriate.The government understands also that the wine industry is in discussion with the states on this issue and that at least two states, including South Australia and New South Wales—the state from which the honourable member for Hunter comes—have indicated that they will continue the current rebate arrangements.It should be noted also that wine used as tasting samples and wine given away will not attract GST because it has a zero price. I think it is about time the member for Hunter ceased huffing and puffing and making the comments that he has made. The government has no hesitation whatsoever in rejecting those amendments moved by the honourable member for Hunter.13:40:004850Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—If the member for Fisher is so confident, I still cannot understand where the members for McEwen, Ballarat and all those others with regional constituencies and small winemakers in their regions are on this debate.The $100,000 cap which we have arrived at is not a figure that the opposition just plucked out of the air. I talked about the arithmetic on the crush. The $100,000 figure will cover all those who crush 50 tonnes or less per year. That is something like 550 of the country's 1,000 wineries.I would like to make a point about the second proposed amendment. This clause, as the member for Hotham mentioned earlier, caters for those micro wine producers who do not themselves have cellar door sales. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, along with the members for Denison, Franklin and Bass, who brought that concern to my attention throughout the debate on this issue on our side and who ensured that our amendments were redrafted to accommodate those very important people. I have been to visit some of the wine groups in Tasmania. I am fully conscious of the contribution they make to the local economy and to the very important tourism chain around that island. It is very important that they be catered for.Before my time expired last time I was talking about the lack of participation in this debate by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Minister for Sport and Tourism. We have seen throughout the GST debate that the tourism sector will be hit hard by the GST. The Tourism Task Force's independent modelling indicated that some 60,000 jobs could be lost directly in the industry. This is just another issue which threatens to undermine the viability of those wineries which underpin or make up the backbone of the very important wine tourism infrastructure which I referred to earlier.When people go to these regions, they go there to taste the wines. They go there to experience the thrill of the local small wineries. While they are there they have a meal and take up accommodation, providing a significant boost to the regional economy. I have so many of them in my electorate, places like Briar Ridge, Brokenwood, Tamburlaine, Saddlers Creek, Allanmere and Allandale, the Marsh Estate and, in the Upper Hunter, the Suranela and Horseshoe wineries. These are not significant players in the industry in terms of their size, but they make a fantastic contribution to the local economy.This is an eminently justifiable proposition. It is a way of compensating the small wineries for the impact an ad valorem based wine equalisation tax will have upon them. You have to remember that, by volume, cellar door sales in this country represent only three per cent of the market. So we are not talking about some extraordinary amendment here.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Isn't that a rebate?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I am glad the minister mentions the rebate. The rebate was, of course, compensation for the High Court's decision on the state franchising licences. The Commonwealth had to move quickly to compensate the states for the loss of that revenue. I am going to admit, unlike the minister—he is not prepared to admit that he does not know his stuff—that I am not so sure where those rebates will come into play in the new Commonwealth-state financial relations if the goods and services tax gets through the Senate. We have the government telling us that they are providing all the income revenue of the GST directly back to the states and now the minister is telling me that the Commonwealth is somehow going to ensure that the rebate, which is compensation for the High Court decision, is going to be maintained. He may be right, but I suggest he go back and check that arrangement.The changes to Commonwealth-state financial relations are going to be the most significant this country has seen. They are going to be bad for the states. They are going to further diminish the role of the Commonwealth in those funding arrangements. I suggest that the minister check his facts on that. (Time expired)Question put:That the amendments (Mr Fitzgibbon's ) be agreed to. The House divided. [1.49 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.4852Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4852r7654852Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4852Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—read a third time.Bills4852r7634852Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4852Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—read a third time.Bills4852r7644852Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4852Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—read a third time.Bills4852r7574852Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4852Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills4852r7604852Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4852Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills4853r7584853Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4853Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills4853r7594853Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4853Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills4853r7564853Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4853Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills4853r7624853Consideration resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4853Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I appreciate the accommodation of the House.Questions Without Notice485348534853Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen comments by Colleen McCullough describing his preamble as `one of the most dismally uninspiring pieces of prose I've seen in a long time—no Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln wrote it, that's certain'? Has the Prime Minister also seen the comprehensive condemnation by his former leader Malcolm Fraser, who has said that the preamble should be dropped, including for its failure to recognise Aboriginal custodianship, and that he will be voting against it? In the light of the criticisms of his preamble by Malcolm Fraser, Colleen McCullough, Andrew Robb, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Bruce Ruxton, Ken Crooke and Marise Payne, and in the light of the two-thirds public opposition to it, will the Prime Minister swallow his pride, withdraw his preamble—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—and allow a representative group of Australians to draft a preamble of which we can all be proud?4854Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not have anything to add on this subject to what I said yesterday.48544854Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister outline to the House the government's economic reform record? What has been the major source of opposition to the implementation of the government's economic policies?4854Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Robertson for that question. But it is very instructive that, when you get a question on economic reform, you get groans from the other side of the House. I am delighted to say to the honourable member for Robertson, whose constituents have enjoyed the fruits of the government's economic stewardship of this nation over the last three years, that this government has had a remarkable record of achievement so far as economic management is concerned. That oft quoted observation of Paul Krugman to the effect that Australia has been the miracle economy of the Western World says it all.Over the last three years, we have pursued a policy that has been very successful. We set about cutting the budget deficit that we inherited from the Labor Party. We have delivered the lowest interest rates in 30 years. We have delivered very low levels of inflation. We have presided over high levels of business investment. We have presided over extensive micro-economic and macro-economic reform. And we have also presided over very significant changes to the industrial relations system that have delivered significant reductions in the level of unemployment.The honourable member for Robertson asks me: what has been the major source of opposition? The major source of opposition to the economic reform agenda of the coalition government has been, of course, the Australian Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition in his question asked me whether I had read something that Colleen McCullough had said; well I hadn't, but I can tell you that I have read something that one of his colleagues has said. It appears in a Bulletin magazine article this morning written by Laurie Oakes under the heading `Carr drives home lessons for Beazley'. The article states:Della Bosca is said to be convinced that federal Labor should cut and run on the GST.Very revealingly, the article says that one of New South Wales Labor's leading lights goes on to say:They're sick of us rabbiting on about GSTs on coffins and running shoes . . . They want us to stop taking a 100% negative stance and start talking about how we're going to make the tax system fairer.They are not the words of a coalition member; they are the words of a member of the Australian Labor Party. They say very effectively what a growing number of Australians think—that the Labor Party has been peddling essentially in negative, destructive, backward-looking attitudes and policies ever since it went into opposition in 1996. The Labor Party's response to virtually every initiative of the coalition is to say no, or to oppose it. Instead of supporting sensible initiatives to improve the economic and industrial strength of Australia even more, the Labor Party has fought them tooth and nail.When we brought down our first budget, the Leader of the Opposition on 22 July said that `they cut too hard in their first budget'. Those opposite have opposed the privatisation of Telstra; they oppose the entrenching of youth wages in the industrial relations system; they have opposed our attempts to further reform the unfair dismissal laws. They have opposed just about every major economic reform that this government has produced over the last three years.Despite that opposition, we have been able to deliver economic achievements that nobody believed possible just three years ago. Despite the opposition of the Labor Party, despite the negative attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and his frontbench colleagues, we have delivered an Australian economy that the great bulk of Australians are very proud of and the great bulk of Australians are benefiting from.What has been the response of the Labor Party? The response of the Labor Party is to be negative, to be carping, to be backward looking, to not give any credit where credit is due, to believe that the only attitude that the Australian public appreciate is a negative attitude. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that the dogs in your own party are barking on this. They are now starting to say that you have been too negative. The Leader of the Opposition ought to listen to Mr Della Bosca. The Leader of the Opposition ought to listen to the person who says that they want us to stop taking a 100 per cent negative stance and start talking about how we are going to make not only the tax system fairer but the Australian economy better. You have been indicted by your own side for your negative attitude, and a growing number of Australians regard you as the Dr No of Australian politics.48554855Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Is the minister aware that in response to the Australian Communications Authority's telecommunications performance monitoring bulletin for the December 1998 quarter—which showed a six percentage point decline nationally for new services to major rural areas—the minister for communications, Senator Alston, issued a press release which said that the government expected Telstra to act urgently to restore service levels? Doesn't this response mirror the response of the minister for communications in a press release of 31 March 1998, a year ago today, to the ACA December 1997 bulletin which showed a nine percentage point decline nationally in the provision of new services to country areas? Minister, how can anyone believe that service levels to rural and regional Australia will not fall further if Telstra is further privatised? What will the minister do about service levels if the government's legislation is passed—issue a press release in a year's time and once a year thereafter? 4855McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for his question. What the honourable member conveniently ignores or refuses to accept is that this government put in place in legislative form the customer service guarantee. We are currently strengthening the customer service guarantee. We will give the Australian Communications Authority the power to act directly to require Telstra to respond to specific problems like the Tasmanian problem identified by the ACA in its quarterly report. So if the current Telstra legislation passes through the Senate, the government has more power to direct the telecommunications carrier. Moreover, the best thing that the opposition can do to assist regional services and infrastructure is to pass the legislation for further privatisation of Telstra.$671 million has been set aside by way of social bonus for regional and rural customers. We will get that radical upgrade of infrastructure in a way that is not possible otherwise. It is the Labor Party opposing for the sake of opposing which is preventing rural customers getting a significant upgrade in both infrastructure and service by way of Telstra, all underwritten by legislative protection inserted by the government.48554855Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Given that there has been opposition for opposition's sake to the government's tax reform package, can the Treasurer advise the House if he is aware of any fresh declarations of support for the government's tax reform package? Treasurer, what is your response to this support?4855Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. I think we on this side of the House would welcome the support of any member of parliament who wanted to engage in tax reform for the sake of the country. If the Labor Party is reconsidering its position and will now look at tax reform constructively, it will not be our attitude to say, `Well, you were wrong, and you have now been humiliated into a turnabout.' It will be our attitude to welcome a positive contribution from Labor to the development of a better tax system in Australia.We hold that out to the Labor Party because obviously having locked themselves into opposing tax reform and now having taken the heat for being negative for negativity's sake, it would be good if they had an exit strategy. We saw reported in today's Bulletin by Mr Laurie Oakes that Della Bosca, who is one of the Labor Party's chief strategists, now wants the Labor Party to come out and stop being negative. The article states:"People want to hear what our attitude is to the income tax system," says one of NSW Labor's leading lights.It is in plural; there are more than one of them—`Labor's leading lights':"They're sick of us rabbiting on about GSTs on coffins and running shoes and all that crap. They want us to stop taking a 100% negative stance . . . Another one of the ALP strategists says that Della Bosca is said to be convinced federal Labor should cut and run on the GST. On this occasion, I think we could say Della is right.The Leader of the Opposition has been locked into this negative stance by the Victorian ALP, just as he was locked into a negative stance by the member for Jagajaga opposing the private health insurance rebate while members of the Labor Party were running around desperately saying, `We hope it gets up on somebody else's vote.' He has been locked into a negative position by the member for Hotham, another one of the genii from the Victorian ALP who has locked them in against tax reform. Now the New South Wales ALP is coming out and calling it as it is. Glenn Milne wrote on Monday:Elements of the New South Wales Right now want Beazley to admit that Labor's lost the battle. Kim's bogged down in the marshes on the GST, said one ALP strategist.I wondered why that was in Glenn Milne's column on Monday. He interviewed Della Bosca on Sunday. It is in Glenn's column on Monday. Laurie writes his column on Sunday, and Della is in Laurie's column for Wednesday. Bob Hogg says this in the Age :On the policy front Beazley needs to do two things. First, he should declare support for the government's GST. Second, he should support the full privatisation of Telstra.So we have the state secretary of the New South Wales ALP, the federal secretary of the New South Wales ALP, and Labor's major Premier, Bob Carr, saying:My view is that a government with a majority in any lower house ought to be able to implement its program not subject to frustration by upper house, state or federal . . . To which we say, `Amen, Bob.' Here is a Labor leader who is used to governing, who wants to govern, and what is his advice to the Leader of the Opposition—the Leader of the Opposition who has now given up any hope of ever having responsibility for anything and of being in government?We used to try the tactic of turning around and talking to ourselves to pretend that we were not getting a bucket, too. We used to do it all the time. When we were getting a bucket, the deputy would turn to the leader and say, `Keep talking and pretend you're not listening; keep up the conversation.' It is the latest mark of a leader who is condemning himself to permanent oppositionism. Listen to Neil O'Keefe, another one of Labor's thinkers.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order under standing order 77 relating to disorderly conduct. You know that the Treasurer raised this earlier this week and I made a personal explanation that he was misrepresenting me. I am asking you to rule a continuation of that as disorderly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke makes a valid point of order in that the Treasurer is obliged to refer to members by their seat and he failed to do that. I call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Burke, one of Labor's thinkers, wrote in the Age on 26 March 1999:. . . it is 14 years since a consumption tax was first seriously—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. With the greatest of respect, you did not rule on the point of order I presented; you talked about a totally different matter. I am asking you to rule that it is disorderly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat. If the member for Burke is misrepresented by the Treasurer, then the member for Burke will have made available to him the forms of the House that will allow him to address that misrepresentation.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—I have already done that in your presence, and I am asking you to rule as disorderly a continuing misrepresentation of me.WI4REITHMr Reith—We're trying to make a genius out of you. We're building you up.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—After they tore you down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer has the call. Should he misrepresent the member for Burke then there is a facility available for the member for Burke to claim to have been misrepresented.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You try to give these blokes a go and they object. I withdraw that—he is not one of Labor's thinkers, and I do not rely on what he said in the Age . In 1992, Paul Keating said:I say to the opposition, the Labor Party would not obstruct the passage of the GST legislation in the Senate. I want to make it totally clear that a vote for Hewson is a vote for the GST.In the Courier-Mail on 26 August 1997, Kim Beazley said:If John Howard goes to the next election with a clear and honestly described GST tax proposal and he wins the election, Labor will regard that as a mandate and not seek to block it.That is what he said on 26 August 1997. He gets backed into this position by the Victorian ALP, he gets locked into opposing private health insurance by the member for Jagajaga and he gets locked into opposing tax reform by the member for Hotham—the member for Hotham who now claims that he is drying out; the member for Hotham who was last seen trying to chase Toorak tractors out of the Melbourne suburbs. That was his great contribution to the last election campaign. This is an opposition that opposes for the sake of opposition. It has no policy and it ought to reconsider.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I trust you to adjudicate on the issues of scorn and derision. You promised me you would.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I reassure the member for Newcastle that if I were to rule on all scorn and derision I doubt that many questions would get answered. But I intend to be consistent. The member for Newcastle will resume his seat. The member for Hotham has the call.48574857Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, is it not a fact that the government is making great claims that the effect of the changes to the family tax initiative would be to give a tax-free threshold of $15,000 to a family with two children under five? Is it not also true that Labor's tax credit would give the same family a tax-free threshold of $21,400 and do it for children up to the age of 16 and do it without a GST?4857Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—This government's excellent initiatives to assist families can be taken in a number of ways—by way of additional tax-free thresholds, or paid through Centrelink as a fortnightly payment or through Medicare offices. So there is a range of ways that this government's measures to benefit families will be delivered to Australian families.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was not how the benefit could be paid, but the comparison between it and Labor's package. That is what he has to address. It was very specific.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has made his point of relevance and will resume his seat.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Didn't the dog give you the answer?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman. The minister is being entirely relevant and will continue the answer.GT4Mr TRUSS—I remind the House that Labor was in government for 13 very, very long years. They had 13 years to introduce a family tax initiative and they did not do it. They are now telling us that if they were given another chance they would introduce a credit, but who knows what it would be worth? The reality is that the last time Labor promised tax cuts to families they actually put taxes up. The last time they went to an election promising tax cuts, the cuts were abandoned immediately after the election and we had the biggest regime of tax increases in the history of our nation, all introduced without any compensation to families whatsoever.Anyone who believes any proposal put forward by the opposition has a very short memory indeed. This government actually has the legislation before the House to introduce substantial benefits for Australian families. If you weren't opposing for opposing's sake, you would be passing that legislation and passing the benefits on to Australian families.48584858Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Are there any ramifications for our export and import performance from the decision to proceed with the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights? What is the government's position in relation to the location of Lucas Heights as against alternative sites?4858Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question on this very difficult but very important issue. I admire the way she has shown great courage in handling this issue in a correct policy sense. The new reactor will be a state-of-the-art facility for the continuation of valuable scientific research. It means Australia's nuclear medicine capabilities will be among the best in the world. That is a view supported by the Australian Medical Association. Unlike Labor, which opposed this just for the sake of opposing proper and correct policy, we have the real interests of the nation at heart, including the nuclear medicine interests of the nation. A letter, dated 11 May 1998, says:On the new reactor, I am afraid that the realities of politics in an election year, and in particular our need to win Hughes, have led us to a position of opposing a new reactor at the Lucas Heights site—as difficult as that may be to justify in objective safety-focused terms.Well might the member for Holt blush, because he signed that letter to Helen Garnett, who is one of the truly great scientists of this country. He went on to say:There is certainly no desire, however, to stand in the way of developing a new capacity elsewhere if an appropriate site could be found, but that of course is not going to be an easy exercise to accomplish. I'm sorry that I could not have been more helpful on this one.What a disgrace you were in terms of correct policy settings and prosecuting responsible policy as Deputy Leader of the Opposition at that particular time. We know your embarrassment. You could not persuade your frontbench on that particular issue.Let me point out that the new nuclear reactor will ensure that Australia has a reliable supply of radioisotopes for diagnostic and therapeutic medicine. ANSTO manufactures 80 per cent of the radioisotopes used by the country's nuclear medicine facilities, and that is helping our export efforts. The reactor will create some 800 jobs in the electorate of the member for Hughes—who, I might add, was so strong in her policy stand that she was the only sitting Liberal to increase her majority at the last election.Could I add one other thing: it will boost the $2.5 million export trade to the countries of Oceania and elsewhere which rely on our nuclear exports. The truth of the matter is that the opposition is naked with regard to responsible policy settings, no more so than with regard to Lucas Heights. I support the project, but I guess I oppose Lucas Heights in one respect in that it is so safe that I would even volunteer Boree Creek as a possible location for the boutique, beautiful, safe nuclear reactor. I am backing Lucas Heights. I might add that we have had Baywatch and now we have Lucas Heights. I would urge the people of Sydney to think carefully about these issues and, if they want to pass on Baywatch, I will even volunteer the `beachettes' of the Boree creek for Baywatch!48584858Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does your tax package reduce the tax-free threshold by $5,000 for a single income family when a child turns five, taking $850 out of the pockets of families at this most vulnerable time? How do you justify a tax package with a back-to-school penalty of $850, which you could probably double when you take into account the GST tax hikes on school uniforms and books? Why have you had absolutely no trouble—3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I refer you to page 3, No. 3, of the Notice Paper . This is the second question which is squarely in breach of the anticipation rule.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The whole question of anticipation of questions in the matter of the tax package has been dealt with almost for the entire life of this parliament. It has been agreed that it was consistent to ask questions and to answer them providing the legislation was not unreasonably foreshadowed in the process. I deem the Leader of the Opposition's question in order and ask him to come to the end of it.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Thanks, Mr Speaker. Prime Minister, how do you justify a tax package with a back-to-school penalty of $850, which you could probably double when you take into account the GST tax hikes on school uniforms and books—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will, however, come to his question and not argue the question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Why have you had absolutely no trouble finding ways to tax children as they get older but, when it comes to compensating them, your package is comprehensively inadequate?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will allow the question to stand, but I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that he spent some time arguing the case rather than asking the question. I call the Prime Minister.4859Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—That is an intriguing question. It is intriguing on several fronts. It certainly does not encourage anybody to believe that the Labor Party is going to be anything other than 100 per cent negative. I seem to remember that the man who asked me that question was the Deputy Prime Minister in a government that had 13 years to do something for single income families, and actually made their situation infinitely worse. Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—You had 13 years and you actually worsened the position of single income families in this country. When we brought in the family tax initiative in 1996, half of your backbench complained about the benefits that we gave to single income families.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order which goes to relevance. We want to know why the Prime Minister imposes an $850 additional burden when a kid turns six. That is what we want to know.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition's question was a wide-ranging one. The Prime Minister's answer is relevant, and I call him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reality is that the Labor Party had 13 years to improve the tax inequity so far as single income families in this country are concerned. This is the first administration for 15 years that has been willing to do something to better the position of single income families. Half your own members sneered at our proposal in 1996. You said that it was an attempt by me to drive women back to the kitchen. You bitterly attacked our proposals to help single income families, and now you have the audacity to get up in this parliament and to say, in effect, that we should go even further in relation to single income families. The Leader of the Opposition had 13 years to fix the position for single income families. With the former Prime Minister in 1993 you made all families worse off when you increased indirect taxes without providing any compensation. I remind the parliament that in 1996 we went to the Australian people with a program that introduced—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It was a very specific question: how can they justify that $850 penalty when a kid turns six? That was the specific question and he has not addressed it for one minute.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have already ruled that the Prime Minister is being relevant. He is dealing with the tax issue and I have little doubt that he was in fact coming to the more specific point that the Leader of the Opposition was making.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Not only did we see a question which breached the standing orders, we are having repeated and tedious points of order which are clearly frivolous and which reflect the pressure the Leader of the Opposition is under. You ought to make it very clear to him that frivolous points of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the House has suggested that the question was outside the standing orders, which is a reflection on your ruling, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, the point is that there have been a number of points of order on the relevance of the question and, given that the question is about the matter of taxation, I have ruled the answer being given to be relevant to the question. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The history of the taxation treatment of families in this country is highlighted by the fact that in 1996, for the first time in a generation, a side of politics was prepared to reverse the growing tax inequity against families with children, and most particularly single income families with young children. That was based on a very simple philosophical proposition; that is, that we should not only recognise the cost incurred by parents in raising children but we should also promote as far as possible the maximum degree of choice for parents as to whether one or both parents were in the work force when they had young children. It is our view that that ought, as far as possible, be a matter of choice, not a matter of taxation or government dicta. That is why we sought in 1996 to make things a little easier for single income families. We have in fact made them even better in the taxation plan. I am very proud of that particular part of the plan.At every stage we have been opposed by the Australian Labor Party. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition: if you and the Democrats persist in opposing our legislation, you are putting at risk the greatest family tax bonanza for Australian families in a generation. That is what you are doing. You are putting it at risk. You had 13 years to help Australian families, you had 13 years to give the women of Australia more choice—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question went to this aspect of the $30 billion GST package: why is he putting an $850 penalty on single income families when their kids turn six?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In asking the question, it has entirely escaped the reasoning of the Leader of the Opposition that, under the policies he pursued, there were no benefits for single income families at all. There were no additional benefits for single income families. You sought to create a situation where the choice was not available except for the very well off in the community. Once again it is an example of how, when you were in government, although you proudly said that you represented the workers of Australia—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, when they were in government they denied the low income people of the community, they denied the low income earners of the families of Australia—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, which goes to standing order 145, relevance. This is an absolute outrage. We have now had an answer for five or six minutes which has not had one word relating to the question. When are you going to require the Prime Minister respond to the question?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have already ruled on the matter of relevance. The Prime Minister is dealing with the whole question of family taxation and taxation changes as they affect family income and, for that reason, is being relevant. I invite the Prime Minister to conclude his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is a new definition of `outrage' when you attack the Labor Party. It is an outrage to be reminded of the fact that when the Labor Party was in office the position of working class families deteriorated markedly.48614861Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Notwithstanding that there has been opposition for opposition's sake to prevent the government implementing its economic reforms, can the minister inform the House of the progress made by the Howard government in reducing the debt left by the previous failed Labor government?4861Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am pleased to inform the honourable member for Moreton and all members of the House of a $4 billion improvement in the Commonwealth government's financial performance for the year 1997-98. This will result in the first ever operating surplus as measured by the government's annual consolidated financial statements. As distinct from the May budget, the CFS measures the financial performance of the general government sector as well as that of public trading enterprises like Australia Post and public financial enterprises like the Reserve Bank.The CFS for the 1977-98 year has produced a surplus of $1.5 billion before abnormals, and that is a substantial improvement on the $2.5 billion deficit which was generated in the previous year. When the sale of the first tranche of Telstra and other abnormals are taken into account the surplus climbs to a record $7.5 billion. This outstanding result has been used to reduce Labor's debt by nearly 10 per cent. This has reduced our annual interest bill by nearly $2 billion. This result demonstrates the coalition government's commitment to the fiscal discipline needed to insulate Australia from the Asian crisis, to maintain international confidence and to maintain low interest rates.The CFS, produced on an accrual basis for the fourth year running, records that Labor's debt was reduced in the 1997-98 year by $11.5 billion or nine per cent of the whole of government level. In the general government sector, which of course excludes public trading enterprises and the public financial enterprises, debt repayment reached a massive $13.9 billion. In other words, the coalition's prudent fiscal policy is now paying dividends—lower debt and smaller debt repayments. And our debt levels and our debt payments can be made even smaller if Labor stops its obstruction and permits the sale of the next tranche of Telstra. It is worth reminding the members opposite once again of what the former ALP Secretary Bob Hogg said just one week ago. He said:On the policy front, Beazley needs to do two things—firstly, he should declare support for the government's GST and, secondly, he should declare support for the full privatisation of Telstra.And if the Leader of the Opposition does not want to listen to the former Secretary of the ALP I remind him of a person he has high regard for. And only yesterday he indicated that high regard in this House by saying:. . . congratulations to John Della Bosca, who headed up an expert machine which understood the electorate they were dealing with and pitched policy exactly right to their concerns.If this man of the moment, this great strategist that you praised so fulsomely yesterday in the House, understands the electorate, then you should take notice of what he told you only in the last few days. You should listen to John Della Bosca when he says to you that you should support a new tax system. You should listen to Bob Hogg when he tells you should support the sale of Telstra. You should get with it and start recognising what is good for the Australian people instead of simply being obstructionist and opposing for opposition's sake.48614861Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. I refer to the correspondence from all state and territory housing ministers to Senator New man indicating that the impact of the proposed GST on public housing would be more than $390 million and asking for compensation from the Commonwealth. Does the minister still claim that the GST package provides adequate GST compensation for all Australians? Will he, therefore, rule out any additional compensation for the impact of the GST on public housing?4862Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—As I am sure all honourable members are aware, the negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states in relation to the housing agreement are current, and it is quite common in these circumstances for a range of claims to be made by those seeking an increase in the offer from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has made a very generous offer to the states which will secure their funding and increase the amount of money available to them for their housing needs. That is a very generous offer, and I think the states should accept it and get on with the job of providing community housing.48624862Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of claims that voluntary student unionism will lead to the cessation of student services, clubs and societies on university campuses? Can the minister advise the House whether or not there is any basis to such claims? And does the minister have any information about the attitudes of student leaders under compulsory student unionism?4862Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question. There are a number of claims being made that voluntary student unionism will lead to a cessation of student services but, unfortunately, those making those claims forget that we already have an example of how VSU is operating in Australia in the state of Western Australia. In Western Australia, student services is vibrant and student organisations are strong.XS4LAWRENCEDr Lawrence—It isn't going to happen.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fremantle is persistently interjecting when the minister has the call. The minister.BT4Dr KEMP—The House does not need to take my word for this. I will quote the words of the guild president of Murdoch University.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Isn't this matter listed on the Notice Paper , and I suspect debate has already begun on the matter?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley is right: the matter is listed on the Notice Paper and could, therefore, be subject to anticipation concerns.WI4REITHMr Reith—On the anticipation point, Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has the call and is entitled to be heard in the same silence as was the member for Chifley.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I simply refer you to the comments you made earlier about the tax issue. Basically the fact is that, if there is a specific reference to the legislation or provisions of the legislation, that would obviously breach the anticipation rule, but there is nothing to prevent a question which goes to the general policy matter whether it is before the House or not.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: House of Representatives Practice makes it absolutely clear that the distinguishing feature is when a bill is on the blue in a circumstance where it is going to be considered in detail on the day. That is exactly the circumstance with regard to this bill, not with regard to the tax bills which were previously referred to. That would be consistent with your previous rulings and the rulings of former Speakers Halverson and Sinclair.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The tax matter, of course, is on the blue and is being considered this day.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There have been a number of instances during the period of this parliament when the tax bills have been for consideration on that day. I will allow this question to stand. I clearly do not expect policy matters to be announced.BT4Dr KEMP—The guild president of Murdoch University said this about the effect of voluntary student unionism in Western Australia:The Murdoch guild has worked through VSU and is now in a financial and political position to provide excellent representation and services to Murdoch students.The members for Swan, Fremantle and Perth are graduates of the University of Western Australia. They will be interested to know that the University of Western Australia Guild claims in the orientation handbook for this year that the guild, under VSU, `has grown into one of the biggest and most vibrant student run organisations in the country.'PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it relates to the standing orders. Generally speaking, when a matter is actually on the blue as opposed to being introduced, as was the case in relation to the questions on which we focused, it is mere technical detail which is permitted in discussion, not a general anticipation of debate going to the principles of it. So, if you look at House of Representatives Practice , if you ask a question about the technical relationship of a particular clause to a particular problem, that is fine, but if you are going to anticipate debate—that is, the general principles underlying it—you are way out of order. I would submit that the minister is not discussing the technical details associated with it. If House of Representatives Practice is to mean anything at all, the bloke is way out of order.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Mr Speaker, on that point of order: the blue quite simply has the matter relating to family assistance, which you ruled on earlier, listed higher up than the higher education matter, which is at the very end of the blue. I would suspect that this is more mischief making than any other great contribution to the debate.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I refer to page 473 of House of Representatives Practice , which says:. . . Ministers have been directed to keep away from specific provisions of, or not to canvass, legislation to come before the House later in the day.This is a classic case of that. Those tax bills are not to come before the House later in the day but this bill is, unless he is going to withdraw it, about which we would be very pleased.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It clearly is inappropriate for the minister to deal with matters that directly relate to the bill before the House. I would ask him, therefore, to confine his answer to the question without directly relating to the bill before the House.BT4Dr KEMP—I am, of course, just dealing with the broad principles of policy in this area.Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Canning, who I know has an interest in this area, will be interested to hear that her alma mater, Curtin University, has a variety of student services to offer students—MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is defying your ruling in seeking to debate the general principles behind the bill.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. I am listening closely to what the minister has to say.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—You haven't been called.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect. I call the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing orders 144 and 145. Standing order 144, which everybody is quoting on the other side, relates to the question, not the answer. The only standing order regarding the answer is standing order 145, which says `an answer shall be relevant to the question'. There is no debate on what the minister has to say.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on that point of order: the House of Representatives Practice reference which was referred to by the Manager of Opposition Business precisely referred to ministerial answers, and it is the ministerial answers which anticipate debate, and the minister is anticipating it big time here today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House would do well to remember that the blue is not the official document of the House, but the Notice Paper is. The issue is of course on the Notice Paper , as are a number of other issues on which questions have been allowed now and in the past. For that reason, I have allowed the question to stand and will allow the minister to answer but do not expect him to directly address the legislation. I call the minister.BT4Dr KEMP—The Curtin University, operating under the VSU regime, offers a wide range of services to students on that campus. These services include catering, university policy assistance and student finances, student advocacy, study skills, legal advice, tax service, accident insurance, tertiary sports, a share house register and I could go on and on. What this demonstrates is that under VSU a very wide range of student services is available to the—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the page of the House of Representatives Practice from which I quoted referred specifically to the fact that ministers should not canvass legislation. Every word the minister has said since your ruling has canvassed the legislation. Every word. Every word is in blatant defiance of your ruling, is out of order and is in breach of all precedent.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If any comment the minister made had been in defiance of my ruling, he would have resumed his seat much earlier. To date, I have heard him giving an illustration of a particular university and I see nothing inconsistent with that illustration and the standing order. I call the minister.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, there is a reason, I think, for the sensitivity that we are seeing on the other side of the House. The question asked me whether I was aware of the attitudes of the leaders of student unions under the compulsory unionism regime. I am aware—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: how can the minister refer to voluntary student unionism and compulsory student unionism without canvassing legislation which is about the introduction of voluntary student unionism? How is that possible?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The ruling given by the chair is entirely consistent with the ruling given when questions on tax were asked, and they were answered as they are being an swered relative to this issue of voluntary student unionism. I call the minister.BT4Dr KEMP—A case study has been drawn to my attention in the book called Beazley by Peter Fitzsimons, who describes the actions of the Leader of the Opposition when he was the student guild president of the University of Western Australia. In this book, Peter Fitzsimons says:Early in his term . . . he decided that the guild would have to increase its annual subscription fees in order to meet its budget, and be able to fund some of the campaign promises that Kim, for one, had gained power on.He was for high taxes then as he is now. Peter Fitzsimons goes on to say:There was a predictable outcry from a number of students who simply did not want their own tight budgets to be stretched any further. Too bad.That is how Peter Fitzsimons describes the Leader of the Opposition's attitude—`too bad'. But it gets worse because, in this book, Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, justifies his attitude and he explains to Peter Fitzsimons:I had to manoeuvre to get the people in sports councils to come in and back that . . . to make sure they got enough money out of it so they would be prepared to go and vote for us. I thought it quite justifiable.There you have it. There is a basic difference in values between this side of the House and the opposition because the opposition believes—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: even on the most generous interpretation of your words, he is coming back to talking about the bill that he is urging us to pass. This is the reason why he is saying it. Even if he gets to the fact that I happened to be a fairly effective student politician, it is still not within the standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Whatever it takes. You should be ashamed to put your face at the box.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It would be self-evident to the House—Opposition members interjecting—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Why is there that space around you, Bronwyn?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan. The member for Brisbane.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Why has everyone left you?Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane and the Minister for Aged Care. It would be self-evident to the House that the chair has been following—Opposition members interjecting—SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Is that a coded message?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Aged Care is warned.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is also warned. When the House has come to order, we will resume question time. It would be self-evident to the House that the chair has been listening closely to what the minister had to say to make sure that he did not transgress the standing orders. I gather that he was in fact completing his answer. I call the minister.BT4Dr KEMP—What this quotation from the Leader of the Opposition illustrates is that there is a complete difference of values between this side of the House and the other side of the chamber. On that side of the chamber, they believe it is appropriate to compulsorily take students' money to serve their narrow political ends; whereas on this side of the chamber, we believe that student unions should be responsible to students and not the other way around.48654865Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Given the new ruling on anticipation—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come to his question or not have an opportunity to ask it.MG4Mr LEE—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that the student guild at Edith Cowan University is dismissing staff this afternoon and is discussing moving to voluntary administration tomorrow because VSU has effectively made that student guild insolvent? Minister, do you still stand by your claim that Western Australia's VSU legislation has not massively undermined student services in Western Australia?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Consistent with my earlier ruling, I will allow the question to stand, but the minister will not transgress the legislation.4865Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am aware that there is some difficulty that the student union at Edith Cowan University has run into on financial grounds. I am also aware that the Monash University Gippsland's student union operating under compulsory student unionism, has had its operations ceased by Monash University on the ground that it has run into financial difficulties. So here we have a simple illustration of the fact that some student unions are well managed and manage their financial services and finances well and other student unions run into difficulties, and it does not bear at all on the issue of voluntary student unionism.48654865St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Has the minister seen claims that the coalition government has been withdrawing services from rural Australia and that selling Telstra will make matters worse? Minister, are these claims correct?4865Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I have seen claims to that effect and, surprisingly enough, they came from the shadow minister for regional development, infrastructure, transport and regional services. She actually said that it was the Prime Minister's government that has pulled so many services out of the bush and it is his government that is going to make matters worse by selling Telstra. I thought that it might be worth actually making a couple of points in relation to our commitment to services in regional Australia. The list is actually a very long one. Come, for example, to the issue of Medicare offices. Not one existing office in rural and regional Australia has been closed. But, we have opened 582 Medicare Easyclaim offices—Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth is warned.4K4Mr ANDERSON—of which more than 400 are in regional areas, including Tathra, Holbrook, Balranald, Denman, Condobolin, Orbost, Beechworth, Barcaldine, Boggabri, Kilcoy, Monto, Chinchilla, Miles, Ceduna, Tom Price, Corrigin, Kojonup, Smithton, Carrington, Triabunna—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Triabunna is an interesting area, because if you were still in government Triabunna would not have a regional forest agreement, and they would not have any forestry jobs either.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—But then, Mr Speaker, there is Centrelink. Since March 1996, there has been a significant increase in Centrelink's presence in rural and regional Australia. New customer service centres—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I warn the member for McMillan. He has been a persistent interjector and warnings will be issued to other members who also continue to persistently interject. As standing order 55 makes perfectly clear, every member is entitled to be heard in silence. The minister.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I was just referring to some of the centres that now have a Centrelink presence out in rural Australia: Deniliquin, Charlestown, Robina, Dalby, Yeppoon, Lightning Ridge, Leeton, Glen Innes and Mt Barker. In addition, there are 14 new call centres in regional areas employing about 1,500 people: Coffs Harbour, Toowoomba, Port Macquarie, Bendigo and Palmerston. One hundred new Centrelink Outreach Agents and services across regional Australia are in the pipeline.There have been some wild claims made about post offices. Since March 1996, there are 157 new post offices in rural and remote Australia. A really interesting one is Creditcare—52 towns in rural or remote communities have received permanent access to financial services: Cardwell, Dimbulah, Dirranbandi, Hebel, Surat, Werris Creek, Walla Walla, Rosedale—it goes on and on—Ashford and Bulahdelah. Rural women's health—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—They don't want to hear this. It is the proof that they have been seriously misrepresenting our commitment to rural and regional services. For health, $8 million over four years is to be provided for a `fly-in-fly-out' female GP service for rural and remote areas; $41.6 million over the next four years to establish 30 new regional health centres; and a rural and remote pharmacy work force development program. TradeStart offices—the Deputy Prime Minister has really been very active in this area—in Coffs Harbour, Tamworth, Gosford, Bathurst, Nowra, Wagga, Wangaratta, Ballarat, Cairns, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Toowoomba, Albany, Geraldton, Mount Gambier, Launceston; I sound like the Deputy Prime Minister. Community legal programs—there are four centres in rural and regional Australia.But, Mr Speaker, the real hypocrisy of all of this is that, not content to deny what we have done, they want to prevent us from implementing a further $670 million worth of vitally needed programs for rural Australia—over five years, 500 rural transaction centres. We are talking about another $250 million for the Natural Heritage Trust. We are talking about a very big commitment to untimed local calls and extended zones in remote areas; filling in the black spots for people who do not have television reception; and $81 million extra for the RTIF.All of these are programs that Labor wants to stop. Not content with wanting to obstruct our economic reform programs, not content with blocking tax reform, not content with seeking to deny rural and regional Australia a $3,500 million reduction in the cost of fuel and not content with grossly misrepresenting what we have done, they want to stand in the way of some vitally important programs for rural and regional Australia. I believe that that is well known in rural and regional Australia. It paints you as not only negative but also in a position where the only policy decision you seem to be able to take seriously is which of several memory lanes you might choose to go back down.48674867Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, is it a fact that under the new rules in the Compensation for Non-economic Loss (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment) Bill 1999 an age pensioner who gets seriously bashed when their home is invaded will be cut off their pension for one year after receiving a lump sum $32,000 compensation payment for pain and suffering associated with that incident? Minister, is it true that this minister will rob victims of the full value of their compensation payout through the withdrawal of social security income support, effectively reducing the value of their compensation by one-third?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lilley will come to his question.2V5Mr SWAN—I certainly will, Mr Speaker. Minister, isn't the Queensland President of Victims of Crime correct when he said today, `I think it's pathetic. We are talking about people trying to rebuild their lives'?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley poses a problem not unlike the one we had yesterday when he asks: `Minister, isn't it correct . . . ' In that sense he is asking for an opinion.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, there are a plethora of questions here. One is related to the impact of the compensation package and asks whether it has that impact. There is a whole range of them.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. It has not been the practice of the chair to deny the member for Lilley the opportunity to ask a question. I was merely pointing out that part of the error that was made yesterday was repeated today in the latter part of his question. I call the minister to answer the former part of the question.4867Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Yesterday the honourable member for Lilley asked a question not dissimilar to the one today. In both instances his figures are absolutely wrong. A person in the position referred to in this latest instance or the one he referred to yesterday need lose no pension whatsoever because under the arrangements there is, firstly, a $10,000 exemption from the payment and, in addition, a further free area of $2,000 per month. So taking those measures into account, the person need not lose any benefit at all. What the government is proposing to do is that, under the current arrangements, people who receive a periodic compensation payment for non-economic loss are treated differently from those who get a lump sum, and so the arrangement—2V5SWANMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that relates to relevance. The question was about lump sums, not periodic payments.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. The minister is dealing with the question of the payment of benefits, among them is lump sums. The minister will respond to the question.GT4Mr TRUSS—What the government is proposing in this legislation is to introduce fairness into the compensation arrangements. It may be interesting to the member for Lilley, who was here in this place in 1993, because in 1993 the Labor government introduced proposals which were far tougher than what the government is proposing at the present time. In fact, the member for Bowman, who was the minister who brought that legislation into the House, said at the time:The government has acted and will continue to act to ensure that people who receive compensation payments use them for their support, at least for a reasonable period of time, before calling on the taxpayer funded social security system.You proposed to introduce a 50 per cent preclusion rule for all payments.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, under standing order 145 of relevance—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of Opposition Business has the call.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—With any other minister we would think he was deliberately misrepre senting the question. With this fellow we think he just misunderstands it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, the Leader of Opposition Business knows—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—The point is clearly this: the question and the bill to which it referred relates to extending the principle to non-economic loss, which is the first time that has happened.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. The Leader of Opposition Business is now canvassing the argument. The minister is dealing with the question and has the call.GT4Mr TRUSS—The opposition's proposals when they were in government were going to apply these measures to all compensation payments, not just non-economic loss. So what we are seeing here is a classic example of opposition for opposition's sake, not a glimmer of principle—opposition for opposition's sake.48684868Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. He did pretty well with the last one. Given the opposition for opposition's sake—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Indi will come to his question.XU5Mr LIEBERMAN—to regulations regarding seasonal workers in the Senate yesterday, can the minister advise the House of the effectiveness of the government's seasonal workers measure?4868Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—This is again another example of opposition for opposition's sake. The government proposed to introduce measures to ensure that those people who had seasonal or intermittent work and earned very large amounts of income could not then immediately seek unemployment benefits and Newstart allowances. Ironically, the opposition supported this legislation when it went through the Senate in the first place. Yesterday they changed their mind and voted down key regulations to introduce this measure.Most people on casual wages are not affected by this measure; it is only those on very high incomes. Labor were sensible in their initial preparedness to support the measure. But, once the union heavies found out about it, they bowed to their masters. From their perspective, somebody who earns $100,000 in a six-month contract ought to immediately be able to blow the money and rely on the taxpayers for their income. That is a completely unacceptable position for this government. It is clear that the opposition are once again just opposing for opposition's sake. Their position is entirely unprincipled. It is time they supported people in real need to ensure that the taxpayers' money supports those who are in real need rather than subsidising the lifestyles of those who earn high incomes over a short period.48684868Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of figures supplied by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that, in the current fiscal year to 28 February 1999, 8,589 overstayers have been located? Are you also aware that a substantial part of those overstayers are employed illegally by unscrupulous employers who willingly employ illegal workers to obtain cheap cash-in-hand labour avoiding normal award entitlements, including superannuation? Prime Minister, given the government's consistent announcements both to this House and in numerous press releases on the government's toughness and willingness to locate and deal with illegal immigrants, will you now inform the House why there are no employers—not one—presently being prosecuted for knowingly employing illegal labour?4868Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for the question addressed to the Prime Minister. I can inform the honourable member that the government is prepared to look at effective employer sanctions.Opposition member interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Well, I am interested in the view that is being offered because you had 13 years to do something about this.Opposition members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—13 years in which—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call and will address his remarks through the chair.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I have been in this House longer than most of you; in fact, all of you. I can well recall the number of times that these issues have been raised. It is being raised now only because this government is effectively dealing with the issue of people who are unlawfully in Australia. The fact is that when you were in office the only program you engaged in was the program of employer awareness.Mrs Irwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The member for Fowler cannot behave as she has just behaved in those sorts of retorts, and I warn her.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I simply make the point, because there is no need for hypocrisy in relation to these matters. You put in place employer awareness programs which were designed to apprise employers of their responsibilities. That was in place when we came into office. In relation to the numbers of locations that were made when you were in office, they fell to the order of 4,000 or 5,000. We have increased those locations in the several years that we have been in office to over 12,000.We are the people who have been prepared to look at the issue of effective employer sanctions. What I have announced is that there will be a discussion paper released quite shortly. That discussion paper will have a reference group in relation to it which will bring forward recommendations as to whether or not the regime of employer sanctions ought to be entertained. That is an appropriate response and one which we did not see from any of you when you were in office, when you were not prepared to address the issue.48694869McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, junior wage rates play an integral role in the securing of jobs and opening up doors to career paths for young people by providing them with valuable work experience. Could you inform the House of the impact that the abolition of junior wage rates would have on the future job prospects of young people as a result of the opposition opposing junior wage rates for opposition's sake?4869Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. There is no doubt that the age based system that we have and which we are very keen to see retained not only has secured jobs for young people but also has given them an opportunity to go on to other opportunities. A big survey that Australian retailers did recently showed that 69 per cent of their young, casual or part-time employees moved on to other careers. In other words, it gave them a CV. It gave them that chance in their first work opportunity to go on to other possibilities.This has been highlighted in a letter which has been copied to me, the original of which went to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats. This is from Peter Hiscock, who runs the very successful Sovereign Hill at Ballarat, one of Australia's great tourist attractions. This is what he said in his letter to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats:Each December we take on 30-40 students, put them through a training program and then they work in a variety of locations and occupations throughout the Park.He went on to say how many of those young people got jobs in other industries. He said:Sovereign Hill's experience in the employment of young people is no different to so many other businesses in the tourism and hospitality sector. The removal of junior rates can have only two consequences—a lower intake of young people to fit a finite budget or their replacement by more experienced people.Those are the words of somebody who employs young people, who knows what it means to young people to have a job and who is genuinely concerned as an employer to do the right thing by our young people. We can only hope that the Labor Party might finally put aside their ideology on this issue and understand how absolutely critical it is that this legislation is secured for protecting young people's jobs and providing more jobs in the future.I am not confident of the Labor Party's attitude, and that is because they have been opposed to the changes that we are making. They seem to be opposed to them for the sake of opposition. They have now the absurd position that the private policy they have got, which they have not yet announced, would in fact require the passage of our legislation to be implemented. It is absolutely crazy and bizarre that you should now accept privately that we have got to have some aged based system, and yet you are not prepared to stand up for young people and secure their jobs. You are in a state of just being negative for the sake of it.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Ha, ha.WI4Mr REITH—It has been going on for years. Bob Hogg said before the last election:Labor took a very negative campaign attitude in 1993.He made the point:I think it would be hard for anyone to qualify that period from 1993 to 1996 as good government.They went into the 1998 election with nothing but a negative policy. They now have a negative policy about the prospects of young people getting a job. Why is it? It is because you have got a weak leader not prepared to stand up for young people and their jobs.48704870McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is Foxtel pay TV connected at Kirribilli House?4870Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Yes.48704870Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the light of the appalling situation in Kosovo and the thousands of refugees fleeing from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, can the minister inform the House what action the government is taking to improve this situation? 4870Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the member for Kooyong for his question, and recognise his interest in and, indeed, the concern he has about this issue. The Australian government is alarmed by the continuing reports of a rapidly worsening humanitarian situation in Kosovo. It is worth the House's while to reflect on the fact that approximately half a million ethnic Albanians, a quarter of Kosovo's population, have fled their homes, including around 100,000 in recent days. I am sure that all Australians are appalled by these events.The Australian government will make an immediate contribution of $2 million to humanitarian organisations working in the region. We will provide the support to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, to Care Australia, to the Australian Red Cross and to World Vision Australia. The activities of these agencies will target the priorities which were identified last night in Geneva by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Those priorities are, for those refugees, shelter, transport and health services.Having said that we will provide $2 million, the honourable member might like to know that the government will, though, continue to monitor closely developments in Kosovo and the countries surrounding Kosovo, and we will provide more support if we feel that that is appropriate and necessary.48704870Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. When are you going to answer an MPI, you old leftie, you? You old leftie. When are you going to come in and answer an MPI?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham knows that he must come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—I refer to the minister's statement this week that veterans' pensions with a GST will always be higher than when they—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Hotham has the call. He will start his question again.DT4Mr CREAN—Absolutely. So rudely interrupted—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, the member for Hotham will come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—by the ill-disciplined Treasurer.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What do you expect of a dog?DT4Mr CREAN—My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer—Honourable members interjecting—DT4Mr CREAN—I refer to the minister's statement—Honourable members interjecting—DT4Mr CREAN—I refer—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has been persistently interrupted, and I apologise for that.DT4Mr CREAN—Thank you.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—The member for Batman said, `What do you expect of a dog?'Ms Bailey interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McEwen and the Prime Minister know that if they want the chair's attention they need to rise. I have little doubt that something that was unsavoury was said. I did not hear what the comment was and I would expect the member for Batman to exercise more restraint.JT4BAILEYMs Bailey—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I, like many members here, took offence at what the member for Batman had to say, and I ask him to withdraw his comment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not hear what the member for Batman said. That does not mean that people cannot draw my attention to it. I would ask the member for Batman if, in the interests of the House, he would withdraw the comment without reservation.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, without reservation I withdraw the Victorian Premier's description of the Treasurer.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order. The Leader of the House.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Burke!WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, that was not an unconditional withdrawal. As everybody in this House knows, that was not the unconditional withdrawal which is the requirement of members, and I ask you to require him to do the right and decent thing, for a change.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would like the Leader of the House to withdraw the latter part of his statement, which I felt was unfairly provocative, and I would then expect the member for Batman to respond in a similar spirit in the interests of the House.WI4REITHMr Reith—I withdraw.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I withdraw, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank you both. I call the member for Hotham.DT4Mr CREAN—My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to the minister's statement this week that veterans' pensions with a GST will always be higher than they would be without a GST. Has the minister seen the comments of Access Economics's Geoff Carmody:As male total average weekly earnings grow faster than the CPI, the benefits of compensation will be eroded to zero relative to the pre-existing legislated pension adequacy benchmark.In the light of the minister's promise on veterans' pensions, can he explain to the House the mechanism that will avoid the problem that Mr Carmody has described?4871Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—We still have old Labor on the other side of the House with no ideas, getting out there, resorting to the old tactics of scaring the old people, including our veterans. Shame on all of you over there. They deserve better than ever having you back in power again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—We are getting on with the job. But, if you will pass the tax reform package, our veterans will be better off. They will have higher thresholds which will give a pension to some veterans who are denied access to one today. Many of our veterans who are unable to access a pension today because of other income will be able to gain access to a pension for the first time because of our higher thresholds. We have Labor on the other side who, when they introduced higher taxes—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked for the mechanism. The minister should be directed to come to that point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham knows that the chair has never had the power to direct the way a question is answered. He can only call on the minister to be relevant to the question. I ask the minister to be relevant to the question.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—When the coalition gets its tax reform legislation through, the veterans will be better off. It requires support and some leadership from the other side of the House. It is about time that the Leader of the Opposition listened to some of the advice he is getting lately.48724872Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation in his capacity as Deputy Leader of the House. During the autumn session, which is now concluding, has the government maintained its record of reforming parliamentary procedures? How do the current practices of the House compare with past practices?4872McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I am delighted to advise the House that in 1999 we have seen the highest average number of questions asked per day since records were kept: indeed, 19.8 questions every question time, and the lowest time for answers since 1982 of 3.6 minutes. So when it gets stretched out and tests the patience of at least members on this side—and, I suspect, quite a few on that side—it is because of the points of order, frivolous and objectionable as they may be.Let us compare this record-breaking performance with 1995, Labor's last year in government, when an average of 12.7 questions were asked—fully seven fewer than now—and the average answers were almost two minutes more than they are now. And 1995 was one of Labor's better years. In 1992, only 10.8 answers were allowed; and in 1993, 10.5, which is almost exactly half of what this government affords the House. I hope that even the most partisan member of the opposition recognises that the system is working better. It must be in the interests of new members to know that Labor in government behaved quite differently from the way it is claimed that the present government has been assessed as behaving.We abolished Labor's roster system. Do all new members realise that, under the management of the Leader of the Opposition as the then Leader of the House, ministers and the Prime Minister of the day attended only two days a week? We abolished that. The Prime Minister of this government attends, unlike his predecessor, every day. But interestingly, the number of questions directed to the Prime Minister has decreased; last year it was 30 per cent of the number of questions, while this year it is only 19 per cent.So those opposite have eased off the Prime Minister, and they have eased off the Treasurer too. They have gone from 11 per cent of questions last year down to nine per cent this year. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business—unfortunately for the opposition—has attracted 15 per cent of questions this year compared with nine per cent last year. Who will ever forget the 14 questions in a row that he attracted a short while ago?Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Where was the Leader of the Opposition during the Labor years when accountability for performance of the House was so restricted? We have introduced reforms that give all members—and this would be of particular interest to new members of the opposition—greater speaking times and opportunities on behalf of their constituents. We have reformed the House. Your Leader of the Opposition stood in the way of such reform.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, out of sensitivity to the opposition, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker487348734873McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. I draw your attention to an article in today's Canberra Times which says:The contentious movie Lolita will screen at Parliament House today in a special preview for Government MPs who want it banned.The article goes on to quote the member for Makin as saying:We've got a lot of MPs really concerned about this issue but some have expressed to me that because of the way this movie deals with sex with children, they'd rather not watch it . . . Mr Speaker, my question to you is: how many staff members have been rostered on for the theatrette to both screen this film and to ensure that people are admitted in accordance with the R18 rating of the movie; what is the cost of those extra staff members; and will you advise the House at its next sitting how many government members attended?4873Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Obviously, not all of the member for Watson's question can be responded to immediately. I can inform him and the House that the requirements for the screening of this film are exactly the same as the requirements for the screening of any other film. I will check the question of the number of staff members involved.48734873McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, I have another question for you on this matter. You have just said that the screening of this film is the same as the screening of any other movie in this place. My understanding is that, to all the other movies that have been run, everyone is invited. Today's article says that this is a private showing for Mrs Draper and her people. As that is a party political showing, the House of Representatives should not be paying for it.83ZIRWINMrs Irwin—Is it a fundraiser?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is excused from the service of the House under standing order 304A.The honourable member for Fowler thereupon withdrew from the chamber.4873Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Watson did not ask me a question in his latter statement, but I would indicate to him that when the Speaker's office was approached about the screening of this film I signed the appropriate minute indicating that the normal circumstances apply. If the film is restricted to government members only, I will check that with the member for Makin.48734873McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a further quick question. If, as the Canberra Times says, this movie is available only to members of the government, will you bill the government for the cost of the screening?4873Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have already indicated to the member for Watson the action I will take.48734873Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a further question on the same issue. If no additional staff have been rostered for this particular film, how are they ensuring that no-one under the age of 18 is attending the film? If the federal law is breached, who is to be held responsible—the member for Makin or the Presiding Officers?4873Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As I have already indicated to all members of the House, I have signed a minute on this film under the same rules and regulations as other films are permitted in the theatrette of Parliament House. I will check that minute when I am no longer in the chair.48734873McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, this movie is not the same as any movie that has been shown before. Seeing as this is an Rrated movie, will you as the person responsible for the running of this movie in this House, ensure that only those people who are in accordance with the guidelines for seeing R-rated movies are admitted?4874Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—This is not the first occasion in which an R-rated movie has been screened in the House of Representatives, going by memory that is.Opposition members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—Relying solely on the Speaker's memory, I do not believe this is the first occasion in which an R-rated movie has been screened in the parliament. But that is going by memory, I am the first to concede. I signed the minute indicating that I expected the same conditions to apply to this film as to any other. Clearly, I would take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the laws of the land were not breached within this building. That should be self-evident.Miscellaneous4874487415:40:004874Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker, I wish to add to an answer that I gave during question time in relation to the financial difficulties that certain student unions have run into. Members will recall that the financial problems at Edith Cowan University with the union go back some time. In 1990 the Edith Cowan guild invested more than $1 million in the Western Women's group. The decision to invest, I understand, was made by Evan Rickards, the then guild treasurer, who was the stepson of Robin Greenburg, who ran Western Women and was later gaoled over her actions in connection with the company. I also note that, for the most recently reported year, the National Union of Students had a deficit of $44,185.Questions to the Speaker487448744874Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—My question is directed to you, Mr Speaker. This week for the first time in my experience a question was ruled out of order based on scorn and derision. When I asked you a question today about ministers' answers, you indicated that you were not able to rule out such answers. Could you perhaps in the recess describe what scorn and derision mean to you or how you are going to define them so we can understand how you will apply this new precedent?4874Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am certain that not one member, not even the new members of the House of Representatives, were surprised when the member for Grayndler's question was ruled out of order yesterday. It was ruled out of order under standing order 145, and it was ruled out of order because it obviously contained ironic expressions which are not allowed under standing order 145.It is fair for the member for Newcastle to observe that I used the terms `scorn' and `derision', which were part of that question, but it is also equally fair and self-evident that the question contained a large number of ironic expressions. For that reason, it was out of order. It would be absurd for the Speaker to hand down some sort of ruling on scorn and derision. On the majority of occasions in the House of Representatives there is a great deal of good natured banter which neither side would want the Speaker to take action over. Some of that banter is scornful but not mischievously so. I do not intend to hand down some sort of absurd rule on scorn and derision. I know that the commonsense of members will prevail.Miscellaneous4874487415:43:004874Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I made reference to the fact that we are intending to operate four new legal offices in rural Australia. It should have been six—Broken Hill, Gippsland, Kalgoorlie, Mount Gambier, Riverland and Darwin. I overlooked to mention that that is in addition to the six that we have already opened.Questions to the Speaker487448744874Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, in your comments to the member for Grayndler, you did not refer to irony or to the standing order. You referred only to scorn and derision. I draw your attention to the Hansard on that. The point I was raising was that early in your speakership you indicated that you were going to reduce the level of scorn and derision in the parliament. I was trying to assist you with that. When today the Treasurer was clearly being scornful and derisory on numerous occasions, I gave you the opportunity of help. You declined such an opportunity. What do I need to do to assist you to reduce the level of scorn and derision used by ministers in responding to questions, because clearly it is excessive?4875Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—What the member for Newcastle needs to do, as 146 other members of the House need to do, is to apply a little commonsense. Quite frankly, if I were to use a barometer of scorn and derision, I would have a great deal of difficulty with members on both sides of the House. That is self-evident. In fact, there are members on my immediate left who are frequently reminding me of this and also members on my immediate left who are frequently guilty of this. This is a matter clearly for the commonsense of members. Every member in this House is in fact anxious for the general reputation of the House to be enhanced. That has been obvious from the generally improved behaviour in the House, and the intention is that that generally improved behaviour will continue. That is not only my intention; it is the intention of every member of the House of Representatives.Auditor-General's Reports4875487510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 34 of 1998-99 entitled Performance audit—Fringe benefits tax: Australian Taxation Office .Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous487510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—For the information of honourable members, I present information on travelling allowance payments to members of the House of Representatives for the period 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1998.The Department of the House of Representatives transferred responsibility for processing these entitlements to the Department of Finance and Administration with effect from 1 February 1998. The information therefore relates to entitlements claimed for late 1997 and early 1998 and adjustments for earlier periods.Documents48754875Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Parliamentarians' Travel paid by the Department of Finance and AdministrationParliamentarian's Travel tabling statementConsolidated Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 1998Elsey Land Claim reportDebate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Special Adjournment4875Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 2 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Leave of Absence4875Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.Committees48754875487515:48:004875Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—by leave—I move:That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report: the question of the status of records and correspondence held by Members of the House of Representatives, with particular reference to:(1) the adequacy of the present position; and(2) the question of whether additional protection could be extended to Members in respect of their records and correspondence; if so, wheth er those records and that correspondence should be subject to additional protection, and, if so, what the form and nature of such protection should be.Very briefly, this matter has been raised by a member of this place. I believe the questions that have arisen—without going to the details—do require some further examination. We have discussed the matter with the opposition and it is appropriate that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges who can examine it and report back to the House in due course. I commend the motion to the House.15:49:004876Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I will not take up too much time of the House, but I would sincerely like to thank you and both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business for agreeing to have this matter referred. With great respect, Mr Speaker, I do regret that you did not find that there was a matter of actual privilege breached, but I am glad that you have agreed to this reference going on.At the time I raised the matter, I said that I had sent an extensive letter to the Family Court about the subpoena that was issued to produce my records. It is indeed a matter of regret to me that the Family Court have yet to respond to that letter, although it is my belief that they must have dismissed the subpoena.Finally, I think this is an important inquiry for the Privileges Committee. I believe all members will be well served by the committee looking at the issues because, whilst our privileges in relation to our duties in this parliament I think are well defined, neither the courts nor the Privileges Committee have defined the matter of privilege in relation to the operations of our electorate offices, which this matter refers to.15:50:004876McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I formally indicate on behalf of the opposition that, in accordance with the comments made by the member for Chifley, we think this is an appropriate matter for reference in the way it has been referred and we support the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.Matters of Public Importance4876487610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to justify the claimed merits and disclose the full details of its GST package and to adequately compensate those who will be unfairly impacted on by its introduction.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—15:51:004876Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This is another MPI to deal with the GST and we still have not had the Treasurer turn up in the House to defend his case.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—He sent me.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He sent along the lap-dog. Mr Speaker, this is supposed to be the greatest tax reform of the century and the Treasurer will not come into this place and defend it. What does he have to hide? I will come to what he has to hide in a minute.This government claimed it was going to introduce a new level of accountability into this parliament. The Prime Minister, in his pride, said that he was going to change the sins of the past and bring in new accountability. When has the government ever come into this place to defend the cacophony of criticism that has been levelled at the GST package? The Treasurer will not attend this place to do it.Today is the last time the House will sit before the Senate considers the GST package. Unlike this place, the Senate has had the opportunity to fully scrutinise the legislation. Four Senate committees have been looking at it since December—four committees that the Treasurer did not want. He said that the Senate had no right to look at this legislation. Labor proposed one committee and a timetable to allow a vote by the timetable the Treasurer himself had set to enable passage before 30 June this year.Thanks to the Treasurer's unique negotiating style, he ended up with not one committee but four. He started with none and ended up with four, and yet he rails in this place about obstruction. What a hypocrite. The Treasurer's negotiating style is one of the best weapons Labor has in this debate. For example, we saw him out there trying to be statesmanlike, happy to listen to any of the concerns that Senator Harradine had, and yet we heard him on radio today saying that he has nothing new to offer the senator. I think we should take the transcript of the Treasurer's performance on AM this morning, tie it up in a bow and deliver it to Senator Harradine. I am sure he will be interested. The Treasurer's arrogance knows no bounds. This is a Treasurer who wants you to believe that there are no problems with this package, even though witness after witness has been attesting to them in the committees of the other chamber.Let us be absolutely clear about Labor's position on this. Labor will be voting against the GST—not for the sake of opposing it but because we have proven that the GST is unfair and that it is a bad tax for the economy. They were the tests that we set for ourselves when we called for the inquiries, when we called for the analysis, when we called for the rigorous examination that the government was not prepared to allow this place to undertake before it went to the last election on this package.We will be voting against the GST because of that unfairness and because the GST is bad for the economy. We will use every argument and every tactic to try to defeat this tax, because the truth is that it is a tax that cannot be made fair. Labor will be seeking to ensure that the other people who vote on this package vote with us, based on the arguments that have been put to the committees. Labor will not be countenancing any amendments to the GST bill, with one exception: an amendment that we will be seeking to move to ensure that, if the bill gets up, if the GST gets in, the detail of that tax will be disclosed on every receipt that every consumer receives.To demonstrate again the hypocrisy of this government, it argued the need to abolish the wholesale sales tax because it was a hidden tax. But now that government wants to introduce a new $30 billion tax and keep it hidden. What sheer hypocrisy. We will be seeking to move the amendment to expose that very hypocrisy. That issue aside, Labor will not be supporting amendments to the GST bill. The inquiries that the Treasurer has fought so hard to avoid have produced truckloads of hard evidence to back the claim that this is a bad tax. But the government, despite all this evidence, has yet to move from its starting point of baseless assertion and, to use Professor Dixon's term, lightweight rhetoric.The government says that we have produced no evidence, but the real fact is that the government has been able to produce nothing to back its assertions that the GST will be good for Australians. For example, the Treasury has done no modelling on the impact of the GST on jobs. The greatest tax reform of the century, and yet they have not even bothered to think about whether or not it will cost jobs. On Monday, I participated in a forum run by the Australian Industry Group, and Reserve Bank board member Dick Warburton, who was speaking on the same panel as I was, was asked what he thought of the fact that there was no employment modelling. His response was a simple shrug. He had no idea why this government had not used the resources of the department to back its claim—resources that it is capable of mustering, and modelling that that department is capable of doing or contracting out. He was at a loss to explain why such modelling had not occurred.Why was the modelling not done? If the assertion is being made that this tax will increase jobs, why not produce the evidence to back that claim—unless, of course, that claim cannot be backed by the evidence? That is our assertion. How can a government which moralises about transparency and budget honesty produce a package like this with so little scrutiny?Let us go through what the Senate inquiry process has found. It has found that the government hid the details of the package from the people and misinformed them in its extravagant advertising. It has found that the government failed to tell us that the first year inflation impact was at least 3.1 per cent and not, as it continues to claim, 1.9 per cent. The government continues to argue that the inflation effect is 1.9 per cent when the Treasury has said that it starts at 3.1 per cent—starts, I emphasise, because even that assumes a 100 per cent pass-on of all the taxes being abolished by the states in return for them getting the GST revenues if the government gets it up. Not one witness who has appeared before the Senate inquiry believes that assumption to be correct. Not one piece of evidence has been produced by this government to demonstrate a 100 per cent pass-through, but there has been a wealth of evidence to show that that full pass-through will not happen.By the time this inquiry is finished, the inflation impact will be not 1.9 per cent but between four and five per cent. Inflation going up means interest rates going up, and we have fought too long and hard to get inflation down in a sustained way to underpin the low interest rates to let this mob muck it up, and that is what they will do. An inflation rate of four to five per cent has implications for interest rates, but importantly it also has implications for the compensation package. If the compensation is based on a 1.9 per cent inflation rate when in fact it is close to five per cent, they have got huge compensation to make up.The government have also failed to tell us that their assertions of more jobs and growth were not backed up by Treasury analysis—no analysis. That is the point I have made. Yet evidence given by Professor Dixon before the Senate inquiry shows that up to 120,000 jobs will be lost in the short run, assuming workers secure higher wages as compensation for the rising prices. Again, that is the significance of the inflation impact being not 1.9 per cent but closer to five per cent. Up to 120,000 jobs could be lost.As to the assertion that this is a package that creates jobs, Professor Dixon says that any jobs created in the early years will be due entirely to the fiscal stimulus. It will be nothing to do with their GST, but entirely due to the fiscal stimulus. Of course, the obvious should be apparent to this mob—that you can have a fiscal stimulus without a GST. If you want jobs growth, look to other mechanisms by which you can achieve it. Professor Dixon's modelling says that any economic efficiency gains from the tax package will be negligible and that the package will cause a small decline in average Australian living standards. Great tax this—120,000 jobs gone, no economic efficiency gains, a small decline in average Australian living standards.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What about the narrow tax base?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He asks about the narrow tax base. Let me go on to say what Professor Dixon says about the tax base under us and you:The existing tax system—that is the existing one, ours—will collect revenue faster than growth in GDP, so the need for a GST to meet Australia's future revenue needs has not been proven by the government.Those are not our words but Professor Dixon's. Let me also make the point that under their package, even under their modelling, the growth from the GST in the third year is projected to be only 2.7 per cent. That is less than GDP growth. The only way you can get the revenue base up is to increase the GST, and that proves the falsity of your argument that you have got a lock-in mechanism that will prevent the tax from going up.I have demonstrated in this place before—I hold it up again—how simple it is to introduce legislation in this place to undo that lock-in mechanism. With four bills and four lines you can undo the lock-in mechanism. This is a farce. The government intends, having introduced this tax, to whack it up at the earliest opportunity.Let me go again to this question of compensation. The government have failed to provide pensioners with any real compensation beyond that which they would have got anyway. As Geoff Carmody has shown, the government's four per cent pension top-up is likely to be eroded away to zero. The reason that happens is that they come into this place and continue to talk about the 1½ per cent above CPI. It is true that up-front there will be a four per cent increase in the pension and that will have the effect, in the initial circumstances, of lifting the pension. But the problem is, as this graph will demonstrate, that that increase will be eroded in a short space of time. Why? Because pensions, under legislation, are not linked to the CPI in this country; they are linked to male total average weekly earnings. Male total average weekly earnings—indeed, average weekly earnings—are projected by this government in its mid-year review to grow by six per cent. The inflationary effect and the 1½ per cent on top of it will be eaten away in a relatively short space of time.Therefore, the compensation to pensioners is an illusion, because it will be eroded away. It is simply offering them that which they would have been entitled to anyway by a formula that we developed and that the government have continued. That is the truth of it. Pensioners are going to get dudded by this mechanism. Let this government come in and explain how that is not happening. We have asked questions persistently of the relevant ministers to do with this and they consistently avoid it, because they know that we are right.Again I make the point: if pensioners are being dudded to the tune of a billion dollars, what are other people being dudded to the tune of? If the government get their GST package up—we will do everything to stop it, tactically and by argument—the extra compensation needed is going to be horrendous. And it is the extra compensation for pensioners that underscores that point. We have already asked the minister today whether housing compensation needs to go up in terms of the relationship with the states. Let us see how much more compensation is needed.This is an unfair tax. The fact that you have got to give compensation underscores the point it is unfair. The only issue is how unfair. What you have done is try to deny that information to the Australian people. (Time expired)04:06:004879Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—Yabberty yabber. I feel like Rex Hunt. I have landed one. The member for Hotham is like a newly landed bream. It is flapping around at a great pace. It starts off that way when the tax package is introduced and gradually, as the oxygen starts to fill its gills, we come across less life, less life, less life to the point where only a few of his colleagues bother to turn up for the great king hit on the taxation compensation package. Maybe that is an indication of his lack of support in caucus.It should not be too long before we can anticipate some movement in the caucus ranks as the New South Wales Right and the Victorian Right start to have an arm wrestle about the power positions in the Labor Party. We all know that the Victorian Right has started pulling the strings in federal Labor—with the hands of Senator Ray and Senator Conroy and, of course, the member for Hotham, everyone on the front bench seems to have their own Victorian Right puppeteer. And here is a covert to the Victorian Right.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister has strayed onto matters that have got absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the MPI, and I urge you to call him back to the question.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member. The minister is being relevant because the subject of this MPI is very broad, and I know he will continue to speak to the terms of it.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—How are internal Labor Party matters related to this?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—They are matters relevant to the level of opposition to the GST. We urge you to heed the advice of John Della Bosca. I imagine that over the next few months we will see some terrific brawls in the Labor Party during this great arm wrestle over the GST, this great arm wrestle about the voting of the Labor Party in the Senate and their voting pattern in relation to all significant bills of the government, whether we have a mandate or whether we wish we had a mandate. The opposition of the Labor Party will be unchanged. It is very revealing that we have seen an outbreak by the Labor Party over the last few months in relation to the levels of support for the GST. The Premier of New South Wales, the much lauded—only on one side of the House—Premier Bob Carr said on ABC Stateline on 9 October 1998:My view is that a government with a majority in any lower House ought to be able to implement its program, not subject to frustration by upper house—state or federal—and be judged by the people three or four years down the track.And we heard a chorus of complaints from the opposition that that is a state matter. Well, let us go federal.Mr Tanner interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Neil O'Keefe, the member for Burke, in the Age of 26 March 1999, only a few days ago, said:It is 14 years since a consumption tax was first seriously proposed by the federal Treasurer in 1985.The federal Treasurer was Labor at the time.Australia doesn't not for much longer have the luxury of this sort of procrastination in major policy and infrastructure decisions . . . That was the member for Burke. But he is in good company. Previously unrevealed to the House, on 28 January 1999 on 5AN Labor Senator Chris Schacht said:If you don't like the government, what it's doing, you vote it out at the next election. But once you vote them in, you give them a chance to carry out their mandate.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—But you haven't got one.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—That was Senator Chris Schacht. So we have had Bob Carr, John Della Bosca, Neil O'Keefe and Chris Schacht; let's go for the final one, the big bang, King Kahuna, the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley in the Courier-Mail of 26 August 1997. He said:If John Howard goes to the next election with a clearly and honestly described GST tax proposal and he wins the election—and we won, that is why we are on this side of the House—Labor will regard that as a mandate and not seek to block the introduction of the GST.That was the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley.0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—Black and white.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Black and white; pretty clear; no arguments. So what is the argument? Is the argument that the tax base is broken? We on this side of the House say it is. On this side of the House we say that you cannot continue to run a Ferrari-like economy on a dirt-road-type taxation system. That is what we say on this side of the House. The beauty is that some people on the other side of the House are saying exactly the same thing. In Hansard on 9 December 1998 the member for Werriwa said:The Australian tax base is broken . . . There is nothing equivocal about that; it is pretty clear—six pretty clear words saying, `The Australian tax base is broken.' And he repeated it on 9 December. He said:It is simply not possible to defend the current tax system on the basis of its progressivity.He is in good company. John Dawkins, former Labor Treasurer, now vigneron in South Australia—Mr Tanner interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—He should be happy with our WET tax proposals.Mr Tanner interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—On 17 August 1993, he said:. . . rates of excise on petroleum products and tobacco will be progressively increased . . . wholesale sales tax will be increased in two stages over the next two years.That confirms exactly my interjection to the shadow Treasurer a little earlier.Mr Tanner interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—In that interjection I pointed out to the shadow Treasurer that what he does not realise is that the tax base of the Commonwealth and the states is deteriorating. The revenue base of Australia is deteriorating, and that is precisely why the states have begun to introduce heinous and onerous taxes like gambling taxes—0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—And tobacco taxes.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—And further tobacco taxes, and increasing new land tax and a bed tax in New South Wales. They have been plugging the holes of their revenue base precisely because they have only one growth tax—payroll tax. That is the only growth tax of the states. Financial institutions duty, debits tax, stamp duty on the transfer of shares—they are all narrowing bases.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Melbourne has had a pretty fair go, but the tolerance of the chair is beginning to wear thin. The honourable minister.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I repeat: state based taxes, such as FID, debits tax, land tax—unless you start to expand the base by taxing more and more people's homes—and stamp duty on the transfer of shares are all narrowing taxes, and that is why the states have come up with gambling taxes and why they have extended land tax to the family home. That is why they keep looking for new sources of revenue, new heinous forms of revenue that directly attack productivity. That is why the states are looking for those heinous new taxes.We are saying that the best form of taxation that you can have is one with as broad a base as possible. There is a fundamental difference in the attitude between the Labor Party and the coalition, and it is this: on this side of the House, we do not try to paper over the cracks. We do not try to plug the holes on a leaking ship with cork; we try to rebuild the leaking ship. In this case, we have put to the Australian people an entire package, and it is a package that includes fair and proper compensation. So, for those people who may be most affected by the implementation of a new tax, we have put in place fair and adequate compensation. It is the first time that has happened, as all of us on this side of the House and all the Australian people know.When the Labor Party was in government, what was the compensation package for the introduction of FBT? What was the compensation package for the introduction of the capital gains tax? What was the compensation package for the increase in wholesale sales tax from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, from 20 per cent to 22 per cent, from 30 per cent to 32 per cent and so on? What was the compensation package to Australians for the l-a-w tax cuts that were never introduced and the tax hikes that actually followed? There was no compensation. These hypocrites come into this House and lecture us about compensation, yet their entire political history, not just over 13 years, is that they have never once delivered compensation for their tax increases.In this case, we are trying to rearrange the tax base of Australia so that we actually give growth revenue to the states so that they can allocate it to the areas of growth expenditure such as hospitals, schools, police and roads. That is what we are doing. We are trying to put a structural framework in place that ensures that Australia can maintain its miracle economy not for a year, not for two years, but for a decade and beyond. That is what we are doing.Our time frame is beyond the next election, and it always has been. That is a fundamental difference between the Labor Party and us. We try to go beyond the next election. We try to look beyond our own political success and look forward to what is in the best interests of the people of Australia. That is why we went to the last election with an entire tax package. That is why we went to the last election promising to sell Telstra in the best interests of the Australian people.The Deputy Editor of the Economist from London came to this building last night and said that the three biggest impediments to our continuing—in his words—as the miracle economy of the world are: opposition to taxation reform, opposition to privatisation and opposition to industrial relations reform. I was particularly pleased that there were a number of Labor Party members there who heard the independent analyst from London give an opinion about the Australian economy.In that circumstance, it is quite clear that, if the opposition really do believe for a split second in doing something for the country, for the next generation, for the productivity of Australia and for jobs in Australia, they will stop opposing for opposition's sake. They will stop being obstructionist on everything. I know through my portfolio that members of the Labor Party go into the boardrooms of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart, for all I know, and Canberra saying, `We believe the tax package will go through. Yes, we really support increased productivity. We support tax reform. We support industrial relations reform, and we really do support the sale of Telstra,' and then they walk into the Senate and vote against it at every single point.Mr Tanner interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Do you want me to name them? Do you want me to name your colleagues? I will save you the embarrassment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Minister, I do not need you to name anybody. You will address your remarks through the chair, and the member for Melbourne will remain silent.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I am happy to name them, but I am happy to save the member for Melbourne the embarrassment of walking into caucus and being belted up by his friends in the Victorian Right who are doing it. If he keeps pushing me to do it, I am happy to do it.Under those circumstances, I can say this: we believe that the compensation package is appropriate and fair. We believe it is fair because we have had a look at the tax that we are proposing to introduce. We have had a look at the $13 billion of income tax cuts that are part of the package. We have had a look at the $3½ billion in cuts to diesel fuel. We have had a look at the $10 billion in cuts on the tax of exports. We have had a main assessment done of the number of opportunities for people to make money as a result of our tax package and the creation of wealth amongst the poorer people in Australia, and we have said, `Here is a compensation package.' This is the first time that a government has said that it is a package. The Australian people support it, and you should too. (Time expired)16:21:004882Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to support my colleague the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation and also to say that this MPI shows that the Labor Party are very much entrenched in their old retropolitics. We have before the Australian public at the moment proposals for a GST which are entirely logical, entirely appropriate and entirely equitable, and what have the Labor Party done? Ever since we returned from the election—where they were soundly defeated—they have raised questions and technical points every day. Every day we have had: are we going to have a GST on coffins? Should running shoes be exempted? Does it apply to this? Does it apply to that?The lack of interest that the media have shown in their day by day questions is particularly interesting. I am aware that they see the situation as totally boring. Those people who report from an economic viewpoint know the great integrity of the GST system that is proposed. They are aware of the benefits that are going to be seen right across the Australian community.As the minister has rightly said, what we are seeing in these GST proposals is the most fundamental change in the Australian tax system since Federation. We see it in a number of areas. The first most significant area we see it is in relation to the shift from the straight manufacturing base, from the product base, from the wholesale sales tax, into the service area. There is no doubt that what we have seen over the last 10 to 15 years is a fundamental shift in the Australian economy away from the straight manufacturing, agriculture and mining sector—even though they remain strong—and the service sector has become more and more important.These taxes will mean that the service sector is taxed. That sector will provide a significant amount of revenue for the Australian economy and will provide benefits for the previous area I was involved in—tourism. Each year 4.2 million international visitors come to Australia, and right now they are not required to pay any tax—except indirectly if they go into the occasional store and pay sales tax on a product. Now on every item of service they will be paying the 10 per cent tax, and that means that the 4.2 million international visitors who spend an average of $4½ million each year will create a significant boost for the Australian taxpayers as their own tax burden will be reduced. So that is the first aspect: we will see the benefits from widening the base into the service sector.The second major benefit is what it means for the ordinary taxpayers in Australia. The Labor Party are saying that they are concerned for the disadvantaged and the working people across Australia. The fact is that it is this side of the parliament that is showing the real concern for the average worker in Australia, because this package proposes a significant reduction in the tax rates for the average worker. We have seen bracket creep escalation right across the board and people are moving more and more into the top rate of tax. It is only 1.8 times the average income level that people are suddenly moving into the highest rate of tax. Under these proposals, 80 per cent of taxpayers will pay only a 30 per cent tax rate.This is a significant reform. This will benefit people right across the board. This will undoubtedly stimulate the Australian economy. This will not only provide benefits to those who receive it but have an escalated impact right across businesses in Australia. That is the second major reason why we should be supporting it—we will see significant levels of tax reduction.It has also been claimed today that we will not see adequate compensation for those who are less well-off, who are on social welfare. There is no doubt that these changes will bring results: families will be able to earn more income before family payments start to be reduced, the phase-out of payments will occur at a slower rate and the benefits of tax reform for families will be evident. There will be an immediate four per cent increase in the pension when the tax is introduced. The government's commitment is that the pension will remain 1.5 per cent ahead of the CPI, and that will not be changed. So we will have a one-off increase in the pension of four per cent, and we will continue to have a pension above the CPI. For those self-funded retirees, there will be a one-off assistance measure as well. So the opposition's claims that we will not have assistance for those who are underprivileged and that this will impact negatively just do not flow through.There is another reason for introducing these taxes, and that is that the bills that were introduced into the parliament today will bring great reform to the Commonwealth-state financial relationships. We will not continue to see the regressive taxes in the state area; nine regressive taxes that are currently in place will be removed. These are the BAD tax, the FID tax and the stamp duty taxes.The stamp duty is taxed at each level of the transaction. If there is a development for an apartment block, you will pay stamp duty on the land, you will pay stamp duty on the development itself and you will pay stamp duty when it is sold to the individual purchaser. Each level will pay the tax. That is why these taxes are seen as regressive. In every tax forum for the last 20 years that anybody has cared to go to, when they have described the state taxation system, they have said, `These are regressive taxes; these are the ones that are impacting directly on those less able to pay for it.' We are not just talking about simple matters; we are talking about one of the biggest areas of expenditure for the average working person or for those who are on some type of assistance from the government.We will see the removal of stamp duty in the purchase of the property. We will see the removal of stamp duty in leases. We will see the removal of the BAD and the FID in bank account transactions. We will see this total change. State governments will have a growth tax, they will have a stable tax, but they will also have the growth factor so they can look forward to being able to service the infrastructure requirements they need. That will include hospitals, schools, police, bridges and roads right across this great country.It is very interesting that right across Australia no Premier and no Chief Minister has objected to these proposals. These changes are the most fundamental in taxation reform that we have seen since Federation. And it is all credit to this side of the House that has made these changes. After the comments of Mr Della Bosca last weekend, he still has a problem with hubris but not sufficient that he could not come out and say, `It is time to move on from this very boring debate that the Labor Party gets into on the GST and pass this legislation.' If you look at the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 February, headed `Foot-dragging on the GST', you will see it says:. . . the Opposition Leader, Mr Beazley, is already talking about the possibility of an early double dissolution and urging Labor MPs to campaign against the GST. Has he forgotten that he lost the last election?It is time for the Opposition and the Democrats to stop insulting the electorate and for the Senate to wind up its inquiry and allow the tax reform package to be passed.This is not the Liberal Party that is talking; this is the Sydney Morning Herald . It is actually expressing their views—Opposition members interjecting—MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—It is an independent view of what you guys are into—retro, fifties politics. (Time expired)16:31:004884McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I stand here today to raise concerns that the GST package will have a negative effect on services—particularly health, charity, housing and community services. The government's GST package will also reduce the standard of living of low income Australian families.On this side of the House, and out in the Australian community, people are asking why the government does not take a mature approach to this issue and rethink its GST package. It is not too late. If the government continues its push to impose the GST package on the Australian community, it must heed the serious concerns that are being raised about the inadequacies of the compensation component. These concerns are being raised with me on a daily basis by people, family groups and businesses in the Stirling electorate as well as by a broader range of groups and organisations. Individuals, families, businesses and organisations from across Australia have for some time now been telling the government of their concerns. Many have taken advantage of the opportunity offered by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee to send submissions or make a public appearance to air their views and concerns.The Labor Party and Australian Democrats senators involved in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee have expressed these views and concerns in their report on the GST and a new tax system: The lucky country goes begging. I quote from the report:The Committee considers that the government's tax package is unfair, complex, confusing, and significantly flawed in many crucial areas.The overwhelming majority of evidence from across the whole health and welfare sector was highly critical of the impact of the package on the living standards of Australians. The GST will disproportionately hurt low and middle income Australians and the compensation is inadequate and vulnerable to future government budget cuts.The Committee considers that the tax package will divide the community and entrench that division. Australians will become the `haves' and the `have-nots'. High-income earners will have generous tax cuts and low-income households will have paltry compensation.The tax cuts and pension increases offered in compensation are skewed towards high-income earners. The Government's own figures illustrate this. For a single person on $20,000 the benefit is 1.3 per cent or $4.28 per week, while for a single person on $75,000 the benefit is 7.3 per cent or $68.55 per week. A single pensioner will get just $2.89 a week out of the package while a pensioner couple gets just $4.81. Just enough for a packet of cereal!The compensation package assumes that the GST will raise prices by 1.9 per cent. Treasury's own testimony was that in the first year the effect would be 3.1 per cent.Page 17 of the report states:The St Vincent de Paul Society took their own survey of families and concluded that the adverse price impact from the GST package might be as much as five times that estimated by Treasury (9.5% instead of 1.9%).I will seek to table the examples given by the St Vincent de Paul Society showing the negative impact the government's GST package will have on low income families and demonstrating why its compensation measures are so inadequate.And what about the personal assurance from the Prime Minister to Senator Brian Harradine that `the government would restructure the tax system to benefit families'? This is out of Senator Brian Harradine's press release of 5 March 1998. As a result of this assurance, Senator Brian Harradine decided not to block the passage of the common youth allowance bill because he believed the Prime Minister. He believed that when the Prime Minister promised that the government would `give further recognition and help to Australian parents concerning their responsibilities in raising sons and daughters' the Prime Minister would keep his word. With the report The lucky country goes begging dramatically highlighting the inadequacies of the GST package and its compensation measures, I wonder how Senator Harradine now views the Prime Minister's promise that the restructure would benefit Australian families.It is a fact that the government cannot point to one family compensation measure that families with an unemployed 17- to 21-year-old would qualify for in the GST package. It is now clear that when the government gave its commitment to Senator Harradine that the GST tax package would give further recognition to help Australian parents raise their sons and daughters it did not include young unemployed people. Mr Howard should explain to the parents of Australia just why their young unemployed children—they are really adults—do not count as a son or daughter in the eyes of his government. I ask the government to look at the benefits of Labor's tax credit scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now seek leave to table examples from Labor's policy document which demonstrates the way the tax credit system would benefit families. It is a table.Leave not granted.83CMcFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE—Labor's tax credit system can effectively deliver families $5,000 more without a GST. It is a shame that the coalition is not interested in informing itself of the benefits of other schemes instead of being so fixated on the GST package and bullying ahead. The government must put political difference aside and make the mature and responsible decision to rethink its GST package for the sake of Australian families and so that the lucky country does not go begging.I have some young people in my family aged 18 to 21, and their friends are coming to me because of the stress caused to them and their families as they are not eligible for an unemployment benefit or Austudy up to the age of 24 because of the government's policies. One of the concerns raised with me by constituents and when I have been out in public forums is about why young people wear black clothing. Young people will explain to you that one of the reasons why they wear black clothing is that they feel depressed and miserable about their future prospects in this society and that it is a cultural expression of how they feel about themselves, their families, their `fit' with government policies, and their not being valued, particularly by the coalition government—not just at the federal level but in Western Australia as it also has a state coalition government. A further sign of these feelings about themselves and how young people express them—and it has been raised on both sides of this House—is the rising rate of youth suicide, self-harm, drug abuse and other problems experienced by young people.To me it will be a happy day when the government does not push its GST bills through this parliament. Young people can take perhaps some joy from their life and living because they will feel they will have a future and will be valued with policies that are better thought out and better targeted to people and their needs. Young people are not the only group who have come to me with their concerns or who have spoken to me at forums. People from the aged care sector, people with disabilities, people from the child-care sector, people from the charitable sector, public housing tenants and local government associations have raised their concerns that not only do they feel the GST package will not bring any significant benefits to them but also any compensation packages are not targeted at them or in the short term will be eroded very quickly and they will be worse off than before. Many people have expressed to me their interest in the different kind of tax reform progressed by the Labor Party; tax reform that is more incremental, more targeted and more thoughtful of its impact on people in every area of their lives. If the government goes ahead with this, I do not think it will be the government after the next election.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Stirling on two occasions sought to table some papers. We dealt with the second one. On the first occasion she wished to table an extract from The lucky country goes begging . Is the honourable member seeking leave to have that document tabled?83CMcFARLANEMs Jann McFarlane—Yes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is leave granted?YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Leave is not granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The discussion has concluded. The honourable member for Chifley approached the chair and wishes to add to some remarks earlier in the day on indulgence. I will grant that indulgence.16:42:004886Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—On indulgence, I sincerely thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to the House. I omitted to express my sincere thanks for the assistance provided by the clerks of the House and also the Clerk of the Senate, as well as the kind expressions of support from a number of members and senators on both sides of the House. I also would like to place on record my sincere appreciation to the Speaker for his very sympathetic consideration and for the manner in which he dealt with this matter of privilege that I had raised.Bills4886r7184886Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Unresolved question—That the bill be now read a second time.16:43:004886Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 is a technical bill which incorporates into the Social Security Act various youth allowance provisions found in regulations. The provisions relate to fares allowances for students, the student financial supplement and the family actual means test. When the youth allowance was introduced last year these provisions were included in subordinate legislation.In general, transferring these provisions to the Social Security Act will not alter their effects. There are minor drafting improvements to the original provisions which will align these provisions with the style and structure of the Social Security Act. These are all well-established provisions which supplement student resources or target assistance to those most in need. The opposition has used the debate on this bill to repeat its old arguments about the common youth allowance. Reform always attracts criticism but some of the comments made in the debate have been particularly ill-informed. Sadly, as so often is the case, it has been the member for Lilley who has been most extravagant in his rhetoric.The youth allowance removed perverse incentives in the social security system which encouraged students to leave secondary school early and which penalised people who chose to study rather than to seek work. The youth allowance also reflects the community's view that families have a responsibility to support their children. Youth allowance recognises the significant changes over the last 20 years to the work and study preferences of young people. People under 21 are now far more likely to be in education or training rather than in full-time employment. Young people are more frequently combining part-time work and study to enhance their prospects. Flexibility in income support is necessary to meet these circumstances.Youth allowance simplifies income support for young people. The youth allowance replaces five benefits with one benefit. It reduces 13 rates of payment to just five. Simplifying the system means that young people no longer have to transfer from one benefit to another due to slight changes in circumstances. Listening to the overheated rhetoric of the member for Lilley, whom I welcome to the chamber, and his colleagues, one could be forgiven for thinking that the youth allowance had a devastating effect on young people. In fact, the new system provides many benefits to youth. I will briefly mention some of the more significant benefits.We are providing more assistance to young people who must live away from home to study or work. There are higher living away from home rates for students and unemployed people aged under 18. About 48,000 students who must live away from home will now qualify for the first time for rent assistance. Students may also qualify for pharmaceutical and remote area allowances. Full-time students can now receive income support payments worth up to $38 per fortnight thanks to the government's abolition of the minimum entitlement requirements of the old Austudy. All students now have access to an interest free $500 loan advance. Previously, only people on Newstart could obtain such an advance. Many students have gained from the abolition of the education waiting period which affected payments for students between study programs. The criteria for independent status for full-time students have been made more liberal to the benefit of many students.It surprises me that the member for Lilley should be critical of these initiatives which so strongly encourage young Australians to study. After all, it was the Leader of the Opposition who made so much of his desire to raise school retention rates. The government's reforms to social security are discouraging young people from making the short-sighted decision to leave education and training early. For the record, it is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of young students and unemployed have not been affected or have benefited positively from the introduction of the youth allowance. Some 365,000 people were transferred to youth allowance last year with a majority experiencing no change to their benefits. Many people enjoyed increased benefits.Removing anomalies between benefit types did reduce benefits to some people. In the case of 2,263 people on Newstart, applying the parental means test did mean a loss of benefits. In many cases, these people lost benefits because their family income was over $58,000 a year. Another 5,000 had their payments reduced. The government does not apologise for tightening the targeting of benefits. Some 30,000 people aged 18 to 20 who were on Newstart at the end of June 1998 remained on that benefit rather than being transferred to youth allowance. These people were not subject to the parental means test. I can assure members, in particular the members for Greenway, Fremantle and Batman, that no-one will be disadvantaged by aligning the disability support pension and youth allowance. The bill will ensure that youth rates of the disability support pension will be paid at the level of youth allowance for the equivalent age category. Disability pension rates will be indexed in line with CPI based increases to youth allowance rates. A youth disability supplement equivalent to the child disability allowance is added to the basic pension rate. The supplement will continue. In most cases, the supplement will bring the rate of DSP youth payments to the adult pension rate as previously. In the case of the remaining categories of people on youth rates of DSP—that is, single people under 20 years with no children—there will be no reduction to their payments.Some 700 independent people under 18 years will actually receive an increase in their maximum rate of payment as the equivalent rate of youth allowance is higher than the current DSP rate. No-one will be disadvantaged by the measure changing the definition of designated parent under the family actual means test. It will merely clarify the existing situation. Nor will anyone be disadvantaged by including youth allowance students under 18 in the calculation of the income free area for family allowance. The amendment preserves the arrangements which have been in place since 1 January 1993.As a final matter, I must respond to the remarks of the member for Lilley about information I gave to the House on the performance of Centrelink. During his contribution to the debate on this bill, he made a number of claims that I had given misleading information to the House. These claims are utterly false. All the information I provided to the House in relation to Centrelink waiting times and the like has been carefully compiled and has subsequently been checked and confirmed by Centrelink.The member for Lilley claimed that Centrelink customers have to `wait weeks and weeks' for appointment, to quote him exactly. His source for this claim was a survey of Centrelink offices conducted during the busy January period which showed that 12 offices out of 279 had delays of 10 days or more. It needs to be pointed out that under the arrangements for Newstart it is 16 days before there is an eligibility for the payment in the first place.The Centrelink average waiting period for appointment is four days. I agree that there are one or two offices where the service is not up to the standard that Centrelink sets for itself. In most of those instances, it is a result of matters such as relocation of offices or some particular local factor. The overwhelming majority of offices—almost 200—had appointments available within five days or less. The claim that `there are people wandering around this country desperately in need who cannot get an appointment' is also simply wrong. A person in hardship will receive an interview immediately. Centrelink undertakes to see those people within 20 minutes. If necessary, an immediate advance payment can be made.The member for Lilley also claimed that `no appointments were being made in Canberra offices' on the day of his speech. In fact, appointments were available at all offices on that day, sometimes on that very day and, in other cases, the following day. He also claimed in another part of the speech that five additional counter staff were bused in for the opening of the Tuggeranong office to help customers. Putting aside whether anybody would hire a bus for five people, the facts are that there were two extra people at the Tuggeranong office on the day of the opening, following longstanding Labor Party practice that extra staff are provided on those days. In fact, those two staff were brought in to assist with the hospitality and the other arrangements for the invited guests.If the member for Lilley had bothered on that day, rather than just have a doorstop out on the footpath, he might have noticed that the office had very small queues and very smooth processing of customers' needs on that day. It was entirely appropriate that a couple of extra people should be there to assist with the hospitality and to ensure that as many of the Tuggeranong staff as possible could attend the opening of their office. They were proud of their new office. They wanted to participate in the opening ceremony, and it was appropriate that they should have that opportunity. Unfortunately, the statements made by the member for Lilley, which were not directly related to this bill but were made in his response to the legislation, were completely wrong.I commend this legislation to the House. It is, as I said, largely procedural in nature, and will ensure the smooth payment of the youth allowance in the future.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4888Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.16:54:004888Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Clause 2, page 3, (line 26), omit "July", substitute "January".(2) Schedule 4, heading to Part 6, page 153 (line 2), omit "July ", substitute "January ".These are minor amendments to schedule 4 of the bill. The amendments correct a drafting error with regard to the commencement date of provisions affecting the Ready Reserve Education Assistance Scheme. The government intends that these provisions will commence on 1 January 2000.16:55:004888Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—We will support the amendments, although the first that I have seen of them was a few minutes ago. But I do accept the minister's assurance that they are only relatively minor amendments.I would like a few minutes to respond to some of the matters that the minister just raised. The minister referred to the Tuggeranong Centrelink office. Of course, one of the major criticisms that was made of this bill was that there is a roadblock in the delivery of benefits and allowances in this country—that is, the gridlock in Centrelink. Something like 81 per cent of all calls to Centrelink receive an engaged signal. We know that in January it was impossible for people to get an appointment—that there were waiting periods.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the honourable member for Lilley should be speaking to the amendments before the House, and is out of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Lilley cannot directly revisit the second reading debate. He has to address the amendments in the consideration in detail debate.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Indeed, it is a very important bill which is having a dramatic effect on many young people in our community. The amendments that have been moved will also have an effect on many young people, particularly those in education, which is what I think the amendments relate to. The capacity of many families to continue to support their children in their educational activities is severely eroded by provisions in this bill, and their capacity to access services through Centrelink has been severely eroded by the gridlock in that organisation.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a further point of order: the amendments relate to the words `July' and `January'. There is no possible way in which the member for Lilley's comments are relevant to these amendments.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Lilley will stick to the amendments being considered in the consideration in detail stage.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Six months is a long time in a young person's life, isn't it, Minister? Many young people are very seriously affected by this. And some people, I would not be surprised to find out, probably take six months to get an appointment at Centrelink under your policies. You know that, on that day at Tuggeranong, you moved in five behind-the-counter staff and additional PR staff from Centrelink at considerable expense to the taxpayer.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the statements are utterly wrong. They are totally out of order in the debate on these amendments.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The question before the chair is that the amendments be agreed to. I ask the honourable member for Lilley to be relevant to the question.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Despite the fact that we received these amendments only minutes ago, we are quite happy to support them. But we cannot support the pernicious aspects of this bill, nor can we support the treatment that many young people are currently receiving at Centrelink, including Tuggeranong Centrelink office.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4889Bill (on motion by Mr Truss)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4889r8004889Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.488916:59:004889Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This government recognises the integral role the family plays in Australian society. This government wants to improve the assistance that families can get through the tax and social security systems.This bill, which forms part of the fundamental reform of the Australian tax system, introduces total reform and improvements to the assistance currently provided by government to families. The reforms will significantly simplify 12 conflicting, overlapping different payments into three well designed, harmonised and generous benefits which will make a positive impact on the living standards of Australian households, particularly those with low incomes.In the last parliament our government legislated to introduce the family tax initiative, which gave the main income earners of families with children a higher tax-free threshold. This was promised before the 1996 election and it was delivered in full, on time, in our first budget.Before the 1998 federal election our government pledged, as part of the new tax system, to extend the family tax initiative—in fact, to double it. We now seek to implement this measure in full, on time, and on budget.The measures already before the parliament in the A New Tax System (Personal Income Tax Cuts) Bill 1998 and in the A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998, both of which I introduced in December last year, provide the doubling of the family tax initiative from 1 July 2000. On the social security side they provide an increase in assistance of $140 a year for each dependent child and, in addition to this, an extra $350 a year for single income families with a child under five years of age.This bill now takes those measures and incorporates them into the largest reform of family assistance yet done. It introduces higher levels of child-care assistance and puts all tax and social security measures for families into a greatly simplified structure of assistance. This bill is all about providing those higher levels of family assistance in a simpler and comprehensive structure. One of the main benefits of this is that no longer will a family be penalised if they make the wrong choice as to how to receive family assistance—either through the tax system or through the social security system. This bill provides that all families will receive the same level of maximum assistance. One set of rules will apply to all.This simplified structure will be delivered through a new body. Families will deal with, and be helped by, the new Family Assistance Office.Simplification of Structure of Family AssistanceThere is an obvious need to address the complexity in the current assistance provided to families. At present, there is an array of forms of assistance, yet many of those forms have virtually the same objectives. It is little wonder that families often require professional advisers to guide them through a maze of different and complex eligibility criteria, different income tests and definitions of income and different delivery mechanisms simply to obtain assistance.The aim of the government is to simplify the structure and delivery of assistance for families. The new structure will reduce the types of assistance for families through the tax and social security systems from 12 to three. The three new payment types will be family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and child-care benefit. Family tax benefit part A will provide assistance to families with dependent children. Family tax benefit part B will provide assistance to single income families—although the primary carer will be allowed to earn some income. Child-care benefit will provide assistance for the cost of child care.Family Tax Benefit Part ATurning to the first payment, family tax benefit part A will replace four existing payments. It will replace family allowance—both minimum rate family allowance and the more than minimum rate family allowance; family tax payment part A; and family tax assistance part A. Family tax benefit part A will have the same minimum and maximum rates as the payments it replaces but with the increased levels of assistance provided for under the legislation I introduced last year; that is, an extra $140 a year for each dependent child. Extra assistance for large families will be retained.The maximum rate of family tax benefit part A will have a relaxed income test threshold of $28,200—compared with a threshold of $24,350 a year if the payments it replaces were to continue. The minimum rate of family tax benefit part A will have a relaxed income test threshold of $73,000 a year—plus $3,000 a year for each child after the first.Family tax benefit part A, both the minimum and maximum rates, will have a reduced taper rate of 30 per cent—compared with a taper rate of 50 per cent which applies to the payments it will replace. Family tax benefit part A will not be subject to an assets test and will be indexed each July in line with movements in the consumer price index. It will not be taxable.Family Tax Benefit Part BThe second payment, family tax benefit part B, will replace six existing payments which provide assistance to single income families. Family tax benefit part B will replace the dependent spouse rebate (with child rate), the sole parent rebate, family tax assistance part B, basic parenting payment, guardian allowance and family tax payment part B.Family tax benefit part B will have a similar structure to the current system—where the level of assistance is higher with the youngest child being aged less than five years—but with the increased levels of assistance as provided for under the legislation I introduced in December last year; that is, family tax benefit part B will provide an additional $350 a year for single income families, including lone parents, with a child under five years of age, and an additional $61 a year where the youngest child is aged over five years.The income test on a non-working partner's income will provide for a free area of $1,616 a year and a 30 per cent taper rate. The cut-out point for assistance will rise from $6,090 a year to around $10,500 a year for a family with a child aged under five years. This will greatly improve incentives for primary carers to seek paid work or maintain contact with the work force, should they wish to do so. Furthermore, the income test that currently applies for family tax initiative part B on the working partner's, or lone parent's, income will be abolished.Family tax benefit part B, like family tax benefit part A, will be indexed each July in line with movements in the consumer price index. It will not be taxable.Child-care benefitThe third payment, child-care benefit, will replace the two forms of assistance currently available to help families with the costs of child care outside the home. Child-care benefit will provide maximum assistance—for 50 hours of work related care per week—of at least $120 a week per child in formal care, with an additional $11 a week loading where there are two children in care and $32 a week loading for three or more children in care. Where part-time formal care of less than 33 hours a week is used, these rates will be 10 per cent higher. For informal work related care, the maximum level of assistance will be $20.10 a week per child in care—for 50 hours of care.The taper rates will vary depending on the number of children and the level of family income. For families with one child in care, a taper rate of 10 per cent will apply. For families with two children in care, a taper rate of 15 per cent will apply for those with incomes up to $66,000 a year and a taper rate of 25 per cent will apply above that. For families with three or more children in care, a taper rate of 15 per cent will apply for those with incomes up to $66,000 a year, and a taper rate of 35 per cent will apply above that.The income test will not apply for incomes above $81,000 a year for families with one child in care. This will, on average, maintain entitlements to assistance—equivalent to that currently available under the child-care cash rebate at the 20 per cent rate—for higher income families.The new child-care benefit will provide an increase in the maximum level of assistance of $7.50 a week for people paying average fees for 50 hours of care in a long day care service. These reforms will be of particular benefit to 200,000 lower income families who receive the maximum level of assistance.Family Assistance OfficeThe new, simplified system of family assistance arising out of this bill will be delivered by a new Family Assistance Office. The Family Assistance Office will utilise existing service delivery networks of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency, Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office and the Health Insurance Commission and will specialise in delivering assistance to families. It will enable families to deal with just one agency and one set of rules.Fringe Benefits TaxFinally, this bill also ensures, as part of the government's reforms of the fringe benefits tax provisions, that for the purposes of the income tests for family assistance the non- grossed up value of a person's fringe benefits will be used in determining the amount of family assistance payable.Further LegislationIn addition to this bill, and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 that I am also introducing today, further legislation dealing with the administration of family assistance and other consequential amendments will be introduced in the next sittings. This bill reforms, improves, rationalises, streamlines and harmonises family assistance payments. I commend this bill to the House and present an explanatory memorandum for both this bill and the consequential and related measures bill which I seek to introduce shortly.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills4892r7994892Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.489217:11:004892Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I have just introduced A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 to provide for the simplification of the structure and administration of family assistance from 1 July 2000. Twelve forms of assistance, currently available under the taxation and social security systems, will be reduced to three.A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 repeals the 12 current forms of family assistance. These are: family allowance, including minimum rate family allowance, more than minimum rate family allowance, guardian allowance, family tax payment parts A and B, family tax assistance parts A and B, basic parenting payment, dependent spouse rebate—with children—sole parent rebate, child-care cash rebate and child-care assistance.The three new simpler family payments—family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and child care benefit—will be available to families under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999. As part of the restructuring of family payments, maternity allowance and maternity immunisation allowance will be moved from the Social Security Act 1991 into A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999. In this way, all family related payments will be located in one act. This bill makes consequential amendments to repeal those provisions in the Social Security Act 1991 that provide for the payment of maternity allowance and maternity immunisation allowance.This bill also provides for the introduction of revised income test tapering arrangements for parenting payment recipients who are members of a couple. Specifically, the range of income at which the taper rate of 50 per cent applies to parenting payment for a couple family with dependent children will be extended in July 2000 from $142 to $245 per fortnight, an increase of more than $100. This measure is consistent with improving work incentives for low and middle income families.This income test is more generous than the one outlined in the government's tax policy, A New Tax System. The government has decided to extend the income test to ensure that benefits delivered in this area are as great as those foreshadowed in the policy. If it had not done so, some dual income families at the higher end of the income range—whilst benefiting from tax reform—would not have benefited to the extent foreshadowed. On the other hand, dual income families at the lower end of the income scale benefit much greater than foreshadowed.By amending the income test, those at the higher end receive the benefits foreshadowed and those at the lower end will still receive the additional benefits over and above those foreshadowed in the policy, A New Tax System. The cost of this measure is around $10 million per annum.This bill also ensures, as part of the government's reforms of fringe benefits tax provisions, that for the purposes of the parental means test for youth allowance, the non-grossed up value of a person's fringe benefits will be used in determining whether youth allowance is payable. I have already presented an explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Miscellaneous489317:15:004893Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum in relation to the amendments to the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 which was dealt with a few moments ago.Bills4893r6974893Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 13), after "benefit", insert "(other than an amortised fringe benefit)".(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 18), after Step 4, insert: Note: The result of Step 4 is the employer's aggregate fringe benefits amount if there are no amortised fringe benefits or reducible fringe benefits in relation to the employer.Step 5. Add to the total from Step 4 the amortised amount for the year of tax of each amortised fringe benefit (if any) relating to an employee of the employer, the employer and any year of tax.Step 6. Subtract from the total from Step 5 the reduction amount for the year of tax of each reducible fringe benefit (if any) relating to an employee of the employer, the employer and the year of tax. (3) Schedule 1, page 5 (line 1), omit "Basically, an", substitute "An".(4) Schedule 1, page 5 (lines 4 and 5), omit "There may be some adjustments if the benefits include benefits for remote area housing.".(5) Schedule 1, page 5 (lines 16 to 23), omit subsection (3), substitute:What is an excluded fringe benefit ?(3) An excluded fringe benefit is a fringe benefit: (a) constituted by the provision of meal entertainment (as defined in section 37AD, whether or not the employer has elected that Division 9A of Part III apply to the employer); or (b) that is a car parking fringe benefit (see subsection 136(1)); or (c) whose taxable value is wholly or partly attributable to entertainment facility leasing expenses; or (d) that is a remote area housing fringe benefit (see subsection 136(1)); or (e) whose taxable value is worked out under section 59 (about remote area residential fuel); or (f) whose taxable value is reduced under section 60 (about remote area housing); or (g) that is an amortised fringe benefit (see subsection 136(1)); or (h) that is a reducible fringe benefit (see subsection 136(1)); or (i) that is a benefit prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or (j) that relates to occasional travel to a major population centre in Australia provided to employees and family members resident in a location that is not in or adjacent to an eligible urban area; or (k) that relates to freight costs for foodstuffs provided to employees resident in a location that is not in or adjacent to an eligible urban area.(6) Schedule 1, page 5 (line 24) to page 6 (line 20), omit subsections (4) and (5).(7) Schedule 1, page 6 (line 29), at the end of subsection (6), add "This subsection has effect despite subsection (2).".(8) Schedule 1, page 7 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection (8). (9) Schedule 1, page 7 (lines 19 and 20), omit ", or of the amortised amount or reduction amount relating to a fringe benefit,".(10) Schedule 1, page 7 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", amortised amount or reduction amount (as appropriate),".(11) Schedule 1, page 8 (lines 2 and 3), omit ", amortised amount or reduction amount (as appropriate)".(12) Schedule 1, page 9 (lines 1 to 10), omit subsection (6).(13) Schedule 1, page 14 (lines 8 to 10), omit "or value of a fringe benefit, or of the amortised amount or reduction amount relating to a fringe benefit,", substitute "of a fringe benefit".(14) Schedule 2, page 18 (after line 5), after item 4, insert:4A After subsection 221F(5CA) Insert: (5CAA) Subsection (5CA) does not apply if a reportable fringe benefits amount must be set out in the form for the group certificate under paragraph (5D)(d). This subsection does not limit the circumstances in which subsection (5CA) does not apply.(15) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (lines 7 to 12), omit subsection (5GC), substitute: (5GC) The employer must give the employee 2 copies of the form completed under subsection (5GA) no later than 14 July in the calendar year after the calendar year in which the employee ceased to be employed by the employer. Note: For employees described in subsection (5GA), the maximum time between the employee ceasing to be employed by the employer and the employer giving the employee copies of the group certificate will be no longer than 15 months and 2 weeks.Motion (by Mr Hockey) proposed:That the amendments be agreed to.17:17:004894Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition will support these amendments. The government describes the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 as being part of its tax reform package. It ought to be noted by the House that, far from being held up by the opposition, we expressly agreed to expedite Senate consideration of this bill by agreeing to remove it from the Senate GST inquiry. This occurred last week, and the bill was passed in the Senate earlier this week with the amendments. This demonstrates once again that Labor is not against fair tax reform. This bill and the amendments are evidence that we support good tax changes. We continue, however, to remain opposed to the GST.The effect of these amendments will be to benefit a number of people in remote areas. Labor proposed these amendments in the Senate after receiving strong representations from our Northern Territory representatives, Senator Crossin and the member for the Northern Territory, Warren Snowdon. We are pleased that the government has seen fit to pick up and support these amendments, and the opposition will be supporting them here.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4894r7784894Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.489417:19:004894Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 amends the superannuation legislation to change the definition of a self-managed superannuation fund (currently known as an excluded superannuation fund) and the regulation of these funds.The existing definition of an excluded superannuation fund will be replaced with a new definition of a self-managed superannuation fund. In addition to requiring that the fund have fewer than five members, the new definition will require that all members of the fund have a business or family relationship and that they are trustees of the fund.The financial systems inquiry found that under the present system there is little protection of the interests of beneficiaries who are at arm's length from the trustees in an excluded fund. In addition, there is little practical scope for effective prudential regulation of such funds. As such, the inquiry concluded that excluded funds should not have beneficiaries who are at arm's length from the trustees.Under the new definition, members of self-managed superannuation funds will be able to protect their own interests and as such, these funds will be subject to a less onerous prudential regime under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act).With this bill, the regulation of self-managed superannuation funds will be transferred to the Australian Taxation Office from 1 July 1999, while regulation of all other funds will remain with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The ATO will have responsibility for ensuring that self-managed superannuation funds comply with the non-prudential requirements of superannuation law and APRA will continue its more extensive role as the prudential regulator of all other funds. Again, these changes have been introduced by the government in response to the recommendations of the financial systems inquiry.The legislation provides for a reduced supervisory levy for self-managed funds. The new levy amount will be included in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulation and will reflect to a larger degree the actual cost of regulating such funds.In conclusion, the fundamental goal of the government in introducing this bill is to ensure that the regulation of small superannuation funds reflects the needs of members of such funds as well as the government's retirement income goals.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills4895r7964895Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.489517:22:004895Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 makes amendments to the income tax law and other laws to give effect to the following measures:Spectrum licencesThe measures will implement the proposal announced on 11 March 1998 for a deduction to be allowed for expenditure incurred in acquiring a spectrum licence. The deduction will be allowed over the period of the licence.The measures will also amend the law to ensure that Australia is able to assert its taxing rights over income from the use of spectrum where a spectrum licence is owned by a non-resident, including amending the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 and the definition of royalty to include payments for use of spectrum licences.The amendments apply to licences obtained from 11 March 1998.Technical amendmentsSchedules 2, 3 and 4 contain a range of technical amendments to the rewritten income tax law to correct minor errors in translating the fine detail of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.Schedule 5 includes in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 the rewritten education and training payments provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 as amended by Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 1) 1997 and the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Act 1998. It also closes off the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 provisions.Provisional tax uplift factorThis bill will also amend the way in which the provisional tax uplift factor is calculated. The amendments take account of a change in the presentation of the national accounts published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which took effect for the September 1998 quarter. Youth allowance and Austudy paymentSchedule 7 contains amendments to correct a technical error which occurred in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 as a result of amendments contained in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Act 1998. The amendments also ensure that the rewritten provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is correct.The amendments ensure that both youth allowance and Austudy payments to full-time students are included in assessable income but subject to the beneficiary rebate, as intended.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills4896r7764896Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.489617:26:004896Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999 is to repeal the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946.In 1998, a detailed review of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act was undertaken pursuant to the government's legislation review schedule.The need to review the act was first identified in 1995 by the then Labor government as part of its development of a regulation review timetable following on from the national Competition Principles Agreement signed by all governments in April of that year.The legislation review found that the government's training reform process, in particular the development of training packag es and the introduction of the Australian Recognition Framework, has removed the ongoing need and rationale for the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act.The report of the legislation review concluded that registered training organisations established under the Australian Recognition Framework are better able to provide trade skills assessment services and there is no longer any need for the Commonwealth to do so. The report recommends that the act be repealed.The year 1996 saw the 50th anniversary of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act. At that time, I noted that for 50 years, it had played an important role in helping to meet Australia's trades skill needs, predominantly in the metal and electrical trades.After the Second World War, it aided in the task of re-settling returning troops into the civilian work force and reconstructing Australia's economy. It also allowed people who developed their trade skills in industry during the war to receive the appropriate recognition for those skills.By 1951, it was considered that the legislation had achieved its immediate post-war objectives and the act was amended to also provide for the recognition of the trades skills of migrants after they arrive in Australia. Since then, newly arrived migrants have been the main client group seeking to have their skills recognised under the legislation.The value of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act has been the nationally accepted trade qualification issued under it. Until the introduction in 1998 of the Australian Recognition Framework, there was no alternative national mechanism due to a lack of uniformity in trade training and recognition systems at the state level. Consequently, the act provided a means for the national recognition and mobility of skills that did not otherwise exist.The importance of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act in this regard was reinforced by a review of the act undertaken in 1991 by Mr B.H. Tregillis. The Tregillis review recommended that the act should continue `until national standards and processes have been developed and unless and until it can be demonstrated that a more effective mechanism [than the act] can be put in place'.The conditions for repealing the act identified by the Tregillis review have been met by the development of training packages and the Australian Recognition Framework.In November 1996, Commonwealth, state and territory Ministers for Vocational Education and Training endorsed the National Training Framework.The aims of the National Training Framework are to provide a more flexible and simpler regulatory environment for training and to underpin the user choice arrangements of the government's New Apprenticeships initiative.The National Training Framework comprises two elements—training packages and the Australian Recognition Framework.Training packages are developed by industry to provide the basis for the delivery of training and the assessment of skills on a consistent national basis.The Australian Recognition Framework devolves the delivery of training and the issuing of qualifications to registered training organisations which operate under a quality assurance framework administered by the states and territories.At 30 June 1998 there were 195,500 apprentices and trainees in training throughout Australia. More than 60,000 of these were in trades covered by the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act. The Australian Recognition Framework governs the way these and future apprentices and trainees are trained and have their skills recognised.The legislation review notes that the importance of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act has been declining in comparison to the domestic training system, and in absolute terms for some time. In 1997-98 there were only 1,218 applications for trades skill recognition under the act. The Legislation Review notes that much of the recent decline in demand for recognition under the act reflects the changes that have occurred in the domestic training system.It is appropriate that the Australian Recognition Framework, which governs the operation of the domestic training system for nearly 200,000 apprentices and trainees, also applies in the recognition of the trades skills of little more than 1,200 applicants under the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act.The legislation review concludes that the services provided under the act can now be delivered on a nationally consistent and competitive basis by registered training organisations under the Australian Recognition Framework, and that the continuation of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act would be inconsistent with the training reform agenda which is supported by all levels of government and industry.The legislation review committee consulted widely in the course of the review, and the action it has recommended is strongly supported, including by the Australian National Training Authority, state and territory government training authorities, and the Australian Chamber of Industry and Commerce.In its comments on an interim report circulated by the review committee, the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia said that it `appreciates that the time has come to repeal the [Tradesmen's Rights Regulation] Act'.The government accepts the legislation review's findings. This is not about cost savings. The services provided under the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act have been increasingly self-funding since the introduction of fees by the Hawke Government in 1989, and the savings accruing to the Commonwealth from the act's repeal will be less than $500,000 per annum.The Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act has played a valuable role, but with the advent of recent domestic training reforms that provide a more appropriate and efficient alternative, that role has come to an end.This bill constitutes the necessary first step in implementing the recommendations of the review. The second step is the promulgation of regulations to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and, in particular, safeguard the rights of persons who currently have an application in the system. A communication strategy will ensure that all stakeholders fully understand both the transitional and new arrangements.In closing, I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by a very great many people over the past 50 years to the operation of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act. I commend the bill to the House and present its explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Miscellaneous489817:33:004898Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That, with effect from 11 May 1999, standing order 275A be amended to readStatements by Members275A Notwithstanding standing order 275, when the Main Committee meets before 10 a.m. the Chair shall first call statements by Members. A Member, other than a Minister, may be called by the Chair to make a statement for a period not exceeding 3 minutes. The period for Members' statements may continue for a maximum of 18 minutes or until 10 a.m. whichever is the earlier. For the purpose of this standing order a Minister does not include a Parliamentary Secretary.I do not intend to delay the House for more than a moment. The change which we are proposing today provides for two very simple changes to House standing order 275A. They are essentially to extend the three-minute members' statements which currently occur at 9.40 on Thursday mornings to Wednesday mornings as well and to allow parliamentary secretaries an opportunity to speak in members' statements—an opportunity which is currently denied them by the standing orders.In December 1997 we introduced sessional orders providing for three-minute members' statements on Thursdays and an adjournment debate in the Main Committee. The trials of both were successful and last year, in the middle of the year, we placed them in the standing orders. The continuing usefulness of that new system prompts us to the changes we are proposing today. I make the point that members' statements only take place when the Main Committee is sitting. It sits when there is business with which it must deal. When it does not have business then it does not sit, and that is the practice today, as it has been since its introduction.This will simply provide an opportunity for parliamentary secretaries to make members' statements. It will allow them by and large to address constituency matters and provides a forum for them. To ensure that there is no diminution in the time available for private members, we are proposing the additional time on the extra day a week. So I think that is a fair balance and it does provide for those members an opportunity to carry out their representative duties. I hope that it has the support of the House. I commend the motion to the House.17:35:004898McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The opposition supports the motion. We are gradually moving forward in the development of practices in the Main Committee. This is another step forward. I do not think anyone thinks this will be the end of the evolution of the use of the Main Committee, but it is a step which has two effects. One is to provide more opportunities for backbench members, opposition members and now parliamentary secretaries to speak in the Main Committee. That provision can only be beneficial to members. There is no downside to that. The other is the extension of that right to parliamentary secretaries. I have to say that I support that for two reasons.The first is that, from a purely opposition point of view, there is no cost to us. It is a question of how the government divides its time, and for future governments that will be the same. Were we to be the government at this stage it would be a matter for us to choose whether or not we took it up, but it does not in any way interfere with opposition members' time. So we are quite comfortable about saying that this is all plus for us.Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—The second reason, as my colleague the member for Perth so rudely interjected, is that I remember the frustration of being a parliamentary secretary—Mr Bevis interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—As does the member for Brisbane. And I remember the evolution of the function of parliamentary secretaries through the Senate standing orders, which was in some ways for me much too rapid, because it enabled all the worst things to be done by parliamentary secretaries but none of the best. Nevertheless, this is a proper extension. Parliamentary secretaries are also members of the House and have constituency responsibilities and issues they wish to raise and few opportunities to do so, so I support the change in the standing orders. I think it is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction and we support it.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees48994899489917:38:004899Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—On behalf of the parliamentary secretaries, I thank the House for the motion that was just carried. I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Redevelopment of Darwin Naval Base Project, Darwin, Northern Territory.The Department of Defence proposes to redevelop Darwin naval base to overcome facilities inadequacies affecting current operations and to cater for a planned increase in the number of minor war vessels to be home ported at Darwin. The base is an element of the Larrakeyah Barracks, and its initial development was completed in 1982. It was designed to support six Fremantle class patrol boats to be home ported in Darwin and to support other naval operational and exercise activities in northern waters.Since 1982 the tempo of operational activities in the north has increased, as has the intensity of unilateral and bilateral exercises. Four Army landing craft and additional naval heavy landing craft and additional harbour support craft have been relocated to Darwin, placing an unacceptable strain on the existing support facilities. To support the increases in activity and the additional craft, works were undertaken in 1992 to expand the dry berth tie down area and in 1993 works were undertaken to supplement administrative and workshop facilities. Navy intends to further increase the number of minor war vessels to be home ported in Darwin. An additional four patrol boats and another heavy landing craft will be relocated to Darwin on completion of the proposed works.The predominant elements of the work will be the extension of the existing wharf to cater for landing craft, the construction of a new wharf to support patrol boats and visiting minor war vessels, extension of the dry land storage area to facilitate repair activities and to increase the base's capacity to protect craft in the event of a cyclone and increased fuel treatment and storage facilities to cater for home ported vessels. Inadequacies in office and stores areas will also be addressed.The estimated turnout cost of the project is $12.4 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, the project will be committed in September 1999 with the objective of completion of work by June in the year 2001. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4899The following bill was returned from the Senate without request:A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998Committees48994899489917:41:004899Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the fourth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—agreed to.4900490017:42:004900Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's interim report entitled Visit to Bougainville 15-18 March 1999 .Ordered that the report be printed.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have great pleasure today in presenting the report of a visit to Port Moresby and Bougainville made by a delegation from the committee from 15 to 18 March 1999. The report is an interim one in the sense that the visit was conducted as an integral part of the committee's current inquiry into the Bougainville peace process and a later, full report to parliament is foreshadowed. That report will include specific recommendations on the basis of the formal evidence which the committee is in the process of gathering. The report I present today describes the program of meetings, informal discussions and inspections which the delegation conducted during our recent visit. The report also outlines the delegation's observations and presents some preliminary views and conclusions.Within the limitations imposed by time and distance, the delegation's program was a busy one. The delegation met with most of the key participants in the peace process, except for the resistance leaders, who were unfortunately not in Bougainville at the time of the visit. The delegation members had an invaluable opportunity to be exposed to a very broad range of perspectives, and we were able to see for ourselves the actual situation in Bougainville.Apart from the enormous human tragedies of the war in Bougainville, there has been an almost total destruction of the province's political, economic and social infrastructure. Restoration of basic communications and reconstruction of health, education and other essential services are huge tasks which will take many years and will require considerable ongoing external aid. The committee report comments on a number of Australian aid programs in Bougainville and highlights some areas where additional assistance might be needed.From the visit, the delegation gained considerable insights into the problems being faced in advancing the peace process. While travelling around Bougainville, the delegates were able to observe first-hand some of the evidence of the destruction that has resulted from the war—for example, the rusting remains of destroyed buildings, abandoned or overgrown homes and plantations.Our meetings and discussions gave the delegation confidence that the peace process has almost universal support and that the next phase will concentrate on determining the mechanisms for restoring civil administration. The delegation was pleased to note that, since mid-1997, a great deal of progress has been made towards resolving the protracted conflict in Bougainville. Today, Bougainville is relatively calm and, although there have been isolated killings, there has been no major fighting for almost two years. The daily lives of Bougainvilleans are beginning to return to normal, and freedom of movement has considerably improved. However, there is only limited trading and other commercial activities in evidence, apart perhaps from a brisk trade in scrap materials. As elsewhere in Papua New Guinea, there are law and order problems in some areas of Bougainville.After more than nine years of violence and armed conflict, the momentum for peace appears to be firmly on the agenda for the people of Bougainville and their leaders, despite occasional setbacks. There are very positive signs that the peace dividend is showing results in very practical ways and that the peace process is continuing to move forward.In conjunction with other regional countries, Australia has made a major contribution to advancing the peace process through political and diplomatic efforts, through Australia's very large aid program to Papua New Guinea, and through the work of the peace monitoring group. Australia's pivotal role, in conjunction with other regional countries in encouraging the momentum for peace, is acknowledged. However, there is potential danger in becoming complacent about the progress towards peace. Continual vigilance is needed to maintain a focus on the desired outcome of enabling Bougainvilleans themselves, in partnership with the central government, to determine their own future. This outcome is in Australia's national interest as well.The delegation wishes to thank the Papua New Guinea government, in particular the Speaker of the national parliament, the Hon. John Pundari MP, and senior government ministers for extending the invitation to the delegation, for their courtesy and hospitality during the visit and for the opportunities to exchange views quite freely. These thanks extend also to senior opposition members and to the Bougainvillean leaders and community groups. Their contribution to the discussions and the frankness with which views were able to be exchanged were very much appreciated by the delegates.The delegation wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the Australian High Commissioner in Port Moresby, His Excellency Mr David Irvine, and his staff for the assistance provided both before and during the visit. All the arrangements made for the busy program were excellent and contributed significantly to the success of the visit. The delegation also expresses grateful thanks to the former commander of the PMG, Brigadier Bruce Osborn, ADF, who accompanied the delegation throughout the visit and who provided valuable insights into the role of the PMG and its contribution to the peace process.The delegation travelled to and from PNG by means of regular RAAF supply flights undertaken by No. 37 Squadron. In every sense, these arrangements were excellent. The efforts of the flight crew were very much appreciated by all the members of the delegation. In Bougainville, the PMG provided air, sea and land transportation for the delegation as well as detailed briefings and overall facilitation of the visit program. To the commander, Brigadier Roger Powell, and to all the PMG personnel, the delegation expresses its grateful thanks for their professionalism, enthusiasm and support during the visit. Finally, I would like to thank the deleg ation members for their assistance during and after the visit. I commend the report to the House.17:49:004901Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—by leave—As deputy chairman of the committee and of the delegation, I would like to applaud all the comments made by the honourable member for Fadden and also congratulate the members of the delegation for the work they did. I also want to emphasise the importance of the peace monitoring group which is, I think, quite unique in terms of peacekeeping groups around the world, and it is doing a tremendous job. I think it is true to say that the group, which is primarily Australian orientated in terms of participation, although there are people from Vanuatu, Fiji and New Zealand, is doing an excellent job on the ground. I believe, and I think most Bougainvilleans believe, that without that group on the ground doing that job we would not have proceeded as far as we have in terms of the peace in that situation.The political discussions that we had both in Bougainville and in Port Moresby reinforced the view that, although significant differences exist about Bougainville's political future, people are determined to try to achieve and continue on the path of peace. One of the factors which is most important in relation to that path of peace is the forthcoming election, which is due to be held in mid-April. Whether it will be held in mid-April is not clear yet, but that election is of critical importance to the future of Bougainville.Interestingly, most groups in Bougainville wish to participate in that electoral process, although there are some that are raising objections of a constitutional nature to it. It is very important that Australia encourage the election to proceed, and the report actually says that, notwithstanding the fact that there has not been total disarmament, we nevertheless support the idea of these elections proceeding so that an interim assembly and government can be formed for Bougainville whose major purpose will be to negotiate a political settlement with the government of Papua New Guinea in terms of outcomes.This leads me to the other matter which I think is very important if there is going to be political agreement in both Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. That is, it is important for proposals to be put forward in relation to an autonomy package for the province—that is to say, proposals about the kind of constitution that will exist for the province and the kinds of powers which the regional Bougainvillean government is going to have vis-a-vis the central government.Most of the people we spoke to, even those who were not supportive of this election—such as the opposition at the national level—agreed that it was very important to develop these proposals for an autonomy package. I think this is the factor which, after the elections in April, will determine whether or not the people of Bougainville can come together in a unified way and also whether a resolution can be made with the government of Papua New Guinea. Australia should do whatever it can to assist politically to ensure that this process is further developed. In fact, if there is anything Australia can do in providing expertise to assist this political process, we ought to do so.The key players in the Bougainville crisis have all committed themselves, as the member for Fadden said, to a path of peace. They no longer want war. They want to redevelop Bougainville and they want to go forward to provide the basics of health, education, transport and many other ordinary things of life for their people. They have recognised that, notwithstanding their differences of a political and constitutional nature, they want to develop Bougainville and they do not want to return to the destructive path which existed before. The vast majority of people support the idea of some kind of election which will be fair and democratic. In this respect, I hope the elections will proceed in this way and achieve that aim.One of the chiefs in Haku gave us a copy of his speech, and I think it is worth reading the closing part of it to sum up the aspirations of the people of Bougainville. He said:We are asking all leaders not to play politics with our future. Peace is so close and yet so easily thrown away by a careless word. We ask for your support for the peace process as agreed so far. Please do not look for reasons why this process cannot work. Join hands with us to help it work, to make it work. Join hands with us to help the people of Bougainville and their families and their children to enjoy the peace that you happily can take for granted. Do not help those who would tear down what we have built so far. All we ask is that you give peace a chance.I think that sums up the aspirations of the people of Bougainville. This is a very important report and I commend it to all members.MH4Theophanous, Andrew, MPMr JULL—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills4902r7144902Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.17:56:004902Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The aim of the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 is to bring the Navigation Act into line with the Workplace Relations Act and to modernise the act, especially now that company employment applies in the shipping industry. If Australia is to have a competitive shipping industry, reform of the shipping legislation to make it an efficient regulatory tool is essential. This bill is the first stage of that reform, and those who oppose it are sending a message that they oppose a future for the industry.Judging from the debate, the opposition have either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented the content and impact of the bill. Despite the many hours of debate afforded to the opposition, they have not come up with one single reason to substantiate the claims they have made against the bill.Contrary to what the opposition have said, the bill will not compromise safety, will not expose Australian seafarers to abuse, will not facilitate the use of forged certificates, will not open up the coast and waterfront to cheap foreign labour and will not have any of the other ill-informed results claimed by the opposition. The bill simply removes a whole lot of archaic and unnecessary legislation that gets in the way of productive relationships between employers and their employees entering into genuine company employment. The bill does not in any way affect the safety of Australian seafarers, nor does it affect the issues raised in the Ships of shame or Ship safe reports.The current powers given to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to deal with unseaworthy and substandard ships will not be affected by the bill. The rights of Australian seafarers to refuse to sail on an unseaworthy or substandard ship will remain, as will remedies to recover unpaid wages. Despite claims to the contrary by the opposition, the rights of Australian masters and seamen for wages and repatriation in the event of shipwreck, loss or bankruptcy are being retained.Suggestions that the employment conditions of Australian seafarers will decline as a result of the amendments to the act are not credible. Australian seafarers enjoy some of the best employment conditions in the world. While some seafarers' conditions are currently set out in detail in the Navigation Act itself, for other industries they are contained in workplace agreements. With the move to company employment of seafarers, there is absolutely no reason to retain the conditions in the Navigation Act. They can be included in employment agreements between seafarers and the companies which employ them.The bill is not aimed at reducing safety standards and will not have that effect. AMSA retains all of its powers through marine orders made under the Navigation Act to require the production of qualification certificates. Also, section 16 of the act covering the problems of forged certificates is being retained and is not affected by the amendments in the bill. The bill has no implications for the employment of foreign seafarers in Australia whose employment, like all other foreign workers, is determined by the provisions of the Migration Act.While the bill is amending provisions of the Navigation Act, it is not amending the substance of Australia's cabotage regime. The only amendment is the removal of an archaic provision relating to access to ship's libraries. Removing the compulsory requirement for articles of agreement increases the flexibility of employees and employers to enter into agreements best suited to the differing operations of individual companies.If the Australian shipping industry is to survive and I guess prosper, it must be efficient and competitive. The legislative tools which regulate the industry must also be efficient and in line with modern practice. These amendments remove inconsistencies between the Navigation Act and the Workplace Relations Act. They bring the industry into line with other industries in this country and, given that company employment has now been adopted in the shipping industry, they remove totally unnecessary and restrictive employment practices.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.490310000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I understand it is the wish of the House to take the bill as a whole.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, there is a range of items that the opposition will be opposing, some we will be supporting, and three that we are seeking to move amendments to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—As I understand it, you are now going to ask leave of the House to move amendments Nos 1 to 3 as circulated in your name. Is that correct?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Yes.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Have we agreed to deal with the bill as a whole?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I was not aware of that, but in terms of voting on the clauses there are some that the opposition is willing to support and there are a number of clauses that we intend to oppose. I was not aware of any discussions on this matter. I would have proposed that we dealt with some of those items in the block in which they conform to that formula. For example, the first five items we will be opposing; items Nos 6 and 7 we will be supporting. I would have thought it better to deal with items 1 to 5 in a block—that is, together—and then to deal with the others in a similar way as we progress through the bill. I am just trying to ensure that we have got a process we all understand.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If you want to take the bill as a whole, you can still move your amendments and, if you wish to divide on any of those amendments, we can deal with those separately. For the ease of the House—if the minister is agreeable—if we take the bill as a whole and then you move your amendments, the amendments can be debated and then the amendments put. If you want to divide on any or all of those amendments, you can do that.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—The dilemma is not dealing with the amendments separately. There are a number of items that we are opposing that are not the subject of amendments. We simply oppose those items. There are a number of items which I have indicated we would be willing to support. If the bill was taken as a whole, there would be one vote on the bill rather than votes clause by clause, which would then leave the opposition in the position of determining whether we want to support the bill as a whole as distinct from consideration of the specific items.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—My understanding is that there have been some agreements made about this legislation and an acknowledgment that the opposition has both some amendments and some opposition to components of the bill. Because of the circumstances today, I do not think it is intended to divide in this place on the issues. It was my understanding that the opposition having moved its amendments and the government responding in each case it would have the right to identify other areas which it opposed so that it stated its position in this place. The bill then, of course, would be carried on the voices, but the opposition would have made its position clear for any future Senate debate. If I could recommend that as the process we should follow, we could carry on with this to the convenience of a number of people.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—To make life easier, I am happy to proceed on the basis that we consider the bill in detail as a whole. The amendments can probably be dealt with together rather than separately. I will then during my contributions refer to specific items that we are opposing and supporting, and that might facilitate the process.Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:06:004904Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 3:(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 12 and 13), omit the item, substitute:Subsections 45 (1), (1A) and (2) Omit `or ballast'.(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item, substitute:Subsections 50 (4) and (6) Repeal the subsections.(3) Schedule 1, item 47, omit the item, substitute:Paragraphs 377 (f) and (g) Repeal the paragraphs.We have just heard a response from the government to some of those matters that were raised in the course of the second reading debate. I want to make a couple of comments about the process that the parliament has adopted in dealing with the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 . This bill had a number of speakers listed from the Labor side who in fact did speak on the matter. From memory, there were only two government members who spoke on the bill and indicated an interest in it. We were confronted with a situation where the government said that either we referred this bill to the Main Committee or we would have the gag applied to us and the Labor members of parliament would be denied the opportunity to speak on the bill. As a consequence, we agreed to the matter being moved from the House of Representatives chamber to the Main Committee.At the outset, I want to place on the record my concern about that process. The Main Committee was devised to deal with matters agreed by both sides of the House to be non-controversial. This bill is anything but non-controversial. It is a precedent that should not be followed. The Main Committee was not designed to deal with legislation of this kind. In introducing my remarks about the bill in consideration in detail, I first want to place on the record the opposition's concern that, in future, matters of this kind should be dealt with properly in the chamber, as has always been the case.I also want to make it clear that there are a number of provisions of this bill which the opposition have very serious concerns about and outright opposition to. It is a bill that touches on some 80-odd different provisions in the act. Some of those can be fairly complex. The issues surrounding the bill are also complex, and it will be our intention in the Senate to have this matter carefully scrutinised there and provide the public and all of the stakeholders with an opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. That is particularly important given the procedure the government has followed so far.The government has set about changing the rules on the waterfront and in the seafaring industry without consulting all the stakeholders. It has set up inquiries and ensured that the only people on those inquiries were business operators in the industry. There has not been a consultation process that the opposition regards as satisfactory. Indeed, the government's own parliamentary committee, in a report to this parliament, criticised the consultation process followed with regard to reform in the seafaring industry and identified it as having been unsatisfactory. That is a view held by a bipartisan committee of this parliament. For the government to proceed with the bill on the basis of that inadequate and flawed consultation is in itself a matter of concern. I guess that goes hand in hand with its attitude of referring the matter to the Main Committee or gagging debate on it.The third observation I make at the outset is that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who introduced the bill, apparently has other commitments that prevent him from being here. I would have thought the Minister for Transport and Regional Services would have wanted to be here for the second reading debate and the consideration in detail stage of the bill. It may be that as the surrogate minister for the bill he does not see it as his responsibility. I say `surrogate minister' because this bill was introduced in the last parliament not by the transport minister but by the industrial relations minister, and that is precisely what this bill is about: it is about industrial relations. It is about the working conditions of those people employed in the seafaring industry. I guess the surrogate minister who now has responsibility for it feels more comfortable not being here and throwing the hospital pass to somebody else.I made a comment during the course of the second reading debate that there were some three reports of this parliament in a period of six years that had looked at this industry and that there is no industry I can think of that has been subject to such scrutiny by the parliament. (Extension of time granted) I made an error when I made that comment. There have not been three reports in the last six years; there have been four reports in the last six years. There were the three Ships of shame reports produced during the period of Labor government from 1992 to 1996 and, since the 1996 election, there has been the report tabled at the end of last year by the committee chaired by Mr Neville.So we have had four reports dealing with the concerns of this industry, all of them identifying major flaws and difficulties in conducting a fair and proper seafaring industry in a deregulated environment. Against all of that evidence, and against the conclusions of each and every one of those committees and their recommendations, this government now pursues a bill which seeks to deregulate the Australian seafaring industry and expose it to the very perils that those four reports have identified. Those reports went full bore, straight up and down, to the matters confronted in this legislation.For example, the most recent of those reports in 1998 referred to crew welfare, which is precisely the matter dealt with in the abolition of articles of agreement proposed in this bill. The 1998 Ship safe report, from the committee that was composed of a majority of Liberal and National Party members and senators, said:In all the focus areas before the committee in this inquiry, crew welfare appears to have progressed the least in the 1990s, and much remains in need of improvement. That was the advice to this parliament from an all-party committee just last year. They said that there are problems and, in their words, `much remains in need of improvement'.This government's response to that conclusion and recommendation from its own parliamentary committee is not to set about improving the problems; it is not to set about addressing the crew welfare difficulties that the report has given us advice of. The government's response is to strip away the existing protections, to take away those things in the law that presently protect Australian seafarers. That is the response the government has given to that advice. Instead of a response such as, `There is a major problem—in fact, of all the things we have looked at, we think crew welfare is the biggest problem, and it is getting worse, and the government needs to improve the protection in this area,' this government adopts exactly the opposite course.We heard a comment from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, who is at the table, on behalf of the government that this bill was not about reducing workers' rights. There are a few simple facts that need to be stated. We are at the moment in breach of ILO conventions in respect of seafarers. That point has been made by the parliament's treaties committee, again at a time since this government took office. That committee has a majority of government members. Their advice to the parliament is that we are in breach of the ILO conventions now.If this bill is carried, we will be in further breach of ILO conventions. Why would you be in breach of ILO conventions? The answer is because you failed to provide the minimum standards for labour relation matters that the ILO has set down. It is absolutely an attack upon the working conditions and rights of those Australians employed as seafarers in the industry. That is precisely what this bill does. That is precisely why this bill was introduced by Mr Reith, the then Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, prior to the last election.It is simply a quirk of cabinet reshuffling that it is now before us under the transport portfolio. I imagine that, after the fiasco of Patrick and Dubai, the Prime Minister thought well to remove that area of responsibility from Mr Reith's control. This bill is before us under the transport portfolio, but this is not about transport reform. This is about changing the basis upon which conditions of employment of Australian workers in the seafaring industry are determined. Most of the provisions in this bill do not endure the support of the opposition. (Extension of time granted)The second reading speech included the sorts of words that the minister at the table, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, also used—`Australian seafarers enjoy exceptionally good working conditions'. That is what Minister Anderson said when he introduced the bill. It was pretty much the same as what Minister Reith said when he introduced it last year. What we have is an attempt to change that. In the view of the government, they have it too good. In the view of the government, this is the way that you get rid of their—in their words—`exceptionally good working conditions'.Let us talk about the conditions that exist in the seafaring industry. Items 1 through 5 deal with the removal of articles of agreement, and I should say something about articles of agreement. The articles of agreement exist because by act of parliament the Australian parliament has accepted for decades that to regulate this industry and to ensure that the worst practices in the seafaring industry around the globe are not pushed on to our Australian seafarers we should have a system of engagement, we should have a system of certification of qualifications and skills and we should have a system of discharge so that those people who want to work in the industry are trained to do so and are competent.Against that background, we see the advice of the parliament's committees that tell us these things from their investigations. In 1992 the committee report to the parliament identified maltreatment including denial of food, the provision of inadequate food, the bashing of crew members by ships officers and the maintenance of two pay books—one for official records and another one that kept records of the international transport workers levels of pay just in case they were required to show them. Then there was the non-payment of wages or non-payment of overtime, the inadequate accommodation or washing facilities, the sexual molestation or the rape or depriving access to medical care. All of these things have been advised to this parliament in formal committee reports. That was the view in 1992. It was confirmed in each of the subsequent reports, including the one provided only last year.The government says that this industry is like any other and it does not matter that the parliament has been given advice that these problems exist in the industry today. We are not talking about a bygone era. We are not talking about practices of the past. We are talking about practices today in the seafaring industry. Knowing that is the problem, this government says, `But that industry deserves no special consideration. It should be dealt with the same as all others and wages and conditions should be determined by the Workplace Relations Act.'As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, and it comes as no surprise to the government, we do not support the Workplace Relations Act. We do not support it for any workers, no matter where they are. But we certainly do not support it for people in an industry that is unique—absolutely unique. There is no other industry in civilian life where a person says goodbye to the family at the door of their home, goes off to work and might come home about three or four months later after they have been required to travel on board a ship to other ports around the country or around the globe. That is not a standard employment arrangement. Nor is it a standard employment arrangement where people who do this find themselves living and working 24 hours a day with the same group of people in very close quarters. It happens in military life, but it is extremely rare in civilian employment. Living and working on those ships is more than a place of employment; it is a social system. It is in fact their entire social life as well as their employment life.Concern about the safety component of what goes on at sea is also different to the sorts of jobs that this government argues are the same as any other. For example, the International Labour Organisation observed in their conference in 1996 the problem confronting shipowners and seafarers with lost ships at sea and the threat to life that comes from having poor ships and having poorly qualified crew. (Extension of time granted) At the 1996 ILO convention, the Director-General of the ILO said this about the nature of this industry:The dangers to which shipowners and governments are exposed are financial or political in nature, but seafarers are exposed to physical risks which threaten their very lives. It has, for example, been emphasised that since 1994 180 ships of more than 500 tonnes have been lost at sea, causing the death of 1,200 seafarers and many passengers. In the first six months of 1996, twice as many human lives were lost at sea than in the whole of 1995.The simple fact of life is that this is an industry in which thousands of people lose their lives at sea because of poor management, poor ships, poor training. That does not happen in Australia precisely because we have this sort of legislation protecting Australian workers and requiring standards to be met. Unfortunately, it is those very standards this government is in the process of seeking to remove.There are a range of specific provisions. I have already outlined that the opposition is opposed to items 1 to five, all of which deal with the articles of agreement. Item 6 repeals the definition of `desertion'. The opposition will be supporting that although, given the way in which the vote is going to occur today, we will not have the opportunity to make that clear by vote. But I guess that will be dealt with when it reaches another place. Item 7 deals with the definition of `proper return to ports'. We understand that these matters are now effectively handled via enterprise negotiations and award arrangements. We will support item 7.Item 8 again deals with articles of agreement—the issue which I have basically been speaking about to date. It is our intention to oppose item 8, which requires the master or the officer or the seafarer to produce certificates concerning their qualifications.There is another aspect in relation to this. The qualifications and the certification of qualifications is vitally important to the safety and welfare of seafarers. It is protected in current legislation and proposed to be removed by this bill. The problem of false certificates is well understood in the industry. It has been the subject of parliamentary committee reports that I have mentioned that have identified it as a major concern in the industry.I want to repeat a quote by Captain Bolitho, the former Chairman of the Australian Shipping Line, in a speech he made in only August last year. He was speaking at a conference, and he made the observation that Professor David Moresby of the Institute of Marine Studies at the University of Plymouth had demonstrated that, for $US300, it is possible to purchase a master's certificate, perfect in every detail, except that the name is left blank for you to fill in. Captain Bolitho went on to say:Approximately 20 per cent of the world's seafarers are from the Philippines and . . . 90 per cent of them are sailing on worthless papers . . . We have a situation where key figures in the industry will tell you that today about one in five people sailing ships are doing it with false certificates. This government's response to that problem of having one in five unsafe, unqualified seafarers is to remove the protection in our legislation. They say, `Well, the employer will now have the right to determine this.' Of course, employers are going to check this rigorously!We know from past experience of all industries that, in this industry, that is not the case. There are too many shipowners and operators who will gladly accept someone who does not have the skills, provided they will work for little reward. There are only too many people in countries around the world happy to sign on board to get a job, to get out of the country, to get an opportunity in another life maybe somewhere else in the world, and to do that in poor conditions—in conditions we would not accept—and on false certificates. (Extension of time granted) We will be opposing item 8 for the reasons I have just mentioned.Item 9 deals with fees for the supply of seafarers. At present, we have a provision that creates an offence for demanding or receiving remuneration for providing seafarers for employment. This section also includes a definition of a seafarer as including a person seeking employment as a seafarer. We will oppose this provision as well.Item 10 deals with the current restriction on handling of cargo or ballast. At the moment, crew are not permitted by law to handle cargo or ballast in unloading ships. We will move an amendment to that provision to enable crew to deal with ballast in port, but we will not be supporting a shift in the law to deregulate the situation with the handling of cargo. This is an important provision, and interesting for a number of reasons. It actually goes to part of the problem this government has in dealing with this issue.I mentioned at the outset the lack of consultation this government has been involved in in pursuing the matter. This is not the end of the road in the government's legislative program for changing the Navigation Act. The Navigation Act is the subject of a number of reviews, and the government have announced their intention to proceed with a second major rewrite of that act.The concern that I have is that this bill deals solely with and targets the conditions of seafarers. Had the government genuinely involved in a process of consultation all of the stakeholders—not just asked them to make submissions to committees the government set up, but actually involved them directly in the process of deliberation—and had the government put together a total package of genuine reform, it may well have found a greater willingness on the part of those in the industry and on the part of the opposition here, the Labor Party, to deal differently with this matter. But it has not done that. Nor has it come to it with clean hands. Nor has it come to it without a record.This government's record of dealing with people in the seafaring and stevedoring industry is extremely poor. It has left deep scars that will not easily go away. Therefore, we view the proposals in item 10 as an attempt by the government to continue with its obsession of attacking people on the waterfront. Through the Patrick debacle last year, we saw the government's willingness to try to wage war on the waterfront. In fact, this provision will enable that to continue in a way that would be very destructive for Australian workers.Were this amendment to go through, particularly in the context of the other safeguards this bill seeks to remove, there effectively would be no restriction on the sorts of unqualified underpaid crew to which I have just referred being involved in work not just as seafarers but also as stevedores on Australian ports. We would be saying to those people currently working on the waterfront, `Your job is now to be done by anybody who any shipowner regards as good enough to crew their ship.'We are not willing to sign up to that item. It is a savage attack on people on the waterfront which is only thinly disguised in this bill. Its motivation is clearly exposed by this government's previous approach to the industry, and particularly to the MUA and people working in that field. So we oppose item 10.Item 11 deals with articles of agreement. It is a straightforward change in nomenclature, and we support it. Item 12 again deals with articles of agreement and goes to the process of how they operate. We support the continuation of articles of agreement and are opposed to their elimination. (Extension of time granted) Therefore, we will continue to oppose that item which forms an important part of the operations of articles of agreement.We oppose item 13. It seeks to remove the Marine Council, and we see that as a retrograde step. The council performs important functions, and we see the need for its retention. Item 14 deals with the discharge of seafarers. We will seek to amend that. The amendment has been circulated and, given the constraints of time, I do not propose to talk about it.Item 15 deals with crewing details. This concerns a requirement of the employer to notify AMSA of the details of changes in the crew. We think that is one of the safeguards for Australian seafarers which ensures that they are not exposed to the worst elements of this industry internationally. Accordingly, we oppose item 15.Item 16 again deals with the operations of articles of agreement, as many of these amendments do. For all the reasons I have previously stated, we oppose item 16 and support the retention of articles of agreement.Item 17 deals with the discharge of seafarers. At present the bill provides for the master to provide discharge certificates. These discharge certificates form an important part of the process of recording the experience, training and skill of seafarers. We think that also is an important safeguard to be retained and, therefore, we oppose item 17.There are a range of sections of the act that are amended by item 18. They deal with wages and the way in which wages are paid, and so on. Whilst having some concern, frankly, about its removal, we support it. I understand that these matters are now adequately dealt with via enterprise agreements. Item 19 also deals with wages and, as with item 18, we support it.Item 20 is another amendment that seeks to change the situation with articles of agreement. It is actually consequential amendments on those more substantial matters that I have addressed already. We oppose it. We support item 21. It concerns the discharge of seafarers and repeals section 88, which is a section providing compensation for premature discharge. We are happy to support the government in that. Item 22 also deals with the discharge of seafarers, and we support it.We oppose item 23. It too deals with articles of agreement. It is a consequential amendment that follows the more substantial amendments mentioned earlier. We oppose item 24. This item deals with wages for sick seafarers who are left at shore. Frankly, we see no reason why that provision should be removed. It provides a legal protection for seafarers who are ill and left in other parts of the world. We see no reason why that should be removed and why that protection should not be afforded to Australian seafarers. We oppose item 25.We oppose item 26. It requires a seafarer to provide an address and report for medical examination when left on shore. Frankly, we think that is a sensible arrangement, and we are not quite sure why the government proposes to remove that other than to pursue its deregulation agenda.Item 27 deals with the Marine Council. It repeals section 138, which permits the Marine Council to consider plans for accommodation in ships and make recommendations to the minister in relation to that accommodation. Notwithstanding the advice of parliamentary committees that have identified accommodation as a problem, we understand that this matter has been properly, and is continuing to be effectively, dealt with in enterprise negotiations. Therefore, we are willing to support it, although with some degree of concern.Item 28 deals with discharging seafarers. It will be supported by the opposition. (Extension of time granted) I will very quickly go through the remaining matters in the five minutes available, given the hour and given that it is the last day of the sitting. We will be looking to deal with this matter more fully in another place. We will be supporting item 29, which proposes changes to the operations of the wages system. We will oppose item 30, which are articles of agreement. Item 31 deals with some changes to the wages system, deleting the words `or the certificate of a proper authority stating that certain seafarers be shipped in the ship'. We think it is important to have those protections there, so we will oppose that item. It is our intention to oppose items 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39.We have some support for item 40, although given the government's intentions to remove the articles of agreement I think we will have to oppose it. Item 41, which proposes the discharging of seafarers, makes some minor adjustments which we are willing to support. Similarly, we will support item 42, which deals with coasting ships. We understand that these matters are being dealt with adequately at enterprise negotiation level. I do have some concerns about the removal of item 42, but at this stage we are willing to lend our support to it.We will support item 43, which is a consequential amendment to an earlier matter. The same applies to item 44 and item 45. We will oppose item 46 because it deals with the articles of agreement that we believe should be kept. We have an amendment which has been circulated in my name to item 47, which we will get to shortly, I am sure. Item 48 changes the operation of the Marine Council. We believe the Marine Council is important for the protection of seafarers' rights, and we will therefore oppose this item.This bill is an important bill. In my view, the government should not have sought to bring it forward ahead of the other more wide-ranging reforms that are occurring in the industry. The industry has over the years demonstrated its willingness to participate constructively in reform. We saw that during the period of the Labor government in the nineties where crewing of Australian ships was nearly halved. That occurred as a result of negotiations that involved all stakeholders in meaningful discussions. Changes in work practices were agreed to, and significant benefits to the industry flowed. Unfortunately, this government has not adopted that inclusive approach to dealing with this legislation and is dealing particularly with the workers in this industry. It has decided for reasons best known to itself to set upon workers in the stevedoring and related industries. We can see that again in this piece of legislation.This is an important industry for Australia. We are an island continent. Our seafaring trade is critically important to us. It should not be dealt with as some sort of political football or ideologically driven agenda of this government to crush the MUA. Frankly, too much of what is in this bill is designed to do just that. It is an ongoing war that this government wants to have with the MUA. We have indicated our willingness to support some of the proposals in this bill because we think they bring things up to date and get rid of some anachronisms. We will not support, however, this government's vendetta to drive the MUA into the ground. We will not support provisions which seek to have unqualified, fraudulently certified crews of ships of convenience used to replace Australian standards—and that is precisely what this bill will facilitate—nor will we support workers of that kind with fraudulently acquired certification used to replace wharfies on Australian wharves, and that is what this bill provides.I urge the government to reconsider their approach to this bill. I urge them to reconsider their approach to reform in the industry and become more inclusive. From the opposition's point of view, we will look constructively at that. We will seek to examine the bill in greater detail with more time in the Senate. I will be watching closely the deliberations of that committee as we consider our ongoing position.18:42:004911Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Because there were other matters than the amendments dealt with, there are some aspects of the response that I have already given that are worthy of repetition. Firstly, in my response to the second reading, the words I used were:Also, section 16 of the act covering the problems of forged certificates is being retained and is not affected by the amendments in the bill.All those comments that were made in that regard have no relevance. In responding to the remarks of the member for Brisbane, we were given a litany of problems in the seafaring industry affecting Australian workers. If they exist, they are a fault of the system we are trying to replace. We are trying to replace it with a workplace agreement that gives the union and its members the opportunity to go through some of these issues and say, `I do not find that acceptable. If I am to travel for these periods of time, this is the deal I want.'In the days before there was any interest by trade unions in some of the more remote areas of Western Australia, I dealt with truck drivers and many other people who used to take about five minutes to tell me how much money they wanted, how they wanted it paid and what the deal was. They were negotiated in that system, because the last thing you could get away with was to offer them the award. They would not have a bar of it. This is the opportunity for people to get out of the straitjacket system that, on the evidence of the member for Brisbane, is not working. Hansard will record all the things he said that happens. He talked about people getting raped and people getting beaten up. That is the current system.So there is good reason for the opportunities that we offer, including in negotiations for employment contracts under the Workplace Relations Act. In all of this, I think Australian workers going to sea will, over time, find all sorts of ways in which they could do that better, including how they deal with their family—but that is for another day. The member for Brisbane said that no-one else leaves home and does not come home for three or four months. I just thought of geologists, drilling contractors and, tragically—as we have been reminded—certified accountants who go overseas—Mr Bevis interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Many of those people who go overseas for extended periods, particularly people like geologists, do not live in particularly salubrious conditions and they do not live with their family.Let me say something about the amendments that have been proposed by the opposition. The first of those reads:(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 12 and 13), omit the item, substitute:Subsections 45 (1), (1A) and (2) Omit `or ballast'.This amendment is unacceptable to the government as it retains the restrictions on a ship's crew handling cargo. This is purely and simply an industrial demarcation issue about whether seafarers should be allowed to drive ship winches. It dates back to a dispute in 1911 and has no place in a modern navigation act. The second amendment reads:(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item, substitute:Subsections 50 (4) and (6) Repeal the subsections.This amendment is unacceptable to the government as it retains the six-month limit on the length of continuous service under an agreement and includes requirements concerning a shipowner's obligation to pay the costs of returning a seafarer to his or her agreed return port.The government considers that the length of service of a seafarer on a particular ship and other related issues are matters for negotiation between employers and employees under company employment agreements. It is not necessary or appropriate to have this type of provision in the navigation act, particularly as the Australian shipping industry now operates under company employment arrangements. The third amendment reads:(3) Schedule 1, item 47, omit the item, substitute:Paragraphs 377 (f) and (g) Repeal the paragraphs.There is no section identified as section 377. We think that the opposition probably referred to 377C, and if that is being referred to then the proposed amendment is unacceptable to the government. (Extension of time granted) The amendment is unacceptable to the government as it presupposes that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority will continue to be involved with the details of agreements, as provided for in subsection 46(2A).This will not be the case as the government proposes to repeal subsection 46(2A) and amend section 46 so as to provide greater flexibility for employers and employees to enter into company agreements best suited to an individual company. The government also proposes to repeal all of section 76 dealing with seafarers account of wages on discharge. The requirement for seafarers to be formally discharged from each ship by signing off the traditional articles of agreement will be repealed under the bill.Furthermore, the opposition's amendment presupposes that the Marine Council, referred to in section 47, is going to continue in existence. This will not be the case as the government proposes to abolish the Marine Council and the various provisions referring to it. As mentioned in the explanatory memorandum—item 48, under company employment—it is the responsibility of the employer to determine issues that have previously been dealt with by the Marine Council. Under company employment there is no place or need for a government appointed body such as the Marine Council.That is the government's response to the amendments. We note that the opposition proposes to oppose, I think, more sections of the bill than it intends to support. We conclude our remarks by saying that we think that this is legislation that will be progressive for the industry and for those who work in it because they will have an opportunity to put their own case through any representative they choose, including the union, as to the conditions they expect when they take a workplace agreement with a shipowner. I think those improvements will be worthwhile in terms of the operations of the Australian industry. Let us hope that it will deliver the sort of competitiveness that would reverse the ongoing decline that has existed in Australia's shipping industry.We have been reminded that we are an island continent. We were often reminded of value adding. Value adding to our raw materials can simply be achieved by owning and operating the ship that delivers them to a foreign port. We have had a death wish as a nation, assisted by the MUA and others, to drive this industry into obscurity. It is one of the most competitive in the world, but modern technology makes it possible to pay people high wages, give them good conditions and still operate a ship efficiently. All of these issues are best determined between the employees who go to sea and the people who invest in the ships. That is exactly what the government intends through its new arrangements. I thank the House.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.4912Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Committees4912491249124912Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I present the report of the Committee of Privileges concerning an application for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives.491349134913Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—As required by resolution of the House, I table copies of notification of alterations of interests and statement of registrable interests received during the period 7 December 1998 to 31 March 1999.Adjournment4913Motion (by Mr McGauran) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.491318:52:004913Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I want to address concerns I have heard from universities within and beyond my electorate on the proposed voluntary student unionism. This is not a law about fairness and equity. It is an unbridled ideologically based attack on student associations because of an apparent prejudice that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has about anything that has the name `union' attached to it. Let me read part of a letter from the Orange Agricultural College—that well-known hotbed of neo-Marxist revisionism and the alma mater of several National Party notables, including a recently retired former transport minister. The letter says:Mr Kemp's anti union ideology is not relevant as far as we are concerned.Our student association is in the business of providing the best possible student services we can and introduction of VSU will ensure our student services cease.The minister argues that part-time and distance education students are the ones who most resist payment of these fees. That is not the message I am getting. Many of the services offered by Charles Sturt University in Bathurst, Wagga and Albury have special relevance to distance students, including Austudy and HECS advice, transport, residential school services and so on. Other services offered by MASC, the Mitchell Association of Student Councils, at CSU Bathurst include accident insurance, desktop publishing, a courtesy bus, and O-week organisation—over 50 important services. That is hardly the stuff of left-wing, anti-government activism. The Vice-Chancellor of ANU, Deane Terrell, says:It is impossible to stop people who have not paid their fees from running onto an oval or from sitting in a cafeteria.This debate about voluntary versus involuntary unionism would be academic if it were not for the more sinister intent of forcing universities to introduce voluntary student unionism by making it a condition of government funding that a university not raise a fee from a student that is not directly related to the course.Grants from the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs have already decreased from $4.79 billion in 1996 to $4.1 billion this year and are proposed to drop to $3.9 billion in 2001. The Australian vice-chancellors say that the withdrawal of government funding over three years to 2001 represents a reduction of $1,070 a student. The minister would argue that the gap has been made up from HECS. However, even allowing for HECS increases, the reduction is $234 a student and set to drop by a significant amount if these proposals go through.The arts faculty at ANU, for one, has been decimated in recent years as scarce funds are directed to more market oriented courses. Research now depends largely on tied government grants and funds paid under contract by the corporate sector. The anthropology and archaeology departments at ANU are being ground down to a shadow of their former roles. They might soon themselves be the subjects of archaeological digs to discover what was taught in an age when pure research for other than commercial ends enriched a civilisation.I had the privilege of attending the 1999 Mulvaney Lecture by Professor Jim Allen at ANU last week at which one of our foremost archaeologists reviewed research from the past four decades and outlined how that research has declined alarmingly. He said:. . . the decimation of that department last year in the name of economic rationalism, and present attacks on the remnant which is left, may permanently destroy a legacy which might never have evolved in the state universities . . . we must stop the dismemberment of archaeology in the ANU.And I would add the arts and the classics too. The market will not deliver the type of educated people we need in this country and the government's reliance on the market delivering quality tertiary education is further underlined by the extraordinary payback voluntary student unionism legislation.The thinking behind that legislation is 25 years out of date, locked in the era of the Vietnam War or the Cold War when student agitation really did move public opinion and embarrassed governments. And why not? But I guess the minister can sleep peacefully knowing that the political extremists of universities like Orange Agricultural College, which I have named, have finally been caught out for daring to use the student association supplied photocopier to copy last year's exam paper. No more will these dangerous extremists be able to foster anti-government sentiments at an intervarsity sports competition!491418:57:004914Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise on the issue of the so-called needle exchange program or what most concerned people in the community refer to as the needle distribution program. This initiative was deceptively introduced into the community as a so-called mechanism to control the spread of HIV-AIDS. It has grown into an industry that is supplying the tools of trade—needles—to administer the illegal body destroying drug heroin. This initiative assisted in creating an epidemic of hepatitis C in Australia—an issue which I will come back to shortly.In the state of New South Wales alone, the needle-syringe exchange program, first implemented in 1998 by the New South Wales Health Department, has seen an expansion from the distribution of 2.3 million needle- syringes in that year to approximately 9.2 million needle-syringes in the 1997-98 financial year. Today in New South Wales we see an expansion of this chain to 310 public outlets and 520 participating pharmacies offering free needle-syringes to injecting drug users, including juveniles under the age of 16.There is no age barrier to children under 16 years of age accessing needle distribution programs in New South Wales, nor indeed in some other states. Health ministers responsible for the delivery of implements used to administer illegal addictive drugs such as heroin need to have a close look at what, in their attempts to justify the catchcry of the needle-syringe program of controlling the spread of HIV-AIDS, they are doing to assist in the expansion of the illegal distribution chain and, more importantly, what it is doing to young people. I will certainly have more to say on that issue at a later date when I address the issue of heroin in our society.Let me now turn to the issue of the spread of the highly infectious hepatitis C, which has infected 200,000 Australians, half of whom live in New South Wales and many of whom will have symptomatic illnesses as a result of that infection. In December 1998, the Hepatitis C Council of New South Wales estimated that around 11,000 new HCV infections are occurring across the nation each year, or 30 new infections a day—and again, half of these are in New South Wales.Some 90 per cent of these new infections occur through blood to blood contact resulting from people sharing equipment used for injecting drug use. So much for the argument that throwing needle-syringes at addicts will control the spread of highly infectious viruses. HIV-AIDS is not increasing because the homosexual community is not practising safe sex. It has been, in my view, and nothing has been forthcoming which disputes that view. Besides, being a homosexual certainly does not mean you are automatically an injecting drug user, which tends to be the impression forced on the community by pro-drug advocates.Let me now refer to the policy and procedures manual which drives the needle syringe exchange program in New South Wales. Paragraph 1 on page 4 of that document says:The NSEP is based on harm reduction rather than abstention: That is, it is primarily concerned not to minimise injecting drug use as such but rather to minimise the potential HIV-related harm flowing from such use.This policy document advises all NSEP to adhere to the following:They do not give to police any information regarding activities of IDU or dealers.. Any requests from the media regarding the program must be forwarded to their supervisor. . Staff must be made aware that adverse media can restrict the use of the service by IDU and jeopardise the program. Policies which are deliberately impeding our law enforcement agencies from vital intelligence on drug distribution.This harm reduction strategy has failed. It has failed since 1985 when `harm reduction' was the cornerstone of federal government policy in Australia. Governments and their advisers have pursued and enforced the theory that promoting `safe' drug use will increase the health of young Australians. Needles to addicts, marijuana as medicine, responsible drug use education and softening drug law enforcement are harm reduction policies.Isn't `harm reduction' really the former failed `responsible use' policy that gave birth to the problems we have on this drug issue today? It certainly does not seek to prevent harm or cure harm. What it does do is seek to reduce harm to the users and the dealers, at considerable cost to society. What is the cost behind this harm reduction agenda? Could it be power, politics and money, or is it just another indication of total incompetence mixed with a lack of political will to take total control of problems such as the need to ensure drugs are removed from our communities?Politicians in the US are aware of the problems needle syringe distribution programs are creating, with increases in the availability and use of heroin. In September 1997 the US House of Representatives voted to strengthen the ban on the federal funding for needle exchange programs. In the previous year the US Centre for Disease Control reported that more than 14 million syringes were distributed in the US through needle exchange programs. (Time expired).491519:02:004915Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Between the rising of parliament this evening and the resumption of parliament for the budget session, Australia will celebrate its final Anzac Day this century. Like most Australians, I take great pride in the fact that Anzac Day has increased in significance as a national day over recent decades. I believe that more Australians look upon Anzac Day as a national day more than any other. After all, it does not have the significance of a white Australia conquering black Australia. Actually, in stark contrast to that, Anzac Day is an all encompassing day and all Australians—all those people who have chosen to live here, who admire democracy, who admire our way of life—are included in Anzac Day. I think that is the great thing that Anzac Day has developed into.But, unfortunately, there is a change taking place in our community that is tending to denigrate Anzac Day. I talk about increasing commercialisation as large multinational retailers, with their insatiable thirst for the almighty dollar, want to thrust 24-hour retailing on to the Australian community. If there is a day that should be set aside, that should be immune from such commercialisation, it is Anzac Day.I realise that trading hours are not the responsibility of our federal government, but this is a national issue. I also understand that while most stores, particularly in my state of New South Wales, are not expressly allowed to trade on Anzac Day, by regarding themselves as having the status of gazetted tourist areas, they will be allowed to trade on Sundays and public holidays and therefore they will be able to trade on Anzac Day. This year, Anzac Day falls on a Sunday and therefore it should be doubly sacred in our community.I call on all Australians in the city, country towns or villages to recognise the significance of this day, to remember all those who made the sacrifice for their country and to boycott the commercial pressures being placed on them. Make Anzac Day 1999 a special day and set the pattern for all future Anzac Days as a national day of remembrance and celebration, not just another day for shopping.491519:05:004915Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—There are occasions when the plight of one or two individuals illuminates the struggle of an entire nation, and there can be no better illustration than that of Aung Sung Suu Kyi and her husband Dr Michael Aris, for last Saturday Dr Aris died in a London hospital while his wife Suu Kyi remained in Burma, a virtual prisoner. Mr Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to allow me to join with other members in paying tribute before the House rises this week.Last week the member for Gilmore in this House made an eloquent plea for the provision of a visa to Dr Aris so that he could be reunited with his wife during his last dying days. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the federal government, called on Burma to issue a visa. The visa, refused repeatedly, was not granted, and the hollow suggestion by the State Peace and Development Council in Burma that Suu Kyi travel to England to be with her husband was as cruel as it was transparent. Forcing Suu Kyi into exile is one of the SPDC's aims. One can only begin to imagine her despair, for she has not been able to see her husband of 27 years since January 1996, over three years ago, and prior to that only a very few times since 1988.The story of Suu Kyi and her husband Michael is well known and I acknowledge the gracious tribute by the member for Holt in that regard. But in this week of the sad occasion of his death, it is worth retelling. It is one of courage, of sacrifice, of honour.Suu Kyi was born in 1945, the daughter of Burma's assassinated hero, Aung Sang. She lived in Burma until attending Oxford University in the mid-1960s. There she met and married a fellow student, Dr Michael Aris, and they had two sons. Until the mid-1980s they lived in the relative peace and security of academic life in Britain.Life in Burma was very different. A military regime had been in place since 1962 and had led to the country's economic, social and political decline. In 1988 there was a spontaneous people's movement calling for freedom and democracy. There was much bloodshed as the military was sent in to curb the peaceful protests. It was in the midst of this turmoil that Suu Kyi, then 43, returned to Burma with her husband and sons. She was quickly swept into the tide of events. Those searching for a leader found in her a magnificent symbol. But she was a persuasive leader in her own right—a student of politics and economics, fluent in Burmese and English, composed and serenely beautiful. It was almost a mythical tale—the hero's daughter returning to fight against the military; the lady against the generals.Her husband and children had to leave, and she remained in Burma taking on one of the most courageous, lonely and dangerous fights known in the struggle for human rights and democracy. In 1989 she was placed under house arrest. An election which took place in l990—the first in three decades—saw her party win over 85 per cent of the vote. The result was ignored, the democracy leaders jailed. The world deplored the many breaches of human rights that occurred during this time and yet the military remained.In October 1991, still under house arrest, Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for what was described as `one of the most extraordinary examples of civil courage in Asia in recent years'. Throughout her struggle she has been separated for long periods from her husband and her two sons.I met Suu Kyi at her home in Rangoon in 1995, some three months after her so-called release from five years under house arrest. It was a humbling yet inspiring moment. I spent a few hours at her home. I listened to her talk about her passionate belief in democracy for the people of Burma and her commitment to achieving basic human rights and freedom for her people. I was struck by the sacrifices that she and her husband had made to enable her to dedicate her life to the Burmese people. I will never, ever forget that meeting with her.Few, if any, of us will be called upon, as Suu Kyi was, to forsake family, career, safety, security and peace, and to respond unconditionally to a country's call for help. Michael Aris, in his unswerving support for his beloved wife, and Suu Kyi, in her ongoing fight for democracy, demonstrate in a most graphic way that individuals can make a difference to the life of their times.491619:09:004916Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I wish to talk tonight about a proposal that has been floating around Newcastle for the last year and a half, namely the locating of an airport on Kooragang Island, which is to the west of Newcastle Harbour. This proposal is complex and I will not have sufficient time to cover it adequately, but let me start the process. At the outset I should say that my colleagues in the Labor Party and in the Labor movement in Newcastle and I spend a lot of our time supporting, helping and encouraging proposals and projects that might generate employment—as do most members of the House. Any serious proposal that may generate jobs we take very seriously and we work very hard on.This proposal was first floated by the former member for Paterson. In September of last year Abigroup, a road construction company, became publicly associated with it. I am aware that in recent weeks representatives have been lobbying parliamentarians, both in this House and in the other place. People that I have spoken to have been lobbied. They have in many cases approached me a bit bewildered as to what it actually means, because they have great difficulty in getting information of any detailed nature or substance.In looking at this proposal, the first thing that one has to think about, in terms of a second airport for Sydney, is how it would function—the volume and the economics—because airports these days are not a government matter. They are essentially a private enterprise matter. The proponents of this airport indicate that they do not want public funds, that they will fund it themselves. It will be self-sufficient. If that is the case, why are they lobbying politicians? And, if it is the case, why haven't they invested any money at all to date—that one can see—in doing the normal pre-feasibility studies? They wish to go directly to an EIS. As we all understand, an environmental impact statement is the last stage of a process and not the first. In this airport's case they want to it to be the first stage. Before they examine the economic feasibility, they are proposing that we should, in fact, consider the environmental aspects of it.The proposal incorporates a very fast train, and we know that that is a very fashionable concept and a wonderful thing. The only complication we have is that the traditional very fast trains—and particularly the Speedrail that is being proposed for Canberra to Sydney—could not negotiate the escarpment of the Hawkesbury River. It would have to tunnel under Broken Bay. The kind of cost that would be involved in that would, in fact, make the fare slightly expensive. And if these trains are not viable on open country, one has a bit of difficulty imagining how they are going to be viable elsewhere.I spoke to Speedrail just a few weeks back, and they certainly are not interested or particularly involved in this proposal. The alternative train, of course, is Maglev, which as we know could manage the gradient. But Maglev was rejected by the Commonwealth government as a possible very fast train for the Canberra to Sydney route on grounds of economics. Maglev tell me that they had been approached in recent weeks and asked if their name could be used. Remember, this proposal has been around for a year and a half. Of these two companies, one has not been approached at all and one was approached a few weeks ago.The very fast train is critical because the only way this airport could function is as, effectively, a wide space runway with Sydney, to share Sydney's load. It may be possible that there is somewhere in the Hunter where we can locate an airport, and my colleagues and I would be quite supportive of that if we thought it was worth spending public time and effort considering it. To do that we would need to see the economics and the feasibility of it.For those people who proposed that, I think the point to understand is that Sydney airport's problem is not its capacity of a daytime; it is its curfew. If there was no curfew in Sydney we would not have a problem for the next 30 years or so. An overflow link-in with Sydney means that any second airport would predominantly be used between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The noise and impact effects of those kinds of activities completely change because of that timing, as do the volumes of other traffic for a train system. So the proposal to build and operate an airport which will effectively be used for eight hours a day to fill Sydney's gap at a cost of $4½ billion—and that is on preliminary estimates; no hard costing has been provided—is in danger of being seen as a hoax.My community wants jobs desperately. We need work. We will support anybody who has got a serious proposal to put forward. This proposal is not serious. (Time expired)491819:14:004918Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I, firstly, would like to say that I did not take the opportunity to procure a viewing of the film Lolita . I had read in the press that it could be hostile to my personal development, so I chose not to see it.Early this decade, I recall being taken aback when John Bendall, who was then the headmaster of the Hutchins School in Hobart, told the parents who were assembled for the annual prize giving night that their lives and those of their children were about to change. `Change,' he said, `would be as significant as it would be irrevocable. The Internet would be a practical application of Star Wars technology and it would enable young people to access information instantly from all around the world. Much of it would be of enormous benefit to them, but some of it—pornography, gambling and drugs—would be of great concern to parents anxious to screen the material to which their children might be exposed.'He went on to say that their children would be communicating with one another via the Internet and would rarely, if ever, actually have to go out of their rooms to do so and their parents would have little or no control over what they would be doing. Whatever the problems that we might envisage with the Internet, he warned, the reality was that we were on the verge of great change. We now stand on the threshold of another revolution, the impact of which has the potential to unlock our understanding of life itself.Genomics represents the third global technological revolution. The first was the Industrial Revolution in the latter part of the 19th century. The second is the revolution in information technology, which has come about in the last third of this century, yet still remains beyond the understanding and reach of the poor and functionally illiterate. When scientists late last year completed their genetic mapping of the nematode, a tiny worm, they also heralded what is likely to ultimately form the basis for a complete knowledge of human genetics and cell biology. Debate about genetically modified food is but a precursor for what actually lies ahead.Again, science is outstripping the capacity of society to debate serious ethical issues. The genetic genie is now out of the bottle and will never be put back. In fact, understanding this biological jigsaw improves our understanding of the basis of humanity itself. It may finally mean a cure, if not prevention, of diseases and disorders such as cystic fibrosis, diabetes, dementia, autism, spina bifida and any one of a number of diseases which affect human beings.But do we have a right to interfere with the genetic code of other species let alone our own? Should one company and its shareholders exclusively own breakthrough research having the potential to alleviate human misery? As ethical, philosophical and religious leaders grapple with these and other issues, I think the Australian parliament needs also to seriously be asking itself to what extent this country really wants to be a contributor to this revolution or, alternatively, a net user of biological software. The trade-off that is currently being debated and has been initiated by the Ralph review between a 30 per cent company tax rate and accelerated depreciation schedules for capital is not just about corporate reward for effort, it is much more about whether we are prepared to let the rest of the world pass us by as knowledge based industries drive the economic future.Peter Farrell, the chief executive of a company called Resmed that started in Australia but had to capitalise in the US and is now in the top 100 growing companies in the US, wrote an article for the Australian Stock Exchange Review, August edition, last year, and he identified three problems. The first is we have a lack of technically trained people on the boards of our major companies. The second is we have a linear attitude to research. We seem to think that, if we provide enough money to researchers, they will eventually produce something that is of value. The third is that our taxation treatment of small high-tech, knowledge based industries in Australia is actually preventing them from developing. So in the debate about taxation reform could I please ask that everybody not only look at GST, food and things like that but actually look at tax and the disadvantages that we are applying to industries that will very much drive this country into the next century.491919:19:004919Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I just wanted to take advantage of the adjournment debate to put a few remarks on the record about my recent visit with the parliamentary delegation to Bougainville. I am very confident about the good progress that is being made, but I have to say that I think there are some worrying developments which could seriously stall the peace process and possibly undermine it. Maintaining the momentum for peace in Bougainville is in Australia's strategic interest. It becomes even more important as developments unfold in East Timor and Indonesia where the stakes for Australia are even higher.There has been a disturbing lack of parliamentary accountability by ministers on the subject of Bougainville. The peace process has not merited one ministerial statement to date. The people of Australia are entitled to have a ministerial statement, I believe, at least quarterly on this issue.The proposed election of the constituent assembly and arguments about its legality, the autonomy package for Bougainville, disarmament and aid all have the potential to stall or even derail the peace process. Minister Downer has already been caught flat-footed once in negotiations for the truce. It would be tragic if this happened a second time.Canberra's eye seems to be wandering from the ball. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has recommended a far more proactive approach and specifically recommended utilising the Peace Process Consultative Committee, the Peace Process Steering Committee and even the South Pacific Forum as a means of maintaining the momentum of the peace process.I am sure all honourable members will be shocked, if not disgusted, to learn that Australia has not been prepared to invest one extra dollar in peace in Bougainville. Whilst approximately $143 million has been pledged for Bougainville, this has all come from budget aid to PNG, causing some natural resentment from the other 19 provinces. Australia should be prepared to invest in peace and make additional aid available to Bougainville. AusAID has had no previous experience in being the principal, dominant aid provider in reconstruction. It has handicapped itself by being predominantly based in Port Moresby, out of the way and out of touch.All the people of Bougainville must share in the peace dividend. For many, it may be as little as having basic medicines available at their post. The reconstruction and peace process must reflect a whole of government approach. The aid priorities must be based on health, transport, communication and the restoration of law and order. This will ensure a speedier exit for the peace monitoring group.Having visited both Rwanda and Somalia, I can say that I am very proud of the contribution of our ADF and civilian personnel who make up our component of the peace monitoring group of some 300. Their presence is most welcomed by the locals. However, this is the first time that there has been a significant deployment of peacekeepers without a finite period being established or a clear set of objectives which, when achieved, would allow the force to be withdrawn. It is now time for greater clarity.Again, I am sure honourable members will be shocked to learn that Defence has not received supplementation for its peacekeeping efforts in Bougainville. In my belief, it is exceptionally poor public policy to financially punish Defence for its peacekeeping efforts, which are universally applauded. In both instances, this government has established some very bad precedents. I want to add that I am optimistic about the peace process. But we must, along with other neighbouring countries, do all we can to ensure that the momentum in Bougainville is maintained and that we are able to withdraw our ADF personnel and civilians at the earliest possible opportunity.492019:24:004920Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I proudly represent what is traditionally and rightfully regarded as a sugar seat. In Dawson, the sugar industry is, and will remain, absolutely fundamental to our wellbeing. However, international currency movements and a hostile trade policy in some areas continue to buffet our commodity markets, and no more so than sugar. Earlier this week, the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority released its 1998 rural debt survey. That survey covered the five years to last year and, therefore, did not reflect the flow-on from the disastrous 1998 season. It is significant that the survey, while revealing that industry debt had grown a good deal in 1994 to 1997, also showed that these debt levels had not increased in 1998. I believe that this is because of a responsible, well-managed and very sensitive approach to price movements and other factors such as poor growing conditions.The general manager of Queensland Canegrowers, Mr Ian Ballantyne, said when this survey was released that the funds borrowed by the industry between 1993 and 1997 could be regarded largely as what he termed `productive debt'. What he means is that it is debt incurred by borrowing for capital equipment rather than debt entered into to save the farm or to meet operating costs.The halt in the rise in industry debt levels last year underlined how responsible and responsive the industry was to the early messages coming from the international sugar market that woefully low world prices were on the way. I strongly urge all lending institutions to take the responsible, long-term view and recognise that the sugar industry is fundamentally sound and is predicted to have an improving outlook.The latest industry predictions by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, ABARE, show that Queensland's raw sugar production, which accounts for about 95 per cent of the Australian total, is forecast to increase by more than 300,000 tonnes to reach more than 4.8 million tonnes in 1999-2000. By 2003 to 2004, the Queensland total is expected to exceed 5.6 million tonnes. Queensland's cane assignment is projected to increase by 20,000 hectares by 2003 to 2004. This slower rate of increase in assigned area, when compared with the increase in the five years to 1997-98, is due primarily to the restrictions on mill, land, water and transport and the impact of low world prices on potential new entrants. Early estimates of the 1998 Queensland harvest anticipated production of 5.3 million tonnes. Instead, regrettably, it was 4.5 million tonnes due to wet weather and very poor sugar yields.Now we come to the reason for these commodity price drops. World sugar prices have been depressed recently by blatant subsidies given by European governments as well as the USA. ABARE has calculated that US sugar prices have depressed world sugar prices by a staggering 56 per cent. The justification given by the US government, in part for these subsidies, is the high compliance costs of environment policies. Frankly, this is self-justification stretched to the very outer limit, especially given the fact that Queensland cane growers are at least as equally environmentally responsible, if not more so. In fact, the sugar industry in Queensland currently spends $5.1 million on environmental research and natural resource management. It is a very proud and positive record of achievement.I will turn very quickly to Brazil, which, because of low oil prices, is now diverting a great deal of its sugar that previously went into ethanol production onto the world market. It is having quite a devastating effect on sugar prices in Australia. I pay tribute to all the work being done by the industry and government in partnership. As we contemplate the current position of the industry and crystal ball gaze into the future, we can be very thankful of one thing: the retention of single desk selling. I am very proud to have played a leading role in that fight against the scorched earth fanatics of the National Com petition Council. I warn the NCC that they should keep their interest out of an industry which is doing it tough but doing it well.492119:29:004921Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—Every business takes a risk when expanding its traditional core business to other areas. Australia Post has in recent years introduced many different services and products. For the most part, these extra services and products have met with the approval of the public. Australia Post's core business is to deliver first-class mail and also household or unaddressed mail referred to by many, somewhat disparagingly, as junk mail. Members of parliament and political parties regularly use this service as an inexpensive method of distributing electorate news and other community information.Australia Post is keen to retain this business and has negotiated a special rate with the political parties. It has assigned staff to do a parliamentarian's household mail, which must be prebooked in advance depending on the locations and amount of current business activity. The charge for delivery of these unaddressed items is deducted from the account that each member of parliament holds at Australia Post. I recall that early last year my office missed an Australia Post deadline because of what seemed an unreasonable lead time required by Australia Post. Because of this inconvenience and because of numerous reports we received from constituents who did not receive information from Treasury on tax reform or who found a number of copies strewn on their front lawn or in the street, we decided to try an alternative provider for unaddressed mail. We continued that tack during the campaign, using Australia Post only when necessary and keeping within the preordained budget guidelines.After the election, my office went through no end of trouble trying to reconcile mailing statements from Australia Post with our records. In one instance, a mail-out cost nearly $18,000, discounted down to around $14,000. Australia Post added the two figures together and charged us $32,000. After we sorted that one out, we were informed by the Department of Finance and Administration that we still owed Australia Post a sizeable amount of money. Only after persistent checks by my office did it emerge that every cent of this deficit had been billed against my account in error. After further checking, it came to light that someone else had used the service, the cost of which was charged to my account—an account financed by the public, as is the case for all MPs.It transpires further that it was the Australian Labor Party who had their campaign mail-outs billed to my account. This was no bookkeeping error: 161,503 pieces of mail on six different invoices with a total cost of $14,610.19 was charged to my account for Labor Party campaign mail. Those Labor mail-outs included unaddressed mail from my opponent, a union official with the CPSU—the same union that claims to represent postal employees. It would appear also that some of the direct mail charged to my office may have emanated from the office of the Labor member for Mitcham in the state parliament, Tony Robinson—a mail-out which claimed no taxpayer funds were used. Given that Australia Post requires booking and authorisation for unaddressed mail and an Australia Post account card for direct mail, I am puzzled as to how this happened. Each of us makes mistakes, but it is beyond the pale to believe that Australia Post made the same mistake on six separate occasions in the space of a few weeks.Australia Post promised on 11 February that an explanation would be sent within a week. So far—nearly seven weeks later—the explanation has not been forthcoming. There are some serious questions that need to be answered here. Did the Labor Party campaign, its candidate in Deakin or other people representing the ALP use my account in booking or sending unaddressed mail? Did the Labor Party campaign in Deakin, its candidate in Deakin, with or without the cooperation of any of its elected representatives in the Victorian parliament, use my account in booking or sending an addressed mail campaign piece under the signature of the member for Mitcham? Did any Australia Post employee conspire in the commission of this apparent fraud on behalf of their union brother, the ALP candidate for Deakin? Finally, has the accounting department and other employees of Australia Post merely shown incredible incompetence on six separate occasions? I have referred the matter to the appropriate minister for investigation. I trust there is a logical and legal explanation. I know that the ALP would demand nothing less, as they have in the past where our side is concerned.492219:34:004922Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I rise tonight to place on the record my support for another nursing home hostel, low and high care, on Bribie Island. This beautiful part of the world is serviced by one nursing home hostel and I have spoken in this place before about the need for it to have a second. Bribie Island has an elderly population—many people are aged over 70—and at the moment is very short of beds. The electorate in itself has in fact done very well under this government with Landsborough securing a 50-bed place, Deception Bay thereabouts the same with two new facilities and also Maleny.But it is important that the people on Bribie Island—the elderly residents that moved there because of the good quality of life—are able to remain in place. I have lobbied hard to ensure that in the next round, which I believe will be announced shortly, the people of Bribie Island receive a second facility to service the aged population so that they can age in place both with CAPS places as well as having the variety of choices from the existing home. I support the call that was raised last month by the RSL War Veterans Homes, which held a successful meeting and gained community support. I encourage them to keep up their work in that they have started a Bribie Island Aged Community Committee and I will be working with them to ensure that this is achieved by this government.492219:35:004922Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I would like to acknowledge I am speaking with the indulgence of the honourable member for Brisbane, and I thank him. This matter is important because I note there has been some mention in the news tonight by Senator Stott Despoja about the amount of public consulta tion undertaken regarding the EIS on the nuclear reactor in my electorate of Hughes. This decision on the EIS was made under the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and I think the government can be very proud that they have set a benchmark in investigation under the EIS proposals of any government agency before or since. When one considers how the EIS statement was done on the third runway in Sydney, which was such a sham that its own government had to have a Senate inquiry into the procedures, this government can be very proud about the public consultation and the way it has carried out the provisions of this legislation.It was only yesterday that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage announced that the environmental acceptability of the proposed research replacement reactor at Lucas Heights had no environmental reason for not continuing. This matter is actually being referred to the Public Works Committee. The Public Works Committee will conduct public hearings on 5 and 6 May in Sydney. The applications for the public works hearings are still available and members of the community in the electorate of Hughes can still make application if they wish to be heard.I think it is important to cover very briefly the rigorous and transparent way in which the agency has undertaken this EIS. Apart from the EIS process itself, there was the independent scrutiny by three peer reviewers. These were arranged under the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, pursuant to my representations, precisely so that my constituents could be assured that the full and proper procedures were correctly followed. One was the firm CH2M HILL. This firm reviewed the safety and handling of nuclear wastes and emissions in accordance with international best practice. The International Atomic Energy Agency was another one of the reviewers and conducted the hazard and risk analysis of the EIS. It looked at the siting of the facility and the possible risks to the community. Another one of the reviewers was Parkman Safety Management, which provided a further independent review of hazards and risks.It is important that the community understand that these particular independent reviewers have an international reputation in their field. They were the best that the government could contract to do this independent review and their reports are available for public scrutiny. I think it is also important to know that besides the peer reviews under the EIS process, there were meetings that were arranged specifically for community interest groups. There were library displays with personal assistants to answer questions. There were also focus groups and discussion groups that were arranged on subjects relating to the project, for example, radioactive waste management, which was independently facilitated by consultants Keys Young. Also, the whole public consultation process was independently audited by Twyford Consulting. Their report is a public document and it is available. I suggest to the senator that if she has any concerns that the public were not properly consulted then she has been ill-informed. The matter is on the public record for her scrutiny at any time.I would also like to point out that the ARPANSA regulator, which was recommend-ed in the research reactor review report in 1993, which was a Labor Senate inquiry, has been fulfilled by this government. That regulatory authority will be operating and will oversee the construction of a new replacement reactor. There are other matters which I will raise at a later date on this issue. I am mindful of the time and I am very grateful for the indulgence of the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hughes needs to be aware of the fact that, while she has graciously and properly acknowledged the accommodation of the member for Brisbane, the House's obligation to rise does not occur until 8 o'clock. That is a point that ought to be borne in mind by the Chief Government Whip as well.19:40:004923House adjourned at 7.40 p.m.Notices4923The following notice was given:Mr Price to move—That orders of the day Nos 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20, private Members' business, stand referred to the Procedure Committee in conjunction with its inquiry into community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees.1999-03-31Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members4924492409:40:004924Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I want to speak today on behalf of a 100 or so workers currently employed by Telstra at its Docklands call centre in my electorate of Gellibrand. Telstra, unfortunately, has made a decision to close this centre. It is a devastating decision. With the support of the workers, their unions, their families and the local community I am seeking to reverse that decision. We want to convince Telstra to stay in Footscray and to continue to provide local jobs to our region. Those jobs are so scarce and so valued. Each and every job in Footscray matters.The statistics tell us that in Gellibrand we have 11.8 per cent unemployment, nearly twice the national average of 7.4 per cent, and over 28 per cent of our young people unemployed. These shameful percentages are not just abstract figures. These figures represent 7,273 people and their families who are desperately seeking work and hoping to build better lives. They are our neighbours, our families and our friends. We cannot afford to lose any more jobs and add some more families to this long list.In pleading with Telstra to reconsider its decision, I am arguing for those 100 jobs to stay in Footscray. In addition to the jobs that go directly from Telstra, I am concerned about the wider impact on our region as a whole. Telstra needs to understand that its decision to take 100 jobs out of Footscray has an impact on every local sandwich shop, milk bar and supermarket currently used by those employees.I have written today to Telstra asking them to take account of the high unemployment in our region and urging them to reconsider their decision. I have also reminded them of Footscray's advantages. We are so close to the CBD, yet costs are still reasonable, space generous and access comfortable.Remember that, when I write to Telstra, I am not writing to any old business. It is not a family business or a multinational or even a chain store. Telstra is different. It should be different because it plays a vital role in our community. We are all its customers; we are all still its owners. Due to this, we expect Telstra to be aware about our region and to understand why we want it to stay in Footscray. Telstra needs to have a community view, not just a business view about the decisions it makes.We simply cannot afford to lose these jobs from Footscray. I urge Telstra to look at our region, its needs and its advantages, and to review its decision—please stay in Footscray.492409:42:004924May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Recently I had the honour of opening the Gold Coast Housing Network's Housing Justice Forum and presenting the universal design awards. I would like to pay tribute to Tracey Douglas for her commitment and vision in bringing together members of the Gold Coast Housing Network. Tracey has worked tirelessly for our community and worked closely with the Gold Coast City Council in implementing the Gold Coast Community Health Plan 2000.The forum took a holistic approach to housing to ensure a fair and reasonable level of access to affordable, appropriate and adaptable housing for the extremely diverse population of the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast as an area is unique, as are its people, a factor reflected in the different housing styles, from the traditional brick and tile homes to the more modern three storey walk-ups.The forum placed particular emphasis on the needs of our ageing community. I was delighted that this was the case as I thought it particularly apt in the International Year of Older Persons that the focus of the forum be on the housing needs of these special people in our community. The electorate of McPherson has long been a haven for retirees with many people attracted to the coastal strip and the hinterland suburbs because of the area's relaxed lifestyle and warm climate. In my electorate, one in every five persons is aged over 65 and this presents a real challenge to developers, government planners and service providers. These organisations need to ensure that this very large percentage of the population is well catered for with the design and construction of suitable housing and service facilities.In my view, one of the most serious issues facing housing planners, particularly in respect of older Australians, is loneliness. This very serious problem was highlighted recently on the Gold Coast with regard to elderly persons living in high-rise apartments. The Gold Coast Housing Network's assessment report mentioned that a significant proportion of the population aged over 55 years of age has moved to the coast and has no extended family living locally, hence the increase in loneliness.The Gold Coast City Council's health plan identified many concerns for the elderly and included a lack of public housing, affordability of all types of housing, the design and adaptability of buildings, the inflexibility of housing policies for mixed uses, and the problems of homelessness. These pertinent points were discussed at the forum in detail and I understand recommendations will be made to relevant authorities on the outcomes.I was also honoured to present the Universal Design Awards in various design categories and I would like to again congratulate Lifecycle Homes and Brent Fletcher on their two awards, including the supreme award, Lyn Easton and Cecilia Folkes on their encouragement awards, and all the other participants.In closing, I would like once again to congratulate Tracey Douglas and the Gold Coast Housing Network for recognising the need to draw together information on housing and for focusing on developing a more integrated approach to housing; and the Gold Coast City Council, particularly for its special regard for the aged.492509:45:004925Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I rise today to draw attention again to the deplorable situation, which I know a number of members of this House are aware of, confronting a group of returned Australian servicemen. The group to which I refer are former naval personnel who served during the Malayan Emergency from 1955 to 1960. These veterans have suffered a form of discrimination which brings no credit to previous governments and serves as an embarrassment to this government.For more than 40 years these veterans have been denied medals as well as other benefits for their services. Their brothers in arms in the Army and Air Force qualified for the following after being in the combat zone for one day: the General Service Medal with Malaya clasp; the return from active service badge; full repatriation benefits, including service pension at age 60; and listing of casualties on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial. Naval veterans, however, even if they were involved in bombardments or other actions, never qualified for these benefits.These old sailors, from admirals to seamen gunners, are now passing around the hat to raise funds so they might take their case to the Federal Court. Apart from the gross injustice of their predicament, how humiliating that experience must be for them.The Labor Party may have been remiss in the past, but anyone who consults the policies we took to the last election on this issue will know we are at least not afraid of admitting our mistakes, and rectifying them. This government can claim no such thing. Indeed, it appears to be paralysed by a fear of admitting the error of its previous ways to this group of veterans. It appears to have adopted an attitude of apathy, even contempt, and perhaps rudeness, in its dealings with them.It is surprising that the Prime Minister himself appears to have let these veterans down. On 5 September 1997, retired Vice-Admiral Sir Richard Peek wrote to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister paid the admiral the courtesy of a response on 22 February 1998, but the Vice-Admiral obviously felt that he had not got a proper response and so he wrote back to the Prime Minister a fortnight later in a letter dated 9 March 1998. To this day he has not got a response. I would like to tell you what the Prime Minister's reply was but, as of last week, over a year later, the Prime Minister was yet to reply. It appears now that Major General Dunn has hinted at a Senate estimates hearing that the government may review the issue of naval veterans' medals and entitlements during the Malayan Emergency.Vice-Admiral Peek and his former shipmates want to know if the inquiry has actually begun. It should take submissions from interested parties, be public and open, and include at least one service veteran on the board of inquiry. It is time this government took action. It is not good enough to point to the failures of previous governments; it is time to stop delaying. The longer we wait, the more veterans go to their graves unappreciated, resentful of their country and disbelieving of its ingratitude. We all sent them there and, as a country, we owe them. We should act, and act now.492609:48:004926Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—The first meeting of a series of meetings which have been entitled `Rebuilding the inland' was held in Julia Creek last Friday afternoon, and it was attended by 60 to 70 local residents. A number of issues were raised, one being the issue of the local kindergarten. That may seem a small thing, but kindergartens have a series of rules, some of which kindergartens in the outback cannot possibly comply with. As a result, the continued existence of the kindergarten is placed in real jeopardy. To quote but one small example, there must be a toilet upstairs and downstairs. This sounds reasonable except when one realises that upstairs is 18 inches above downstairs at Julia Creek. These rules may be reasonable rules in a city, but most unreasonable in a small country town.The second issue raised was the issue of Telecom services. It was asserted at the meeting that services being proposed for inland Australia were very substandard. The meeting drew attention to the fact that Toorak, the only research station in north Queensland, off the coast, had 22 employees some seven or eight years ago whereas today it has only two employees and is about to be virtually closed down.The national competition policy resulted in the railway fettling gangs in the mid-west of North Queensland going from having over 400 employees down to 92 employees. This, plus other railway cutbacks, most certainly cost this small town some 60-odd jobs. The issue of roads was raised at very great length and the Deputy Mayor, John Stevens, said that if we were allocated the maintenance of the roads in the Julia Creek area alone, we would go from a work force of 23 to 47, and that would be an extra 24 jobs in the town of Julia Creek.However, the Flinders Highway was completed nearly 30 years ago and the beef road scheme north from Julia Creek was completed nearly 30 years ago. As everyone in this House would know, roads last for only 30 years—they have to be rebuilt every 30 years—so all of those roads need reconstruction. There is absolutely no money for that road reconstruction.If we allocated 2c a litre of the current taxation regime of 36c a litre to roads and to shires of that type and specifically designated that money for that area so that people in that community could employ people to repair and rebuild that road system, then this would mean some 30 jobs in Julia Creek. So if Toorak was simply re-established as it was there for some 30 years, and the road system was given a fair go—and these areas were given a fair go—then that would be 60 jobs in itself. (Time expired)492709:51:004927Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Exmouth in Western Australia was recently devastated by Cyclone Vance. We had the usual statements in the House. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the local member visited the area. Those who were most slow to visit the area were the insurance assessors. Now we add the name of Exmouth to Wollongong, Katherine, Townsville and Coffs Harbour where local people, after going through a harrowing experience, realise that the insurance premiums they had paid so faithfully for so long did not cover them in their time of need.Over the past few months, monitoring the performance of insurance company reaction to disasters has occupied a considerable amount of my time. This came about after Wollongong was struck by a freak storm which devastated the northern suburbs on 7 August 1998. Both the member for Cunningham and I have been extremely critical of the performance of insurance companies.Insurance companies tried and, in the main, failed to escape their legal and moral responsibilities in assessing claims for damage and then settling claims by paying up. In Wollongong, insurance companies were subject to a barrage of protest by the Illawarra community through the media, in public protests and even in their branch offices. In fact, one of the companies that has not paid up, QBE, as an act of spite, yesterday closed its Wollongong office, putting some 30 people out of a job. One by one, the stubbornness and belligerence of the insurance companies were tested by public demands, and one by one insurance companies caved in to the pressure. One of the reasons that they have caved into the pressure is that the Illawarra Mercury daily publishes a file of shame on those insurance companies not paying up, trying to shame them into doing so.Early this week, I issued a media statement attacking the insurance companies over their performance at Exmouth. I said that the insurance companies had learnt nothing from testing the limits of public patience in their response to natural disasters. I was amazed that, after such a serious cyclone, insurance companies had still to ensure that assessors were on the ground and ready to assist victims in making their claims, assess damage and provide financial assistance to help those people get on with their lives as quickly as possible. They are never slow to send out notices, but they are very slow to pay up. The statements were published in the Illawarra Mercury and then I received a three-page fax from the insurance companies attempting to explain why they are reacting so slowly and asking for patience. What they were saying is that they had to assess these claims.It is time the government responded positively to the proposal put by the member for Cunningham and me that a full public inquiry be held into the insurance industry. I appreciate the Insurance Council of Australia responding to my claim so promptly, but I would be more impressed if the insurance companies concerned themselves more with promptly dealing with victims, their families and helping rebuild shattered communities. (Time expired)492809:54:004928Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to speak on a topic that is important, I am sure, to all parliamentarians—or it certainly should be. The topic is the active interest shown by our community and its participation in the Australian democratic process. I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, host visits to Parliament House by schools from our respective electorates. These young people tour the House, hear some of the history of parliament, watch question time, speak with their local members and, most importantly, eat lunch in one of the facilities of the House. Usually, such a visit is part of a structured program of civics education, which forms a normal sector of their primary school education.In my day, the government was well removed from our schooling, except that it provided the free milk that we had to drink—like it or not—at morning recess. As a consequence, many people who went through their early schooling during the 1960s or earlier do not have much of a handle on what government does, except that it interferes in people's lives and charges them exorbitant taxes. Of course, we know that nothing could be further from the truth! But how do we get our message across and why should we bother? I will take the second point first: why should we bother? If we do not bother, it might be easier to govern as we please, rather than as directed by the people. One could say that it might even have been to the benefit of successive governments to keep the bulk of the people ignorant about, and uninterested in, politics.As I said earlier, shameful things can happen when nobody is watching, but what is the use of creating windows and opening them up if there is no-one outside wanting to look in? There are two reasons why it is worth bothering to try opening up the mystique of government: firstly, many hands make light work and the burden of responsibility could be considerably lessened if the general population were interested in, vigorously debated and provided some direction for, policy decisions which affect the whole country; secondly, following the belief that two heads are better than one, 18 million heads should be better than a couple of hundred. Yes, implementation of the ideas and opinions reporting system would provide some opportunities for creative logistical solutions. However, a subject would certainly have been well canvassed and considered from all angles with the enormous number of conversations on the topic that 18 million people could engender.I move on to the earlier part of my question: how do we get the message across to the general public? In the interests of good government, it is up to all members to saturate their electorates with opportunities for people to learn about their system of government and the democratic process. We have some insight into people's lack of information about such important matters as the Constitution when we examine the arguments based in ignorance that fill the letters to the editor pages, bars, taxis and dinner tables of this country. Only by promot ing ignorance or misinformation can parties or governments use fear to drive people to vote unthinkingly for the bulk of their lives, and this happens on all sides.I would like to see ordinary people well informed on relevant topics debating what might be best for Australia in the global or universal context and then putting their views forward to their MPs. It will be a grand day indeed when the budget speech or election coverage tops the ratings on TV. Perhaps this is asking too much; so how do we actively promote interest in the government in this country? I am open to ideas. There are interesting and easy-to-read brochures that we have prepared for schools, and others for adults in the community. Regular columns in the newspaper allow us an avenue to explain specific terms and actions in parliament. Occasionally, I attend careers nights at local high schools and universities to explain what is required and what it is like to be a politician. At other times, we go into schools and TAFEs to talk about the system of government and the parliamentary processes. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! There being no further statements, in accordance with standing order 275A the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills4929r7184929Debate resumed from 30 March on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:004929Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I rise this morning to speak on the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 . This bill is a necessary piece of legislation to basically tidy up the government's ill-conceived and hastily enacted youth income support payment system—the youth allowance acts. Since its rushed introduction late last year, both the intended recipients—young people—and the payment delivery agency—Centrelink—have been struggling to truly understand the entitlements that are available and the rules governing access to those entitlements, particularly in relation to payments previously available under the student assistance programs, Austudy. Although this bill will consolidate most of the previous provisions relating to youth allowance into the Social Security Act, thereby at least making the basic rules for the system easier to find, it fails to address the fundamental problems surrounding the system.Changes in the youth allowance at this time—even necessary changes—are impossible to implement effectively due to the climate of fear and the element of fatigue suffered by the major players in this legislation. Changes to the youth allowance affect two groups in particular: the young people of Australia and the staff at Centrelink. Through a succession of government policies, both of these groups have been left in no doubt that this government cannot successfully deal with these affairs.With regard to Centrelink, which is responsible for administering the provisions of the legislation, this government has slashed away at the organisation, leaving massive understaffing. This, in turn, has made Centrelink absolutely unable to cope with the demands placed upon it. The consequence of this is bungling from the agency, a crisis in staff morale and a disconnection between the offices and the community that it serves.The bungling in Centrelink is now of serious national concern. This agency, responsible for payments to over six million Australians, has been repeatedly cut to the point where it can no longer do its job effectively. The recent overpayment crisis highlights the situation being faced by Centrelink customers. Customers deserve better than to have debts hanging over their heads for no reason other than an error at Centrelink's end. Staff, on the other hand, are dedicated and professional in their commitment to their clients. I am certain it pains staff greatly to cut corners or make mistakes simply because there is not enough staff to do the job properly.The government seems arrogant and indifferent to the problems in Centrelink. Along with the unsustainable slashing of 5,000 jobs, the government diverts staff from the task of serving customers and uses them instead to promote the politics of the Liberal and the National parties. Staff and resources that should be ensuring that young people receive their proper entitlements under the youth allowance legislation have instead been applied to the politicisation of Centrelink's communication with its customers. It is a national scandal.Earlier this year, the government was found to have breached the privacy of 1.7 million pensioners and veterans by spending $800,000 on political propaganda about the GST during the 1998 election campaign. That information was sent via Centrelink. Apart from the obvious implications of privacy and electoral impropriety, it is a wasteful use of government resources. The government should have spent the money wasted on the tax funded GST campaign to provide adequate and timely provision of support payments for young people.Timeliness is an important issue for young people—indeed, all social security recipients—as most payments are not backdated but can only commence from the time an application is duly received and processed by Centrelink. At least something is being done about this issue through schedule 1 to this bill, which deals with fares allowance. This seeks to add provisions under which a claim for fares allowance may be treated as having been received when the person first contacts Centrelink about the claim by telephone or fax. In theory, this is good.However, it is now an accepted truth that Centrelink clients cannot speak with a real human being that knows anything about their situation. The dehumanisation of Centrelink is dangerous and degrading for both customers and staff. Current figures illustrate that over 80 per cent of callers failed to get through to Centrelink in 1998. These trends have continued in figures for the first month of this year. In human terms, around 250,000 calls a day are failing to get through to Centrelink. The fact is that calling Centrelink is now becoming the new national lottery.The 1300 numbers are not functioning because the staffing levels are not adequate and the centralisation of call services does not recognise the unique and personal nature of Centrelink inquiries. People who ring do so only when there is a problem. When people have a problem with something as important as a government benefit, each call is very serious and each one can take some time.Creating a national call centre has been a disaster. I know that assisting constituents is made that much harder without at least some level of access to the office in which the matter is being dealt with. It is impossible to understand the frustration faced by a Centrelink customer who, after five attempts at ringing the local office, finally gets through, only to be talking with a telephone operator in Sydney or perhaps in Melbourne.After the nightmare of making telephone contact with staff, the public face the next blow-out in Centrelink—appointment waiting lists. Customers on youth allowance and Newstart are facing delays of up to 14 days before being interviewed. This has resulted in people facing a two-week delay in lodging Centrelink forms. That means two weeks without financial support and two weeks before people can be registered as unemployed for the purposes of the Job Network. And, guess what, the provisions in this bill with regard to fares allowance require that the formal claim is lodged within 14 days of the initial contact. Young people lose again.The government's plan to introduce agencies to replace Centrelink offices is a concern not only for the privacy and security of rural and regional clients but also because it represents a significant deskilling of the service. In an appalling attempt to paper over the cracks in the Centrelink budget, the Howard government's only solution is to spend $5 million in order to turn credit unions, post offices, business centres and individuals into Centrelink service providers in rural and regional Australia.This concept raises significant privacy implications. The reality is that Centrelink staff are specifically trained to deal with information regarding taxable income, investments and assets of individuals, information relating to family matters, including family breakdown and custody arrangements, health and medical history, and employment details. This information is by far more sensitive and personal than information currently accessed by the types of non-government organisations outlined by the government. Such information would be required by schedule 3 of the bill covering provisions on the family actual means test and schedule 4 covering definitions of homeless person and FA child.Centrelink deals with many people who require the services of trained and dedicated staff, of public servants who respect the privacy of an individual and are accountable for their actions. What these agencies will be is a drop-off point: forms can be lodged, but real, meaningful assistance will be scarce, if any.Quite frankly, Centrelink is in disarray. The service is failing dismally now and racing backwards at breakneck speed. This agency will not welcome changes to the youth allowance when it cannot cope with the current workloads. Changes to allowances, regardless of the benefits of such change, will overburden the current system. What this government should be presenting to the parliament is a package of fundamental and wholesale improvements to Centrelink; the restoration of the budget, so that over six million Australians can be properly serviced; and staffing levels returned to a point where mistakes can be avoided, customers can make contact with the department and the nation can regain its confidence in the social security system. Until this is done, Centrelink will fail to meet the basic needs of young people, and the government will be judged harshly for this.Set against the plummeting fortunes of Centrelink is the battle-weary youth of Australia. The young people of Australia have received no good news from this government. Policies that strip away youth services and the politics of finger pointing have left young people very cynical and distrusting of change. The provisions covering entitlement to youth allowance force young people under 21 or full-time students up to the age of 25 to remain dependent on their parents and to further have their entitlements assessed on the basis of their parents' income.The government's agenda has been transparent to young people: Work for the Dole, the Job Network and the common youth allowance are seen as massive failures. These programs lack any vision or tangible outcomes, and the fact that all these initiatives come at the expense of labour market programs and proven government services only serves to further frustrate those young people languishing in the mire of government incompetence.Work for the Dole has failed to deliver anything in the way of meaningful training or work readiness for Australia's young unemployed. The system could quite rightly be described as `turn up for the dole'. While this may satisfy the Howard government and their punitive outlook on the young unemployed, it is doing nothing to enhance the job prospects of young job seekers. Work for the Dole must be a complement to a range of labour market programs that give all unemployed people the broad range of skills, experience and motivation that will create the shift from long-term unemployment to paid work.Unfortunately, that cannot happen because this government have scrapped effective and efficient labour market programs, leaving themselves with a one-pronged attack on the issue of the long-term unemployed. These labour market programs were not only effective but supported and endorsed by those going through those very programs. That support came not only from the fact that participants saw these programs as adding greatly to their future employment prospects but also because they treated all unemployed people fairly.The Work for the Dole scheme is a compulsory requirement for young unemployed that are reliant on youth allowance because it suits the ideology of this government. This government is not about fixing unemployment; it simply wants to be seen to be tough with young unemployed people. This is why in my electorate of Oxley we particularly suffer some of the worst youth unemployment statistics in Australia. In suburbs across my electorate, unemployment is routinely sitting at over 10 per cent of the population, while for those young unemployed people who seek to join the labour force the teenage unemployment rate is up to 30 per cent in some areas. This is clearly not acceptable. This is a tragedy and a scandal in itself. Nearly one in every three young job seekers cannot find work. While this is alarming at a statistical level, it is crippling at a human level.The great and shameful legacy of this government is their failing on youth unemployment. Young people have been abandoned by the system. Many young people have not had employment in their lives. They have moved from school to unemployment. Their days are filled with hopelessness and sometimes the reckless and antisocial behaviour that often accompanies such hopelessness. These are the young Australians that we must move heaven and earth to get into work. We must create a social safety net that encourages and supports them as they move from benefits to jobs.The youth allowance must become part of an active package of measures designed to address youth unemployment, not to beat up on young people, but rather an integral part of rewarding young people for work. The youth allowance, must—as the vision of the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, illustrated—be an enabler not a way of life.The Prime Minister's policies lack that vision. His youth allowance lacks vision and it will continue to fail the young people of our nation. The difficulties faced by our youth are compounded by the government's continued use of experimental and failing services. Of all the experiments of this government, none has failed more spectacularly than the Job Network. This shambolic amalgamation of disparate services was built on the ruins of the ground where the CES once stood.The Job Network has failed, no matter what smoke and mirrors are used by the government to pretend otherwise. Minister Kemp's great social reform has failed and it has cost all of us dearly. From day one the system started to break down and service providers experienced financial difficulty. The government has since been forced to come to the financial aid of the network several times, and is well short of finding a sustainable platform from which the network will be viable.Apart from the financial difficulties experienced within the network, the changes have meant that services that were previously freely available to all are now being denied to many. Services are overwhelmingly being run on a commercial rather than on a community or public interest basis. The changes mean that most local community agencies, like Skillshare, have disappeared and regions with high unemployment, such as mine, are not being adequately serviced.The government's suggestion that the Job Network has increased outlets for support for the unemployed simply does not add up. The fact is there are 150 fewer public, community and private case management sites since the Job Network was introduced. This is a fall of nearly 20 per cent. Because this government cannot get its act together on labour market programs and the Job Network, young unemployed people are left languishing on the common youth allowance.The concept that young people who are unemployed or studying can be penalised for their parents' earnings at less than $25,000 has left young people struggling and has also had an impact on the entire family. The youth allowance will keep a lot of young people at home. It will also keep a lot of homes in hock. This government should be aware that you cannot be pro families and be anti young people.In my electorate it is average families who are battling under the increasing financial burden placed on them through changes to the away from home rates and means testing. Not all families share in the Prime Minister's white picket fence dream. The government stay at home youth allowance has failed young people and it is making things tougher and tougher for those young people who, for a variety of reasons, cannot stay at home.By applying Work for the Dole and the ill conceived and ridiculous `read for the dole' scheme exclusively to young Australians, this government is again playing the politics of finger pointing. These policies are designed to convince Australia that youth unemployment is a result of the failings and laziness of young people. The government cannot sidestep their own failures on this crucial national issue.If the Prime Minister were serious about literacy he would put the government's money where his mouth is, but no new money is available for literacy training for the unemployed. Instead, the government's commitment to literacy training for the unemployed remains a pitiful $21 million a year. Without new resources the literacy program will be nothing but a hollow stunt.The bill also provides for the administration of student assistance payments to young people continuing their education. Access to quality education is the most important issue facing young Australians today. Education will make the difference in every young person's life yet this government has let education slide. Budget cuts and up-front university fees are reducing the availability and quality of education for young people.The government's budget cuts in education have resulted in reduced funding for public schools. At a time when public school enrolments are increasing due, in no small measure, to the government's eligibility requirements for youth allowance, this government is creating a crisis in government schools. Students at university, meantime, are faced with rising up-front government charges as well as an increase in HECS to pay for massive cuts to education funding. That any government can approach the new millennium with a reduced commitment to higher education is simply unbelievable.The daunting prospect facing many university students and their families is that they will have to meet the increased costs with less support through the youth allowance. This is exactly why there is an overall reduction in the number of Australian students at universities and TAFE colleges. Reducing access to education and training is not just stupid, it threatens the nation's future. Yet still the government persecutes the young people of Australia. They resent Minister Reith and his youth wages because they know the truth. Lower youth wages will not create more jobs, while skills based wages will result in competitive wages for young people in most industries. It is not just the Democrats and Senator Harradine who know the government cannot be trusted; young people know it also.Now is the time for the government to restore faith with the young people of Australia. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to provide real assistance to young people through a commitment to education and training; to redouble the fight against youth unemployment; and provide fair and reasonable financial support payments and an agency with adequate resource to deliver those payments. We need to stand up for young people and their families, not punish them and not push them down. This youth allowance legislation does nothing for the young people of Australia.10:16:004934Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In March 1998, this House passed the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997. This legislation abolished unemployment benefits that would have been payable to 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds and inflicted a means test on parents of children 18 years and over. This bill caused considerable hardships to families in my electorate of Greenway and I intend to relate some of these hardships later in my speech.Nationally the means test applied to some 40,000 young people and some families lost up to $170 a fortnight. The Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 before the House today is intended to incorporate two disallowable instruments and one set of regulations dealing with aspects of Austudy into the Social Security Act 1991. It also addresses technical measures arising out of the implementation of the youth allowance package and is to make consequential amendments relating to the commencement of the youth allowance.This bill does contain some reasonable and beneficial measures, but other measures will result in reduced entitlements for some young unemployed people. For example, schedule 4 of the bill amends the Social Security Act to address issues identified during the implementation of the youth allowance and Austudy payment. Some of these will have a significant effect upon beneficiaries. The schedule proposed to reduce the rate paid to some disability support pensioners under the age of 21 and to increase the rate for others is an example.The effect of these changes varies, depending on the pensioner's circumstances. A single person aged between 18 and 21 who does not live at home and has a dependent child will lose $7 per fortnight, while a partnered pensioner over the age of 18 will gain about $17 per fortnight. The guardian allowance of $37 per fortnight can be paid under existing legislation to single parents in certain circumstances. This schedule seeks to provide that the guardian allowance will not be paid to a person unless they are receiving family allowance at more than the minimum rate.Under current provisions, the rate of family allowance is reduced where income exceeds $23,550 plus $624 for each additional family allowance child. A family allowance child can be a child receiving a youth allowance. The schedule seeks to amend this so that the child receiving a youth allowance is a family allowance child only if they are under 18 years of age. This does not take into account the fact that young unemployed people are now regarded as dependent children until they are aged 21 and may therefore receive a lower rate as a result of the youth allowance legislation. These amendments only add to the financial problems of young unemployed people and their families already created by the common youth allowance.I will now refer once again to some of the problems encountered within my electorate and which I have drawn to this House's attention on previous occasions. They remain important however and deserve to be brought forward once again.The first relates to a single father, Arthur, and his daughter, Melissa. She sat for her Higher School Certificate in 1996 and completed her first year of a Bachelor of Commerce degree at the University of New England in 1997, but was unable to continue her studies last year due to a lack of finance. At the time Melissa spoke to me she was 19, unemployed, and had received unemployment benefits of $170 per fortnight. This young lady's income dropped to $20 per fortnight on 1 July 1998 due to the parental income assessment under the Commonwealth's Youth Allowance Scheme. She then had to rely on her father for board and lodging.The young lady had further difficulties in that she had a medical problem that at the time made her unemployable. She had applied for a disability support pension but had been assessed as being only 10 per cent incapacitated. Therefore, she was not entitled to a pension. To be entitled to a pension Melissa would have had to have been assessed at 20 per cent incapacitated and not be able to work for two years. The unreal aspect of this position is that, if you are even one per cent incapacitated, employers would not employ you.There is a further difficulty for this family. Arthur, the father, has estimated that his income has dropped by some 15 per cent due to enterprise bargaining negotiations. Many families are suffering this double effect of falling income and a reduction in social security payments.My second story relates to a mother who rang me to advise of a situation involving her son who had left school in December 1996. Since that time he has completed a life skills training course at TAFE, worked for two months in the timber industry, worked for seven months as a tyre fitter on $4.50 an hour, and had other casual work.This young man was then unemployed. At the time his mother rang me he was 18 and his mother had expected that he would qualify for unemployment benefits and so at least have sufficient money to be able to enjoy a social life. However this young man, who was already 18 months out of school, had completed a TAFE course and had worked but was then unemployed, did not qualify for unemployment benefits. The government expected this low income family to support this young man. The combined income for the family was $480 a week to support four people.Another son was an apprentice and so could only marginally contribute to the family's budget. The situation has already caused tension in the family. The mother was worried that her son would leave home, as he had done once previously, and possibly turn to a life of petty crime to obtain sufficient money to live.My third case study relates to a young man named Michael and his father who came to see me a few weeks ago. The father made it very clear to me that he was very cranky about this legislation. If I had been a Liberal member of parliament he would have been really giving it to me. But he understood, of course, that I was not responsible for this piece of legislation.This was the situation. Michael was 20 and unemployed and he had received youth allowance of $176 for the period 27 January 1999 until 9 February 1999, approximately $88 per week. Michael was then advised by Centrelink on 10 February that his payment would be reduced to $119.62 per fortnight due to a change in circumstances. It seems the combined family income had increased. This was $53.92 per week. This is a totally inadequate amount for a young man who possibly would be expected to contribute to the household budget, be entitled to enjoy some sporting activity, have a social life, and at the same time travel around to seek employment. Michael then received correspondence from Centrelink dated 24 February stating:You have received youth allowance at a rate of $176 per fortnight from 1 January 1999 whereas your current entitlement was $119.62 per fortnight depending on your parent's financial year's income.The result of this was that Michael had incurred a debt of $157.63. Therefore, Michael had to repay this amount which is, in fact, in excess of his current fortnightly entitlement. Centrelink advised him that he was to repay that amount or his payments would be reduced to help recover that amount.I believe this is a totally unfair way of dealing with low income people who no doubt spend their paltry income each fortnight. If there is an overpayment, they have to beg, borrow or steal—and unfortunately steal could well come into this—to make this repayment or otherwise suffer further reductions in income. These cases give a few examples of how this government's policies are hurting low income families. Young adults who are old enough to vote, to go to war, to get married and who are looking for work, are clearly independent, and they should not be forced to rely on their low income families for support.Another problem that one of my constituents has drawn to my attention is the amount of paperwork that either the young person or the family has to fill out to claim the common youth allowance. I have brought in some photostatted documents. There are some 40 different pages of instructions and forms to fill out. It would appear that the government is trying to establish a one-stop shop style of form. But, in doing this, the government has created a paper monster, which young people and their families have to work through. In the long run, this quite possibly could lead to incorrect information which may delay payment or may result in an incorrect payment being made. In some cases, this could mean that the person might unintentionally claim more than they are entitled to: they might incur a debt and then that debt has to be repaid.These are the problems that young people and their families are encountering. The facts are that I believe—and a constituent came to see me about this only a week or so ago—that we need to have smaller forms with fewer items to fill out. The forms should be targeted to particular groups of young unemployed people, whether on an age basis or based on their current employment situation.I would now like to follow up my own constituents' experiences on the effect of the common youth allowance by quoting from a few articles in journals and daily papers that reinforce my constitutents' experiences. In an article in Feature Outlook, there is reference to the quite substantial savings that the government has made by this legislation. The National Union of Students is quoted as stating that, by raising the age of independence to 25, the government has saved $163.5 million a year; the tightening of the Austudy actual means test has saved another $150 million a year. Some 12,800 18- to 20-year-olds have lost benefits because they are now means tested on the basis of their family income and these have been assessed as being too high. The article I am referring to has been written by Penny Lake and it concludes by stating this:The government is not addressing the real issue—lack of jobs. They are sidelining this with the youth allowance by focussing on young people and claiming in effect that with extra education, the number of jobs will miraculously increase. It dubiously assumes that a skilled and educated workforce of young people (with limited job experience) will naturally translate into a multitude of jobs appropriate to their individual level of training.The government is cleverly shifting the blame for unemployment from the policy makers and unaccountable corporate industries to the young unemployed, with possibly disastrous consequences. Youth unemployment is a question to which there are no easy answers. The youth allowance system, has, if anything, made answering it even more difficult.Further, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 August, reports on the findings of a Dr Dasia Black, a family psychologist and a research associate at the Australian Catholic University, as follows:We define adulthood legally as being over the age of 18 but psychologically as having economic and emotional independence from parents.She says the youth allowance has prolonged adolescence well beyond the traditional 16-18 year age span. At the same time, the cosy, intact family that is supposedly waiting to cradle these over-sized fledglings no longer exists in many cases.Black refers to the work of a British sociologist Christopher Jenks, who contrasts the `modern world' of the 1950s-1970s with the `postmodern' world of the 1990s.Jenks argues that the postmodern world is characterised by a loss of hope and belief in the future, which is reflected in the way young people are treated.While in the 1950s-1970s we saw young people as our future and therefore worthy of our money and time (hence free university education), in the postmodern world we have no such belief in progress and therefore won't invest in children.Unlike previous decades when there was a clear path into adulthood—university, jobs, economic independence—young people now have to grow up knowing there might not be a job for them.Yet they are still bathed in seductive media images of material success.Black argues that forcing young adults to stay home may lead to conflict as they chafe against dependency and parental rule and values. If they resist the push to go back to the nest, they may be forced instead into poverty and become more vulnerable to crime, alcoholism, depression, stress and even suicide.To that list I might add drug addiction. The youth allowance reinforces the government's philosophy that forces families to support young people until they have achieved financial independence, whatever the financial plight of their parents may be. This ignores the fact that, in this period of employment insecurity, many families are facing reduced income, longer working hours or reduced employment prospects. This policy is therefore placing an added strain on low income families who are at the time of life when they have raised and educated their children. Some of them are now planning their retirement and others may be facing an uncertain employment future due to the economic rationalist policies of this government—privatisation, corporatisation and outsourcing.The fall in income for middle-aged workers has been detailed in a report by Bob Gregory, from the ANU. For the purposes of what I am saying today: the figures show that for men aged between 35 and 54 years the income fall is marginal. For those between 60 and 64 years, the weekly fall is $128. We can assume from these figures that the male's ability to support a family starts to slide from the mid-50s age group—that is, of course, provided he is still in employment. So the youth allowance legislation is continuing this government's policy of discriminating against low income people.It is long overdue that this government and its media mates stopped worrying about the past life of Paul Keating and started thinking about the appalling behaviour they are directing at the future of our nation—the youth. The government seems totally oblivious to the huge dividing line it is creating within our great nation.For those of us who thought that Malcolm Fraser divided the nation and that we were brought back to unity by Bob Hawke, this government, led by the ex-Fraser Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, makes Malcolm Fraser look like a rank amateur. This government belts pensioners, youth, farmers and city dwellers, criticises every action of the ALP, and then places two former staffers of the member for Flinders into jobs for the boys. Clearly this is just the tip of the iceberg of the government's divisive behaviour. It is not good enough for our nation and it should stop now.10:34:004938Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This government has waged a concerted attack on young Australians and their families. This attack has been directed at every level of their lives, with cuts to education and training, moves to reduce youth wages and the introduction of this youth allowance, an action that has caused great hurt and distress for a number of families and one that continues to cause hurt. I continually wonder how members on the other side of this parliament can live with themselves, knowing that their decisions and their actions have caused so much hurt for young Australians and their families.While this legislation, the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 , does marginally improve or tidy up some aspects of the operational components of the youth allowance, it is more of the same bad medicine. It is legislation designed to entrench measures that are causing hurt to young Australians and their families, whilst at the same time the government is abrogating its responsibility to these same young Australians, putting cost cutting ahead of their welfare and their future.Young people have been targeted by this government continually. I think this is because they are seen as a less powerful group within the community: they are still coming to terms with their own self-identity and they find it harder to get out there and form those formal structures that are needed to lobby governments in the way that other groups in our community can. Because they are a less powerful group within the community, I think this government has singled them out and decided that they will target them. I do not think this is good enough. Young people are old enough to vote. Young people are old enough to defend our country. Young people, once they are 18, if they commit a crime, have the same responsibility for their actions as a person who is 21, 31, 41, 65; they receive the same penalties and they have the same obligations.Where you have the same obligations and the same responsibilities, surely you deserve to be treated in the same way as other people. But, unfortunately, that is not the way of this government. This government does not feel that young people, people of 18, 19, 20, are real people. They are not considered adults; they are not considered people who are contributing to our country in the same way as people who have reached the age of 21, 22, 31, 32. This youth allowance is hurting. It hurts young people. It is hurting their families and it is causing great problems within our community and our society. It is forcing young people to be dependent on their families.When this legislation was initially introduced there were many young people who had made life decisions, decisions that they would move away from their homes as they were now 18. Maybe sometimes situations existed within those homes that made it very hard for young people to continue to live there. There can often be conflict within families. It can also be that moving from the family home to another area improves their opportunities for studying, for obtaining work and developing their own self-identity. Unfortunately, this government does not think that is important. It does not think that young people who are 18, 19, 20 deserve to be able to do this. The government feels that mummy and daddy should still look after them, that they need to be looked after by their families, that it is their family's responsibility. So, whilst on the one hand they are responsible for their acts if they commit a crime, on the other hand they are their parents' responsibility because they are not old enough—not mature enough—to make decisions about their future, about their studies, about where they live. I find this really abhorrent.As I mentioned, a number of people have financial commitments. The government makes the assumption, too, that parents have spare money, that they have got money sitting around that they can direct towards their children. Children! That is an inappropriate word because they are not children, they are young adults, so it is giving young adults money to survive.At the time this legislation was introduced a couple of people got in touch with the previous federal member, the Hon. Peter Morris. A case was detailed in our local newspapers of a young person who was put into a situation where the relationships within the home was so dreadful that he could not go back there. If he did not get the youth allowance, he did not eat. He was told by Centrelink, `Sorry, you no longer qualify. It is bad luck but you have got to go and find some other way that you can survive.' This government was abrogating its responsibility, putting that person in an untenable situation. And this is more of that sort of legislation entrenching this stigmatising of young people.They find it very demoralising indeed. They feel that the government are saying, `We do not think that you are an important person. We feel that you are unemployed because you choose to be.' And on the other hand, they say, `We do not think that we should assist your move from a situation of unemployment to work.' As well as the attack on the income support, there has been an overall attack on young people and on the training available for those young people to access the work force. At the same time as they are increasing the requirements that are necessary for a person to obtain youth allowance, they are cutting Centrelink, and Centrelink is less able to process the applications. There are more mistakes being made. There are more young people being disadvantaged. People are being denied youth allowance when they are actually eligible for youth allowance. It all comes back to this cutting, slashing, cost saving, economic rationalist approach whereby the person is not important but what is important is that you just cut and then you blame those people that are in the least powerful position within our community. I am sorry. I do not think that is good enough. I know that the members on this side of the House feel the same way.The Work for the Dole program has been touted as the solution to all the problems. I have some real problems with the Work for the Dole program. First of all, look at the word `dole'. For years income assistance was called `unemployment benefit' and there was a definite decision that you should never refer to it as `dole' because the word `dole' carries stigma. By having a program that says `work for the dole' you are stigmatising the people who are receiving that right from the very beginning.From unemployment benefits we went to Newstart, giving the idea that people were on this allowance or benefit that was setting them up for a new start, getting them ready to go out there and conquer the world. But, no, we are back to Work for the Dole. Here they are being given a handout now and their mutual obligation is to work for that handout.I put it to the government that they have also got a mutual obligation to young people. They have got a mutual obligation to offer them a future. They have got a mutual obligation to offer them training. They have got a mutual obligation to ensure that there are going to be real jobs for the future.The previous Labor government introduced LEAP which offered young unemployed people the chance to get on-the-job experience working three days a week while at the same time being able to obtain formal qualifications. So they were equipped with not only experience but also some tangible skills that could be translated into other areas of work, skills that were recognised and which quite often worked as a springboard into more formal education.That brings me to education. This government has cut funds for education. It has attacked universities. We have only got to see that today is a national day of action at all the universities throughout this country to see the esteem the government is held in by students.All the time there have been changes to HECS that make it harder for people that come from lower and middle income families to access education. Education is moving back towards being something that is available only to those people who have the money and the ability to access those funds you need to attend university. There have been cuts to TAFE funding, the very basic area, where people can get the most basic of training that often acts as a springboard into other areas of education. This government have constantly and continually cut funding to all areas except for private education. They are putting their money into private education at the expense of those people who really need that funding.The changes to Austudy have certainly had a detrimental effect and made it harder for young people to be able to attend university and TAFE. There is a constant undermining and eroding of the situation in relation to young people getting education, having income support, having hope for the future, and being able to plan where they would like to be when they are my age or the age of their parents. I do not know how this government can justify the actions that they have taken.With regard to the initiative about literacy and numeracy and the assessment deeming that young people have poor literacy and numeracy skills and will be forced to do literacy and numeracy programs, I would like to ask the government how they are going to do this. First, how are they going to undertake the assessments? As somebody who has actually conducted literacy assessments, I know that it needs to be done in a controlled environment. It needs to be done in the situation where you can compare the results that one person achieves against another.Once you have assessed the person's literacy levels, then you have to find a place where they can go to improve those literacy skills. In addition, you need to be able to determine why they have poor literacy or numeracy skills. Why did the education system fail them? Do they have a specific learning disability? If so, is the government going to fund some sort of remediation for those people?I put it to the government that what they are planning to do there is just another cost-cutting exercise. It is not about improving opportunities for young people with literacy and numeracy problems. It is about cutting; it is about slashing; it is about stigmatising them. It is about making it harder for those young people.Just touching also on the changes that they have made in the area of young people with disabilities, the opportunities these young people had in the past have been reduced. All the time the government are looking at cutting the funding to that area. They have entrenched a situation whereby young people with disabilities will get the lowest possible income support available. It is all a move away from creating opportunity: opportunity for people with disabilities; opportunity for people with learning disabilities and poor literacy skills, and opportunity for people who are looking at finding employment in different areas. This government have absolutely no commitment to young people.The government's initiative this week is the decision to cut benefits or make them really difficult to obtain for people who move from an area of low unemployment to one of high unemployment. For example, if they leave Sydney, having been told they have a job in Newcastle, an area of higher unemployment, and they get there and that job falls through, then they will not be granted any sort of financial assistance. It is called the Byron Bay initiative—the surf and sun initiative—and, once again, it is targeting young people. It is saying young people are not working because young people do not want to work. Young people move from one area to another just to be able to get away from their obligation to work. All they are about is taking hand-outs from the government and, because of that, we are going to punish them.When will the government learn that young people want a future? When will the government actually make a commitment to young people? Instead of constantly attacking young people, this government needs to become relevant to them because at the moment it lacks relevance with its backward looking, regressive policies that are always attacking and removing opportunity from young people. It is about time that it came into the 1990s and learnt about the things that are important to young people.I wonder how many people on the other side of this House even know the names of the bands out there that young people listen to—good Australian bands. I am sure some of them may have heard of silverchair or the Whitlams, but there are also the Screaming Jets, Regurgitator and Jebediah—all great Australian bands. They are all bands that young Australians hold very dear to their hearts, and bands that are very relevant to young people in our community.HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—There are newer ones now; you're showing your age.5K6ELLISMs Ellis—I don't know any of them!83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—I suspect very few members actually know who these bands are. And just as members of the government do not take the time to know these fine Australian bands, they do not know the issues that are important to young people. One issue is jobs. They should be helping young people move from a situation of being reliant on youth allowance to employment. They should be helping young people obtain the education and training that will facilitate that move.The government is not aware of the issues that relate to the problems that young people face in our community. This government is not about coming to terms with issues of youth suicide and drugs. Its answer to drugs is, `Hit them and hit them hard,' rather than looking at why young people are turning to drugs; why young people are taking their own lives. It is not looking at the social impact of its decisions. It is not looking at the fact that young people in our community are grappling and searching for a future.Young people want to have the support of government. They want a government that is there to offer them opportunity and hope for the future. This government is taking away that hope. This government is not only attacking their financial support through youth allowance; it is seeking to reduce youth wages and make young people dependent on their parents in every possible way.This government is not about equality of opportunity for young people; this government is about looking after those people that it perceives can benefit it. This attack on young Australians is an attack on every Australian family, on average Australian families, on families that are battling and struggling, on families that are just everyday Australians, and on workers out there who are looking for a future for their children.The government really stands condemned for what it has done to young people in our community, how it has removed their hope for the future, and how it has failed to offer young people opportunity and a future. This legislation really should be condemned because, while it aims to tidy up some of the mistakes made in the first legislation, it does not cure the problem. It is all about making it harder for young people to have a future, to get training, to get education and to find a job.10:54:004942Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—The Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 is a legislative housekeeping exercise. Its purpose is to incorporate two disallowable instruments and one set of regulations dealing with aspects of Austudy into the Social Security Act 1991; to address technical issues arising out of the implementation of the youth allowance package; and to make consequential amendments relating to the commencement of youth allowance.The youth allowance was introduced in July 1998. It merged all income support for young unemployed people under the age of 21 and full-time students between the ages of 16 and 24 years into one payment administered by the Department of Social Security, DSS, now called the Department of Family and Community Services. The only exceptions were Abstudy and the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme.While this bill is just a legislative housekeeping exercise, the youth allowance itself has had significant ramifications for many families and many young people. Since its introduction, my electorate office has received many phone calls and letters from young people and their families who had been badly affected by the introduction of the new system.The youth allowance system has cut off financial independence, placed extra burdens on families and put up new barriers to undertaking study or finding a job for many in my electorate. Unfortunately, I am sure we all remember the unacceptable handling of those dramatic changes at the time that they came in. They were huge changes in a very small period of time, which put the Centrelink agency itself under enormous, in fact unbelievable, pressure.Rarely in this country have we seen the implementation of a policy so badly handled as a result of the timetable and the enormous extent of the changes involved in such a timetable. Phone calls to Centrelink received the engaged signal. People had to wait days for appointments to discuss the implementation and the implications of the changes that were being delivered to them.The stress that was already going to affect our young community members was exacerbated many times over by the manner in which this interesting brave new world of support for young people was implemented. I ask: how is it possible to deliver any program, let alone one like this, if you intend to cut 5,000 staff and $150 million from the budget in an environment where major policy changes are taking place and you effect that in the very agency that is expected to deliver the goods? We all know problems at Centrelink are occurring on a daily basis and they will continue to occur not only in the area of youth allowance but across the board in all benefits provided until the government realises and accepts the truth about the crisis within Centrelink.On a more personal level, the Minister for Family and Community Services and I seem to have engaged ourselves in an ongoing debate about this very question of the ability of Centrelink to continue to deliver services to its client base. I tell the House, with no qualification at all, that I will not resile from my responsibility as a local member to ensure that I tell the government the facts, the truth, about how these decisions are affecting my community and particularly the young people in it. I look forward to the day—and I hope it is not too far away, but I tend to be a bit cynical—when I will not be accused of misleading the community and the government. I look forward to the day when the words I say to the government and the minister will be accepted for what they, in fact, are—the absolute truth.Recently, there has been a lot of talk about mutual obligation between welfare recipients and government. The government uses this language regularly to highlight what it believes is the propensity for people on welfare to cheat the system. I reject this assessment and reject the implication that, by opposing the government on this issue, I am and we are in some way supporting welfare rorts.There is no doubt that the Australian Labor Party want to assist young Australians off welfare dependency—there is absolutely no question about that—but not in the way that has been proposed by the Howard government with their youth allowance. To abolish unemployment benefits for 16- and 17-year-olds whilst also slashing the educational opportunities they have is the wrong way to reform the welfare state. To have the income test placed upon families with 18- to 20-year-olds come into effect at income levels of $23,350 is the wrong way to reform our welfare state.The government appears to believe that if you force young people to stay at school longer they will happily and successfully emerge from that process well qualified, happy and successful, and will automatically walk into a job or a career. However in the real world in which I operate, and we on this side operate, you cannot assume that by setting these extremely stringent rules you can successfully interfere in the lives and the relationships of families.The decisions being taken by the government in relation to literacy and numeracy, for example, set more hurdles and direct more blame at young people because they are not in paid work. I have heard the comments of many educational experts voicing their concern over these initiatives. What are they saying? They are saying, quite simply, `Don't re-create the schoolroom problems that some of these young people actually have already sitting on their shoulders. Don't believe that you can scoop up groups of young people—who do, in some instances, have undeniable literacy and numeracy problems—and put them back into a system and a process from which they unsuccessfully emerged in the past.'Let us look closely at those individuals that we are talking about. Let us talk about them as individuals, not as groups and statistics. Probably the only effective way that we could even begin to attempt to address those literacy and numeracy problems would be one on one, in a specially contrived fashion by which all of their problems, all of their difficulties, all of their concerns that they have carried through school, are addressed as one.But I do not really expect that any government is going to be prepared to fund at that level in the climate in which we find ourselves. Whilst it may be very admirable for this government to politically grandstand—and that is what I call it—about the problems of literacy and numeracy, the message going out to the community from the government is that the whole reason these unemployed young people do not have work is that they are illiterate and innumerate and they are not trying. This is yet another set of blame and yet another set of hurdles, with not one effective component in the process to fix any of the problems. It is pure political grandstanding, in a really cheap fashion, in my view, because it is attacking the very victim in our community and offering nothing in the real sense of the word to overcome those very problems.If people emerge out of an education system with a literacy and numeracy problem, you cannot just blame the education system, although that has to carry some degree of blame. You have to look very carefully at the individual people. You have to ask yourself why it is that the education system suited some and not others. What was it that was wrong for these young people, and what do we need to do to correct it? We should not herd them up and stick them in a room somewhere, take their money off them and say to them at the same time, `We're blaming you. We're going to victimise you and you won't get another thing until you learn'—in almost the same environment which previously they passed through unsuccessfully.I implore the government and the minister concerned to really think about this. At the same time as the government is affecting the outcomes of youth allowance payments, it is doing this to youth. Frankly, I deplore that attitude. It is not good enough. It is not constructive. It is not helpful. It is cheap political grandstanding.I understand that the process for assessing literacy and numeracy is going to be left to the agencies commissioned to carry out these classes or these remedial programs. So how you are assessed in Newcastle may be quite different from how you are assessed in Canberra or Perth, or Darwin or anywhere else. I despair at that as well. Where is the true academic thinking behind teaching when you have a different set of rules dependent upon where you may be, not dependent upon needs as an individual?I quite often despair when I think of some of the decisions and the attitudes, particularly, that are coming forth from this government in a so-called attempt to address some of these extremely serious issues. These young people are our adult citizens of the future, and I believe that we have got to treat them a whole lot differently from the way we are under the current regime.It is not the fault of our young people that they cannot secure employment. Instead, we as a society collectively have to look very carefully at what we are doing. We are not providing the employment base and the work environment which encourages them to find work. Even the best of training programs—I want to talk about that very briefly—are no good if there is no employer out there to welcome these young people into a job anyway. Hypothetically, you could create very well-qualified youngsters who still had no jobs. To talk of literacy and numeracy is fine, but I know university graduates who are not illiterate or innumerate but who cannot get work. Let us face it: there are two sides to this whole dilemma.It was very interesting yesterday to be at the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research lunch in this place. The emphasis by a very wide range of extremely well-qualified economists was on what we should do about unemployment. I do not remember seeing Work for the Dole on their list. I do remember seeing a very strong mention in their five-point plan of good, successful, recognised, well-funded training programs, all of which have been completely decimated, in every form, by the current government.The government walked into power after the 1996 election and decided that anything—good, bad or otherwise—that had been done by the previous government was not to their liking, so out it went. Millions of dollars worth of, in some cases, extremely good training programs were kicked out, purely in a political grandstanding fashion, with no consideration whatever of the success of any of it. What is interesting, though, is that some of the lesser funded but still existing programs that are beginning to emerge or to be talked about strangely reflect some of the things that were in fact in those previous programs.What this government has got to do is be honest, absolutely honest. It is no good blaming the young people. It is no good saying, `Because you are illiterate and innumerate it is your fault.' It is no good removing financial support from them at the same time as you also force them to stay in a school environment, which, I might add, is now being seen in most parts of this country to be completely unprepared for it. The stories that I am now hearing—as, I am sure, many of my colleagues are—are that it is all very well to say to these kids, `Back to school and stay there,' but you have got to make sure the education system in each of those states and territories, in country towns, in regional and rural areas, can cope with that. That is not happening either.It is a really cheap shot for any government to stand up and say, `We are going to very effectively attempt to fix the unemployment problem for the young people—our heart tells us it is the right thing to do,' while their head, in fact, is leading them down so many wrong paths that it is distressing. I know that from my own electorate when I get a phone call from a young girl who is crying hysterically because Centrelink cannot handle her Austudy application and information inquiry, or from a young man whose family is in unbelievable financial stress. How stupid is it that a 23-year-old man, who has been overseas for 18 months working around the world gaining wonderful experience, has to ring me up on return and say, `Until I can find work, I am dependent on my parents'? That is an actual truth. When he rang me I thought: I do not believe this, he must be making it up—this is ridiculous. But it is the truth. He was a graduate of school, went overseas, worked, came back very much enhanced by his experiences, needed some support while he resettled and tried to find work, and was told he had to be financially dependent upon his parents. This is madness.All I can say in conclusion is that I really hope that those more sensible members on the other side of the House, particularly all of those on the back bench who we know share many of our concerns, are given every power that they need to debate this strongly and vibrantly within their own party room. Someone has got to tell the ministers running these insane programs that they are wrong.11:08:004945Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I will be brief today because I am sure that a great deal of what needs to be said about the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 and associated legislation has been said, but I think it is important to draw attention to some of the regional variations that occur. Sadly, the story is pretty much the same around the country, but my own experience as the member for Fremantle is one that I would like to put on the record in the context of those changes.One of the things you can say about this legislation is that the need for amendments so soon after the implementation of the initial bill is indicative of poorly thought out policy and poorly thought out programs. Mind you, I think all members could have referred them a great many more problems than those that they are attempting to solve by this legislation.At base, of course, the edifice of this legislation is very clearly designed to transfer the burden of unemployment and income support to families, including those on very modest incomes indeed. That is one of the reasons that I parted company with the original legislation very early. In addition to shifting the burden from government to families who could ill afford to support that burden, it represents an attack on the very hard-won independence of young adults.As the parent of a young man, I feel very deeply about the fact that young people are being told at the age of 21, in the case of youth allowance, and even older if they are seeking to study, that they are somehow dependent on their parents. Every other signal that we send them says that when they leave school, particularly, that is the point at which we expect them to start standing on their own two feet—even earlier in many respects. From the point of view of the criminal justice system, they are adults long before that. From the point of view of many of the charges that are made on them in the community, they are adults long before that.We accept them as voters at the age of 18. We understand when they leave school that they will have to make their own way in the world, whether through employment or further study. We accept that they can be married even younger than that and bear children, yet this legislation is saying to young people, basically, `We regard you as dependants. We do not see you as having the capacity to stand apart from your parents.' It is a very convenient fiction indeed. Young people do not believe that and nor do their parents. They see it as a sleight of hand.In many respects it is a double standard. You only have to look at the Prime Minister's own situation. He has a young daughter. She is working in the work force and yet she is able, because of her father's position, to get a special parking place in Sydney where parking places must be at a premium. So there is some special treatment there of the relationship between father and daughter—in this case, to her advantage. What is happening in reverse with other families is that they are being asked to take on an extra burden when they do not have the means to provide for it.It represents a very considerable addition to what I see as the miserable attacks on the most disadvantaged in our community. Like many, I suppose, I have sat down and asked myself the question: why would this be occurring? Why would any government seek to place a burden on those already burdened; seek to remove support from those already lacking in support? I have racked my brains about that, and I cannot come up with an answer. I cannot imagine a philosophy, especially in Australia, that would allow you to conclude that you solve any of society's problems by shifting that burden. Yet it has happened in area after area. This is one—the tax changes are another—where we have seen support removed.If I had to really answer the question—and I would find it very difficult—it is probably based on some misguided notion of standing on your own two feet, of getting government off the backs of the people. You hear that phrase very often from people who are quite happy to dip their hands into the government coffers when it is their own privilege that is at stake—what Galbraith calls the `culture of contentment'.So if the government need to provide a bailout, for instance, as they have done in various states—and, indeed, as has happened in the United States and other places, when financial institutions collapse—that is fine. Terrific. No problems. But, if it is to provide for the welfare of the least well off in the community, that is somehow the government intruding unnecessarily in the lives of citizens. I think that is, unfortunately, the message that is now being put across to a great many in our community. I think it is an appalling shift in the view that Australians have formerly had of government.Look at some of the changes even in this legislation—which is essentially tidying up the original bill—to reduce, for instance, the rate of the disability support pensions or the amount that those under 21 will be paid. For example, a single pensioner aged 18 to 21 who is not living at home and who has a dependent child will actually lose money under these proposals. This is a further attack on what would have to be described as one of the most disadvantaged subgroups. This is a single pensioner, a young person 18 to 21, not living at home—struggling, in other words, to be independent, and probably for very good reason, apart from the fact that he or she is an adult with a dependent child. A person like this actually goes backwards under this legislation. Seven dollars may not seem like a lot to the architects of this legislation but, let me tell you, to people who have to live on it, on the amounts of money that they have under these regimes, it is an extraordinary situation. Knowing furthermore that there will be further imposts on them with the imposition of a GST really makes my heart bleed.I see these people; they come through my door. They cannot survive and they are not surviving. The government does not necessarily want to hear the stories but welfare agencies are stretched to the limit. The offices of members of parliament have queues of people a mile long in these circumstances where government support is simply not adequate. And it is not that these people are not pulling their weight. They are doing everything they possibly can.This legislation and the surrounding bills are generally indicative of the government's approach to income support for the young unemployed and for students. The only way I can describe it is miserly. Essentially, this legislation is punitive in the approach that it takes and, unfortunately, it is being delivered via a very poor service—and I do not blame the staff for that. I will have a bit more to say about that in a moment.In a sense, this legislation gives us the opportunity to revisit some of the warnings that we made when the initial youth allowance legislation went through. A great many people, including members on our side of the House, welfare groups and youth groups, pointed out to the government that there were likely to be serious problems, as indeed there are. Even so, I must say that even I have been amazed at the volume of complaints that this legislation has generated. What needs to be remembered, I think, is that at the outset it represented a complete loss of income support, or a very substantial reduction, for over 45,000 unemployed young people aged 18 to 21 who were, for the first time, made newly dependent on their families.Many examples have come to the attention of my electorate office, but I will give just one to indicate exactly how it affected many families. This example is of a young woman of 20 who had worked successfully, more or less continuously, and who had lived successfully independently since about the age of 15. I have no doubt that, like most families, her mother—and I think it was a single mother, from memory—had provided her with a little additional support, as we all do. We do what we can for our young adult children.This young woman became very seriously ill and was forced to leave her job, so she went back home to live with her mother for six months. That was a matter of necessity; she could not continue to pay her rent; she was not working, so she lived at home. When she recovered and applied for the appropriate support to find employment, she was told that she could not get any; that she was to be dependent on her mother. Her mother was at the very low end of the income scale but, even so, the young woman was assessed as being ineligible. The additional strain on the family was very substantial, and there were other dependent children.She was amazed that this was the case. A great many people who confront the legislation do not understand what has been done. Most people are fortunate enough not to have to ask for support in this way. When they do ask and they are told that they are not independent, that they are not adults and that they should go back to the parental situation, they feel diminished. This girl, like many in her position, was very upset because it was extremely difficult for her family to support her. Being an energetic young woman she found work reasonably quickly, but for the period during which she could not find work it was extremely difficult. Ultimately she took a job that she did not want. She wanted to get into good employment and to better herself. That was part of her reason for wanting to start again, but she could not; she had to take the nearest thing in order to take the burden off her family.I think that the important thing to consider here is the tensions caused by these newly created dependencies. In this case, the mother did what she could for the young adult daughter, but it was obviously extremely difficult for her to manage. In other cases, it is clearly not possible for families to accommodate the people who suddenly turn up on their doorsteps. Sometimes the children have left home out of necessity because family tension has been great. They have needed to leave—to become adults, to set themselves up. I think that is something all of us should think seriously about. If a government really wants to solve some of the problems associated with youth suicide and drug addiction, forcing people into what are already unhealthy relationships is not a very good step to solving those problems. These changes have clearly placed even greater burdens on families.Senator Harradine, I have to say, was right to be incensed that in the tax package no consideration has been given to the needs of these families, as he was promised they would be. There are substantial costs in providing for the needs of a young adult; it is not just a matter of carving up things a little less generously for the rest of the family. There are needs these young people have if they are looking for employment—as they would be—or if they are studying. It is not as though they simply occupy a space in a household. They actually have considerable costs, for example clothing and, one hopes, little things like recreation—being able to go to the movies once in a while. These costs have to be considered.These additional burdens were supposed to be taken into account, and Senator Harradine understood that he had been given very firm assurances that they would be. But, apart from the general tax cuts they were offered, we now discover that these low income families were not even considered in the tax package. And, I might say, those tax cuts for the lowest income earners are very small indeed and are likely to be eaten up entirely by the increases through a GST. I remind members that half the tax cuts go to the top 20 per cent. This relief is skewed to the other end of the income scale, not the end where you would expect it to be. The remaining 80 per cent get the other half.I remind members that the depth of the betrayal of Senator Harradine, and of the rest of the community who implicitly were promised the same thing, is considerable. When asked before the Senate committee what steps had been taken in designing the package to account for this group about whom promises have been made, the government official revealed after some fairly strong questioning that he was not even aware that such a promise had been made. No-one had communicated to him the need to take account of this group.Even though these families are clearly in desperate need of financial relief as a result of this bill, they are not going to be taken care of in the tax package. It is one of the amendments that we are not likely to see despite the promise given. It is not altogether surprising that Senator Harradine has been a little dark on the government. But, in the end, it is not a problem for Senator Harradine. It is a problem for the families who have been denied assistance. That is the point of this. It is not the politics of it and the fact that Senator Harradine has been upset by the government's betrayal, but the fact that there are a whole lot of families out there with newly dependent children they have to provide for who are not being given any special consideration—indeed, no consideration at all. Nor was it considered important enough to even follow through on those matters.The other problem with the legislation, which became very clear to me as a local member, was the very unrealistic tests made to establish independence. Some of those are improved a little in this legislation and some are possibly compounded because they are enormously complicated. I challenge any member of this parliament to look at some of the forms that people are now required to fill out through Centrelink and to fill them out with 100 per cent accuracy. I think they would find that they failed rather dismally. In addition, some of the material that is required takes an inordinate number of hours to put together due to the number of attachments required. The difficulty in getting evidence required is very considerable in many cases. Remember that you are dealing here with people who are often not the most able members of the community in terms of their literacy and numeracy skills—something the government has recognised in a very punitive way. Nonetheless, it is true that many of the young unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, are people who have considerable problems in dealing with everyday literacy and numeracy demands that are made upon them. That is why as part of any decent labour market program you need to address those problems, but you need to address them in context and in a way that encourages and does not punish.There are, as I say, very unrealistic tests to establish independence, and people fall foul of them. They make the wrong claims. What happens then? They are called fraudsters; they are said to be rorting the system. They are blamed for the problems that Centrelink has created. I have had many examples of that, and only through the intervention of a member of parliament—in my case through my office—have injustices been able to be reversed.People have benefits cut off, for example. In one case not strictly related to the youth allowance, a gentleman on a disability pension received a letter from Centrelink saying that, as a result of a reassessment of his position that he had not initiated, he was entitled to an additional amount of money. Obviously, he was grateful for that. The money was paid into his account in due course and he settled into what he regarded as the new regime. About three months later he got another letter saying it was a mistake and he had been overpaid and that they were going to take $50 out of his pension every fortnight to repay it. That was absolutely thoughtless.I would challenge any minister here or any member of the bureaucracy in Canberra or any employee of Centrelink to try and live on those amounts of money, let alone have $50 a fortnight removed because of a mistake made by Centrelink. I have to say that that happens not once a week and sometimes not even once a day. But these problems are legion. If the government does not recognise that, it should. It is showing a distinct lack of humanity if it does not follow up on these complaints. We write to the minister to register the complaint and we get the usual placatory letters back that tell us nothing and go nowhere.I have a lot of sympathy for the Centrelink people. There has been a massive increase in their workload. There have been substantial staff cuts and, as a result of restructuring of Centrelink and the old Department of Social Security, there are a lot of people working in jobs whose rules they do not know. The rules are changing all the time but they do not know them. What we are seeing are delays and queues and errors in assessment that I have just talked about.If you look at just a simple thing like getting through on the phone, the most recent figures show that 81 per cent of callers to Centrelink in 1998 did not get past the engaged signal. I have to say that is confirmed by my experience, and the experience of a great many other people, particularly those who try to do the right thing and use the telephone system rather than turn up and queue.That is dangerous because if you get through eventually and make a time for an appointment that appointment might be for two or three weeks later. In a recent Austudy case I know of, a young person had done just that and waited patiently to get an appointment. It was well after the beginning of term time before he finally got to the top of the queue whereupon they said to him, `You don't really need to be here. You could have done that in writing.' I had been party to the initial application and it was not made clear to him that that was what was required. As he walked out the door he looked at the form and it said, `You are only paid from the date of application.' By then nearly a month had passed, during which time he had been living on the bones of his backside, not to put too fine a point on it. He did not get any money for that period even though he had been studying for the duration. That is a fairly typical problem created by the difficulty of getting through by phone and by the long queues.People are having to wait for weeks, in my electorate and in others, to get an appointment for youth allowance and for Austudy, not to mention other benefits. At Centrelink in Fremantle there are currently only four staff working on the youth allowance section—two are working on the applications, one is the manager, and one is the receptionist. Two additional staff were put on briefly to handle the Work for the Dole and mutual obligation schemes.The result is that people just cannot get service, and the staff themselves are in desperate straits. Those staff are under stress, and I have a great deal of sympathy for them. As a result of waiting too long, being given wrong information, and being messed around, people become abusive. Their tempers are short and sometimes there are violent reactions. I do not condone those but I can understand why they occur.Centrelink staff sometimes ring my office in tears. Do not worry about the recipients of these benefits ringing us in tears. Centrelink staff do it as well. I get anonymous emails from staff members from right around the state complaining about the way they are being treated as employees by this government. The government should be a model employer. It is not. It fails miserably. These people are being asked to do a job that is impossible to do with the resources they have. The result is a great deal of dissatisfaction and disaffection from people who should regard them with admiration because they do try enormously to do the right thing by their clients—a word I use reluctantly.The government has made a complete botch of this. This legislation, in a minor way, improves some of the obvious flaws, but the fundamental principles are wrong and they are not likely to be remedied by this tinkering around the edges.11:27:004950Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise today to speak in opposition to some aspects of the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 which is before the Main Committee. I say this because I consider that the youth unemployment rate in this nation today, standing at 23.5 per cent, is clearly an astonishing and unacceptable figure.I am also especially concerned about the fact that after three years the current government has only been able to reduce youth unemployment by 18,500. That says to me that more has to be done to create decent opportunities that will encourage young people to stay longer at school. And, while staying at school, young people should give serious thought to whether they pursue post-secondary education at a university, or, alternatively, take up a TAFE course, especially as there are growing skill shortages at the moment in some of the traditional trades. That is happening at a time when apprenticeship training in the traditional trades is actually going backwards.I also indicate my opposition to some aspects of this bill because I consider that growing numbers of our young people are stuck in a rut, a rut of unemployment or jobs without real career aspects, because of the failure of some employers to front up to their responsibilities on the training front.In considering the issue of junior pay rates, I am very firmly of the view that, should the Industrial Relations Commission report recommend that some form of junior rates continue, it is absolutely essential that in that context employers—and I am saying all employers—front up to their responsibility to ensure that training is part and parcel of such a system.I consider that young people are prepared to make a variety of sacrifices, provided that, in making those sacrifices, there are guarantees, especially as a result of access to decent training opportunities, of a better working life and career opportunity throughout the rest of their life.I suppose that takes me to the achievements of the Australian Labor Party between 1983 and 1993 when, I am pleased to say, the year 12 school retention rates and the proportion of school leavers who actually went to university doubled. I personally consider that a major achievement of which this nation ought to be proud. In the context of trying to ensure that we went down the path seriously of creating a long-term learning society, over a decade we actually doubled the year 12 school retention rates, which was all about trying to equip people, having achieved the essentials of life from a learning perspective, to build a reasonable and a decent career opportunity in the future. I think that was a wonderful achievement.My problem is that, since then, clearly cracks have developed in the pathways between school and work. That has really occurred over the last three years, and I think it is about time that this government got the message from the Australian community that our young people deserve better than the government is offering. The number of young people finishing secondary education has fallen since the Howard government was elected. This is related not only to a lack of emphasis on and support for keeping people at school but also to the squeeze on school funding. The squeeze on school funding has made it more difficult for the school system to look after career opportunities for our young people.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.32 a.m. to 11.44 a.m.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Prior to the suspension, I was referring to the fact that the number of young people finishing secondary education had fallen. What also disturbs me is the fact that the proportion of school leavers going to university has also fallen since the Howard government was elected. I consider this is because of government policies which in essence mean that children from wealthy families can fill places that are now denied to brighter, hardworking children from lower and middle income families.It is almost as if, under the Howard government policies, if you are thick and rich you can get to university, but if you come from a struggling working-class family you may not. Because of the new policies which are in essence best described as `if you have got the money you can get in', a lot of very bright young people from backgrounds that are not as wealthy are actually being denied an opportunity. That is not just bad for a young person and that young person's family; it is also bad for the nation. It means, in essence, that those with the potential and best capacity for leadership, who can take Australia forward in the 21st century, are being denied that opportunity because of their economic and social circumstances and their personal family background.I also believe that there are not enough training places for early school leavers due to deep cuts in support for vocational training and incentives to employers to take on new apprentices. On that note I refer in passing to the fact that this government actually withdrew some of the completion payments that apply to group training. One of the most important areas of apprenticeship training at the moment is, in fact, group training. The withdrawal of those completion payments is an absolute disgrace and it is actually going to pull Australia backwards on the skilling and the trade front in years to come.It is also interesting to note that, since Labor's last full year in government, the number of traditional apprenticeship commencements has plummeted by 5,000. That is going to be worsened potentially by the changes in completion payments with respect to group training. It is absurd that this is happening at the same time as key areas of the economy are also experiencing crucial skill shortages. This is evidenced by a report recently prepared by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that actually identified, state by state and nationally, the fact that in a number of traditional areas of apprenticeship training we have now got major skill shortages in Australia—at a time when we are going backwards on the apprenticeship completion numbers in those traditional areas.With that in mind, I raise the fact that, as of 1 January this year, the government introduced the so-called youth allowance. The introduction of this government's youth allowance means that many 16- and 17-year-olds who leave school early will no longer get any income support whatsoever. Furthermore, many young unemployed people aged between 18 and 21, and their families, are worse off because of this decision. Because of these decisions, schools will clearly need extra resources to meet the needs of these students. The federal Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs—as it was when this bill was originally prepared—put forward a cabinet submission recommending that $140 million be allocated to help schools cope with the extra students returning due to the youth allowance. In January 1998 the Howard government announced some additional funding, but it was $100 million short of the amount recommended in the cabinet submission. I suppose we come to the conclusion that something has gone missing.What has gone missing is not just the financial commitment, the under-budget allocation. More importantly, there is a failure by the government to actually commit itself to doing something in a proper way for these young people. It is all about savings rather than investment in our young people for the future. I probably do not need to remind the House that this piece of legislation was so badly mishandled by the Howard government that its implementation date was delayed for six months so as not to throw the school year out.The purpose of the bill, as I understand it, is to tidy up the mess the government created. As such, it will receive support from this side of the House—but qualified support. We understand that the purpose of the bill is not to further reduce entitlements for young people. But, despite the bill's intended purpose, and some of the beneficial measures that the fulfilment of this purpose provide, there are some aspects of it which do further reduce entitlements for young people.I want to make it absolutely clear that, in light of the appalling situation that the government has created for young people, Labor sees it as its duty to oppose any measures that will further reduce their entitlements. Labor will therefore, firstly, oppose the measure in schedule 3 which proposes that the actual means test can be applied even where the reason for applying it has not existed during the most recent tax year and the family has suffered a substantial decrease in income.Although it is acknowledged that this proposal reflects the old Austudy regulations, its incorporation into the Social Security Act will open up unfair practices. For example, the parents of a youth allowance applicant might have owned a company until January of 1998 when they sold that interest. Under the proposal, in 1999, even though they are being assessed on their income and expenditure during the 1998-99 tax year, they would be subject to the actual means test on the basis of an interest in the company they had not had for 12 months. I believe that this is quite a strange proposal and extremely unfair. In fact, we are still awaiting advice from the government about the reason for this measure, as it does not seem to make any sense.Labor will also oppose the rate reductions contained in schedule 4 for disability support pensioners under the age of 21. The rate reductions mean that, for example, a single pensioner between 18 and 21 years of age, who does not live at home and who has a dependent child, will lose $7 per fortnight while a partnered pensioner over the age of 18 will gain about $17 per fortnight. It seems to me that this is a perverse result and will clearly result in a reduction of moneys for one of the most vulnerable groups in the community. It is, unfortunately, typical of the current government's approach to the interests of vulnerable Australians.The schedule also seeks, unfortunately, to provide that the guardian allowance will not be paid to a person unless they are receiving family allowance at more than the minimum rate.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.51 a.m. to 12.04 p.m.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Furthermore, under the current provisions, the rate of family allowance is reduced where income exceeds $23,550 plus $624 for each additional family allowance child. Amongst other things, a family allowance child can be a child receiving youth allowance. The problem is that the schedule seeks to amend this so that a child receiving youth allowance is a family allowance child only if they are under 18 years of age. But it does not take into account the fact that young unemployed people are now regarded as dependent until they are 21 years of age and may therefore receive a lower rate as a result of the youth allowance legislation. I believe this is clearly a contradictory result and that is why we are opposed to it.As a third matter, Labor proposes an amendment to the measure in schedule 4, under which the income test threshold for family allowance will not be increased on the basis of a child receiving youth allowance if the child is over 18. Our amendment would seek to provide that a person over the age of 18 would still be regarded as a dependant for the purposes of the family allowance income test, if they are receiving a reduced rate of youth allowance because of the parental means test.Fourthly, Labor will oppose the measures in schedule 5 that seek to reduce the rates of exceptional circumstances relief payment and restart income support payment for people of youth allowance age. Labor will oppose this as it will clearly result in a reduced entitlement for some people.To sum up: the bottom line is that there are not enough training places available for those who want them. They continue to be turned away from a TAFE system which is in danger of falling into neglect. The changes embodied in this bill do nothing to assist such young people who are having enough difficulties at the moment with respect to even getting access to decent training courses. In this environment, the Labor Party will oppose any measures which seek to reduce entitlements for young Australians and their families.Part of our responsibility as a compassionate country is to look after those most at risk of not making a successful transition to economic independence. These young people deserve better than Work for the Dole, but that is what the thrust of this bill is about. It is, in essence, continuing what has become a characteristic of this government—pointing the finger at young people and saying that they are to blame, rather than facing up to the fact that government has to accept its responsibilities and also accept, publicly, that some of its policy decisions have not really contributed to assisting these young people and their families, who are crying out for help at the moment.For that reason I am firmly of the view that building new pathways from school to work means that we as a community have to help those who have lost their way, in essence to try and get them back on course. I do not consider that by reducing teenagers' income support the Howard government was actually trying to achieve the core objective that the Australian community expects of government—to have reasonable policies that get young people back on course. Instead, this type of legislation is more and more alienating our young people and pushing them into a wilderness of despair, a sense of a lack of hope for the future, rather than trying to develop an environment with government support mechanisms that guide our young people into the future and, basically, get them back on course.It must therefore be recognised by this government that there will always be some young people that are simply not suited to some type of institutional learning, whether in secondary schools or TAFEs, and it is no use for the government to say to them, `We are going punish you for not being able to fit the institutional or the intellectual mould that this government believes all young people ought to fit into.'Unfortunately, that is not the way young people develop in this day and age. They are facing many pressures, many problems, and we have to try and develop a flexible system that accounts for those young people's needs—not a doctrinaire approach based on, `If you do not do it this way, then you are out on your own and we're not going to offer any helping hand, or income support, even if you're in fairly difficult personal circumstances because of your family background, where you grew up, where you went to school, or the suburb or the region that you lived in.' That is not the way we are going to solve the problems of these young people.As the other side of the coin, however, we have got to come to terms with the fact that some of these people are homeless and from very difficult family circumstances. Their problems need to be attended to, not only in a very compassionate way but also earlier, if we are not to inherit a much worse state of unemployment and social alienation in the future. That is what we are close to ending up with at the moment.That is contributed to by the fact that this government, in its first 36 months, has not only reduced our capacity to get people into decent apprenticeship and training opportunities but has now sought to punish them when it comes to income support. It has worsened the situation by abolishing decent job programs for young people. It has ended the youth training initiative which formerly provided case management for some of those 15- to 17-year-olds and it has disbanded SkillShare in favour of the new, hopelessly chaotic employment services market. All of that is not helping.I note recent reports about the fact that, when it comes to intensive assistance, some of those Job Network providers are spending nothing on training for young people. If it is good enough for the government to say to these young people, `You're not getting youth allowance'—a sense of discipline and compulsion—then it should also be good enough for this government to say to those Job Network providers, `You are getting very substantial amounts of government funds for intensive assistance. There is an obligation on you publicly to account for how you spend that money and to explain to the Australian taxpayer why, more often than not—and this includes companies such as Drake International—you are not spending on offering training opportunities to our young people.' For that reason, I argue that the government has created a disastrous situation for young people trying to cross the bridge between school and work.I must stress that, in the light of this disastrous situation, the opposition will in principle support the bill but, because of what we believe, we will also front up to the government on its potential weaknesses. For that reason, we strongly oppose some of the measures that I have outlined in my contribution to the debate today. In essence, if you want to get young people back on course, it is the responsibility of the government to offer better than what is offered in the bill before the House today.12:11:004955Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—We have had a number of contributions from people on this side of the House in this debate about the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 . This morning I have been privileged to hear the members for Fremantle and Batman. As the member for Batman pointed out, we are concerned particularly about schedules 3, 4 and 5 of this legislation. I want to briefly address the issues involved with schedules 3 and 4 in particular, because they have the potential to impact, I think adversely, upon many in the community and particularly on people in my own electorate of the Northern Territory.I refer firstly to schedule 3 of the bill which repeals the Social Security (Family Actual Means Test) Regulations 1998 and replaces them with similar provisions in the Social Security Act. Currently, the actual means test is provided for by the actual means test regulations, which are derived from the Austudy regulations. Schedule 3 of this bill proposes to incorporate the actual means test into the provisions of the Social Security Act itself. Although the proposed new provisions are structured differently from those in the disallowable instrument, they are of a similar effect. There are, however, some differences. Those were spoken about—and I will not go into them—by the member for Batman in relation to their unfairness, particularly on the basis of an interest in a company that a person had not had for 12 months even though they were been assessed on their income and expenditure in the 1998-99 tax year.I want to concentrate in particular on the negative impacts of schedule 4 of the amendments to the act to address issues identified during the implementation of youth allowance and Austudy payment. Firstly, the schedule proposes to reduce the rate paid to some disability support pensioners under the age of 21—this, too, was referred to by the member for Batman—and to increase the rate for others. The effect of the changes varies depending on the pensioner's circumstances. For example, a single pensioner aged between 18 and 21 who does not live at home and who has a dependent child will lose $7 per fortnight while a partnered pensioner over the age of 18 will gain over $17 a fortnight. I do not think you have to be Einstein to work out that that is a regressive move and that, in fact, you are penalising people for being single and supporting pensioners.The other two areas of this schedule I want to address relate, firstly, to the guardian allowance of $37 per fortnight which can be paid to single parents in certain circumstances. The schedule seeks to provide that the guardian allowance will not be paid to a person unless they are receiving family allowance at more than the minimum rate. This, of course, is also unfair.The other element of schedule 4 that I am concerned about is that, under the current provisions, the rate of family allowance is reduced where income exceeds $23,550 plus $624 for each additional family allowance child. Among other things, a family allowance child can be a child receiving youth allowance. The schedule seeks to amend this so that a child receiving youth allowance is a family allowance child only if they are under 18 years of age. This may, of course, be consistent with the treatment of young people receiving education allowance other than the youth allowance, but it does not take into account the fact that young unemployed people are now regarded as dependent until they are 21 years old and may therefore receive a lower rate as a result of the youth allowance legislation. This, of course, is not only discriminatory but also unfair.The way in which we are treating young people under this and other pieces of legislation being passed by this government and being put to the parliament by this government is indeed regressive and does penalise young people, particularly those who live in regional and remote Australia. I say that because one of the interesting exercises which I have been able to witness over the last 12 to 18 months has been this question of independence and the fact that students need to identify their independent status by earning income for 30 hours a week in a two-year period.If you live in a place like Alice Springs, which I do, or Katherine or Gove or any of the regional communities in Central or Northern Australia—indeed, anywhere in Australia—and you leave school and are required to go away to university, then immediately you are penalised. I have personal experience of a young person who comes from a family which, whilst not well off, would certainly have been well above the means tests. This person wanted to go to university, had sufficient marks to go to university and was bright enough to get admitted into a number of universities. But he could not undertake the course in Central Australia and was required to move interstate to Sydney. Because of the circumstances of his parents and because he did not have sufficient income, nor did they, to pay for his full-time attendance at a university with residential requirements, he was forced to wait 18 months until he had saved the appropriate amount of money to indicate to the government that he was, in fact, independent.I do not think that is either fair or reasonable, and it is a position which pertains to a lot of individuals around Australia. I do not believe that the government have properly thought through the implications of these proposals for people who live outside major metropolitan areas. That is something which they need to revisit and which is clearly unfair and grossly inappropriate.The member for Batman spoke about the adequacy of training provision in terms of what is happening to young Australians. I have also had first-hand experience of watching what happens in the bush. The service made available by agencies such as Centrelink to young Australians who work and live in remote Australia is entirely below standard. If you happen to live in a remote community, then the likelihood of getting any service at all out of Centrelink is all but nil. If you require, for example, to visit some Centrelink offices for an appointment and you happen to live hundreds of kilometres away from your local Centrelink office, the possibility of getting an appointment will certainly be up in the air because in some places you will not get an appointment for up to a week. But even if you do get an appointment, it will take you possibly a day to get an appointment to make an appointment. That, of course, is unreasonable.There is nothing within the framework put in place by the government which accounts for the locational disadvantage that people who live in rural and remote areas suffer in the delivery of government services, quite apart from the appropriateness of the level of service in terms of income support or otherwise. I say to the government that this is something which you are being marked down for right throughout Australia. Not only does it happen in this area; it happens basically in all areas of service provision.It seems to me that, whilst you parade yourselves as a champion of people in the bush, you are failing miserably when it comes to the provision of these sorts of services. In the context of this piece of legislation, you should be examining the particular impacts on people who suffer locational disadvantage because they do not live in a major metropolitan area. It is something which I know is hurting a lot of people.The member for Batman spoke about educational attainment levels. If you happen to live in a remote part of the Northern Territory, the likelihood of your getting to a high school is very remote. The likelihood of your achieving a successful outcome at a high school is even more remote because a significant proportion of those people who live in remote areas in the Northern Territory away from even smaller towns like Alice Springs and Katherine are Aboriginal people who do not have access to sufficient standards of educational service.I say to the government: if you are fair dinkum about providing services for young Australians, you will address this need. I do not believe it has been addressed. It is something which I have been critical of since I came back into the parliament last year and it needs to be addressed as a matter of some urgency. The way in which you have dismantled the service provision, the training provision, the labour market programs in regional Australia and the provisions that were made available under the old Commonwealth Employment Service, you have effectively withdrawn the services which provided people with the capacity to get access to mainstream services and replaced them with something which gives them access to nothing. This legislation only reinforces the negative view which many Australians have of the way in which Centrelink operates and the way in which the government is providing services to people who live in the bush.I am conscious of the time. I will complete my statement by saying that, whilst there are some aspects of this legislation which will obviously be of benefit in terms of the workability of the act because they are simply housekeeping measures, it can also be said that the general message within this legislation is that not enough care is being taken to make sure that the services and the standard of support which are available are sufficient to meet the needs of individual Australians who live in regional and remote areas.Motion (by Mr Lieberman) agreed to:That further proceedings on this bill be conducted in the House.Bills4958s191Consideration resumed from 11 March.495812:24:004958Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 will amend the Ozone Protection Act 1989—the act. The act enables Australia to fulfil its international obligations as a party to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer—the Montreal protocol—to eliminate its consumption of ozone depleting substances. The act controls the import, export and manufacture of a range of ozone depleting substances, known as `scheduled substances', by requiring licences for these activities, and by prohibiting the import and manufacture of certain products containing ozone depleting substances.The act is a key element in Australia's approach to ozone protection. It is administered and enforced in conjunction with complementary state and territory legislation and controls, and industry and non-government organisation activities, including voluntary codes of practice. This highly cooperative approach to environmental protection is detailed in the 1994 revised strategy for ozone protection and was endorsed by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council in 1995.The innovative licensing and quota systems, first enacted in 1989, enabled Australia to achieve by 1995 a phase-out of the ozone depleting substances CFCs—chlorofluorocarbons—carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and HBFCs—hydrobromofluorocarbons. The phase-out has been total other than for a restricted range of essential uses. A total phase-out of halons, except for essential uses, was reached in 1992, one year in advance of Montreal protocol requirements. Australia's foresight in adopting such control measures was most recently borne out in the 1997 Montreal amendment which now requires parties to develop and implement a licensing system to regulate the import and export of ozone depleting substances. These outstanding efforts were formally recognised in 1997 through the award of a certificate of appreciation to the Australian government by the United Nations Environment Program, in a ceremony which marked the 10th anniversary of the Montreal protocol.The Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 represents the most recent step in Australia's response to the challenge of ozone depletion. It proposes amendments to improve the operation of the act's licensing and quota systems, and to allow more effective and targeted regulation of ozone depleting substances. The amendments reflect agreed solutions to issues encountered by industry, government and community stakeholders in progressing Australia's phase-out of ozone depleting substances.The decision to implement these solutions through legislation was taken through ongoing dialogue with industry and consultation with the Office of Regulation Review to make the initiatives business effective. This is reflected in the conclusions of the regulation impact statements. As a party to the Montreal protocol and its amendments, Australia must phase-out consumption and production of HCFCs by 2020 and methyl bromide by 2005.The act provides that the import, export or manufacture of either HCFCs or methyl bromide is prohibited unless otherwise authorised under a `controlled substances' licence. The bill clarifies that, in assessing an application for a `controlled substances' licence, separate consideration may be given to each activity in which an applicant seeks to engage. Given the proximity of the scheduled phase-out dates for HCFCs and methyl bromide, and that neither substance is currently manufactured in Australia, this proposed amendment will ensure manufacturing is not commenced in Australia by `controlled substances' licensees without due consideration.Australia's HCFC industry activity triggered the quota system under the act for the first time in 1997. The act limits the total quantity of HCFCs that may be imported or manufactured by licensees to approximately half the `country cap' allocated by the Montreal protocol, whereby the quota system is triggered.The HCFC quota system will commence from 1 January 1999. From this date, HCFC `controlled substances' licensees must seek a quota allocation to engage in the regulated HCFC activity of importation or manufacture. The quotas will be allocated for a period of two years. After the first quota allocation, quotas will be based on the licensee's individual activity in the penultimate calendar year before the start of the following quota period.The amendment enables the continued issuance of a `controlled substances licence' for a two-year period, and further specifies as a condition of the licence the quantity of HCFCs a licensee may import or manufacture within any given year of a quota period. This will ensure Australia's HCFC controls remain equitable and efficient by avoiding possible distortion in the calculation of future quota allocations, for example, if a disproportionate amount of a total quota allocation is imported in the first year of a quota period.It is with the strong and active support of the fluorocarbon industry that this bill addresses this issue. During the development of the bill, the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department identified an area of duplication in the act, arising from its historical development which reflects Australia's changing international obligations.The ratification by Australia of the Montreal amendment to the Montreal protocol which the parties adopted at their ninth meeting in 1997 to ban trade in methyl bromide with non-protocol countries, means the substance is now more effectively covered by the existing provisions in subsections 18(2) and (3), rather than in sections 42 and 43, which are to be repealed by the bill.Subsections 18(2) and 18(3) provide that it is a condition of a licence granted under the act that scheduled substances, which include methyl bromide, are not to be imported to, or exported from, a non-protocol country. Breach of the licence condition without reasonable excuse is an offence with a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units, currently $55,000. The bill also updates the Montreal protocol text in the act with the addition of the most recent text following schedule 3.The last two amendments will finetune the administration of the act. One allows ministerial delegation of the power to request further information in relation to a licence application. This will shorten the time for licence applications to be assessed and issued.Another clarifies the scope of the exemption from the prohibition on manufacturing or importing CFC-dependent refrigeration and airconditioning equipment. The amendment specifies that the exemption only applies to the import of the CFC-dependent refrigerated transport containers not their manufacture.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.4960Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—While Australia does not manufacture CFC-dependent refrigerated transport containers, the global shipping industry still relies to some extent on the existing fleet of these containers and so Australia will continue to permit their movement in and out of Australian ports.While Australia only contributes about one per cent to the total global consumption of ozone depleting substances, it represents a positive role model for the international community through its active participation in international ozone fora, bilateral activities with developing countries and domestic implementation of accelerated phase-out measures developed through a highly cooperative partnership with industry, the community and all levels of government.This bill will ensure that Australia not only continues to meet its international obligations under the Montreal protocol but demonstrates its ongoing commitment to the recovery of the ozone layer through innovative and effective cooperation with industry. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.12:31:004960Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—As the Bills Digest points out, the ozone in the stratosphere, known as the ozone layer, appears to have been declining since about 1960. But ozone loss has become much more rapid since about 1978. The reduction is greatest above the polar regions, especially Antarctica. The decline is not constant, being greatest at the beginning of spring, as the sun first appears after the long, dark Antarctic winter. Although the result is called a `hole', it is rather a fall in concentration of stratospheric ozone gas.Naturally occurring substances and emissions such as sulfates and chlorine given off during volcanic eruptions are responsible in part for ozone destruction. However, it is human made gases, principally chlorofluorocarbons and halons, following eventual escape into the stratosphere, which are particularly destructive of the ozone layer. These CFCs contain chlorine and the halons contain bromine. Chlorine and bromine attack ozone and break it down. A catalytic process is involved leading to one chlorine atom being responsible for the destruction of up to 100,000 ozone molecules.There has been concern about the depletion of the ozone layer on a proper basis. That is because the ozone layer reduces the amount of harmful ultraviolet radiation that reaches the earth's surface. The ozone layer is also an important part of the global climate system in which all life forms, including humans, have evolved. Any significant change to this layer can have far-reaching consequences for human health.So ozone destruction is an important issue to all Australians and indeed we are one of the countries most severely affected by the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. The direct human impacts include increased skin cancer and cataracts, and Australia already has the highest skin cancer rate in the world. There is also some evidence of ecological impacts, including phytoplankton in Antarctica, which in turn impacts on our southern fisheries.Ozone depletion is also a global issue, and we have global responsibilities. This includes the Montreal protocol, which aims to phase out the consumption of a number of substances which have been implicated in the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. By way of background to the international legal framework concerning depletion of the ozone layer, we have had the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer providing an international legal framework to address concerns regarding the adverse impact of certain substances on the ozone layer.The convention was agreed to back in March 1985 and was ratified by 165 countries including Australia. The Montreal protocol, finalised in September 1987 and ratified by Australia in 1989, established a mandatory timetable for the phase-out of ozone depleting substances.To meet Australia's obligations under the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal protocol, the Labor government passed the Ozone Protection Act in 1989, which was significantly amended by the Ozone Protection Amendment Act 1995. That legislation prohibits the import, export or manufacture of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and HBFCs from 1 January 1996 without an essential uses licence or a used substances licence. It established a system of controlled substances licences and reporting requirements for the import-export or manufacture of HCFCs and methyl bromide. It introduced two-yearly administrative fees for licences, with the fees set under the ozone protection regulations, and it established an Ozone Protection Trust Fund to allow revenue from the licensing schemes to be directed towards the cost of its administration and industry awareness programs for the phase-out of HCFCs and methyl bromide.As a result of these efforts, Australia achieved a total phase-out of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and HBFCs in 1995. Halons were phased out in 1992, a year ahead of the Montreal protocol requirements. We froze consumption of HCFCs from 1 January 1996 to 1989 levels and the consumption of methyl bromide from 1 January 1995 to 1991 levels. These efforts were formally recognised in 1997 through the award of a certificate of appreciation to the Australian government by the United Nations Environment Program in a ceremony to mark the 10th anniversary of the Montreal protocol. So we can see that the Labor government has a proud record in this area, and that the former Labor government played an active role in developing and implementing a strategy for ozone protection in Australia during the late 1980s and the early 1990s. This was done in active cooperation with state and territory governments, as well as with industry.A long-term, bipartisan approach is required to address this problem. The Labor Party is supporting the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] because it makes a number of necessary amendments to ensure that Australia is able to undertake its international obligations under the Montreal protocol. We are supporting this amendment bill but would like to raise a number of issues in relation to the approach this government has taken on the ozone issue, and I will come to those shortly.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Ozone Protection Act by ensuring that separate authorisation needs to be provided for manufacturing, importing and exporting activities when issuing a controlled substances licence, by allowing conditions to be attached to a licence relating to the import, export or manufacture of the HCFCs, by upgrading and updating the schedules of the act in accordance with international developments, and by narrowing the exemption for refrigerated transport containers which contain controlled substances so that only their import and not their manufacture is permitted in Australia.On HCFCs, we are ahead of our targets. In the area of methyl bromide and halons, we believe that there is some room for improvement. Turning to methyl bromide, although the Montreal protocol requires a phase-out of methyl bromide by the year 2005, the date to which Australia has agreed, European countries have agreed to phase out the use of methyl bromide by the year 2001. Australia was previously viewed by the international community as being a leader in addressing the issue of methyl bromide. We are now regarded as falling behind due to this government's lack of commitment, and I think we need to make efforts here in Australia to match the European target of phase-out by the year 2001.Environment Australia has been responsible for developing the phase-out strategy for methyl bromide. It is now the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia to implement the phase-out, and we would question the government's commitment to implementation and, for example, ask: has the government allocated adequate resources to this department to implement the national methyl bromide response strategy?Another issue with methyl bromide is that the controls apply only to soil disinfestation uses. There are no controls on quarantine and preshipment uses. Therefore, the method of accounting for this chemical is very important. For example, there has been an increase in the reported quantities used in quarantine and preshipment uses. We need some indication from the government as to what steps are being taken to ensure that the increase in reported use for quarantine and preshipment uses does not increase to the extent that real environmental gains are lost.I turn now to halons. Australia led the world in the phase-out in the early 1990s. States and territories legislated for the removal of halons and the Commonwealth provided a supportive role. These halons have been collected in a halon bank. Other countries have not been as advanced in their halon phase-out and there is now a large black market in halons internationally.The Australian Defence Force has led the world in its commendable program to phase out halon use. By contrast, the US Department of Defense is now actively shopping for halon supplies throughout the world, to cover for its lack of action and continuing unnecessary overdependence on halon. Much of the currently banked halon material was provided by industry on the clear understanding that the banked material, above the relatively small amounts required for continuing essential use, would be destroyed.We share the concerns, raised by industries that have borne the cost of phasing out halon, that the halon they have removed on environmental protection grounds and banked in good faith for destruction will be sold off to less environmentally concerned bidders. We are looking for a commitment from this government that the halon bank will not be sold off. It would be an utter travesty if the superior environmental concern and performance shown by Australian firms and government instrumentalities were to be undone by a pitch for dubious export income.In conclusion, we support the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] . We note that it represents the bare minimum in terms of a government response to the ozone issue. From being regarded in the early 1990s as a world leader and honest broker in the management of ozone depleting substances, we have gone now to being regarded internationally as one of the least progressive developed countries. We can ill afford to be dragging the chain on an issue which has such a direct impact on Australians because we are some of the first to suffer as the hole in the ozone layer grows.12:41:004963Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] will amend the Ozone Protection Act 1989. As my colleague the member for Wills has previously advised, the bill seeks to ensure that separate authorisation be provided for manufacturing, importing and exporting activities when a controlled substance licence is being issued. The bill will allow conditions to be attached to a licence relating to the import, export or manufacture of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. The bill also provides for the schedules in the act to be updated in accordance with international developments and, in addition, the bill includes provisions to narrow the exemption for refrigerated transport containers which contain controlled substances, so that their import and not their manufacture is permitted in Australia.Contrary to what the member for Wills was saying, this bill actually continues to maintain Australia's leading position in the international effort against ozone depletion. I will not be as disingenuous as he, but I will compliment the former Labor government on the work that it did, and suggest that this a further enhancement of that work and something that Australia can indeed be very proud of.The international legal framework within which Australia is operating is provided by the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Vienna convention was signed in 1985 and has been ratified by 165 countries, including our own. The Montreal protocol, finalised in September 1987 and ratified by Australia in May 1989, established a mandatory timetable for the phase-out of ozone depleting substances.The Montreal protocol dealt with the phase-out of five chlorofluorocarbons and halons. When it was signed, it was expected that a range of CFC substitutes would be available. The dominant substitute, however, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, whilst causing much less damage to the ozone layer than CFCs, is still ozone depleting in its nature. Thus, in 1990 and 1992, the London and Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal protocol introduced a phase-out of HCFCs and methyl bromide by 2005 and 2020 respectively.By the time all developed countries are required to cease bulk consumption of these substances, we will be pleased to see even further progress against these amendments to the Montreal protocol. In order to meet Australia's obligations under the protocol, the Ozone Protection Amendment Act 1995 was established to control substance licensing systems which prohibit the import, export and manufacture of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and hydrobromochlorofluorocarbons from 1 January 1996, without an essential use or used substance licence.The 1995 act established a system of controlled substances licences and reporting requirements for the import, export or manufacture of HCFCs and methyl bromide. This bill makes further changes to the licensing legislation to ensure that importing, exporting and manufacturing activities are treated individually in their licence applications. Previously, a licence issued under these provisions did provide scope for the licence recipient to migrate from the area of need that they originally applied for into these other areas of activity.The good news is that Australia has been successful in meeting and exceeding its obligations under the Montreal protocol to date. We achieved a total phase-out of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and hydrobromofluorocarbons in 1995 and halons in 1992, a year ahead of the requirements. Australia has frozen consumption of HCFCs at 1989 levels and the consumption of methyl bromide at 1991 levels.Under the current licensing situation, the ozone protection section of Environment Australia—and a number of the officers are here today—are charged with administering the controlled substance licences. Environment Australia inform me that licences under the act are issued for a two-year period, currently 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1999. Eighteen licences have been issued for this period, 14 for controlled substances, 11 of which are for HCFCs and three for methyl bromide. Three essential use licences have been issued—two for the import of CFCs for the manufacture of metered dose inhalers for asthma treatment and one for the import of small quantities of CFC-13, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform for essential laboratory use. One used substances licence was granted for the import of a limited quantity of halon and CFCs for destruction.The changes outlined in the bill will give the federal government greater control over the import and export of ozone depleting substances in the lead-up to their phase-out; and, because there are currently no manufacturers of HCFCs or methyl bromide in Australia at present, the government will be able to ensure that no future manufacture takes place without due consideration. The transport container import and export exemption is being retained in recognition of the fact that there are many containers in use around the world that will find their way to Australia and then be exported again. The government is changing the exemption to ensure that no transport containers using ozone depleting substances are manufactured in Australia.Australia has taken a leading role in meeting and exceeding its obligations under the Montreal protocol. In 1997 the Australian government received a certificate of appreciation from the United Nations Environment Program as formal recognition of its efforts in this area. Of course, we have good reason to support initiatives that will help reduce ozone depletion. Ozone depletion is widely recognised as having a highly detrimental effect on our ecosystems. There is considerable evidence that skin cancers are caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation, which the ozone layer can protect us from.Australia has one of the world's highest incidences of skin cancer and the rates are rising. According to the Australian Cancer Society, the lifetime risk for a white Australian to develop a non-melanocytic skin cancer, is one in 1.5, and one in 50 for a melanoma. ABS statistics show that skin cancer is the most common cause of cancer mortality in people aged 25 to 40. Between 1950 and 1994, the mortality rate due to malignant melanoma had slowed in men and fallen in women. This drop has been attributed to earlier detection and treatment during the 1980s. Deaths from non-melanocytic skin cancer, which have been dropping over most of the period from 1950 to 1985, began to show an increase again. The Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria reports that, over a 10-year period from about 1985, the incidence of non-malignant melanocytic skin cancer increased more than 25 per cent. Skin cancer has long dominated cancer incidence in Australia, where it outnumbers all other forms of cancer by at least two to one.Australia, New Zealand and Scotland are leading the world in melanoma cases per 100,000 head of population. North America and Europe also have high melanoma rates which are increasing between three per cent and seven per cent a year. As much as Australia likes to be a leader, this is one statistic where, I am sure, we would prefer not to be ahead of the pack. The fact that Australia has such a high incidence of skin cancer is alarming. That we also know that damaging the ozone layer makes the situation even worse, gives us motivation to act.In the November 1996 issue of the journal Nature, a study was published which looked at projected skin cancer incidence under three scenarios. Those scenarios were: no restrictions on ozone depleting substances; reduced production of five ozone depleting chemicals by 50 per cent by 1999 under the Montreal protocol; or the elimination of production of 21 ozone depleting chemicals by 1996 under the Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal protocol. The study assumed full global compliance with the restrictions and no change in human behaviour with regard to sun exposure. The researchers estimated that under each of these three scenarios the news was not all that flash. Under the first scenario, without restrictions, skin cancer incidence would quadruple by the year 2100. Under the second scenario provided for by the Montreal protocol, skin cancer would double by the year 2100. Even under the Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal protocol, skin cancer incidence would increase by 10 per cent in the next 60 years. So any way you cut it, we have some real challenges ahead, only if considering the wellbeing of the human species, not to mention the broader impact on our ecosystems.Certainly there have been changes in Australian behaviour in the past three years. When members are visiting the magnificent foreshore in the Dunkley electorate, they are all encouraged to wear their shirts, hats and sunscreen. The jury is still out on the rate of skin cancer in 60 to 100 years time. Our research does illustrate that a huge difference can be made to the rate of skin cancer by ensuring that we meet all of our obligations under the Montreal protocol and its subsequent amendments.The irony of the situation is that while most of the ozone depleting substances are released in the Northern Hemisphere, the ozone hole, as it is so-called, appears over the Antarctic and a large part of the Southern Hemisphere. This is truly a global problem. The ozone hole is not actually a hole but a drastic thinning in the ozone layer which is caused by a build-up of ozone depleting gases in the cold Antarctic vortex over the southern winter. The Antarctic vortex is a phenomenon that traps a large mass of air over the South Pole, which becomes starved of ozone and is then released as the air warms up in spring. Unfortunately for us in Australia, the hole then expands north leaving most of our country exposed to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation between September and December before dissipating.The ozone hole is not the only section of the ozone layer that is thinning. There has been a general five per cent to 10 per cent drop in ozone levels throughout the layer over the past decade. The surface area of the ozone hole over the Antarctic now covers an area approximately three times the size of Australia, or 26 million square kilometres according to the most recent report from the world meteorological organisation. Last September the hole was reported as being the deepest ever recorded for this time of year. This compared with an average of 20 million square kilometres in the last few years and exceeds the previous record for this time of year of 22 million square kilometres in September 1994.The changes we make now will not immediately solve the problem. Ozone depleting chemicals take two to five years to move into the stratosphere so it is already too late to stop the loss of ozone that will occur in the next five years. The replacement of ozone depleting substances is a considerable area of challenge for us. An important part of the CFC and HCFC phase-out equation is to find replacements for these products. The replacements include HCFCs and, while they break down more quickly and pose less of a threat to the ozone layer, they are still ozone depleting substances.Another replacement is HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons. While they do not contain chlorine, and are therefore ozone safe, there is a large question mark over them because of issues of flammability and toxicity. Hydrocarbons are also viewed as an alternative. They are cheap and readily reliable, but they can be flammable and poisonous and they increase ground level pollution.Ammonia is viewed as a simple alternative for CFCs for refrigerators, but needs to be handled very carefully. I am not sure how many of us would like to indulge in too much ammonia bathing. Water or steam is also being advocated as an alternative for some of the cleaning applications of CFCs.CFCs are all around us. They are in airconditioners, refrigerators, foam insulation, cleaning fluids, industrial solvents, aerosol sprays, dehumidifiers and freezers. HCFCs are also in airconditioners and heat pumps. They are a very real presence in our community. An Australian company based in Melbourne, Esanty Refrigerants, has developed a CFC replacement product called ER12. My colleague the member for Deakin has been a long-time strong supporter of their efforts to see it more widely introduced into the domestic and international market. ER12 is a hydrocarbon which can be used as a drop-in replacement for CFCs, and particularly R12 or freon—the CFCs used in car airconditioners up until about the mid-1990s. The debate about the best solution for CFCs and HCFCs is one for another day.Ozone depletion is a global environmental concern that can be abated by good policy and decisive action. I acknowledge the good work of a former Labor government in this area and would suggest that the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] is about good policy and decisive action. Today we need to pass this bill to ensure that Australia's record on ozone protection remains a strong one.Debate (on motion by Mr Jenkins) adjourned.Adjournment4966Motion (by Mr Lieberman) proposed:That the committee do now adjourn.496612:57:004966Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Excuse the pun, but this government is very liberal in its use of the term `region' and liberal in its frequent use of the term of late. Indeed, judging by the number of times coalition members have uttered the term lately, one could be excused for thinking they had just discovered regional Australia. The truth of the matter, however, is that this government is guilty of ignoring the plight of regions and it has done so at its own political peril.Regional Australia has responded through the ballot box and is desperate to have its voice heard. Now the Liberal coalition is feeling the backlash of regional discontent. I thought regional New South Wales made that patently clear last weekend. Yet I believe this government is still struggling to come to terms with what it is really like to live in a region. Consistent with its continuing struggle to come to grips with regional issues is its constant definition of regional Australia as `the bush'. This government has a clear misconception of regional Australia. Its concept of `the bush' appears to be simply geographic, that it is stuck out in the middle of nowhere or is the back of beyond. Many regions like my own are not, yet we could be millions of miles away as far as this government is concerned.Before I am accused of suffering from regional cringe, let me highlight comments made only this week by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston. He described the major breakdown of telecommunication services at Queenstown on Tasmania's rugged and remote west coast last weekend as a `blip'.The Queenstown Hospital, the major medical and emergency centre for the entire west coast of Tasmania, was without standard telephone services for almost 30 hours or perhaps 29 hours. The minister for communications described it as a `blip'. As far as this government is concerned, when something like that happens in the region it is a `blip'. If it happened in a metropolitan area, would it be `blip'? Not on your nelly. The headlines would read `a disaster'. That is what I mean about this government's disregard for regional Australia.Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, you and I live in regions that have suffered because of a lack of coherent government policy. Telecommunications is just one area where regional areas like Tasmania, and my electorate of Braddon in particular, feel they are being let down. Take the alarming news of the dramatic fall in Telstra services to Tasmania as reported by the Australian Communications Authority. The provision of new services to major rural areas in Tasmania is in serious decline, falling well behind national standards. Many rural and remote areas are still in a telecommunications vacuum. They do not have services that most people simply take for granted, and now they are being asked to have faith in the government's headlong push to sell more of Telstra.Telstra is being sold off under the pretence of providing better services to regional areas, but where are they? A third of Telstra has been sold off yet King Island remains a telecommunications backwater. Television services in the far north-west and the west coast of Tasmania are lacking or are non-existent, and mobile phone black spots are too numerous to mention. These are services, facilities and choices that metropolitan areas take for granted, so imagine the hoo-ha if these services were `blipped'. I do not think Senator Alston would be as dismissive of this as he was of the Tasmanian incident. If this government wants to get serious about improving regional telecommunications then it should channel some of the money from Telstra's massive dividends to the government into improving regional telecommunications infrastructure. A start would be to initiate a telecommunications audit in Tasmania. The result would not surprise Tasmanians but it would be an eye-opener for some members opposite, assuming they were interested.But it is not just telecommunications. The issues and challenges in my electorate are as many and varied as they are in regional areas spread across Australia. If I look at health I see Tasmania's health system in crisis. This is not just the result of the former Liberal government's mismanagement of the area but also the result of this government's failure to fund and support the public health system.I see a lack of opportunity and resources for people to go on to higher education. I see a worsening in unemployment as a damning indictment of this government's treatment of regional Australia. Indeed, my electorate has one of the highest unemployment rates in Australia, but is there a coherent strategic plan to tackle this? I see a meagre, inadequate and offensively titled Work for the Dole scheme. I see a lack of industry policy to help boost regional economic growth, and I see a GST as a threat to the underprivileged, the less well off in the community, and the general consumer. (Time expired).496813:02:004968Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—Last Saturday night I had the pleasure of attending the 25th anniversary of the Beaudesert Blue Nursing Service. The night gave me and the community the opportunity to reflect on 25 years of invaluable service to the community by a service that commenced in 1973 after a proposal by the Reverend Ron Howe at a public meeting. From there the Beaudesert Blue Nurses were given wheels in the form of a second-hand Holden Belmont by the local Lions Club, and in its first year of operation staff provided over 4,500 visits to local residents.For almost seven years the Beaudesert Blue Nurses operated from various places, including the homes of staff and from the local dental surgery. Then, in 1981, it took up permanent residence in William Street where it remains today. It is amazing that a service that started from such humble beginnings has grown to the reliable and valuable community asset it is today.Blue Nurses do not charge any fees of patients, so an enormous amount of fundraising is required to purchase vehicles, equipment, and the many other requirements needed. The Blue Nurses have an enormous rural community to service and support but they still managed to make close to 10,000 home visits, travelled over 90,000 kilometres, and supported 548 patients during the past 12 months.The Beaudesert community is also grateful to the Blue Nurses for the palliative care, ante-natal and post-natal care, and acute and disabled care they provide seven days a week. All the services are aimed at encouraging independence and enhancing quality of life. I would like to take this opportunity in parliament today to thank all of the nurses, their staff, the volunteers, community sponsors and management for their dedication in providing support services to our frail, sick and aged in the Beaudesert Shire community.I want to give special thanks to the small band of dedicated, caring people who were credited with commencing the service 25 years ago: Jenny Pepper, the sister-in-charge; Elaine Kerrison; Bernie McNeven; Maisie Lewis; and the Reverend Ron Howe. Thanks also go to the present day staff and supporters and management team. Thanks also should go to the Chairman of the Beaudesert Blue Nurses, Alan Robert; to our service manager and director of nursing, Pam Simson; and to auxiliary chairman Debbie Brand. And special mention should be made to Lynley West for the hospitality she showed to my husband and I last Saturday. It was a very special night. I wish the Beaudesert Blue Nurses continued success.In another announcement, last weekend in Newcastle, the national titles of the Odyssey of the Mind competition took place. Woodridge State High School were awarded first place. This was a national event. I know it may seem strange that I am actually announcing this because it is not in my electorate. It is actually in the adjoining electorate of Rankin. I was quite surprised that the member for Rankin did not take this opportunity to make this outstanding announcement himself over the past two days debates.849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—He hasn't finished yet.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—He has had three opportunities to raise it and I find it quite strange that he has not done so when something as outstanding as this has happened—a high school in an electorate to get up to a national level. They are now going to an international level to Tennessee and they need the money to get there. I only hope that the member for Rankin will take more interest in helping them raise funds to ensure they get over there in May than what he has done in announcing this outstanding achievement in parliament. I have had a close association with that electorate over the past 20 years and I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Woodridge State High School on an outstanding achievement and wish them every success in their international efforts competing against 38 other countries in Tennessee in May.496913:06:004969Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—In the few minutes available to me, I am very sad that I will have to announce what appears to be the demise of one of the student guilds in Western Australia. In various statements that have been made by the government in recent days, the Western Australian example has been held up as an example of what will happen nationwide with the introduction of voluntary student unionism. Indeed, Dr Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has said on a number of occasions that the Western Australian situation is fine. Far from it; the reverse is true. Indeed, the four guilds in Western Australia came out today with a statement that said:During the recent debate on the issue of voluntary student unionism, Dr Kemp and others have made comments about WA student guilds and the effects that similar legislation has had upon our organisations. Dr Kemp has stated that VSU has had a positive impact upon the guilds in Western Australia . . . The four guilds then go on to say:We wish to make it quite clear that the Western Australian VSU legislation has had a dramatic and negative impact upon our organisations and hence the ability of our organisations to provide essential services and representation to the students of Western Australia.It is signed by all four guilds: Murdoch, Curtin, UWA and Edith Cowan. Attached is a list of the various services and functions that have been either abolished, reduced or in some way cut back with the exception, however, of Edith Cowan. It does not appear here with its clear list of what has gone wrong. That is because it is about to go into voluntary liquidation.The guild cannot meet costs, including wages, and they are already $28,000 in debt with a further $25,000 likely in redundancies. All student honorariums were suspended yesterday. All casual shop staff will be given notice today—and there are approximately 20 of those. Two permanent staff are still on the books but it is not clear how their wages will be paid. They are looking at a voluntary schedule to keep the shops open. In the meantime, they will need to temporarily close them because they cannot pay the wages. The taverns are breaking even and they will need to keep them open if they are to have any revenue, but they are unsure if they can pay the wages at the taverns. They are going to have to sell their remaining assets, principally two vehicles. The guild is discussing moving to voluntary administration at the Guild Council meeting on Thursday.The university have already offered to put in an administrative committee and a director to the end of the year. It seems at this stage to be the only way to avoid insolvency and councillor liability for debts. And they have very clear advice that they could be personally liable. That is why they have to look at this voluntary liquidation option. Advice from a local legal firm, Freehill, Hollingdale and Page, says, in summary:. . . we are of the view that all members of the Guild Council, as the controlling body of the Guild may be personally liable for debts incurred by the Guild in the event that the Guild incurred those debts when it was reasonable to expect that the Guild would be unable to repay those debts . . . In other words, if these guild councillor students were knowledgeable about the financial difficulties of the university association and continued to trade, they would be held liable for those debts. For students with very little means, that is an extraordinary position to put them in. As I understand it, they have no other option than to move into voluntary liquidation or to effectively have the university take over the student organisation.The Vice-Chancellor of Edith Cowan University, Professor Millicent Poole, was asked just a couple of weeks ago about the success of voluntary student unionism. When it was put to her that it had been successful, she said:No, it certainly hasn't. In fact, it's led to some fairly significant problems for university administration.When asked what the problems were, she said:. . . the university has had to dip into its own resources to provide some of the social, cultural and sporting facilities that students want, so it's put a burden on us in terms of providing very real facilities that enrich student life.She was asked by the interviewer:Has there been any concurrent increase in federal funding for those things?That was a rhetorical question, really, to which Professor Poole answered:No, not at all. And it's also meant that we've had to put at risk what we consider an important aspect which is student representation and advocacy . . . She pointed out that in 1994, when this legislation was introduced in WA, there were 17,000 members but when she was being interviewed the membership was at 10 per cent, which is about 2,000 students—a huge drop, with a huge concomitant drop in revenue, the consequences of which we are seeing today.What we are going to see in the case of Edith Cowan University is either the complete financial failure of the guild because of that very significant drop in membership, enforced by the state government, or the university having to take over the services without any additional funding. If that is the brave new world of student organisations and if WA is an example of what is to happen in the rest of the country, then God save the rest of the country.497013:11:004970Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—Recently I spoke in the grievance debate in the House about my concern about the damage to young people, their loss and the devastation to families due to the scourge of heroin. I proposed in my contribution to that debate that the whole of the community needs to look at some of the broader reasons for this problem. I put forward the thesis that, regrettably, there were people now who were not taking responsibility for themselves and that the basic human instinct requires us to take responsibility for ourselves. I pointed to the consequences to us and to our families, our parents and our loved ones of what we do.I said, seriously and with sincerity, that I believe that some of the experimentation and succumbing by young people to pressure and to the scourge of drugs and drug pushers is perhaps due to their lack of acceptance of the devastation that it causes to themselves and to others. I put forward the proposition that we needed to introduce some form of awareness program, and suggested seriously that the depiction and the actual portrayal to people in society, through videoconferencing and other means, of young people lying dead on the slab in the morgue would be another means of getting it home to people that if you start the experiment of taking drugs the consequences are absolutely horrendous.As a result of my speech, I have had the privilege of being asked to speak on a number of programs across Australia about it and I have been overwhelmed by the support I have received, including from the media. I acknowledge and thank the media for their interest in this debate. I have not sought publicity for myself but I do feel strongly and passionately that we need to do more.I have also spoken with members of the police force. I believe, without wanting to cause alarm, that the police force generally is losing some of its morale, because it feels that although its fight against crime in the drug scene and constantly having to be called—sometimes too late—with emergency workers to young people to try and resuscitate them are being publicised, the community does not seem to realise and take more account of it. The community just walks by and lets things happen, and that is causing a drop in morale. Recently I spoke with a policeman whose two friends were killed in a drug stake-out in Melbourne—shot down. The effect of that on this young policeman was quite sad and profound. I took the view that all of us need to do more. This program that I put forward is one of the reasons for that, to try and get more people involved.I want to acknowledge and thank the contact that I had from the High Commissioner for Canada, who kindly informed me of a new program in Vancouver in which the media, in conjunction with others, is now portraying the actual devastation in the streets, with very graphic filming of young people being resuscitated and, unfortunately, sometimes not being revived. I understand that the impact of that in the community has been substantial. I hope that, with the assistance of Canada, I will soon be able to provide to members on all sides of the House, and to staff, the media and others, some videotapes of those films—the idea being that we might look at using them as part of our campaign.Finally, and sadly, I also want to thank the families who have been in touch with me from across Australia who have lost a son or daughter due to the heroin scourge. Their conversations with me have affected me profoundly. One family whose son died last year of an overdose said to me that if his body was available they would make it available if it would save one young life and stop one family from having to go through the horror that they went through. I thought that was a fairly substantial contribution.Yesterday I had contact from a mother in a small community near Euroa in my electorate who indicated that she has two sons—believe it or not—who are heroin addicts. One is 20-odd and the other one is 18. She described how she tried to grapple with this. She still loves them deeply and wants to help them. One of them has just gone on the road in the last couple of days after being home for a few days. (Time expired)497113:16:004971Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—One of the principal concerns of most parents is the quality of their children's education. The single most important aspect of educational achievement is an adequate standard of literacy. It is the door to educational achievement in all other areas, including mathematics. Today I want to look at the positive example of a literacy program run by a school in my electorate.Moana Primary School has 370 students. It has made literacy the focus for the whole school for the last three years. The program starts in reception with an evaluation of the child's fine motor coordination skills—put simply, the child's ability to use a pencil. Problems with fine motor coordination are closely correlated with later literacy problems. If a problem is found, the child is given extra tuition to assist development of writing skills. Then in year 1—that is, the first year after reception—all students are given a literacy test.This literacy test, which was designed and is administered within the school, checks each child's ability to sight words and recognise sounds and letters. If a problem is detected, teacher aides give one-on-one tuition in literacy skills for an additional 1½ hours per week in three half-hour sessions. These extra sessions continue for as long as it takes over the first two years to achieve a satisfactory improvement.In higher grades, literacy tests are done at the beginning and end of each school year. Ordinary reading classes are broken up into smaller groups, comprising children of similar standard, for more intensive and better focused teaching. This approach has resulted in good readers improving markedly. There is less progress, as you would expect, with those exhibiting difficulties, and less improvement with older children. It needs to be recognised that children have the greatest ability and enthusiasm for learning at the beginning of their school years. It is much easier, and cheaper, to fix literacy problems with early intervention. This demonstrates the folly of not giving sufficient resources to early childhood education.Moana Primary puts together resources for its literacy programs from a number of resources. Schools receive a salary budget that is based on numbers; it is up to the school whether it is used on specialists, such as drama teachers, or school service offices. In Moana Primary's case, available resources are devoted to literacy, including a literacy coordinator, and school service officers or teacher aides.The school also pursues grant funding to support its literacy program. In 1998 it received extra funding from the Commonwealth literacy project, a basic skills grant, early years grants and an early literacy grant, worth a total of $45,000. To date in 1999 it has received a total of $39,000. However, the early literacy grant, which last year was for $6,000, is allocated in the middle of the year. I hope the same amount or more will be forthcoming this year.The Moana Primary School Principal, Mike Underwood, and his staff are to be congratulated for their commitment to improving the literacy and therefore life opportunities of their students. It is much more difficult to help older children after they have suffered long-term literacy problems. For a child with a serious intellectual, speech, hearing or learning problem, eligibility for a negotiated curriculum program is assessed by a departmental guidance officer. In reality, resources are so short for special education that only those few with the most serious problems get any assistance. This kind of assistance is beyond the financial discretion individual schools have within their own budgets.While the federal government has provided some additional money for literacy programs, most of it is renaming existing funding under the disadvantaged schools program. This limited support must be seen in the context of other pressures that are being placed on school funding by the Howard government. These include the enrolment benchmark adjustment which cuts funding to state schools because of theoretical relative increases in enrolments at Catholic and independent schools.Another pressure is the cuts the Howard government has made in financial assistance grants to the states. These are the untied grants providing general revenue assistance. The states spend a proportion of their budgets on education so cuts to financial assistance grants imply a proportional reduction in education funding.A major new pressure on state education systems is the number of students over 15 years of age who will be forced to return to school this year because they do not have a job or are not in training and so would not otherwise qualify for the youth allowance. It is widely known that the minister's own submission to cabinet recommended an additional $140 million of funding to cover these costs, yet only $20 million was provided. On top of those pressures, we may have to add the additional cost on education of the GST. All these pressures demonstrate that the Howard government has not shown consistent support for literacy.497313:21:004973Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—When I stood up earlier in the adjournment debate to talk on the Woodridge High School's Odyssey of the Mind achievements, I was remiss in not mentioning the names of the very talented and outstanding students who took part and who represented Woodridge High. They are: Fedrico Felixberto, Elanor Goodall, Katherine Goodall, Christopher Beattie and Rebecca Brown. I also give thanks to the supervisors and supporters—Merideth Goodall and Jad Lawton. I also forgot to say that they not only won the national awards for the best school in Australia and the most talented but also took out three awards: the spontaneous division, the creativity division and the individual creative awards. I wanted to mention those good people and their achievements in this House.Main Committee adjourned at 1.22 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4974The following answers to questions were circulated:4974(Question No. 100)1004974Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On the most recent data, what sum in child care assistance per child per annum was allocated to (a) family (b) private long and (c) community long day care in (i) Australia, (ii) Victoria, and (iii) the postcode areas of (A) 3074, (B) 3075, (C) 3076, (D) 3082, (E) 3083, (F) 3087, (G) 3088, (H) 3089, (I) 3090 and, (J) 3572.4974Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Childcare Assistance is not allocated on a per child per annum basis but is paid to services on behalf of eligible families in accordance with families' income assessments. The estimated amount of Childcare Assistance per child paid on behalf of eligible families in 1997-98 was as follows:Australia(i) (a) Family Day Care—$1940; (b) Private Long Day Care—$2173; (c) Community Long Day Care—$1929.Victoria(ii) (a) Family Day Care—$1649; (b) Private Long Day Care—$2488; (c) Community Long Day Care—$2034.Postcode Areas:(A) 3074 (a) Family Day Care—n/a; (b) Private Long Day Care—$3151; (c) Community Long Day Care—$2110.(B) 3075 (a) Family Day Care—n/a; (b) Private Long Day Care—$2488; (c) Community Long Day Care—$3515.(C) 3076 (a) Family Day Care—n/a; (b) Private Long Day Care—$1992; (c) Community Long Day Care—$2502.(D) 3082 (a) Family Day Care—n/a; (b) Private Long Day Care—$1579; (c) Community Long Day Care—$1741. (E) 3083 (a) Family Day Care—n/a; (b) Private Long Day Care—$2241; (c) Community Long Day Care—$1352.(F) 3087 (a) Family Day Care—n/a; (b) Private Long Day Care—n/a; (c) Community Long Day Care—n/a.(G) 3088 (a) Family Day Care—$1652; (b) Private Long Day Care—$1025; (c) Community Long Day Care—$1276.(H) 3089 (a) Family Day Care—n/a; (b) Private Long Day Care—$869; (c) Community Long Day Care—n/a.(I) 3090 (a) Family Day Care—n/a; (b) Private Long Day Care—n/a; (c) Community Long Day Care—n/a.(J) 3752 (a) Family Day Care—$1557; (b) Private Long Day Care—n/a; (c) Community Long Day Care—n/a.Note:(1) n/a—no services of this type in the postcode area.(2) Figures for Family Day Care are based on Childcare Assistance paid to family day care schemes located in specified postcodes. Each scheme may however have some carers who live, and therefore care for children, in a different postcode.4974(Question No. 123)1234974Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Attorney-General, 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.4975Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Yes.(b) No.(i) No.(ii) No.(iii) Yes.(A) The Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle DBE was appointed to the Family Services Council as a member for its second term, being the period July 1997 to June 1999. The Council is a non-statutory advisory body to the Commonwealth Attorney-General.(B) Dame Margaret was a Senator for Victoria from 1971—87 and a member of the Liberal Party of Australia.(C) Family Services Council members are entitled to sitting fees prescribed by the Remuneration Tribunal under Category 2, which are currently set at $247 per day per member for a sitting.(D) (I) No.(II) Yes.(III) No.(E) There are no fees applicable other than Sitting fees which are outlined above.(F) (I) Travel allowance is paid to Council members at $200 per day for attendance at Council meetings and rates are set by the Remuneration Tribunal.(II) Taxi hire for attendance at Council meetings is paid by the Attorney-General's Department.(III) Nil.(IV) Nil. (aa), (ab), and (ac) The Council has held four meetings in its second term, and one joint meeting with the Family Law Council, for which members were entitled to claim travel allowance and sitting fees. The sum of $1,450 was paid in respect of travel allowance, and $1,882 in respect of sitting fees.4975(Question No. 194)1944975McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to Question No. 2835 (Hansard , 2 June 1998, page 4236), in its sub mission to the review of resourcing needs of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) chaired by Mr Tony Ayers, AC, what additional resources did the AFP indicate were needed to properly undertake its duties and responsibilities.4975Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The AFP did not indicate any specific on-going level of funding. The AFP proposed a program of measures to upgrade its operational effectiveness. These focused on:• increasing staffing levels;• re-profiling and workplace relations reforms;• meeting emerging AFP Adjustment Scheme liabilities;• increased staff training;• upgrading essential facilities and equipment; and• cash injections to meet outstanding liabilities.The initial estimate of the costs of these measures was $125.893 million, but this was subsequently revised to $118 million when the firm costs for certain measures were confirmed.The AFP also sought redemption of borrowings of $15.219 million.Mr Ayers estimated that the AFP could be expected to contribute an estimated $50 million with the implementation of the reform program.4975(Question No. 195)1954975McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to Question No. 2835 (Hansard, 2 June 1998, page 4236), has he received the report of Mr Tony Ayers, AC; if so what (a) were the major recommendations of that report and (b) is the Government's response.4975Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Government received the report of Mr Ayers. The major recommendation of Mr Ayers' report was the implementation of a program of measures to enhance operational effectiveness along the lines of the proposals made by the AFP. However, Mr Ayers did not recommend redemption of borrowings. The net additional funding recommended by Mr Ayers to implement the program of measures was $75.1 million. This recommendation was based on savings of $50 million over three years being achievable with the implementation of the program. With updated costing, the $75.1 million became $68.244 million. The Government approved additional funding of $65.02 million. Details of the program are contained in a statement the Prime Minister and I released on 23 July 1998. Should the honourable member wish to request a copy of this statement it is available from my Office.4976(Question No. 396)3964976Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) On what dates and at what locations has the Wood and Paper Industry Forum met since 1 October 1997.(2) What was the actual expenditure on industry development assistance under the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy in (a) 1996-97 and (b) 1997-98 and what is the estimated allocation for (c) 1998-99 and (d) 1999-2000.(3) What concrete outcomes have been achieved under the strategy in terms of (a) value-adding and downstream-processing of woodchips, (b) opening export markets, (c) maximising import replacement, (d) building industry skills, (e) creating regional job opportunities and (f) encouraging increased plantation and farm forestry development.(4) Does his recent decision to convene meetings of stakeholders to develop a Wood and Paper Industry Action Agenda confirm that both the existing Industry Forum and Industry Strategy are not operating effectively; if not, why is it necessary to have two separate bodies and two separate strategies.4976Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Wood and Paper Industry Forum has met twice since its establishment was announced on 1 October 1997. The first meeting was held on 30 October 1997 at Parliament House in Canberra. The second meeting was held on 26 February 1998 in Melbourne.(2) Wood and Paper Industry Strategy funding is administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia (AFFA, formerly the Department of Primary Industries and Energy) and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR, formerly the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism).Expenditure and allocations under the WAPIS for the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 are as follows:Expenditure ($millions)YearAFFADISR1996-976.2.58271997-985.977.9659Estimated Allocations ($millions)YearAFFADISR1998-995.9551.1911999-20005.8580.875Programs administered by AFFA under WAPIS funding comprise:. Plantations and Farm Forestry;. Support for research through the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation in the areas of: (i) Value Added Processing; (ii) Plantations and Regrowth Timber; and (iii) Sustainability Indicators.DISR is responsible for delivering the industry development initiatives of WAPIS. These initiatives include:. Facilitation of Enterprise Improvement through a network of client managers;. Grants for Industry Development for projects which: (i) address impediments to industry development, (ii) encourage investment in value adding and downstream processing (iii) encourage increased innovative approach through research and technology access; (iv) improved communication through networking and other measures.(3) Under the WAPIS Farm Forestry Program administered by AFFA 55 projects have been funded with a total value of $17.2 million. The projects relate to:. Regional Plantation Committees set up to develop regional strategies for the uptake of tree growing by landholders;. Farm Forestry Projects to provide extension services, training, demonstration sites for the purpose of assisting and supporting landholders to integrate tree-growing with other agricultural pursuits; and. Research and development to support tree-growing activities, for example, species selection, seed propagation, silviculture techniques, and publications relating to various facets of farm forestry.The WAPIS R&D program is managed by the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation on behalf of the Commonwealth.. Under this program the Value Added Processing subprogram invests in projects involving proven technologies that require significant capital funding to assess commercial feasibility at a pilot scale or market development. Projects have included investigating rapid drying of softwood and hardwood sawn timber, understanding collapse during drying of Australian hardwood and identifying, developing and commercialising new feature grade hardwoods.. The Plantations and Regrowth Timber subprogram invests in projects that facilitate the development of growing, processing and utilisation technology for plantation and regrowth timbers and cover the full range of high priority issues including genetic improvement, productivity, sustainability, improved silvicultural practices, pest and disease control, improved processing and final end-use in high quality furniture products. There is a particular emphasis on eucalypt plantation and regrowth timbers.. The Sustainability Indicators subprogram is pursuing research that will assist Australian forest managers report progress in sustainable forest management against the internationally agreed Montreal Process Group Criteria and Indicators. Activities under this subprogram aim at providing the industry with the tools which it can use to demonstrate credibility (to the global community) that it is managing its raw material base sustainably.Under WAPIS funding DISR has awarded 21 grants worth $1.41 million to projects that address many different issues affecting industry development. Many of the projects are scheduled to take between 18 months and two years to complete. To date, six of the 21 projects have been concluded. Accordingly, it is not possible to assess the final impact of all the projects funded. DISR has also established a network of client managers to give companies access to consultant-provided enterprise improvement initiatives designed to increase management skills and make firms more competitive. Just on 70 companies around Australia have received financial support towards the cost of employing a consultant to undertake business planning and similar activities.For example:. six grants have been awarded to projects seeking to develop new products from resource previously regarded as waste, residue, low quality or only suited for chipping or pulping. The products include charcoal for specialised metallurgical purposes, the production of chemicals previously derived from petroleum sources and ply based flooring;. seven projects are specifically designed to help Australian timber based manufacturers access new export markets or compete more effectively in domestic markets. These include the development of a network amongst Central Victorian timber processors to reposition messmate timbers into more lucrative markets, the application of a more environmentally friendly preservative process to capture Japanese markets, the development and enhancement of quality schemes for timber and furniture, an export focused furniture network in Queensland and the production of marketing materials for furniture exports;. two projects are specifically directed at improving the skills of timber processing workers. FAFPESC (Forest and Forest Products Employment Skills Company) has received a grant to develop educational and training strategies. The Timber Industry Training Centre at Creswick has used its grant to train a sawing instructor to meet the high level of demand for courses in sawing;. more than $775, 000 has already been spent helping company managers to increase their management, business planning and decision making skills through the use of consultants with specialised expertise; . eight projects will lead to increased job opportunities in regional areas. One is specifically directed at creating a better climate for investment in Northern New South Wales by changing community attitudes to the forest industry, increasing awareness of investment opportunities and bringing local government together to create more positive policies towards the industry;. the client manager network has been particularly effective in delivering enterprise improvement initiatives to rural based companies. The client managers are located in State Government Departments and their salaries are paid from WAPIS;(4) The Wood and Paper Industry Strategy has proved to be a flexible and cost effective way of providing support to an industry undergoing change.With the finalisation of three Regional Forest Agreements and the near completion of others, there is a growing sense of confidence within the industry and increased interest in emerging investment opportunities. This presents an ideal time to look at the way government (at all tiers) and industry might work together to ensure that the forest and wood products sector can respond to these opportunities and realise its full potential.The Action Agenda process provides a framework where industry and government can review what has been achieved to date as well as areas that require further attention and identify a way forward for the industry in the post RFA environment.The Government recognises the need for an appropriate and representative stakeholder body. The final form of that body will be considered by the Government in the context of the Action Agenda.4978(Question No. 432)4324978Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 1999:(1) How many overseas posts held official Australia Day functions on 26 January 1999.(2) Which overseas posts did not hold official Australia Day functions on 26 January 1999.(3 ) What reason did each post referred to in part (2) provide for not holding an official Australia Day function.4978Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Of Australia's 97 posts overseas (Embassies, High Commissions and Consulates General), the following 40 held an official Australia Day function on 26 January 1999:AlmatyKathmanduRangoonApiaKuala LumpurRomeAucklandLagosSantiagoBandar Seri BegawanMaltaSeoulBangkokManilaShanghaiBridgetownMexico CitySingaporeCaracasNairobiSuvaColomboNicosiaTaipeiDhakaNoumeaTarawaGuangzhouNuku'AlofaTehranHanoiOsakaThe HagueHong KongPhnomPenhWellingtonHoniaraPort LouisHonoluluPort Moresby(2) and (3) Since 1988, the responsibility for deciding whether Australia Day receptions are held has been delegated to posts. The following 57 posts did not hold an official Australia Day function on 26 January 1999 for the reasons specified in corresponding column:PostSummary of ReasonsAmmanOfficial function to be held in April/May due to weather AnkaraLimited representational benefit and budgetary constraintsAthensLimited local interest and preference for more specifically targeted functions given budgetary constraintsAtlantaOfficial function to be held on ANZAC Day due to weatherBaliOfficial function held in June due to weather, and need for more specifically targeted representation given budgetary constraintsBeijingOfficial function held on 24 January 1999BeirutOfficial function held on 14 January 1999BelgradeOfficial function to be held on ANZAC Day due to weatherBerlinBudgetary constraintsBonnBudgetary constraintsBrasiliaRented residence and chancery unsuitable, and generally poor attendance at national day functions in host countryBrusselsOfficial function to be held later in year to achiew greater impactBudapestOfficial function held on 29 January 1999Buenos AiresBudgetary constraintsCairoLimited representational benefit given costDamascusTwo specifically targeted functions to be held in April in lieu (trade exhibition, ANZAC day event)DubaiRepresentational funds used for more targeted trade/business eventsDublinAmbassador not accredited in time for Australia DayFrankfurtRepresentational funds used for more targeted trade/business eventsFukuokaMarked occasion by visit to a Japanese school engaged in the protection of Australian wildlifeGenevaPreparation for Davos Economic Summit, moving of Embassy premises, and multilateral mission located outside a national capitalHamburgRepresentational funds used for more targeted trade/business eventsHarareWeather conditions, poor attendance at national day receptions generally, and budgetary constraintsHo Chi Minh CityProvided organisational support for community event "Australia Day in Vietnam" on 30 January 1999 in conjunction with Australian business groupHoly SeeOfficial function held on Sunday 24 January following a mass to commemorate Australia DayIslamabadBudgetary constraints, space constraints in official residenceIstanbulRepresentational funds used for more targeted trade/business eventsJakartaOfficial function held on 8 February 1999LondonExpenditure on large national day receptions in London has opinion-formers and decision-makers. Supported Australia Day dinner held by Britain-Australia Society and church services celebrating Australia DayLos AngelesSupported Australian-American Chamber of Commerce Australia DayMadridRepresentational funds used for more specifically targeted functions. Supported Australia Day functions held by expatriate groupsManchesterOfficial function held on 23 January 1999MilanGuests from Milan's consular area included in Rome's Australia Day functionMoscowHead of Mission had not yet presented credentialsMumbaiAustralia Day clashed with India's Republic Day NagoyaRepresentational funds used for more targeted trade/business eventsNew DelhiAustralia Day clashed with India's Republic DayNew YorkRepresentational funds used for more specifically targeted functions. Supported Australia Day functions held by Australian-American Association and AustradeOttawaOfficial function held on 31 January 1999PansFunction held on 21 January 1999, and ANZAC Day function to be heldPohnpeiPresident out of the country, election period in host country, and Head of Mission on leavePort VilaBudgetary constraintsPretoria/Cape TownBenefit outweighed by cost given likely poor attendance in holiday seasonRiyadhPost practice since 1990San FranciscoPost contributed to Australian-American Chamber of Commerce Australia Day functionSao PauloNew Consul-General Trade Commissioner had not yet arrivedSapporoRepresentational funds used for more targeted trade/business eventsSendaiRepresentational funds used for more targeted trade/business eventsStockholmInappropriate to issue invitations before Head of Mission presented credentials on 21 JanuaryTel AvivRepresentational funds used for more specifically targeted functions including ANZAC DayTokyoPost practice for many years. Cherry Blossom party held in April has been the major Embassy promotional functionTorontoSupported Australia Day events by Australian-Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Tranzac (Australia/New Zealand) Club and Australia Wine SocietyViennaPost practice for many years has been to hold the major Australian official function on day before the opening of IAEA General ConferenceVientianeOfficial function held on 25 January 1999WarsawPost traditionally holds a "Summer Celebration of Australia Day'—in June due to weatherWashingtonAustralia Day receptions held by Austrade on 27 January 1999 and by Political Branch on 23 January 19994980(Question No. 456)4564980Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth allocate to youth suicide prevention strategies for 1998-99 (a) in total and (b) to each State and Territory.(2) What method was used to allocate the funds.(3) Was the funding allocated to each State and Territory targeted at specific sectors of the community; if so, which sectors. (4) What percentage of the ACT's allocation for youth suicide prevention was allocated to the work of (a) health services, (b) community organisations and (c) youth services.(5) How is the funding referred to in part (4) tied to youth suicide prevention in the ACT.(6) What is the time frame for the implementation of programs funded in the ACT funded under the youth suicide prevention strategy.(7) Are programs funded under the strategy in the ACT required to be evaluated; if so, what is the time frame for each evaluation.(8) What are the Commonwealth's reporting requirements on funding for the ACT and within what time frame must they be met. 4981Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The total allocation under the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy for the 1998-99 financial year was $13,407,909.(b) Funding was made available to States and Territories through three programs under the Strategy. There was funding allocated to support a national stocktake of suicide prevention programs, education and training for professionals, rural and regional counselling services.The allocations for each of these programs 1998-99 for each State and Territory are given in the table below. It should be noted that the amount allocated for 1998-99 depends in part upon uptake of funds in previous years and progress with project activities over the period since 1996-97.The remainder of the funds available under the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy for 1998-99 are being used to support a range of national projects and pilot programs.1998-1999 Funding allocations to States and Territories under the National Youth Suicide Prevention StrategyState/TerritoryStocktakeEducation and TrainingRural CounsellingTotalNSW$27,000$30,000$788,000$845,000Vic$15,000$180,000$504,000$699,000SA$10,000$40,000$157,000$207,000Qld$10,000$40,000$725,000$775,000WA$10,000$7,500$247,000$264,500NT$7,000$20,000$86,000$113,000Tas$7,000$60,000$118,000$185,000ACT$7,000$60,000Nil$67,000Total for year$93,000$437,500$2,625,000$3,155,500(2) Funds for the National Stocktake and Education and Training projects were allocated on the basis of progress with grant agreements made in previous years with each State and Territory. Progress payments are made on receipt of reports indicating that milestones with projects have been reached.Funds for the rural youth counselling program were calculated using a formula based on the rural, remote or indigenous youth population of that State or Territory.(3) All funds were negotiated with State and Territory Health Departments.(4) All funds were provided to ACT Department of Health and Community Care. That Department has entered into an agreement with Calvary Hospital to provide education and training in youth suicide prevention.(5) Funding is tied to the receipt of progress reports regarding progress with stocktaking suicide prevention programs in the ACT and delivery of education and training to professionals in the ACT.(6) All funds will be disbursed to the ACT by completion of the National Youth Suicide Preven tion Strategy on 30 June 1999. ACT Health and Community Care has tendered the education and training program to an outside provider, and this relationship may continue past June 1999.(7) Regarding the national stocktake grants, States and Territories are paid on completion of each stocktake. The stocktake will be evaluated at a national level and a report published by January 2,000.The ACT is expected to submit an evaluation report regarding the education and training project at completion of the project, expected to be June 1999.(8) The ACT has already provided information for the first National Stocktake on youth suicide prevention to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth. A second national stocktake is now occurring. Payment will be made upon completion of the stocktake, submission of the results to the Commonwealth, and acquittal of grant funds.The ACT is required to report on progress with education and training activities in order to receive progress payments. 4982(Question No. 479)4794982Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) Is it a fact that some employers willingly employ illegal workers to obtain cheap, cash-in-hand labour avoiding normal award entitlements including superannuation; if so, does this action constitute an avoidance of tax responsibilities to the Australian community which disadvantages complying taxpayers including other employers trying to compete in similar industries.(2) Is the Government committed to locating, prosecuting and deporting persons overstaying their visas or working illegally in Australia.(3) How many employers is his Department prosecuting for knowingly employing illegal labour.(4) What are the maximum penalties for employers convicted of employing illegal labour.(5) How many employers did his Department prosecute for employing illegal labour and with what outcome in each year since 1988.4982Ruddock, 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) It is a fact that some employers willingly employ illegal workers. Whether such employers are trying to avoid Australian taxation, and normal working entitlements is not clear. My department participates in the Inter-agency Cash Economy working Group which was announced by this Government shortly after it first came into office. This Government is positively committed to ensuring that both employers and employees meet their fair share of the tax burden. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and Centrelink work together to address this issue.(2) The Government has been concerned with the problem of illegal employment for many years. The main current initiatives to address this problem are: visits by Compliance officers of DIMA to premises where it is suspected that foreign nationals are working without permission; data-matching programs with the ATO and the Health Insurance Commission to help identify and locate foreign nationals who may be working or accessing services without authority; and an Employer Awareness Campaign.The Employer Awareness Campaign has been conducted since 1992 and is aimed at encouraging and assisting employers to check the work rights of prospective employees. During the Government's first year of office, locations of overstayers or people breaching their visa conditions increased by 30%, up from 7,800 in 1995-96 to 10,138 in 1996-97.- locations of illegal workers and overstayers jumped again in 1997-98 to a total of 12,679. In the current fiscal year to 28 February 1999, 8,589 overstayers have been located, an increase of 8.7% over the same period in 1997-98In recent media releases, I have reiterated the Government's determination to continue to crack down on overstayers and people working in breach of their visa conditions.(3) There are no employers being prosecuted by my Department for knowingly employing illegal labour. In all matters of legal action, my Department is advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions.I recently announced a review of ways to ensure that employers do not hire illegal workers and that people visiting Australia do not work illegally. Appropriate measures to deal with employers who breach immigration law will be put in place when all aspects of the proposals have been fully assessed.(4) The maximum penalty that may be imposed on an employer who is convicted of having knowingly employed unlawful non-citizens or visitors working in breach of their visa conditions is $10,000.(5) Since 1988 one employer has been convicted on 2 counts of being knowingly concerned in visitors working without permission and 2 counts of misleading DIMA officers. This was in 1993. He was placed on a $1,000 bond to be of good behaviour for 2 years.4982(Question No. 487)4874982Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:Were arrangements made when developing the existing Comcar drivers' industrial agreement for improved superannuation payments including backdating of improved benefits; if so, have payments been made to the drivers in accordance with the arrangements.4982Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Arrangements were made for improved superannuation payments to be paid to Comcar drivers by virtue of the fact that superannuation would be paid by drivers based on salary plus a National Flexibility Allowance of, initially, $5,500 per annum.The improved superannuation benefits have been paid in accordance with the Comcar Certified Agreement. The Department has made all payments, in accordance with the Superannuation Guarantee Act.4983(Question No. 488)4884983Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) On most recent data, how many age pension recipients reside in the postcode areas of (a) 3128, (b) 3129, (c) 3125 and (d) 3147.(2) On most recent data, how many (a) youth allowance recipients and (b) veterans reside in the electoral division of Chisholm.4983Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) As at 4 December 1998: (a) 1,815; (b) 1,787; (c) 2,141; (d) 1,369.(2) As at 4 December 1998: (a) 1,823; (b) This matter does not come within the responsibility of the Family and Community Services portfolio.