1999-05-133913REPS533901999-05-13Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills5339r8155339Bill presented by Mr Moore, and read a first time.533909:31:005339Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill, along with the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999, implements two key elements of the government's post-2000 arrangements for the automotive industry by:. reducing the rates of customs duty on passenger motor vehicles and certain related componentry from 15 per cent to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005; and. establishing the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme (ACIS) which will start on 1 January 2001.The government announced its post-2000 arrangements for the industry on 5 June 1997 in response to the Industry Commission report on the automotive industry. The government decision recognised the significant progress this industry has made over a period of more than a decade and the need to ensure that the industry will maintain its progress in the transition towards becoming a competitive player in the global market.On 22 April 1998 the government announced that ACIS would be the centrepiece of its post-2000 transitional arrangements for the automotive industry. The present arrangements for the automotive industry are due to finish at the end of the year 2000. In developing a new assistance package for the industry, the government was acutely aware that the central element of the new package would need to be consistent with our international obligations. ACIS represents the result of extensive policy design work, close consulta tion with industry and careful consideration of our trade obligations.The Customs Legislation (Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme) Bill 1998 to implement ACIS was introduced into parliament on 2 July 1998, but the legislation lapsed with the proroguing of parliament. Since the introduction of legislation last year:. Customs has become part of the Attorney General's portfolio, and principal responsibility for administering ACIS now resides with the Department of Industry, Science and Resources; and. industry has had the opportunity to provide further input to the scheme, resulting in a more rigorous legislative design and a scheme which, from an administrative standpoint, better meets industry needs.Automotive Competitiveness and Investment SchemeThis bill provides for the establishment of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme (ACIS). ACIS will encourage the development of internationally competitive firms in the automotive industry through rewarding eligible production, strategic investment and research and development (R&D). Within the scheme:. Those qualifying as motor vehicle producers (MVPs) will be able to claim: duty credit to the value of 25 per cent of the value of production of motor vehicles, engines and engine components multiplied by the tariff rate; and duty credit to the value of 10 per cent of their investment in eligible plant and equipment.. Those qualifying as automotive component producers, automotive machine tools and tooling producers or automotive service providers will be able to claim: duty credit to the value of 25 per cent of their investment in eligible plant and equipment; and duty credit to the value of 45 per cent of their investment in eligible R&D.Where MVPs produce automotive components, automotive machine tooling or automotive services for a third party, they too can apply for these benefits. Duty credit will be fully transferable, so credit can either be used to offset customs duty on eligible imports or can be sold to a third party.To meet Australia's World Trade Organisation obligations, benefits under ACIS for each participant will not be permitted to exceed five per cent of its eligible sales for the preceding year. Benefits under ACIS will also be capped for the industry as a whole at $2 billion over the years 2001 to 2005. The production credit which directly replaces the duty free allowance—that is, 15 per cent of value of production of passenger motor vehicles sold in Australia and New Zealand—is not included within the fiscal cap, and the revenue forgone is expected to be around $825 million over five years. The key changes embodied in the new bill include:. focusing the scheme on the now seamless market for light vehicles under 3.5 tonnes comprising cars, four-wheel drives and light commercial vehicles;. tightening the scheme to minimise the scope for abuse;. including the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 to enable any necessary adjustments to benefits;. shifting primary responsibility for administering ACIS from the Australian Customs Service to the Department of Industry, Science and Resources in line with changes to administrative arrangement orders announced in October 1998; and. providing officers of the department with powers to properly administer ACIS, such as audit powers.The changes will make administration of the scheme easier to manage and more robust. The changes will also ensure that the scheme more accurately reflects current industry practice so that the industry receives the intended benefits from ACIS with the least administrative burden. The bill provides for the administrative detail for ACIS to be set out in subsidiary legislation in the form of regulations and ministerial guidelines.Summary This bill and the two associated bills are an integral part of the overall package of government initiatives for the automotive industry. Along with the automotive market access and development strategy, which is being oversighted by the Automotive Trade Council, the package will help position the industry as a competitive player in the global market.The package has the support of the major industry stakeholders. They have contributed significantly to the improvements devised since the legislation was first introduced.Each measure of the package is contingent on the success of the other, and it is essential that the integrity of the package be maintained during the passage of this and the two associated bills. I commend this bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and the next bill in the package, the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 .Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills5340r8145340Bill presented by Mr Moore, and read a first time.534009:39:005340Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill, along with the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999, will implement the government's package of post-2000 initiatives for the automotive industry.Recovery of Unearned CreditThis bill gives the Department of Industry, Science and Resources the ability to recover ACIS duty credit paid to participants where:. there has been an error or mistake of fact in calculating a benefit;. information provided to the department was incorrect or incomplete;. there is a clerical error or mistake in the ACIS ledger which records the balance of credit; or. the credit was claimed in respect of a transaction that was not at arms-length and involved `non-arms-length values'.The ACIS Administration Bill 1999 sets out the circumstances in which credit may have to be paid back to the Commonwealth and sets out a process for recovering unearned credit. This bill imposes the liability. I commend this bill to the House, and the explanatory memorandum for this bill was presented with the first bill of the package.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills5341r8185341Bill presented by Mr Moore, and read a first time.534109:41:005341Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill, along with the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999, will implement the government's package of post-2000 initiatives for the automotive industry.Customs Tariff ReductionUnder the current provisions of the Customs Tariff Act 1995, the rate of customs duty imposed on passenger motor vehicles and certain parts for passenger motor vehicles is declining each year. At present it is at 17.5 per cent, and it will reach 15 per cent on 1 January 2000, after which there are no more annual reductions. This bill provides for the tariff to be reduced to 10 per cent from 1 January 2005.The stable tariff regime between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2004 will offer firms in the industry vital breathing space to adjust and to integrate their operations into global markets. The tariff reduction in 2005 is in line with the government's commitment to trade liberalisation and is a tangible step in Australia meeting its APEC goal by the year 2010. It will continue the downward pressure on the automotive tariff and will also deliver cheaper prices and higher quality to consumers.Customs ItemThis bill also provides the item under which customs duty liabilities on eligible imports can be discharged by duty credit earned under the ACIS Administration Bill 1999.SummaryThe tariff reduction and new item are integral to the whole package of government initiatives for the automotive industry.Each measure of the package is contingent on the success of the other, and it is essential that the integrity of the package be maintained during the passage of this and the two associated bills. I commend this bill to the House, and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills5341r8115341Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.534109:44:005341Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and associated tax laws and impose tax specifically so as to ensure that, broadly speaking, the trustee of a closely held trust with a trustee beneficiary discloses to the Commissioner of Taxation the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries of certain net income and tax preferred amounts of the trust. This disclosure must occur within a specified period after the end of the year of income.Where the trustee of the closely held trust fails to correctly identify the ultimate beneficiaries within the specified period, the measures specifically impose tax at the top marginal rate plus the Medicare levy in the case of net income. In the case of tax preferred amounts, such a failure produces offences under the Taxation Administration Act 1953.Where there are no ultimate beneficiaries of net income of the closely held trust, the measures specifically impose taxation at the top marginal rate plus the Medicare levy.The amendments form part of the government's tax reform package and apply to present entitlements created after 4 p.m. on 13 August 1998.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 I present the explanatory memorandum to the A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 2) 1999 .Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills5342r8125342Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.534209:46:005342Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The background to this bill was detailed in my second reading speech of the A New Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999.This bill imposes taxation at the highest marginal rate plus Medicare levy where trustees fail to correctly identify ultimate beneficiaries of net income of the trust.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.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills5342r8135342Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.534209:47:005342Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The background to this bill was detailed in my second reading speech of the A New Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999.This bill imposes taxation at the highest marginal rate plus Medicare levy where there are no ultimate beneficiaries of net income of the trust.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.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills5342r8255342Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.534209:48:005342Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Restructuring of Managed Investment Schemes This bill provides relief from any unintended tax consequences arising on a managed investment scheme restructuring for the purposes of the Managed Investments Act 1998. The relief will be available to schemes operating on 1 July 1998, which restructure in accordance with the Managed Investments Act 1998 during the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2000.Members of these schemes will also receive relief from any unintended taxation consequences resulting from their scheme restructuring for the purposes of the Managed Investments Act 1998.Company Law ReviewThis bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and associated tax laws to ensure that a company's share capital account does not become tainted by the merger of tainted share premiums with share capital under recent Corporations Law amendments.The amendments also provide that all debt for equity swap arrangements which should qualify for the exception to the tainting rule do so and the delayed crediting of share capital to the share capital account does not trigger the share capital tainting rule.The proposed amendments apply from 1 July 1998.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Committees53435343534310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector on the degree of industry concentration within the retailing sector in Australia be extended to 30 August 1999. Business5343Miscellaneous5343Motion (by Mr McGauran)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day No. 10, committee and delegation reports, being called on forthwith.Bills5343r6705343Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Mr Sercombe:That the House take note of the report.09:52:005343Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I rise to speak on the report on the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 tabled in this House yesterday by the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, the member for Maribyrnong. The Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, established the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program in March 1997 specifically aimed at creating an environment in which businesses can create wealth and create jobs for all Australians and ensuring an efficient, responsible and flexible corporate environment.In April 1998 the Treasurer released the draft Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill for public comment. The bill is in four parts, dealing with reforms to directors' duties and corporate governance, fundraising, takeovers and accounting standards. This bill is a significant step in the government's reform agenda to modernise the legal structures and the regulatory framework under which Australian businesses operate. The legislation is not designed to relax necessary regulation but seeks to simplify it. The bill has undergone an extensive process of public consultation and discussion. The committee's inquiry began in April 1998 following a request by the Treasurer. In general, there was strong support for both the consultation process and the general thrust of the bill. The process, for example, was described in one submission as a `model of best practice consultation in policy development'.Of the many issues considered by the committee, I will refer to just a few. One area of concern was the extension of the compulsory acquisition provision to allow a 90 per cent majority shareholder to compulsorily acquire the remaining shares at any time. Several individual shareholders and the Australian Shareholders Association opposed this change on the basis that it would allow their shares to be acquired from them against their will and without sufficient regard to general considerations of fairness. The committee had regard to their views, but the committee also considered the effects of the small minority shareholdings on the efficiency of Australian businesses and on the interests of all of the shareholders of the companies involved and concluded that this extension of the compulsory acquisition provisions is justified and that it is generally fair to minority shareholders. The committee did recommend some minor amendments aimed at protecting the interests of those minority shareholders.A matter of significance which arose during the inquiry concerned the effects of capital gains tax on shareholders whose shares are acquired during compulsory acquisition or who receive a scrip-for-scrip takeover offer. One witness noted that not only will shares be taken from minority shareholders in compulsory acquisition but also the tax liability would also arise under the capital gains tax provisions. There were concerns that self-funded retirees would be particularly affected because their capital base would be diminished and subject to capital gains tax during a compulsory acquisition or a scrip-for-scrip takeover offer. The committee took this into account and concluded that the capital gains tax implications of accepting a takeover offer in these circumstances would deter many investors from accepting an offer and this of course would frustrate the economic objectives of the reforms contained in the bill.The committee recommended that, irrespective of progress on other much needed capital gains tax reform, rollover relief from capital gains tax be provided where shares are compulsorily acquired and when a takeover offer for a publicly listed company is accepted on a scrip-for-scrip basis. An amending tax bill should be introduced urgently to accompany debate on the legislation to give effect to this recommendation. Failing this, the legislation ought be amended so that a potential unwanted capital gains tax liability provides an absolute defence against compulsory acquisition.Another major issue was in relation to the Takeovers Panel. During the inquiry the committee conducted a video conference with Mr Peter Lee from the United Kingdom Takeovers Panel. This proved to be a very valuable exercise for the committee as the Takeovers Panel has successfully operated in the United Kingdom for over 30 years. It was apparent to the committee that for the Australian panel to be fully effective it must enjoy the support of the whole business community. The hearing also focused the committee's attention on the importance of ensuring that the best possible people available are appointed to the Australian panel with appropriate remuneration. The committee concluded that the bill will establish an effective Takeovers Panel.It should be noted that there was general support of all committee members for the report and there were no dissenting reports, although there were supplementary reports on particular aspects lodged by several members. I take this opportunity on behalf of the chairman of the committee, Senator Chapman, to thank the other members of the committee and to thank the committee secretary, Frank Nugent, and his staff for their invaluable contribution to the inquiry. We recognise the contribution made by the individuals and organisations making submissions to the committee or appearing during the public hearings and responding to requests by the committee for further information. The committee has recommended that, subject to the specific recommendations mentioned in its report, the bill be passed in its current form.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills5345r800Billsr799Bills5345Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.09:57:005345Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—It is fitting that just after the budget we are debating these two bills, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 . It is especially fitting because it provides the opportunity to nail a particularly brazen attempt by the Treasurer on Tuesday night at false pretences when he spared 90 seconds in his speech to misrepresent the government as being engaged in new initiatives for Australian families. The Howard government constantly says that it is pro-family but, of course, actions speak louder than words. The Howard government is familiar with all of the rhetoric, but at the end of the day it does not deliver the goods—that is, it can talk the talk but it most certainly can't walk the walk. There is no vision, no imagination and no heart. There is no coherent family policy in these bills or in the budget. For that reason, we will be moving amendments at the conclusion of my speech today.The bills we are debating today cannot and should not be seen in isolation. We must look at them in the context of a broader picture and in the context of the budget. The Treasurer told the parliament that the bills we are debating today will provide around $2.5 billion in extra assistance to families. That is what he said in his budget speech earlier this week when he said:. . . the Government has before the Parliament legislation to provide around $2½ billion of extra family assistance each year. It is a pity really that in that speech he chose not to mention the GST once. He did not mention the GST once in that speech on Tuesday—not once. Therefore, he failed to mention a $30 billion tax that will shift the goalposts, placing a massive burden on Australian families.The money announced by the Treasurer in the budget as extra assistance for families and detailed in these bills is not extra assistance for families at all; it is in fact compensation. It is not extra assistance, as was presented in the budget; it is compensation—and very inadequate compensation at that. It does not take an economist to see that the GST is a tax on consumption. Families by their nature consume most, if not all, of their income, and it will be families who will be hit hardest by the GST.The tax package shifts most of the tax burden onto low and middle income earners and families. So the GST puts extra pressure on families. Nothing could be more against the interest of the family. Nothing could be more anti-family than the GST because it substantially pushes up the costs of raising children. The tax cuts offered are not targeted to low and middle income families; they are tilted to high income earners without kids. High income earners—the income bracket where the problems of work disincentives and family problems are less acute—will gain most under the GST. So in the course of my remarks we will see that the GST compensation offered in these bills is completely inadequate, but worse than that the meagre compensation offered erodes over time.For all of the government's fine words about helping families, they must be seen in the context of what has occurred over the past three years. Before we consider in detail the bills before us today, it is absolutely essential that we see what these bills were built on. We must understand the extent of the burdens placed on families in recent times. For all of the government's rhetoric about families standing on their own two feet, that is just code for cutting essential government services and making families more dependent, not independent, not giving them the ability to stand on their own two feet. This government has created a social deficit by cutting funding and services to families in the areas of health, education, child care and social security. All of these cuts have placed extra burdens and responsibilities on struggling families around this country, and the budget brought down on Tuesday night does absolutely nothing to restore that loss.No issue demonstrates the extent to which families have been plundered by the policies of the Howard government than the issue of the family common youth allowance, which has forced families on low incomes to support their unemployed adult children. These are families who were and are still in desperate need of some financial relief, but the government has failed to abide by its promise to Senator Harradine and compensate these families. What they have offered now, in Senator Harradine's words, is `too little too' late. Now we have the farce of amendments circulated in this House only yesterday afternoon to give effect to changes in the budget to try to provide some additional support for those families who have been so savaged by the changes of July last year. Nothing could be more cynical, nothing could be more duplicitous, than what the Howard government is attempting to do in bringing these changes into the House.To give a fraction back to those families of what was taken away is completely duplicitous because these families were fleeced by the government in July last year. They lost a maximum of $88 a week for a young adult living at home and $133 a week for a young adult living away from home. What are they giving back? A maximum of $18. Not only is the effect of this amendment to give those families just a small fraction of what they lost a year ago but, to add insult to injury, these families are supposed to wait two years to get this meagre additional assistance. What the government is doing is analogous to someone stealing a bicycle and belatedly returning it two years hence but with no wheels, no saddle, no handlebars—all they are handing over is the frame. It is pathetic. It just demonstrates how duplicitous and cynical this government is.What they have done in the youth allowance is a symbol of what they have done across the board. Whether you are talking about education, whether you are talking about labour market programs, whether you are talking about social security, right across the board living standards of families have been plundered by the Howard government. There has been a systematic assault on low and middle income families and that systematic assault is continued in these two bills and in the tax package. As I said earlier, there was not one word about the GST in the Treasurer's speech the other night—a $30 billion imposition on Australian families.All of that dishonesty is summed up in the pathetic and dishonest amendments brought into this House at the eleventh hour yesterday afternoon to try to retrieve the government's position on the family common youth allowance. If this government had a shred of integrity, a drop of honesty and particularly any concern for battling families, these measures which they brought in through these amendments yesterday afternoon would be backdated and the quantum of money for these families increased so that these families and their children got back what was taken away on 30 June last year and were not forced to wait two years for that compensation.If this government were genuine, young adults aged 17 and over would also be provided for in the GST compensation, because that is the other feature of the tax package. These young adults do not exist; they do not compute. As far as the compensation arrangements in the tax package are concerned, they do not exist. That just demonstrates once again how cynical, brazen and punishing this government has become when it is dealing with battling families. But it is just not in the area of the youth allowance; it is a theme that is repeated across the board.What have they done in health? Hundreds of millions of dollars have been slashed from Medicare, private health insurances gaps have been increased by cutting Medicare rebates for eye, knee and other operations, Medicare offices were closed across the board and public hospital spending was slashed by $800 million. Changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme have hit families through out-of-pocket expenses and an increased cost of scripts. In education, university grants have been plundered by billions, TAFE funding has been cut, money has been cut from government schools and so on. In child care, cuts and underspending amounting to something like $1.3 billion have forced the cost of child care through the roof, forced women to reduce their hours of work or forced some of them out of the work force.There have been cuts to income support. What has been done to those aged 55 or more who have been unemployed for nine months? They have been forced to begin using their superannuation entitlements. What a mean and despicable measure from this government. What about aged care? The government has forced families to shoulder the added stresses and financial worries of their elderly parents and forced some to find an extra $4,380 a year to pay for a bed in a nursing home.This all comes together when you look at what they have done in labour market programs—abolished, cut, slashed right across the board. No labour market programs exist, even when everybody knows that the key to an active welfare policy starts from the fundamental belief that the best form of welfare is a job. If a job cannot be found, the individual has the responsibility to work with government to train or engage in beneficial community activities. The government has a responsibility in return to provide the resources. But, as we have just seen, labour market programs have been cut across the board and replaced with the plastic populism of Work for the Dole—a pathetic attempt to pretend that some support is being given, but no training, real support or real resources have been offered to those people in need.When this Prime Minister and his government talk about welfare reform, it is just all talk. It is code for cutting more money and more support. You have to invest more in rewarding work over welfare, in education and in training, so you can allow those who are disadvantaged to walk on their own two feet, but that requires an investment up-front. When you look at these bills and when you look at the budget, this government is never prepared to pay the investment up-front. It would rather mop up the mess later with a whole host of unrelated programs. It is never interested in making the long-term investment up-front. So what do we get in these bills? We get more expenditure in an inadequate attempt to compensate families for the massive cost of a $30 billion GST. The price of that $30 billion GST is a blowout in welfare spending which, in itself, does not compensate for the new tax.Let us take the example of what the government is doing to sole parents. A sole parent receives more money under the government's tax package if she does not work than if she goes out and finds a part-time job. How is that fair? A further 300,000 low income Australians will face tax rates of more than 80 per cent if many of the changes the government is contemplating go through. What do we get from the government? Now Minister Reith wants lower wages and lower welfare benefits across the board. How does that enable people to stand on their own two feet? It is just more cuts, more cuts, more cuts.This is the classic conservative approach to welfare reform—lower wages, lower social security, no investment in people. They are all bandaid solutions. Labor's way is to positively reward work over welfare through our tax credit system—the only way you can deliver positive benefits and improvements to the living standards of low and middle income families in our community, the only new genuine idea for tax and welfare reform in the system. Under Labor, people are encouraged to work, without much of the poverty that comes with the coalition's proposal. Tax credits, as everybody knows except the government, have been shown to work everywhere else in the world, but they cannot be contemplated here because they deliver the benefits to families at the lower and the middle end.The bills we are considering today must all be set in the context of a government that has its priorities all wrong. In the budget on Tuesday night, the government provided $350 million to the department to implement the new tax package. You could do a lot with that $350 million by way of labour market programs so people could stand on their own two feet rather than wasting it on this burdensome, unfair $30 billion new tax. Set that $350 million against the inadequate compensation that families receive for that $30 billion new tax.Also inadequate in this budget and in these bills is the government's pathetic commitment to early intervention and support for families. Once again, actions speak louder than words. In the minister's budget statement for Family and Community Services on Tuesday night, she said that her government will:. . . work cooperatively with State and Territory governments and community organisations to develop a national framework to support and strengthen families. Over the next 12 months the government has committed itself to: enhancing the effectiveness of early intervention and preventative programs; and providing information to service providers, families and the wider community about the availability of these programs . . . If only they would. Once again, actions speak louder than words. There is nothing in this budget to back up those sentiments—nothing at all. There is $25 million for the prevention of domestic violence. That is welcome—and it is an old announcement—but there are in the order of 350,000 cases of domestic violence each year. If that $25 million was spent in just one year, it would equate to about 33c a week for each victim of domestic violence. What do you get by way of early intervention and prevention programs? What do you get to go to the core of the problem rather than try to put a bandaid over it?There is a $2 million allocation for early intervention in marriage and relationships. We welcome that, but where is the national commitment to a national program to provide positive assistance to families when their children are young? That $2 million for that new program is 0.003 per cent of the total amount of parenting payment. This government needs to devote some real resources to early intervention, not the bandaid approach. If the government were serious about early intervention, it would take Labor's lead and invest a lot more up-front with truly national programs rather than its small offerings. In the long run, it will save a lot more down the track in health, welfare and policing. Unfortunately, this government—like in so many other areas, such as unemployment—will not provide the resources to enable people to stand on their own two feet.The bills before us today do not enable families to do that at all. They will not provide any tangible gains once the regressive impact of the GST kicks in. These bills will give some of the money back that parents have already shelled out for the GST. What the government gives in one hand, it takes with the other.The government will paint these bills as all-singing, all-dancing activity. It will wax lyrical about the extra assistance these bills offer, but none of the bills balances the other side of the ledger: the massive impact of the GST on families, the massive amounts they will be paying on food, clothes, schoolbooks, bus fares, electricity bills, phone bills—all of the basics. All of the independent evidence says the GST compensation is inadequate, including all of the measures in these bills today. This government is going to have its hand in the pocket of Australian families in a thousand different ways every day through this $30 billion new tax which is a savage attack on the living standards of low and middle income families.The core of this debate is whether these bills adequately compensate for the massive impact. We all know that they do not. Those opposite will argue it is enough. There will be misrepresentation and a crude attempt to disguise the fact that the government has no vision, no imagination, no heart and no coherent family policy.Six months after the basic GST legislation, which these bills follow, we have a wealth of well researched arguments which have come through the Senate inquiries about the GST and the tax reform package. What does the government do to this wealth of material which demonstrates how unfair it is? The government and its sneer doctors have wriggled through different tactics in response to all of their critics. First, they have misrepresented and brazenly distorted what they have said. Now they have come around to not even bothering to argue against them— the three monkeys policy that Minister Truss employs on most aspects when he is in trouble.In the first category, the Treasurer tried to pretend that a report prepared by two professors, Ann Harding of the University of Canberra and Neil Warren of the University of New South Wales, was really on their side. But writing in the Financial Review a few days later, Professor Warren was blunt and unequivocal. The report said:The government, he said, should learn important lessons from the report and its research. First, the Government compensation package is simply not adequate.His comments can be applied directly to the family allowance compensation changes that are before us today. We also have the work of Professor Peter MacDonald, which should make the government hang its head in shame. Professor MacDonald said:The levels of compensation for the added costs of children deriving from the imposition of the GST are clearly inadequate. . . There are considerable disincentives to having children in Australia at present and our birth rate reflects this fact. This package will only add to the problem. It is extremely disappointing that this rare opportunity to provide real benefits to children has been missed.Shame on this government. I would just like to move to a number of the detailed provisions of the bills. There is A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 , which creates new payment types and contains the qualification criteria for the payments. There is also A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 , which repeals the current provisions of the Social Security Act that provide family related assistance.The government has said that these bills simplify matters; that is a virtuous aim and one that anybody would welcome. We are told the bills are good because allowance categories will be consolidated and simpler. You really have to draw yourself very complex diagrams to try to come to grips with what is supposed to be a simpler system. This is going to be a nightmare to administer. It is going to be very difficult for any average family member who wants to find their way through an application form unscathed. People are still going to experience very considerable difficulties.The numbers and types of allowances may have been cut back, but what is left, as anyone who has read the bills knows, is not that simple. I certainly hope the new Family Assistance Office announced in the budget to deal with these issues works a little better than Centrelink does at the moment. I sincerely hope more than 19 per cent of the callers will be able to get through on the phone and that families wishing to make face-to-face appointments will be served more promptly and not have the three-week wait that is now experienced at many of the Centrelink offices around the country.We know, and hundreds and thousands of Australians know all too well, the never- ending fiasco of Centrelink, with its slashed resources, demoralised staff and shrinking face-to-face customer contact. In the budget, Centrelink copped a billion dollar cut, so I do not think those on this side of the House are too hopeful of improved assistance in Centrelink or any of the other administrative arms of government that this government tries to set up.I have spoken for months about the confidence trick the government has attempted to play over the alleged compensation for pensioners under the GST. This confidence trick is repeated when we look at family allowances in these bills. The bills confirm that the rate of family allowance in the future will effectively be tied to pensions and the increases resulting from the better of the CPI or average weekly earnings figures. Wages will be rising faster than the CPI, so the compensation for families, like that for pensioners, will be eroded over time—once again, confirming and proving what Labor has been saying about the disappearing compensation in this package in total, not just for pensioners but also for families. Just as it disappeared in New Zealand, it disappears here and these bills prove it.Voters will be touched to know that high income earners will be able to get something to help them pay the GST on their children's needs. The current assets test on family allowances will be abolished for those people. Under the existing test, the family allowance would not begin to be reduced until assets exceeded $410,000 and something would be payable up to $608,000. Under the new rules, those with assets of a million dollars, with all their assets invested, could earn up to $70,000 in interest and still receive a family tax benefit. It is unfair that millionaires should be allowed to cash in on the welfare dollar when lower income earners are getting so little out of this package.I would also like to deal with provisions relating to the maintenance income test. One yawning gap relates to the maintenance income test for family type payments. Under the current rules, maintenance income including child support payments above $951.60 a year reduces entitlement to family allowance by 50 cents in the dollar. During the Senate debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill, Senator Newman said:The tax reform package will increase the maintenance income test free area by 2½ per cent, as with the other income test free areas in social security, and that will also provide additional compensation for some payees.This statement by the minister represented one of the reasons why the government was not prepared to support an opposition amendment aimed at protecting custodial parents at the lower end of the income scale who would receive less income as a result of the child support bill. It was hardly a strong argument for opposing our amendment, given that increasing the maintenance income test-free area along with other social security free areas is about compensating people for the GST and is not compensation for a reduction in child support.Now that promise has been broken; now we see that there will be no such increase in the maintenance income test-free area. Under this bill before us, maintenance income above $952.65 a year would reduce entitlement to family benefit by 50 cents in the dollar. This represents an increase in the free area of 0.11 per cent, as opposed to the 2.5 per cent promised by Senator Newman, with no change in the taper. Despite what Senator Newman told the Senate, custodial parents will not be fully compensated for the fact that they will receive less child support, nor will they be compensated for the fact that they will be paying a GST.Child care is yet another area where this bill is deficient. The child-care cash rebates and child-care assistance arrangements will be replaced by the child-care benefit, but, while the legislation involving these two past programs is to be repealed, the legislation to implement the new program is not before us. Regulations will be used in the interim. This is very fortunate. The parents, and most importantly the carers, need some stability. Under regulations the minister will be able to make far-reaching decisions which might not come under parliamentary scrutiny until too late.Unhappily, this is another example of the government's rush to legislate on the GST package before getting things right. There have been fears that the government will bring in changes introducing payments in arrears. I serve notice on the government that we will vigorously oppose that if there is any hint of it in the future.Also in these bills the government tends to favour small families over large families. There are two provisions that give rise to concern in that they favour smaller families over larger ones. The amount that a family can earn before they are entitled to the maximum rate has been changed from $24,350, plus $624 for each child, to a flat $28,200. That clearly favours small families over larger families, and that is to be regretted.In conclusion, only people as thick-skinned as this government and its leadership could proclaim that this legislation is a positive step for Australian families. These bills only give back with one hand what the government has taken away with the other. Yet the Treasurer displayed the characteristic arrogant smugness of an overfed cat when he tried to sell these bills by fudging figures to claim that this government had a family policy. Apart from the bone of payback legislation to parents of what they have already spent and a token payback of the slash and burn of the youth allowance, all that families get from the Treasurer's feast are a few crumbs from the table. Many families in this country are in crisis. To listen to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the government you would hardly conceive that voluntary organisations like ACOSS are seeing people at a rate of over 420,000 a year, all seeking help. If you were a proverbial visitor from Mars and listened to what government speakers have been saying this week, you would have thought that everything was paradise in this country.It is clear that the Prime Minister has no ears to hear the stories of those working at the front line of poverty where Australia divides into two nations. The breakdown of families that flows from poverty and deprivation is sending shock waves throughout our society. A government that cared for Australia's future would be devising policies to meet the challenges of the two nations—the greatest challenge that Australia is facing today.Remember that 800,000 children in this country are growing up in families where neither parent has a job. But is the government talking to the states to thrash out national policies to meet this gathering crisis? No, it is not; of course not. In a few more years John Howard will be offering money to build more gaols. What he should be doing is providing early intervention program assistance up-front to provide that assistance when it is most needed.As far as John Howard and families go, we can adapt the words of Winston Churchill; never has anyone in the world of politics said so much about the family and done so little. This week has shown that the Howard government has no vision, no imagination and no heart for the families of Australia. I move the following amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for :(1) seeking to introduce a GST which shifts more of the tax burden onto low and middle income earners, the aged and families whilst providing compensation that is manifestly inadequate and will leave low income families and individuals worse off;(2) claiming to have provided sufficient compensation for the GST when the compensation for both pensioners and families will erode to nil over time;(3) seeking to introduce a regressive GST, income tax cuts for high income earners and family-related payment asset and income test concessions that will provide the greatest benefits to the most privileged members of the community in preference to a properly targeted regime of tax reform, such as one involving a system of tax credits targeted at low and middle income families; and(4) failing to abide by their commitment to provide compensation to families adversely affected by the youth allowance in the tax package, for only providing less than half of the amount required to compensate fully these families in the 1999-2000 Budget, for delaying its implementation until 2000-2001 and linking this inadequate compensation to the passage of the GST".R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10:27:005351Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—As I sat here listening to the honourable member for Lilley, Mr Swan, I was reminded of those lines from Shakespeare in Macbeth : a great deal of sound and fury signifying nothing. How short memories are for some people in this place.This person is a member of a party that for over a decade was in government when the gap between the rich and the poor in this country expanded an enormous amount. He is a person who is a member of a party that for over a decade in government in Australia saw unemployment and interest rates rise to record levels which drove people, families and individuals into bankruptcy; a person who is a member of a party that for over a decade was in government in Australia when we saw the number of people in receipt of welfare assistance and dependent upon benefits from government rise to record levels in this country; and yet this person comes in here today as if none of that occurred.After I have dealt with some measures in the family assistance bill—most of which the honourable member for Lilley did not address; he raved on about other matters—I will come back to some of the things that have happened in relation to families over the last 20 years in Australia, when for much of that time this country was governed by the Labor Party of which the honourable member for Lilley is a member.I rise to support this bill, unlike the previous speaker, as a means by which the living standards of many Australian families, particularly those on low incomes, will be improved significantly. The legislation is part of the government's new taxation system and is further evidence of the government's commitment to strengthening Australian families and the communities in which they live.Let me remind the House of some of the key measures in the new taxation reform package, of which the matters in this bill form a part. This package includes: personal income tax cuts totalling over $13 billion a year from July 2000; tax cuts to be provided for all taxpayers, with reductions in marginal tax rates for about 95 per cent of individual Australian taxpayers; the tax-free threshold for all taxpayers to be increased from the current level of $5,400 to $6,000, with the greatest proportion of benefit going to low income earners; a doubling of the tax-free thresholds under the family tax initiative, which will result in all single income families, including sole parents, with a child under five years having an effective tax-free threshold of $13,000, more than double the new general threshold of $6,000. This provides an additional assistance of $490 a year.For those with two children, one of whom is under five years, that is additional assistance of $630 a year. For those with three children, one of whom is under five years, the additional assistance is $770 a year. Dual income families with one child and single income families with no children aged under five years will have an increase in family tax assistance of $140 a year, a 70 per cent increase. Those with two children will have an increase of $280 a year, and those with three children will have an increase of $420 a year.On top of that, there are other measures, and I do not have time to go through them all. The 20 per cent marginal tax rate will be reduced to 17 per cent, while the 34 per cent rate and the 43 per cent marginal tax rate will both be reduced to 30 per cent, with the result that over 80 per cent of taxpayers will face a marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent, compared with only 30 per cent now.The member for Lilley was talking about compensation. He claimed that there was a lack of compensation in these measures. I ask the House, I ask those who are listening: when the Labor Party raised the rates of wholesale sales tax in Australia, when 10 per cent rates went up to 12 per cent, when 20 per cent rates were put up to 22 per cent, when 30 per cent rates went up to 32 per cent, where was the compensation? There was absolutely none.When the Labor Party reneged on its personal income tax cuts—you know, the infamous l-a-w law tax cuts which had been introduced by the former Prime Minister Mr Keating—where was the compensation? And when it raised a myriad of other taxes—indirect taxes, which had an effect on all Australians, on all people in this country—where, I ask, was the compensation? The answer in each of those cases is: there was absolutely no compensation from the Labor Party. Yet they have the hide to come in here—when there is a compensation package of great detail, which does deliver benefits to Australian families—and say, `There is not enough compensation.' This is coming from a party that provided absolutely no compensation over a period of more than a decade when, increasingly and gradually, they hiked up tax rates, whether they were personal income tax rates or indirect tax rates. They have no credibility in relation to these matters.As part of the new taxation system, the government proposes in this legislation to implement a major rationalisation of the family assistance it provides by simplifying the structure. At present there exists 12 family benefits—12 different ways in which family benefits are provided to Australian families. The proposal in this legislation is to simplify these matters into three levels of family benefits and to create a new family assistance office, which will be able to provide advice to Australians about these benefits.The bill gives effect to the new simplified structure, as it removes all family assistance components from the Social Security Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act. Secondly, it abolished the Childcare Rebate Act and the Child Care Act and replaces them with a new structure as well as higher rates of assistance and work incentive measures. These measures in this important piece of legislation have been guided by three principles: firstly, the need for simplicity; secondly, ensuring delivery of choice for families; and, thirdly, ensuring families receive the same level of assistance, regardless of the delivery mechanism that they choose.In summary, the income test-free threshold for family assistance rises from $24,350 for one child to $28,200. The income test taper rate will reduce from 50 per cent to 30 per cent—that is, the rate at which the benefit cuts out once you start to reach the threshold point. Rather than cutting out at a rate of 50 cents in the dollar, it will be cutting out at a rate of 30 cents in the dollar, which in itself delivers further benefits to many Australian families. Thirdly, eligible families will receive an increase of $140 a year for each dependent child, and single income families with a child under five will receive an increase of $350 a year. The upper income test-free area for the base rate has been increased by this bill from $66,403 plus $3,322 per child after the first child to $73,000 plus $3,000 per child after the first child. The calculation of income will be based on the current year income for the family in question.What this bill does, in terms of reducing the 12 categories of family assistance currently provided to three, is to provide the following three categories: firstly, family tax benefit part A, which is for helping families raise their children; secondly, family tax benefit part B, which will provide extra help for single income families; and, thirdly, the child-care benefit, which will help with child-care costs.As a result of the announcement in this week's budget, part A will be extended to families of young people up to the age of 21 who are not eligible for youth allowance because of the parental income test. The primary carer in the family will be able to choose how they want their family assistance paid: as fortnightly payments to their bank or financial institution, reductions in their tax instalments or as an end-of-year lump sum. Families receiving some form of income support will also benefit from a four per cent up-front increase in compensation payments and easing of the pension income and assets test.These measures address the unfair work disincentives and poverty traps in the current system and substantially reduce the effective marginal tax rates for many low and middle income families. Poverty traps arise in this country from a combination of losing entitlements to income support payments as one's income increases and paying more tax, which ensures that individuals and families retain very little of the extra money they earn. It means that there is no incentive to work harder—that is, when people reach a certain income level not only do they pay more tax because they are earning more income but also they lose some of the benefits they have. In many cases, the combination of those two things on the effective tax rate means that there is no incentive to work harder because, in effect, they are not bringing in any additional money, even for their additional work.These measures can be viewed against the background of what has happened to the financial fortunes of families over the past three decades. It has been estimated, for example, that by the early 1990s a family paid 2¾ times the tax paid in 1966-67 while a single person paid 1⅔ as much. Much of the increase, of course, has resulted in bracket creep over the last three decades.According to a study by Dr Alan Tapper, between 1960 and 1990 the effective tax rate on individuals in Australia rose by 83 per cent while the effective tax rate on the family rose by 360 per cent. This is taken into account in referring to the effective tax rate of both taxation and benefits. Dr Tapper also claimed that in the Australian welfare state today there is a large transfer from young households to the older households—that is, people over 55 years. He also asserts that, while sole parent families are substantial beneficiaries, two-parent families are net losers, contributing more in taxes than they actually receive in benefits. In fact, over a decade ago, in 1987, the then Director of the Institute of Family Studies, Dr Don Edgar, said:. . . a one income family with two children required an income of $42,900 a year in order to have the same standard of living as a single male on average weekly earnings—then—of $24,000.Indeed, one can say that having children in Australia has become a wealth hazard. Families with children comprise 62 per cent of households in the poorest 30 per cent of society but only 32 per cent of those in the top 10 per cent. Those with the highest disposable incomes, after adjusting for the cost of housing and family dependents, comprise both partners of a couple working full-time, 35 per cent; couples with one full-time and one part-time earner, 19 per cent; single income couples, 10 per cent; single people, 26 per cent; and elderly retired people, seven per cent. As Dr Tapper said at the beginning of this decade:. . . there is now no net assistance from government to families with dependent children. Families with dependent children pay fully in their taxes for everything they get from governments (local, state and federal), including what is by far the biggest item, the costs of education. Life cycle assistance now goes to the elderly, the over-65s. This assistance comes from young adults before they have children, from parents of young children, and from households of couples with non-dependent children.According to Alan Jordan's analysis published in The Common Treasury , families with dependent children enjoyed a real standard of living of about three-fifths of that of the rest of the adult working population.I say to the honourable member for Lilley, who comes in here complaining the way that he did, that this analysis by Tapper and Jordan and others, which was carried out at the beginning of this decade and published in a series of books and articles at the beginning of this decade, showing the diminution in the income and the financial circumstances of ordinary Australian families, occurred whilst his party was in government in Australia. If he wants to come in here and complain about measures which, on the whole, deliver a raft of desirable benefits to Australian families, and then say something about compensation not being adequate, he ought to look again at what his party did in government for more than a decade in Australia.In addition to the matters I have already pointed out, the rise in the dual income family appears to have widened the gap between the rich and the poor. A second income has been an economic necessity, as we know, particularly for so many low income families. But where high income families have delayed or chosen not to have children, a second income has significantly increased their disposable income. According to Professor Ann Harding, double income no kid families—so-called DINKs—are replacing single income families with children in the top 10 per cent of income earning families. The impact of this change during the 1980s was noted by Professor Harding, who is the Director of the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling here in Canberra. She said:The real area where placing families on more equal footing makes a difference is our perceptions of who is rich and who is poor. Once income is adjusted for need, `dinkies'—dual income couples without kids—emerge as the largest family group in the top decile, making up 36 per cent of the top decile . . .Similarly, using an income measure adjusted for needs totally changes our perception of which groups are the poorest in our society. The aged no longer dominate in the lower decile, making up only 14 per cent of the total. Instead, couples with children are the single largest group in 1989/90, making up 36.6 per cent of individuals in the lowest Whiteford equivalent income decile . . . Sole parents are the other major group, making up 23 per cent of the other decile. This group is particularly disadvantaged, with 37 per cent of all those individuals in Australia living in sole parent families being placed in the lowest income equivalent decile (and a further 19 per cent being placed in the second lowest decile).As Professor Harding indicated, the proportion of dual income couples in the richest 10 per cent of the population increased from 28 per cent in the beginning of the 1980s to 36 per cent by the end of that decade. In subsequent research, Professor Harding has concluded:. . . there appears to be an increase in the proportion of married couples in poverty between 1989-90 and April 1994 using the Henderson "before housing measure"; while that for single parents has fallen.Harding's figures—and others that one could quote at length in here—describe the detrimental impact of Labor policies on families and children in this country. A 1995 study found that families required two incomes to maintain their position in the middle class. According to the study by NATSEM:. . . couples with children make up half the middle class. Of these, 50 per cent are dual income. Only a quarter survived on a single income, with the other quarter relying on investments and other income. Where a family had a second job, it was more likely to be part-time . . . That is suggesting, of course, the financial imperatives involved for many Australians.Two income families made up 54 per cent of the top 10 per cent of Australia's households, but single income families accounted for just five per cent, according to Professor Harding. Families with children required a gross income of $143,000 to reach the top decile, but those without children required only $102,500. Five out of six parent households in the top bracket were dual income families. The Western Australian Taskforce on Families concluded:Effective tax rates for many families have risen by about 14 per cent in the past four decades. Lifetime effective tax rates for those who brought up children in the 1950s (and those reaching retirement in the 1990s) would be very low: "Those bringing up children today have a very different situation, as successive governments have moved away from a policy of net support for young families, towards a commitment to net support for the elderly."Recent studies also suggest that living standards may fall as the number of children in a family increases. Again according to NATSEM, couples with three children or more and single parents with two children or more are less well off than smaller families. However, some of those figures are incomplete and further study is required.These measures, not only in these particular bills before the House today but in the range of taxation and family assistance bills which this government has brought in, are very welcome measures. The measures involve a far-reaching recognition of families in the taxation and benefits system. It is an import ant recognition also that two economies exist within the nation: the market economy, where exchanges take place through money and where competition and efficiency drive decisions; and the home economy, where exchanges take place through the altruistic sharing of goods and services among family members. As Allan Carlson and David Blankenhorn wrote recently:It is precisely the home economy—acts of unpaid production ranging from parental childcare and nursing of the sick and the elderly to gardening, home carpentry and food preparation—that is the organising principle of family life and the basis of civil society.Every marriage creates a new home economy. These little economies are largely undetected in our measurement of gross national product, just as they are usually beyond the reach of tax collectors. But they are vitally important. If they thrive, the well-being of children in society as a whole improves.This nation does require a strategy, of which these measures are part, which recognises that becoming a parent involves financial cost brought about by the needs of children, the additional costs of housing, the desirability of full-time care by a parent—at least in the early year or years of the life of a child—and the fact that parents tend to be young and, accordingly, earning less than they do later in life. As I said at the outset, I wholeheartedly support these measures and commend the bills to the House.10:47:005355Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to rise to make a contribution to the debate on A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 in support of the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Lilley, and seconded by me, and to express some dismay at the inadequacy of the amendment shunted into this House yesterday afternoon.The government's budget on Tuesday night, when combined with this bill, proves just how manifestly inadequate the so-called GST compensation package is. This is a government that is willing and able to compensate casinos for the expenses incurred by their highrolling punters, but when it comes to ordinary Australian families and pensioners the government is just not interested in helping.The average Australian household income is still only $31,500. One would think that the priority of this government would be to help people on that level of income and below. But, once again, what we see with the GST bill is the inadequate compensation and the failure to adequately provide assistance for Australian families. Given the $5 billion budget surplus, one could have expected a bit more compassion from this government on Tuesday night, but compassion is something that this government has in very short supply.There is no doubt that families will be worse off under the GST and this bill. As demonstrated in the recent Senate hearings on this issue, compensation to families for the GST will erode to nil over a period of time. That is because certain rates of family allowance are linked to the combined pensioner couple rate which, in turn, is tied to average weekly earnings. Over the long term, wages will rise at a greater rate than the CPI; therefore, so will pensions and certain rates of family allowance. However, as wages rise the value of the increases provided as GST compensation erodes to zero—zero compensation.We will still have Australian families paying a 10 per cent GST. They will be paying a GST on food, on clothing, on their power bills, on their phone bills—on all their essentials of life—minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day. It will be there forever. But, at the same time, there will be a compensation package which, after a very short period of time, will be zero. After only four years, pensioners will receive the same rate of pension that they would have received without the GST. After six to eight years, families will receive the same rate of family assistance that they would have received without a GST. Added to this, the compensation for the GST for pensioners is a one-off increase in their payments. They will get four per cent and then nothing. The government's compensation measures for the GST are illusory. Compensation in any real sense simply ceases to exist over time.The government has made much of its prediction of an inflationary increase of 1.9 per cent. But that was not what its own experts, when they came before the Senate inquiry, stated. For the essentials of life such as food, for example, the government's own estimation is that that will lead to an inflationary increase of six to seven per cent. However, it may well be that luxury cars and some of these one-off purchases that very few people in society can afford will come down in price. But for the pensioners and ordinary Australian families out there who are battling from week to week, the families that have to spend their entire income on food, clothing, schooling, school books and uniforms—on the essentials of life—that inflationary figure of 1.9 per cent is reduced to a farce. Once again, I repeat that the government's own figures state that food will lead to an increase of six to seven per cent in that area. We know that the pensioners and ordinary families spend a greater proportion of their income on food than the Ron Walkers of this world. Everyone has to eat, but not everyone will benefit from some of the reductions in luxury goods. Australian families and pensioners will have to fight the GST and the rise in prices on their own. This government is not interested in helping them.ACOSS recommended—the same ACOSS that is seeing over 400,000 people each year asking for assistance—that the government introduce a separately identified compensation component indexed to MTAWE, male total average weekly earnings. This would have meant that Australian pensioners and families would have achieved net increases in their pensions and allowances above and beyond what they would have received anyway. ACOSS's suggestion would have allowed some compensation for Australian families.The government could have taken up that suggestion but, once again, they are not up to the task. They are intent on protecting the winners in the GST at the top end of town at the expense of ordinary Australian families, because families are definitely the big losers with the introduction of the GST and this bill. At the moment, families that receive child support payments or maintenance payments in excess of $951.60 a year receive reduced rates of family allowance.The inflationary nature of the GST and the increases in costs forced Senator Newman to concede that the maintenance income test free area should be increased by at least 2.5 per cent. Senator Newman made this promise to the Senate and to the Australian people when speaking to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Today we see that the government has raised the maintenance income test-free area to a whopping $952.65 a year. That is right: Senator Newman has increased the threshold by a massive $1.05. Big deal! You won't see Australian families out there saying, `Isn't that terrific? The threshold has been increased by $1.05.' That highlights and is consistent with the mean-spirited nature of this government. It is well short of the 2.5 per cent promised, and yet another example of the government's reticence to provide any genuine compensation to the people of Australia for the introduction of the GST.When the GST bills were first introduced, families with unemployed children over the age of 18 were simply ignored by this government. They pretended they did not exist. As Senator Harradine pointed out during negotiations surrounding the youth allowance bill, the government have ensured that families with unemployed children are caught in a trap. Their children are sometimes defined as `dependent' and sometimes as `independent', depending upon the government's self-interested needs.The introduction of youth allowance means that any unemployed children under 21 are termed `dependent'. This means that, unless the family earns less than $23,550 a year, the young person's entitlements are reduced and the family, in order to prevent their children living in abject poverty, are forced to support their unemployed children. The Howard government is effectively saying, `They are your kids. It's their fault they're unemployed. You pay. It is your problem.' The Howard government has yet again abrogated its responsibilities to Australian families.However, the government then had the gall to define these same unemployed young people as `independent' for the purposes of the tax system. So they are dependent and have to live at home but independent when it comes to the tax system. The government originally proposed that recipients of youth allowance do not qualify for family allowance or the family tax initiatives, and therefore parents who are struggling to support their unemployed children would receive no compensation via the tax system.In response to both Senator Harradine and the Labor Party's justified objections to the gross hypocrisy of the government's measures, the budget announced that the government would pay a maximum of $37.50 a fortnight to families earning roughly between $40,000 and $73,000 whose children are not eligible for youth allowance. The government has betrayed Senator Harradine on this point. He has raised questions himself about the Prime Minister's integrity when it comes down to negotiating a better deal for Australian families. Senator Harradine has insisted that only $50 a fortnight can properly compensate families forced to support their out-of-work children. Senator Harradine is right. He is spot on on this issue. The compensation measure does not even restore half of the $400 million they cut from young people's benefits through the introduction of the youth allowance bill. So much for integrity; so much for compensation; so much for social justice; so much for supporting Australian families.As the shadow Treasurer, Simon Crean, said on 11 May, the families of 45,000 young people who are unemployed still have to pick up half the tab. What sort of compensation measure is that? That is on top of a government which at the same time has decimated and slashed labour market programs.The only labour market program that the government has in place is Work for the Dole—something we have objected to because it is not a program. It does not have training. It is not about looking after people. It is based on populist rhetoric and pretends to do something on behalf of a government which, through its decimation of labour market programs, has shown itself as not being prepared to take up the challenge of providing real training for young people. The government, while attacking those on low incomes, is making life just that little cosier for its own constituency—the wealthy. The amendment moved by the shadow minister points out this contradiction: on the one hand, inadequate compensation and, on the other hand, the great bonus that the top end of town get from this unfair, unjust job-destroying GST.The bill before the House today relaxes the income test and abolishes the assets test for the minimum family tax benefit. Currently, family assistance will not be reduced until assets exceed $410,000, and it will reduce gradually until assets exceed $608,000. The abolition of assets testing may be welcome news for families with high value assets and relatively low incomes, such as farmers, and this is acknowledged by the opposition. However, this measure, in the way it has been drafted in the bill, will also allow families with high value assets and high incomes to qualify for family allowance payments. The abolition of assets testing and relaxed income testing will clearly benefit the wealthiest families in the community—this comes from a government with such an inadequate compensation package—and these are the families who will also receive the majority of their tax cuts from other areas of the tax reform package. As the Senate Community Affairs References Committee stated in its report into the GST which was delivered on 30 March, the GST 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 committee provided a number of concrete examples of the inequities present in the government's tax package. A single person on $20,000 receives a tax cut benefit of 1.3 per cent or $4.28 per week while a single person on $75,000 enjoys a benefit of 7.3 per cent or $68.55 per week. It gets worse. From the GST package, a single pensioner will get $2.89 a week and a pensioner couple $4.81. That is just about enough for a package of cereal—with the GST on it, of course. But it is nowhere near adequate compensation. Pension ers in public housing have been told that they will get a four per cent increase. But we all know that, with pensions being tied to male average weekly earnings, they would have got an increase of 2.5 per cent anyway.But it gets worse. The rents of tenants in public and community housing are tied to their incomes. So, if there is a four per cent increase in pensions, automatically $1 for every $4 of the increase will go to pay for an increase in rent. So here you have a four per cent compensation package: 2.5 per cent of it is fake, another one per cent will go in rent, leaving them with half a per cent to compensate them for a 10 per cent GST that they will be paying on their food, on their electricity bill, on their bus fare, on their children's school uniforms—on everything they do, on all those essentials in life. It really is quite a pathetic package.Compare the pensioner in a housing department house in the suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide or Brisbane—all around Australia—with the government's own record. We do not have to go out and produce documents on this; we have only to go to the documents circulated by the Treasurer—Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system. Look across the tables. For a single income couple with two dependent children, one aged under five years, having a look down the income table, someone on $25,000 will get an increase of $21.82 a week; that is, 3.9 per cent. Maybe they should be happy about getting that $21.82 to compensate them for a 10 per cent GST being placed on everything they spend.But looking further down the table you hit $75,000. What is the figure there for that same situation, a single income couple with two dependent children, one aged under five years? A 12.5 per cent increase in their income, that is, a bonus one-off increase of $121.70 per week. They receive extra income of $121 per week as part of the total package included in the bill before the House today—12.5 per cent. We are giving pensioners four per cent, one per cent of which will go in rent, 2.5 per cent of which they would have been getting anyway. So we give pensioners half a per cent, but we give someone who is on $75,000 12.5 per cent. Where is the compassion, where is the justice, in this?That is why we have moved this amendment today. We want to point out and make very clear that the opposition is totally opposed to the GST because we believe that you cannot make an unfair tax fair. Even if the government tried, it would still be an unfair tax. But the level of compensation in this particular bill is offensive. It is even worse the government rushing in amendments yesterday afternoon—a half baked measure—to try to fix up the problem that it has created for itself by giving commitments to Senator Harradine that it has not kept. I think when all Australians look at the compensation package that was already there they really expected something a bit more fair dinkum from this government on Tuesday night. What they got was arrogance from an arrogant government. (Time expired)11:08:005359May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Contrary to what the member for Lilley said this morning, I believe this government does have a heart. It does care, and it certainly shows some vision—some vision for the 21st century and some imagination. The member for Grayndler talks about our lack of compassion. Where was the compassion when Labor was in government when unemployment was at record levels and when interest rates were soaring?Since coming to office in 1996, the coalition government has strengthened Australia's economic foundations and developed a reputation as a sound economic manager. This has been achieved through responsible and sustainable management. We have seen improved economic growth, the budget returned to a surplus, a reduction in the debt left to us by the previous Labor government and low inflation and interest rates. The coalition government has created a more stable and secure environment for families, with better affordability of home ownership, lower interest rates, secure employment and higher standards of living. Australia now has steady growth in real wages, productivity and profitability. Unemployment is at an eight-year low. The 1999 budget delivered on Tuesday night builds further on the coalition government's record. It is a fair, responsible budget which delivers in full on our election promises. We have worked hard with the community to make advancements since coming to office, but there is more to be done. Measures announced in the 1999-2000 budget build on the government's reforms of the last three budgets and advance its commitment to a fairer, simpler and more integrated approach to social policy and service delivery. This budget continues the government's strong record of help and support for families and children.A majority priority during this term of the coalition government is holistic and integrated support for families. Families are what make a nation. They are our strength, and this government is committed to ensuring families have a greater choice through the new tax system. As part of the tax reform package to implement a major rationalisation of family assistance, the coalition government proposes to simplify the structure and delivery of the family assistance program—not, as the member for Lilley said this morning, to introduce a nightmare.Under these changes, the government proposes to reduce the number of family benefits from 12 to three, and a new Family Assistance Office will deliver the new set of simplified family assistance programs. The reduction of 12 payments into three is without a doubt a huge step towards simplification of the family benefits system. These changes have been guided by three principles: the need for simplicity, ensuring choice of delivery for families and ensuring families receive the same level of assistance regardless of their choice of delivery mechanism.At this time, income tests to determine eligibility for receipt of family allowance are based on the previous year's taxable income with add-ons, whereas eligibility for the family tax initiative is based on the current year taxable income if claimed through the tax system. What this means is that under this family assistance legislation families will be able to use their current year taxable income with add-ons to determine eligibility for the family tax benefit. The use of the current year taxable income means that families face a fairer system whereby all entitlements are reconciled at the end of the financial year.The rationalisation of family assistance programs is intended to complement other reforms contained in the tax package which provide extra assistance to families and attempt to remedy problems associated with poverty traps. The tax reform package boosts the amount of income tax cuts that families receive and improves work incentives for families by making changes to the family tax initiative payment, the family allowance income test-free area and the family allowance income test taper rate.There are three components to the families package. The first component provides a large increase in assistance for most families. The coalition government will firstly double the extra $1,000 tax-free threshold for each dependent child under the family tax initiative to $2,000, providing a 70 per cent boost in assistance, which is the equivalent to at least $140 a year for a child. Secondly, the government will double the extra $2,500 tax-free threshold for one-income families, including sole parents with a child aged under five years to $5,000, providing a 70 per cent increase in assistance. This is equivalent to at least $350 for each family each year. Thirdly, the government will increase the maximum assistance for child care for lower income families by $7.50 a week or seven per cent.The second component of the package provides a substantial boost to assistance for low to middle income families that attacks poverty traps: firstly, through increasing the level of income at which family allowance begins to be income tested from $24,350 to $28,200 a year and, secondly, through reducing the income test withdrawal rate from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. Combined with personal income tax cuts, this greatly increases the rewards for low to middle income families. It also ensures that families are substantially better off moving to full-time employment.The third component of the families package is a simplified administrative system. As mentioned earlier, the existing complex family assistance system, encompassing 12 different forms of assistance, will be simplified to three forms of assistance. I do not see how this turns into a nightmare. Family tax benefit part A is for helping families raise their children; family tax benefit part B is to provide extra help to one-income families; and there is a child-care benefit to help with child-care costs. Reducing the number of forms of assistance and delivering them through a Family Assistance Office will make it much easier for families to understand and access the system to ensure they receive their right entitlement.Ours is a nation where the family unit is the cornerstone of our lives and it is the family's responsibility to raise children to be strong, responsible and independent individuals, where hard work and enterprise is rewarded and where small business is the cradle of lasting and fulfilling jobs for Australians into the future. As we stand on the edge of the new millennium, Australia's fortune lies not so much with parliaments, business, political parties or money markets as with individual Australians—young and old, men and women, Australians by birth or choice. Each one of us is responsible for building our own lives and the life of our nation. All of us are accountable to ourselves, to those around us and to the future itself. A legitimate role for government is, in a very strategic way, to protect the dignity of the individual so as to strengthen families and local communities.I believe that, through a partnership between individuals, business, government and the community, with each one playing their proper role, a free, fair and united society can be strengthened and maintained. After all, strong local communities and families are essential for developing a sense of nationhood. Strong but fair communities depend upon a web of relationships between individuals and within and between families and communities. These relationships are about trust and mutual obligation. They are what holds us together as a nation.During my term in the 39th Parliament I am personally committed to the principle of mutual obligation in Australian society and to creating an even stronger social coalition to more effectively provide remedies for disadvantaged and underprivileged areas. Robust communities, cohesive families and responsible individuals are fundamental for building a strong economy. Without a strong economy, a caring community becomes that much harder to achieve. Without strong economic foundations there can be no guarantee of fulfilling and lasting employment, little hope of security for individuals and families, and no stable revenue base to provide the social safety net that the community demands.This new tax system for families provides a structure which is simplified and gives families a choice on delivery without compromising the level of assistance. Reform of family assistance under a new tax system represents one of the most significant social reforms in Australia's history. This government is to be commended for its interest and care in one of the most important sections of our community—our families.11:18:005361Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Rationalising family payments is indeed a good idea. But we do not need a goods and services tax to do that. I note that this bill is entitled A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 . In other words, the measures proposed in this bill are conditional upon the introduction of a goods and services tax. The government is really saying that everything it is proposing in the tax area is conditional upon the Australian people accepting a goods and services tax. It is saying that income tax cuts are conditional upon Australians accepting the goods and services tax. The Treasurer has told the business community that the entire business tax reform is conditional upon the Australian people accepting a goods and services tax. And of course the measures in this bill are conditional upon the Australian people accepting a goods and services tax.The government is trying to bludgeon Australians into accepting an odious, unfair GST. It is a GST that is job destroying. Evidence given to the Senate inquiry by Professor Dixon of Monash University shows that the GST will create no jobs at all. Indeed, the Prime Minister's preferred modeller Chris Murphy could identify no jobs created through the GST. He said that any job cre ation through the government's package will actually come through the reduction of poverty traps—that is, through the measures outlined in this legislation, not in the legislation providing for a goods and services tax.One of the great dangers of the goods and services tax for jobs is the inflationary impact of the GST. I draw the attention of the House to Budget Paper No. 1, page 1-11, where, in talking about the inflationary impact of the GST, the government says:The impact on prices of the tax reforms under A New Tax System is not included in the projections. However, this impact has been taken into account separately in projecting the revenues and expenses affected by the tax reforms.In other words, the government wants to count all of the gain but none of the pain. If we look at the inflation figures for the year 2000-01 in table 3, we see the government has it at 2½ per cent, which is obviously ridiculous. The Treasury has admitted to the Senate GST inquiry that the inflationary impact of the GST alone in the first year would be at least 3.1 per cent when you add back in the impact of the GST and other related measures on tobacco and on housing. In addition, it is quite clear that the assumption of the Treasury and the government that all of the benefits of removing the wholesale sales tax will be passed on to consumers on 1 July 2000 is just ludicrous. If you do take into account that that passing on will be at least delayed and some of it may not occur for a very long time, then it is quite plausible to have an impact of the GST in that first year of at least four per cent. So what we should be doing is adding at least four per cent to the 2½ per cent figure they are talking about—that is, 6½ per cent.Professor Dixon warned the Senate GST inquiry that if wages follow the price rises associated with the GST then we could be in for a very rough time in terms of unemployment. His modelling actually suggests that, if wages respond to the full increase in prices associated with the GST—that is, if wages grow by the same amount—we could be looking at job losses for up to 120,000 Australians. This budget provides absolutely nothing in terms of those job loss figures. It is a budget that says, `Here we have the GST. We'll count the revenue, thank you very much. We'll count the gain, but we'll count none of the pain.'The second aspect of the GST is its unfairness. ACOSS estimates that at least one million households will be worse off as a result of the government's package. In relation to the impact on small business, there will be 1,500,000 new unpaid tax collectors for the government—that is, the small business sector. The problem is that the government's obsession with the goods and services tax is crowding out any attempt whatsoever at a jobs plan.There is nothing in this budget that comprehensively deals with the problem of unemployment in Australia. As a consequence, the forecast for unemployment is for it to be stuck at 7½ per cent and for employment growth to continue to slow over a three-year period. A proper jobs plan could be developed and it could consist of a decent welfare to work plan of getting people out of the welfare system and into work—the sort of proposal that Labor took to the last election, the sort of proposal that Labor is continuing to pursue and the sort of proposal that the government seems supremely uninterested in.The measures contained in this bill still leave affected households with an effective marginal tax rate of 61½ per cent, which is very high. It is a change on the rate of around 85 per cent, so on the face of it there seems to be some improvement. But we need to go a little bit deeper to have a good look at what that really involves. The reduction for those households to 61½ per cent will in fact be accompanied by an erosion of the compensation package over time under this legislation for a whole group of families. Just like pensioners, the compensation arrangements for those families whose payments are linked to average weekly earnings under this package will be eroded over time.In addition, there are those families who are adversely affected as a result of the government's common youth allowance decisions, the repair work on which is only partly done in this legislation. I would imagine that Senator Harradine would be very disappointed with the government's response. He has certainly indicated his disappointment with the government's response, in particular the government's coupling of those changed arrangements through amendments to this legislation with his support of the GST—that is, the amendments to this bill indicate that the government would proceed with those repairs to the damage done by the common youth allowance only if Senator Harradine joined the government in supporting the goods and services tax.For those affected by the common youth allowance, this package does nothing in terms of effective marginal tax rates. I draw the attention of the House to an analysis done by Michael Keating and Simon Lambert published in the Australian Economic Review. In that analysis they say:In the case of single income families—this is after these measures—this EMTR will be as high as 78.5 per cent and in the case of a family with two children, it would apply over a range of $6500 per annum.They go on to say:. . . the Government's reform proposals do not address the very high EMTRs which can result from the stacking of the family payment income test and the Youth Allowance income test . . . there are at least 22 000 individuals receiving Austudy whose families face a very high EMTR as a result of this overlap.They say:. . . as many as 40 000 or more families would still be facing a very high EMTR under the Government's proposals. In such cases the family's EMTR would rise from 61.5 per cent to 86.5 per cent, and where there are two youth allowees an extreme EMTR of 111.5 per cent would be generated.In other words, the proposals contained in this bill do nothing for those people to reduce effective marginal tax rates and in fact increase effective marginal tax rates dramatically for those families affected by the common youth allowance. This is a lost opportunity. The government could have recognised that it had neglected those households affected by the common youth allowance changes, just as it has sought to make some repair of the damage done to them through this amendment, and it could have had a second amendment dealing with the effective marginal tax rates they will face, but the government chose not to do that. It is possible to get many effective marginal tax rates below 50 per cent by streamlining family payments—and I emphasise this—without a GST. We have to stop for a moment and consider the impact of the GST itself on work incentives. The problem is that the GST reduces the purchasing power of income obtained from work. The GST itself acts as a disincentive to work. So when the government crows about reducing effective marginal tax rates, that is one side of the equation only and only for those families affected by this bill.The other side of the equation, about which the government is entirely silent, is that the implementation of a GST actually reduces the incentive to work. It is a fairly obvious point, but it was pointed out to me by the Department of Finance in 1985 when I was associated with the tax debate at that time. A number of the senior people who were involved in that debate have now left, but I would be interested to hear the views of the Department of Finance on this issue—that is, the impact of the GST itself on work incentives. I cannot really expect to hear from them, so I will not hold my breath. So the plan in this bill is basically flawed. There are some positives, but the plan could have done a lot better, and fundamentally it could have been achieved without a goods and services tax.Let us have a look at the magnitude of the problem that we are dealing with. Gillian Beer, in a publication last year, estimated that more than 440,000 Australians face effective marginal tax rates of more than 60 per cent and, while a significant number of upper and middle income earners face high effective marginal tax rates, it is mainly the low and middle income earners with children who face high effective marginal tax rates, just as the unemployed face high effective marginal tax rates. This does not really do anything for these people. That is why we have poverty traps and that is why we do need to do something real and effective to deal with these poverty traps.The second aspect of an overall jobs plan as proposed by the Labor Party, apart from removing or reducing poverty traps, is to improve the education and skills base of the Australian community. Fundamentally, a great way of avoiding poverty traps is to get a good education, good training and then move directly from education or learning into work. We do not need to deal with the problem of a transition from welfare to work if people are not on welfare in the first place. It seems to me quite obvious that the fundamentally important way of ensuring that people are not on welfare in the first place is to provide them with a decent education.Testimony to the lack of commitment of this government to equality of opportunity in the provision of education, and therefore to equality of opportunity in life's chances, is provided in its callous decision to abolish the equity scholarship program for kids from low income families to go to universities. The government is moving in the opposite direction: instead of giving more hope and more chance for people from low income families to get a decent education and to move directly from learning into work, the government is abolishing the one program it had that was designed at least to give some chance and some hope to some scholarship holders. That has gone. The direction in which the government is heading is quite clear.Without a goods and services tax we could have a good jobs plan built on a decent education and training system. But in place of a good jobs plan, what do we have? We have arrogance. We have the arrogance of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, who have said to the Senate that the amendment they are putting forward today to the common youth allowance is conditional upon the Senate passing the goods and services tax. We also have a government that is saying that it does not really have any commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity for young people from low income families.The impact of these sorts of measures, the goods and services tax and its failure on the education front, is that they will create two nations—not one nation but two nations. The government's proposals in the budget will divide the nation into two. They will divide the nation into those who have access to information and education and those who do not. The goods and services tax divides the nation because the top 20 per cent of income earners will get more than half of the tax cuts, and low income earners, the unemployed and pensioners, will get slugged with the GST and they will have to share what remains of the income tax cuts in the government's proposals.This is a budget that divides the nation through its decision to fully privatise Telstra with no independent inquiry, reversing the commitments that it clearly gave during the federal election campaign. The people in the bush will lose access to information through the privatisation of Telstra services. By losing access to information, you lose opportunity to improve yourself and lift your skills.This government is abandoning all hope for ordinary Australians to be part of a clever country. The Labor government in the 1990 election announced a set of initiatives designed to secure Australia as the clever country, but this government is moving in the opposite direction. I say to the government: let us get rid of the point of division between us. The major point of division is the goods and services tax. The goods and services tax is not necessary for providing income tax cuts. It is not necessary for reducing poverty traps and in fact moves the situation in the opposite direction. The goods and services tax is unfair and the goods and services tax will divide the nation. So let us get rid of that point of division. Let us put it behind us and get together in a bipartisan effort to develop a plan that secures the future for Australia and shares the benefits fairly so that all Australians can make their way in the world of the information age of the 21st century.That is my plea to the government. Let us put the goods and services tax behind us. Let us proceed with the decent measures that can be implemented without a goods and services tax—a proper education system, measures to alleviate poverty traps and decent and fair income tax cuts for Australians. That is possible, and I hope the government responds to that offer. In the spirit of bipartisanship, let us develop a plan for Australia's future, not a plan for a tax.11:38:005364Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 . In doing so, I congratulate both the Treasurer and the government on these initiatives. What we see in these initiatives is great assistance to the family. The coalition government has established as one of its key principles support for the family. If any key factor in terms of the budget provides for assistance, this exemplifies and provides an example of what this government hopes to achieve. We see that the family is the essential core of the Australian society, of the Australian community. If we get our family assistance program right, other things will follow—the number of other assistance programs that deal with break-ups of family and all the consequences of those will be reduced.Obviously, we as a government cannot legislate or provide assistance to eliminate totally the types of problems that we see in our community as a result of family break-ups, but we can do a lot to assist families—assistance in terms of family assistance programs, assistance in terms of child care, assistance for those single parents or supporting parents who are out there in the workplace, fairness in terms of lifting the thresholds, fairness in terms of changing the taper rates from 50 per cent to 30 per cent, recognition of the financial pressures and burdens that exist for the average Australian family, and assistance for young families as they put their children into child-care centres.I believe that, with regard to family assistance on several levels, to encourage them to have children we have to support them in all the great expenses that are involved in sending their children to school and in the other pressures that come along for single parents and those parents who decide to put their children into day care because of working wives. Overall, this is an excellent package. It recognises the pressure that is on young families, and it does something very positive to assist these families.The total value of this package is some $2½ billion. That is a very large chunk of money in terms of the allocations in this very responsible budget. As the government, the Treasury and the cabinet decided where they would spend their money, they put up as one of their very highest priorities assistance to the family—$2½ billion is quite a major contribution to families in the Australian community. In my electorate alone, it will benefit some 12,600-odd families with dependent children. That is a very significant level of assistance, and I am sure it is one that many of the families are grateful for. In terms of the $2½ billion that is allocated in the package, over two million Australian families in total will qualify for additional assistance—at least $140 per child and, in a one income family with a dependent child under five, $490 per child. That is quite major.It is very interesting that the member for Rankin, who preceded me, was saying, `Let's remove the difference between us.' It is very easy to remove the difference, and that is to endorse the sweeping proposals contained in the GST. These changes have been endorsed by the Australian community in general and have been supported by the media, editorial commentators and economic writers across this country, and that is one of the reasons that our economy is so strong.It is very interesting that in the budget we can look forward not only to the income tax cuts that will be allocated under the GST for families, which is the second part of the assistance, but also to the extension of assistance. So the benefit under part A of the family tax benefits, which is outlined in this piece of legislation, will be extended further in the budget. The benefit will be payable for dependent children or young people up to 21 years of age who are not receiving the youth allowance. If they are receiving a part youth allowance, the benefit will be topped up for qualifying families to a maximum rate of $37.50 a fortnight.There are other assistance measures. The government has focused on helping families through a range of specific initiatives—increasing relationship support services, assisting to resolve family disputes, developing approaches to reduce domestic violence, expanding children contact services and youth suicide prevention strategies and supporting carers of young people with disabilities. We see quite a wide range of assistance measures in this budget in addition to the proposals before us in this piece of legislation, which has been so welcomed by families across Australia.We have seen in this budget the support of the community across Australia. In fact, every single one of the contacts that I have had outside of this parliament since the budget was delivered said the government seems to be going well. There is a very good reception to the budget from all sources. That is the general mood, and it is supported by the editorial comment across Australia. We have a $5½ billion surplus in the budget, the lowest unemployment rate for 10 years, the lowest interest rates and the lowest inflation rate for 30 years. It is quite an achievement. Of course, the growth rate is estimated to be some 3½ per cent, which puts us ahead of every other country in Asia. It is a great achievement, and one of which the government is very proud.We are very pleased to see the various changes that are proposed in these bills—firstly, the part A changes in the family tax initiative, and the other ones that are provided today. They will reduce the types of assistance from 12 to three, and the simplification is very much supported. In a phone call with the Sutherland Centrelink office, which has been involved in administering this change, they said how much they welcomed it. They think simplifying the administration will make assistance to families more efficient, which is what it is all about at the bottom line; it is not about bureaucracy. So the simplification from 12 to three payments will mean they will have further time to answer the various calls to the centre and reduce the waiting time for callers. There are 31,500 payments made through the Sutherland Centrelink, so it is a very extensive centre and one of the heaviest used in Australia. They, as a centre, very much welcome this move.We are going to see three new payments—the family tax benefit part A, the family tax benefit part B and a 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. The child-care benefit will provide assistance for the cost of child care. That is a summary of the proposals.Family tax benefit part A will replace the family allowance, the more than minimum rate family allowance, family tax payment part A and family tax assistance part A. In total, it means an extra $140 a year for each dependent child. The payment will have the same minimum and maximum rates as the previous scheme but, in addition to that, it will provide an extra $140 a year. The threshold will be increased from $24,350 to $28,200. So the minimum rate of family tax benefit part A will have a relaxed income tax threshold of $73,000 a year, plus $3,000 a year for each child after the first. In addition to that, it will have a reduced taper rate. Instead of the current 50 per cent rate, it will have a taper rate of 30 per cent. So each dollar that is earned above the threshold, instead of being penalised at the rate of 50 per cent, will be penalised only at the rate of 30 per cent.This whole combination includes lifting the threshold to $28,000—so we are allowing a greater free period where there are no penalties at all—increasing the income tax threshold to $73,000 and changing the taper rate as well. So that is a great welcome. In summary, part A will offer an additional $140 a year, a change in the taper rate and a change in the threshold, and that is a great assistance.Family tax benefit part B will replace six existing payments which provide assistance to single income families. This obviously will be of benefit. It will replace the dependent spouse rebate, the sole parent rebate, the family tax assistance part B, the basic parenting payment, the guardian allowance and the family tax payment part B. It will have a similar structure to the current system. Having those six payments replaced by one provides a lot of administrative simplicity.The level of assistance in this payment is higher, with the youngest child being aged less than five years. Everyone would agree that that is appropriate; that is where major assistance is required. That is when the child needs the mother the most and that is where the government has decided to provide its priorities and give maximum assistance. Part B will provide an additional $350 a year for single income families, including lone parents, with a child under five years and an additional $61 a year where the youngest child is aged over five. So even those who do have a child over the age of five will still receive additional assistance.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 $10,500 a year. So that is also great for those with children under five years. It will provide incentives for primary carers to undertake part-time work. It is important that they supplement their income and perhaps get a break from looking after the children. It is also important for many of them to keep their hand in at work, in terms of being prepared for when they eventually return to the work force, if that is their wish.Family tax benefit part B will be subject to CPI increases and, like family tax benefit part A, will be indexed each year in July in line with movements in CPI. So 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. I think that is also a very sensible move.Finally, the third payment, which is the child-care benefit, will replace two forms of assistance currently available to families with costs of child care outside the home. Those payments being replaced are the child-care cash rebate and the child-care assistance.This is an evolving program which recognises the increasing participation of women in the work force. Many of us in this House applaud the increasing participation and the mainstream role that women are taking right across Australia in every aspect of Australian life—in the professions, in business, in the trades and within this parliament. I think all of us would like to see greater participation by women right across the board. But, with that greater participation and the greater satisfaction women get from being able to use their own gifts and talents in the work force, they need assistance. Greater assistance to women who have opted to be involved in the work force is necessary. This new program does provide that. It provides a maximum of 50 hours of work related care per week—at least $120 per child in formal care, with an additional $11 per week loading where there are two children in care and $32 per week loading for three or more children in care.That is also of great assistance and it does recognise how many hours are involved. Obviously, if the mother or supporting carer is out in the work force more—for example, for 50 hours or so—then they are more able to pay for child-care assistance. 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.Again, 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.It has been proposed and developed—and I congratulate those public servants and people in the department who have been involved in developing this program—and meets the test of fairness and equity, and it has also recognised the real aim of the legislation, that is, the need for support.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 provide benefits to 200,000 lower income families who receive the maximum level of assistance. I think that is a great thing.Finally, there is the proposal for the Family Assistance Office to administer these programs and that is also a first-class initiative. It will coordinate these programs, look at their efficiency of delivery, and monitor and assess the level of assistance.In summary, we have an excellent piece of legislation before us; a piece of legislation which is very much pro-family and goes to the heart of this nation of ours that is built on the family and has its strength in the family. It also recognises the need to assist families as their children go through school with all various costs involved. It also recognises the reality of modern life with single carers, and the financial constraints that puts on them. Finally, it recognises the need for assistance to working wives and families who have children going to child-care centres and need further assistance. This is an excellent piece of legislation. I commend the government and the Treasurer for these proposals, and also the department for working through this very equitable list of legislation.11:55:005367Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This family assistance legislation has been designed to streamline family assistance payments by reducing the number of family payments from 12 to three. In addition, the Howard government is seeking to compensate families for the hurt its GST will cause when it is introduced; a tax that will impact on families in every way and every day. The government's compensation package will be quickly eroded, and in the long term families will be considerably worse off than they were. It is not a family friendly tax, despite what the members on the other side of this House may say. The GST will attack every aspect of family life and a half-baked compensation package delivered by changes to family allowance will not be adequate compensation for Australian families. A GST will increase the cost of a family's food, and the smaller a family's income the greater the proportion of its income is spent on food and the necessities of life. They will all be taxed by this government and families will have to pay that tax.There will be a tax on the education of their children. Every book and every pencil that the children buy, their school clothes, school shoes and school lunches will all be taxed by this government, and they seek to compensate families by introducing this legislation. That is part of this legislation. It will have such a negative impact on sporting groups within our community. Children and families who want to participate in sport will find when they go along to play football, basketball, netball or soccer at the weekends that they will have to pay a tax. Every transaction will be taxed.A family with three children who need to have their hair cut will pay an extra $2 on each haircut, and this really impacts on families. I do not believe that the compensation being offered by this government will assist families enough. I mentioned school clothes, but it does not stop there, because children need clothes to wear in their everyday lives. All those clothes will attract a GST. The GST will impact on entertainment, movies and football. At the moment the Knights football team in Newcastle has a family ticket. It costs $32 for a family of four—that is, two adults and two children—to go along and watch the Knights play. If you add an extra $3.20 to that, it will be the difference between families being able to afford to support their local football team or having to stay at home.Yet this government are trying to convince families that they care about them. Instead, they are taxing them in every way, every day. They do not understand the problems facing Australian families. They do not know what it is like to struggle to put food on the table or make a choice between going to the movies or being able to buy their children new clothes, because they do not understand the decisions that ordinary families have to make.As well as this, the government believe that if families experience hardship it is their fault because they are not working hard enough. Their answer to this—the government's vision—is that they should work longer and, for those longer hours, they should receive less money. Their draconian policies are forcing them to compensate families. They have been forced to compensate families because their initiatives are hurting families. Their taxes are impacting very negatively on Australian families. Their decision to tax families every day and in every way is for cing them to introduce compensation legislation.This legislation is an attempt to rationalise and simplify the delivery of family assistance payments by reducing the number of payments from 12 to three, as I have already mentioned. Family assistance has developed since it was introduced in 1941 as child endowment to its current level. In the mid-1980s our society became very aware of child poverty, and there was an enhancement of family assistance, particularly to families on low incomes.At the forefront of this enhancement was the Labor government, because Labor governments have a commitment to Australian families. They are aware of the struggle that families have, quite often, as I mentioned earlier, to put food on the table, to ensure that their children can have a good education and, with that good education, be able to have the opportunities in life that those on the other side take for granted. It is very, very important for families to have the income to be able to survive, to give their children opportunities for the future.It was also in the mid-1980s that child-care payments were introduced. Once again, Labor recognised that for women to enter the work force they had to know that their children could receive good, quality child care, to know that their children were well cared for, and to do this they needed financial assistance. Labor supports families; this government attacks families, workers, child care and women. Under this government, child-care benefits have been reduced and women have been marginalised. And still they continue with their new legislation to tax families more and, with the GST, they will be taxing families every day in every way.The three family assistance packages that are introduced in this bill are: the family tax benefits part A, which is to assist families raise their children; the family tax benefit part B, which is going to give additional assistance to single income families; and the child-care benefits, which will assist with the cost of child care. Under the family tax benefit part A, the standard rate is being increased, as the previous speaker mentioned, from $23,350 to $28,200. Regardless of the number of children in a family, that is the bottom line. If you earn less than $28,200, you receive no more. This disadvantages large families. This disadvantages the families that are really struggling—large families with small incomes that have to make those decisions on a daily basis as to where they will spend their money. The top level cut-off has been increased, and that will be adjusted according to the number of children that that family has. There will be extra payments.As I mentioned, this is an attack on larger families—the families that will be paying more with GST and the families that are in greatest need. The government has sought to assist families with increases at the upper level, as I mentioned, and the tapering off of the rate. Instead of 50 cents in the dollar it will be 30 cents in the dollar—once again, to compensate for the GST. We must never forget that what this government is seeking to do with the GST is to tax Australian families, to tax them to a greater level than they have ever been taxed before. It is the tax that taxes families every day in every way.The family income test is currently determined on the previous tax year. In this legislation, it is changed to the current year. At the moment, if a person is underpaid they are not able to be reimbursed for that underpayment. Under the new legislation, if they are underpaid they will be reimbursed. Currently, if a person is overpaid, they must pay that money back. This hardly seems fair.Mentioning overpayments, I see that at the moment this is a real problem, and a problem that a number of constituents have come to see me about, because if a person is overpaid and the mistake is made by the Centrelink office they must still repay that overpayment. I had one woman come to see me two weeks ago who had supplied Centrelink with all the information and all the financial statements that they needed to correctly assess her income for the previous year and to determine whether or not she would be entitled to any sort of assistance. They decided that she was and paid her at the highest rate. Eighteen months later, they had discovered an error, and now she has to repay it.There is no plan to change this in the legislation or the way it is enforced. It will not help the family that provided Centrelink's family payment office with the information about the father's superannuation payment that he received. Twelve months later, Centrelink discovered that they had not taken that into account when they were working out what the family's payment should be, and they are now asked to repay it. This same family had another problem with their family allowance where they were overpaid considerably. They contacted the Centrelink office and arranged for the money to be repaid, but when the mother went down to withdraw the money from her account to return it to Centrelink she found it had been taken out. Centrelink had removed the money from her account without her permission. They would not have noticed the overpayment if she had not advised them of it nor would they have done anything about it, but the moment she advised them they removed the money from her account.I think there are a lot of other things that need to be looked at other than just changing the reimbursibility of underpayments. I feel that Centrelink staff should be accountable for mistakes that they make and that Australian families should not be penalised. This legislation also abolishes the assets test. This will benefit wealthy Australians. Once again, these are the people who are able to hide their income and write their income off against assets. They are not the struggling Australian family that brings home their pay cheque which may be a couple of dollars over the limit. They are not the people that the GST will impact on most negatively.The family tax benefit part B generally benefits families and will result in them gaining increased assistance. This increased assistance, we must not forget, is to compensate for the GST. I reiterate that any compensation is not being given to the Australian families because this government believes that Australian families deserve more money and deserve a good quality of life; it is to compensate for the tax that taxes families every day in every way. This family tax benefit part B does not benefit sole parents who have an income between $10,000 and $30,000. These people will actually receive less. These are also the families that are most disadvantaged. They are stretched in every way—emotionally, financially, physically. They are constantly balancing every little part of their lives. They are going to be disadvantaged by this package.Also disadvantaged are those people needing short-term assistance, those families who currently gain assistance through the basic parenting benefit. Currently, they are assessed on their fortnightly income, and now there will be a move to assess them on their annual income. So, when they may need a little bit of help in the short term that can get them through a rather sticky patch, now they will not be able to get that assistance.The child-care benefit replaces the child-care cash rebate and the child-care assistance benefits. I have some concerns about that. This legislation leaves it open for people to be paid their benefit on the hours that they actually use child care rather than the hours that are booked. This will disadvantage child-care centres greatly, because when they book a child in they know that they will receive money for it. But, if a family rings in to say their child is ill and cannot go to the child-care centre that day, the centre will lose money. This will create a real dilemma for child-care centres. They will need to decide whether they are going to overbook and be in a situation where they will have to cancel children at the last moment. At the moment, I understand the government has said that the status quo will remain, but because of the open-ended nature of the legislation and because of this government's past record we cannot assume that this will not happen in the future. This will make so many more child-care centres marginal and will also impact on families. Now it is going to be paid on an hourly rate and this will disadvantage some families who were previously attending part time as the percentage of their fee entitled them to receive the full amount. The government's record on child care is appalling and their attempt to tax families with the GST is equally as appalling.This brings me to youth allowance. The changes by this government in relation to youth allowance and its attack on young Australians between the age of 18 and 21 is unprecedented. The government's decision to reduce the amount of youth allowance payable to young Australians when their parents earn over $23,500 is appalling. It will be judged by that and it has been judged by that. Many people have spoken to me about this. The government is treating young adults as dependants—they are old enough to vote—and Senator Harradine has not been at all impressed with this government's record there.They have done nothing in any way to compensate families forced to support their young adults: 18- to 20-year-olds do not qualify for family assistance. Young people who have had their youth allowance snatched from them by this government do not qualify for any compensation whatsoever. The only thing that they qualify for is a tax, and this government is continuing to tax them every day, in every way. This legislation has some good points, but any good points it has are well and truly outweighed by the negative impact the GST will have on families as it taxes them every day and in every way.12:15:005370Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Families have been the focus of the coalition government since its election in 1996. On the occasion of my first speech, and on 16 subsequent occasions, I have made families the focus of my contributions in this House. Families are the lifeblood of our community and an investment in the future of the nation, and that is why the coalition places such a high priority on them. This week's budget was a blueprint for investment in our future, which is why it provided improved assistance to families. The tax reform package is an investment in the future, and it too is of great benefit to Australian families.The bills before the House today are changes to support the package taken to the last election by the coalition government. The changes outlined in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 are part of the coalition's vision for the country: a place where people take responsibility for them selves when they can, and assist others in genuine need; and a place where policies, including tax system policies, reward effort and support and strengthen families through an adequate social safety net, and embraces prevention as well as cure.The bills we are discussing today are another instalment in the government's family vision. Strong families are crucial to maintaining a cohesive and compassionate society. They provide strength and support, companionship and love. The government's heroic and successful effort to turn around Australia's economy, to bring down inflation, to reduce interest rates and to stimulate jobs growth has not been simply to sit by and wait for things to happen and hope that things change. This approach, this transformation, achieved by the coalition required clear, considered policy and strategic intervention guided by a strong commitment to priorities and ideals. All that effort has been aimed at providing a solid base on which Australian families and businesses can grow and prosper.The A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 is the latest of a range of those strategic steps aimed at ensuring that all families can share in the opportunities that prudent economic management provides us. This bill simplifies the structure and delivery mechanisms of family assistance through the tax and social security systems. These measures are complementary to other measures in the tax package. There are far too many to refer to every one, but they include reductions in marginal tax rates; tax-free threshold increases; reduced taper rates for benefits as people begin earning sufficient means to support themselves; and replacement of existing taxation payments and reporting systems of company tax, provisional tax, PAYE, PPS and RPS by one quarterly tax payment `pay as you go' plan.As announced in the tax reform package, this bill reduces 12 overlapping and at times conflicting family payments that are currently available to three family payments. It goes beyond simply repairing the mishmash left behind by Labor. The three tax payments are: the family tax benefit part A, which will help families raise their children; the family tax benefit part B, which provides extra help to single income families; and the child-care benefit, to assist families with child-care costs. In addition, the one-off maternity payment that is currently paid to meet additional costs at this important point in everyone's lives will continue to be available. Families will be able to choose how they want their family tax benefits paid: fortnightly payments to their financial institution, reductions in tax instalments or an end-of-year lump sum. These changes greatly benefit low and middle income families and give additional help to those raising children.Let us briefly look at the mechanics of the bills before the House today. The new family tax payment part A comprises the former minimum family allowance, family allowance, family tax payment part A and family tax assistance part A. The income test threshold for the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A will be increased to $28,200 compared to the $24,350 under the current payment arrangements for family assistance. The minimum rate of family tax benefit part A will be reached at $73,000 of income, plus $3,000 a year for each child after the first. Both these rates will have a taper rate of 30 per cent, reducing from the current 50 cents in the dollar.There will no longer be an assets test. Despite what the previous contributor said, those people with assets do not automatically represent wealthy people. There are a lot of farmers and other people doing it very hard. A lot of those people who have put their life's work and effort into some assets with the hope of having a more prosperous future may not, because of a range of circumstances, be earning the income they had hoped for from that accumulation of assets. That point that was made by the previous contributor was quite misleading. The family payments are also not taxable. The part A benefit is extended to families with young people up to age 21 who are not eligible for the youth allowance because of the parental income test.Family tax benefit part B consists of the former guardian allowance for sole parents, the sole parent rebate, the basic parenting payment for single income families, the dependent spouse rebate, family tax payment part B and family tax assistance part B. It is not difficult to see why some families are confused by the current arrangements. The part B payments will also have a reduced taper rate of 30 per cent. The cut-off for assistance will rise from $6,090 a year to $10,500 a year for a family with a child under five years.The income test on non-working partner income will allow a free area of $1,616 a year without impacting on eligibility for the single income family part B benefits. These changes will give primary carers the opportunity to take on some paid work and maintain their workplace skills and contacts, if they choose to do so. Again, this is a vivid contrast to the contribution from the former speaker. This is about empowering women. This is about giving families the opportunity and the support to make choices that suit their circumstances, suit their aspirations for their families and how they would like to raise their kids. This measure helps to remove one of the demoralising and discouraging effects of the old system which discourages—and even penalises—people if non-working partners do even a minimal amount of work. The income test that currently applies for the family tax initiative part B on the income of non-working partners or lone parents will be abolished.The child-care benefit will combine and improve current payments that assist families with the new cost of child care. The maximum level of assistance will be increased by $7.50 per week for one child on care, by $11 for two children and by $32 for three or more children in care. Families with more than one child in care will receive a higher rate of assistance per child, regardless of whether they are using the same provider. They may be using a mix of long day care in one facility and out-of-hours school care in another facility. Again, this is another family friendly initiative of the coalition government.Families using part-time care in long day care centres will have their standard rate of child-care benefit increased by 10 per cent. Drawing from something the previous speaker said, child-care centres tend to operate their bookings in blocks. Those blocks do not always suit everybody. So if you are a part-time employee or you have some other work related reason to require child care and your child-care requirements do not neatly fit those blocks, you get billed the block rate anyway even if you do not need the care. I understand that is a logistics challenge facing child-care management. But it does have a price impact for those families involved in part-time work. This is again a family friendly initiative. In vivid contrast to what was said by the previous speaker, this is helping women who not only want to engage in the work force but also want to make sure that their family care responsibilities are met to their satisfaction. By giving choice and flexibility it is another family friendly measure by this government. The child-care access hotline will be continued so that parents have up-to-date information about services available in their areas and the level and type of government assistance available for them. Effective planning will also be continued to ensure that services are located in areas of need. That again contrasts vividly with what the previous speaker was saying. It is not the objective of child-care assistance—paid for by your tax money—to simply prop up child-care centres that do not have kids to go in them. That is not the point here. The point is to help families who require child-care assistance with the cost of that assistance where they do not have the means themselves. Part of that is making sure the centres are located where they are needed, so that we do not have property developers and speculators building child-care centres in areas where there are no children to use them. My idea is that taxpayers' money should not go to propping up businesses badly located. Again this is targeting the help to the families for their legitimate child-care needs; it is not trying to prop up a child-care centre that was built by a property developer speculating on a return.What does this simplification and enhancement of benefits mean for real families? Families eligible for the new assistance will receive an increase of $140 a year for each dependent child, and single income families with a child under five will receive an increase of $350 a year. In effect, a single income family with one child aged under five will not pay tax on its first $13,000 of income in a year.Those in the Labor Party are scoffing at the value of that benefit but, to the people that I represent in the electorate of Dunkley on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria, that is real cash. Some of them are doing it hard as they try to provide for their future and to pay off a mortgage, which is so much cheaper under this government than it was under the previous government. It is a real benefit. It is quite hypocritical for those opposite to dismiss that real benefit delivered to families. It is real cash, and I am sure families will welcome it. Two million families across Australia will benefit from these reforms, including more than 26,000 families in my electorate alone. Those 26,000 Dunkley families are raising about 32,000 children. That is a lot of futures our government is investing in.I think that a former Prime Minister who said no child would be living in poverty by the year 2000 must have had foresight about the election of the coalition government. While the former Labor government did not do much to progress towards that virtuous goal, it has been left to the coalition government—probably foreseen by the former Prime Minister that the coalition would be elected before the year 2000—to make ground on that virtuous commitment. The bill represents the largest reform of family assistance carried out in our nation's history. Like the tax package it is a part of, it is more than just tinkering at the edges; this is a significant reform. It is a reform that is a product of a deeply held conviction that families are important to our society today and into the future, and a tenacious determination to create a system that is family friendly and efficient and that provides help where it is needed with the minimum of frustration and chance for error along the way.The bill removes the penalty of making the wrong choice between family assistance through tax office or social security. End of year reconciliation ensures that inaccurate forecasts of income do not penalise families. It is more equitable in that families in similar circumstances will receive similar benefits.The objectives of these bills have been further supported by the fourth Howard-Costello budget. It was announced in this week's budget that a family assistance office will be established to coordinate and bring together family assistance payments and policies across a range of portfolios, which means that families will have to deal with only one agency and one set of rules. The changes will also see all family related payments located in one act of parliament to further streamline and simplify the system. Anyone who has been involved with the current 12 overlapping and at times conflicting family payments will understand that they are not particularly friendly—not to those people who are receiving them and not to those people who have to calculate the benefits a particular person may be eligible for. My office shares space in the Commonwealth Centre in Frankston with the Frankston Centrelink office. We enjoy a good working relationship with those hardworking Centrelink staff. It is a good place for a politician to be, because the feedback is sometimes direct and unambiguous. We say, `My office is the complaints desk.' If people are not happy with Centrelink, we have worked out that it takes about one minute 40 seconds for them to whip out the door, come in and be in my office. We get a very fresh, frank and clear picture of those frustrations that are conveyed to us in that way. It has helped me to understand the need for improved clarity in the way these benefits are available. I have also learnt that support payments need to be understandable and flexible. They need to take account of a range of different family circumstances but deliver comparable results to families in similar situations.The bill is also the latest measure undertaken by the government in support of families. Other initiatives include: $13 billion a year in income tax cuts, which were not mentioned by the previous speaker; more than $1 billion a year to support families under the family tax initiative; $280 million for the staying at home package; $295 million provided for the fight against drugs; $25.6 million for the partnerships against domestic violence initia tive; $31 million for a national youth suicide prevention strategy; and $12 million to support parents and protect children against child abuse and neglect. This is not just a stand-alone measure; it is part of a comprehensive family friendly strategy.The new Family Assistance Office that I mentioned earlier will operate under a one-contact model which will provide specialist advice tailored to better meet the customer's needs. While all of these good things are happening, we are providing for the institutional structures to make it easy for families to access those benefits. So what the coalition government is about is delivery as much as good policy.With child care—and we heard earlier of some concerns about child care—I have mentioned how the higher rate will be available for more than one child in care and also the benefits available for those requiring part-time work related care. There are also some other initiatives which I should briefly touch on: the continuation of programs such as JET, JPET and Work for the Dole—a whole lot of family friendly measures.Earlier today, the member for Lilley in his contribution spoke about the Senate inquiries into the tax reform package. It is quite extraordinary, isn't it, that with all the work that has gone in, under any realistic set of scenarios, not one household type has been found to be worse off? If you were to come in with some fantasy set of scenarios, talking about some apocalyptic set of highly unlikely ever-to-happen circumstances, you might be able to engineer some sort of model saying, `Well, under all these bizarre sets of situations, someone would be worse off.' However, the Senate inquiries have underlined how the government has done its homework on this package.The member for Lilley also spoke of people's rights to independence, and he then said that they should be able to get into a labour market program. Independence: labour market program? I thought the whole point of the types of programs that the government has put in place broadly badged as labour market programs, if you choose, is to provide for independence—`independence' being a job, a capacity to access means to support yourself. That is my idea of independence—not being put in a government program somewhere. That is an odd type of independence. And for that to come from the member for Lilley's contribution gives you an idea of what Labor thinks about when talking about independence.The member for Lilley also spoke of condemning the government. That is in his amendment to this bill. That is his amendment to the enormous benefits that two million Australian families will receive from this bill, that the 26,000 families in my electorate will receive from this bill. He says that we should be condemned for delivering those benefits. He went on to say why, and he used the word `compensation'. Notwithstanding that the Senate inquiries have not shown any household type under any realistic scenarios being worse off, he is saying that we have not compensated them.Do you wonder where `compensation' was in the Labor Party vocabulary when it introduced the recession we had to have, when people's whole lives were ruined because the Labor Party did not have the wherewithal and the economic acumen to guide the economy through what were reasonably good times? Where was the compensation then? Where was the compensation for the small business people in my electorate who lost not only their lifetime's work but also their house, their dignity, and who went through more stress than the previous speaker could even contemplate? Where was the compensation when those people's futures were taken away from them by lazy policy from those opposite that they want the rest of the country to forget? Where was the compensation for the ruined lives, Labor? Where was it then?You come in here and in your pious tones talk about compensation when there are lives that were ruined because of your policy. So, when you think about compensation, go back a tad. Go back to the 1993 budget after the election when we were not supposed to get any tax increases but were supposed to get income tax reductions. What did we get instead? All the wholesale sales tax rates went up by two per cent—a tax that we know is borne most heavily by those lower income people. Every tax rate in the wholesale sales tax system went up by two per cent, including fuel excise. Where was your compensation then?`Compensation' is a new word in the Labor Party vocabulary. It has been introduced by the coalition government—a government that has taken the time and has the wherewithal to understand that tax changes have an impact on people's lives. Where we have identified there being some larger impacts on certain family types, certain household types, we are compensating them. That is a new idea in this country. It is a new idea that replaces Labor's idea of tax reform—and that was to put them all up and say, `Oh, we won't worry about the impact of our economic choices and our policies; we'll let people's lives be ruined.' This is a new idea to Labor: compensation for tax reform. I am glad you have woken up to it. I am pleased. Think about those lives you have ruined in the past. Where was the compensation then?The member for Lilley went on to talk up the Labor alternative. Where were they? We had 13 years and no Labor alternative. We hear about the Blair New Labor model in England and there is talk about the tax credits. But we do not hear them talking about the unfair dismissal laws in the UK where there is an exemption from unfair dismissals for every employer for the first year that someone is employed. We could not even get some help for small business people in our country. So if you are going to cherry-pick Blair New Labor ideas, have a look at the rest of the package, gentlemen and ladies of the Labor Party.Labor's opposition is pure politics. When Labor talks about a job plan, the only job they are interested in is their own. They want you to have no memory, no thought for the future, just like themselves. Let us get on with the program, invest in the country and support these bills. Do something constructive with your time here. (Time expired)12:35:005375Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I must say that I am greatly indebted to the member for Dunkley for encapsulating the impacts of the GST, and I congratulate him on saying that he believes no child in Dunkley, or Australia for that matter, will live in poverty as a result of the GST. Well done! Congratulations! There is one thing about the honourable member for Dunkley, and that is that, without question or qualification, he is an unhesitating supporter of the government. I congratulate him on his steadfast nature in that regard.We are debating two bills today: A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 . That the member for Dunkley would trumpet the way these changes will be delivered by the new Family Assistance Office I find particularly interesting because we do not know what that means. What we do know is that this office will be established in part of the tax system.It is very interesting historically to reflect that another family issue—that is, the child support scheme—was originally set up in the Australian Taxation Office. Looking back on the establishment of that scheme, more attention was paid to the actual legislation and all the implications of the scheme than the administration. There is going to be another bill, and presumably we will know when that bill is presented how it will work.The member for Dunkley said that the taxation department, with its 26 offices throughout Australia, will be able to give a one-office approach for all the different inquiries that will result from the changes in this bill. If we look at the child support scheme, if we look at Centrelink, we know that telephone inquiries can be useful, and queuing systems have their place but heavily qualified. In fact, Centrelink cannot actually handle the calls it receives. But, at the end of the day, from time to time ordinary citizens have a right to speak to people face to face.It will be interesting in your state of Tasmania, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, how all the people of Tasmania, or any other Australian, are going to be able to exercise what I think is a fundamental right. They will have the right to locate the trimmed down taxation offices—26 of them—presumably and speak face to face there. Is this an improvement in service? I have to say that there are many more Centrelink offices now than there are taxation offices, and the child support scheme that was established in the Taxation Office has now been removed to the department represented by Minister Newman. They have taken it out of taxation. This was not a proposal of the Labor Party, although it is true in one of the parliamentary reports we said that we ought to review that. This government has taken that decision.Presumably the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade, at the table, the honourable member for Richmond, is saying that clients of the child support scheme are going to be far better off having that removed from the Taxation Office to the other department, the former Department of Social Security. If the parliamentary secretary is happy to advocate that course for child support, why are we setting up this new office within the Taxation Office? How will it operate? This legislation is replete with references to the secretary. I ask the parliamentary secretary: which secretary is it? Is it Mr Carmody, who is Commissioner of Taxation? Is it the secretary who is the head of the department of social security? Is it the secretary to the Department of Health and Aged Care? Could you please inform the people of Australia which secretary it is?You may think this is pretty inconsequential—here is the opposition splitting hairs—but who makes the decisions about these payments? When you go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which departmental decision are you appealing? Aren't these reasonable questions to ask about this all-singing, all-dancing, truncated, narrowed-down three payments system? I would have thought they were quite reasonable questions to ask.We have had a functioning Social Security Appeals Tribunal. I think the Social Security Appeals Tribunal has worked very well. I am delighted to say that my office has been responsible, acting on behalf quite properly of constituents, for lodging some appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. I ask the parliamentary secretary, as he is the duty minister at the table, to inform honourable members how the appeal mechanism will work. Are you going to expand that or are you going to do what Taxation did? In fact, the shadow minister was responsible when he was the then parliamentary secretary of introducing the review office. Are we going to have a review office in this office of family payments? Is this the mechanism that you are going to be able to operate under and then presumably make an appeal to the Federal Court or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? Could you please tell people how it is going to work? I do not think it is unreasonable as we are debating the bill in the House to have some understanding of it. I appreciate that you are putting all the legislation in first and the administrative bill second, but surely the parliamentary secretary has some ideas about how these things will work.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—I don't think he has.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I think the shadow minister is being a little ungenerous. I am prepared to accept that he will want to inform not only me and other honourable members but also the people of Australia about how this system is going to work. I have the highest possible regard for officers of the taxation department. In fact, over the years I suppose I have had quite a lot of interaction with them. But, with no disrespect to the tax office, they are not the best people to deal with people. I think we found that out with the child support scheme. I am not having a vicious attack on them or trying to denigrate them. They have a background of receiving one bit of correspondence from constituents—that is, their taxation return, whether it is lodged by them or by their agent—and processing it. I think they do an excellent job. Their interventions either on the phone or face to face with taxpayers in relation to taxation matters is minuscule, but they do that well. But when you get into this area of payments they just do not have the skill base. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could outline whether there was a cabinet tussle between the Treasurer and Minister Newman and Minister Newman lost. Is that what it was? If it was, I can accept that. Alternatively, the Prime Minister might have intervened.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—At least we put through some real reforms.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I accept that this government is hell-bent on what it calls reforms. I will get to that. But I am asking for an explanation about the positioning of this agency and how it will function. There has been some suggestion that this will be like a joint business venture between the Health Insurance Commission, the Department of Health and Aged Care, the Department of Family and Community Services and Taxation, with three departments oversighting this organisation within Taxation and telling it what to do and how to do it. I do not know if you are going to have to appeal the three departments' decisions or whether they will all have to have an IDC before they can work out how to make a change. I am looking forward to the honourable member informing me of that. He might indicate when he expects the administrative bill to come through. He might tell us how people are going to be better off in trying to interface with this new agency.We would not be talking about this reform were it not for the introduction of the GST. This is a $30 billion impost on the Australian people. I can remember—as I am sure others can—when we introduced the capital gains tax. We were told that in the first year it would probably gather $5 million and after five years $25 million.Mr Anthony interjecting—QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—You can use Treasury for your estimates—I acknowledge their expertise—or you can use the academics in universities to try and project what you think the tax system is going to collect. We know, and people accept, that it is $30 billion, but we also know that this is a growth tax. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary at the table that there is every real prospect that this is an underestimate. If you get your bills through the Senate, clearly time will tell how good an estimate this was, but it may very well be an underestimate. If it is an underestimate, the people of Australia are going to be paying.This bill tries to reduce 12 current payments for families into three principal ones. We in the opposition are always in favour of the concept of simplification. If you go through history, Labor has been at the forefront of the changes and simplifications to payments. In terms of the real reform that the parliamentary secretary was talking about, I want to make a point about the abolition of the assets test. The system of social security we inherited allowed people to bank a million dollars in their cheque accounts and receive the age pension. The conservative representatives opposite did not blush or blink at that. When we were in government, for 13 years we tried to target social security at those most in need.Mr Anthony interjecting—QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—It might upset the parliamentary secretary, but we took away the pension for millionaires. I am the first to concede that there is a special case regarding family payments to farmers. But there is an existing hardship provision to accommodate the rather difficult times our farming community are going through, not only as a result of commodity prices but from time to time in the way they experience drought.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—The budget didn't do much for it, did it?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—No, but what people in my electorate are going to be most concerned about is not that we are singling out a measure to help people who may have a lot of assets but are going through a difficult time. They perfectly accept that. That is a reasonable approach. But they are going to be concerned at a blanket removal. It does not matter whether you have $½ million, $1 million or $10 million worth of assets: if you are able to minimise your income, under this government you are entitled to family payments under this bill. What a disgrace. What a turning back of the clock. If anything demonstrates how this government will always look to reward privilege and to reward wealth, here we have it.Our change was eventually accepted in a bipartisan way, although I remember Mr Hodgman, a member from Tasmania, talking about us extracting gold teeth out of pensioners when we made this change. It was resisted by the coalition members at the time, but I thought that over time they had accepted this idea that it is reasonable to want to ensure that, in terms of social welfare payments, those most in need get the most. As I have said, there are groups in our society like farmers who can be very asset rich but who go through some very hard times. We have no quibble at making exceptions for them. They are catered for without this change. But you are just unleashing the floodgates.The honourable member for Dunkley made a rather interesting contribution, but he said, `Our government is not interested in assisting a developer who might put a spec child-care centre up.' If anything could be further from the truth! Up until this coalition government, one of the delights I had as a member in Western Sydney, where our greatest asset is our young people, was seeing new child-care centres opened. We were always pressing to ensure more and more. I happened to represent both the Penrith and Blacktown local government areas. Those two councils are unique in New South Wales for the number of child-care centres that they have being operated by councils. In addition to that, of course, we have private providers.But what has happened? Under this policy that no child shall live in poverty under the GST, a phrase remarkably coined by the member for Dunkley, I have actually had child-care centres close. For the first time ever, they have actually physically closed. We have gone through a system where there were long waiting lists for children to get access to child care. It is true: you have solved the problem not by building more child-care centres but by removing demand. It is very easy to just say that, but what is the impact of that on families? Firstly, it is forcing people, particularly women, but it has an impact for the whole family, to reduce the number of hours they work. Some people in my electorate are removing themselves totally from work because they just cannot afford the changes you have wrought to child care. This government has a lot to be ashamed and embarrassed about in terms of child care rather than suggesting that we have a bunch of developers in Victoria or every other state who are putting up spec child-care centres. How absurd! How out of touch with reality.The other thing I wanted to say was this: Senator Harradine, a senator whom, I might say, I am pleased to work with in committees and for whom I have a high personal regard, has been absolutely distraught about what has happened to the common youth allowance. What did this government do?Mr Sciacca interjecting—QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I regret to say it is very strong language, but it is the sort of language that Senator Harradine himself used. He said, `I feel betrayed. I feel that I have let the people of Australia down because we passed this legislation on the understanding that something decent would be done to help them.' It is this philosophy that I find really insidious—that is, if you have a family where a child is unemployed, it is somehow a failure by that child or young person and the parents and they should bear the burden. This government believes that it is totally wrong for a government to say, `Yes, your young son or daughter is unemployed and we want to assist you.'We on this side of the House believe it is appropriate for governments to not only provide financial assistance to those young unemployed people but also get them back into the work force. We are prepared to invest in them. We always have been prepared to invest in them. We think it is a worthwhile thing to invest in young people not only for the good of everyone in our current society but also for the future of this country. What does the coalition do? (Time expired)12:55:005378Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—This might seem an unusual way to start my address, but the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 is as much a challenge to members of the opposition as it is to members of the government in that it gives them a chance to vote in favour of measures that will improve the living standards of low and middle income families in their electorates, because a vote against this bill is a vote against every single family whom we in this House represent, regardless of which side of the House we sit on. This legislation is worth $2.5 billion and is part of the comprehensive offsets which will also include around $13 billion in income tax cuts when the GST is imposed.As a side issue, it is interesting to note that when you add those two figures together—that is, the $13 billion and the $2.5 billion, which adds up to $15½ billion—and you add to that the removal of sales taxes, which will be about $15 billion you get a figure somewhat greater than the estimated GST revenue of $30 billion. That really gives the lie to all the GST bogey arguments being generated by those opposite that the community will be worse off. In other words, if there is $30 billion worth of benefits and cuts to taxation and that is worth more than the GST being imposed, how can you logically say that the community is worse off? You cannot.The new tax plan will greatly benefit low and middle income families and give additional assistance to those raising families. Eligible families will receive an increased $140 a year for each dependent child and single income families with one child under five years will receive an increase of $350. The income threshold for the family allowance rises from $24,350 for one child to $28,200. The income test taper will also be reduced from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. It will make a big difference to a lot of people who do earn a little bit of additional income to know that, when what they do earn exceeds their threshold limit, they will retain 70 cents in the dollar. So families will lose only 30 cents in every dollar earned as opposed to 50 cents in the dollar which has been imposed on people for some generations.These measures will address problems left in the system by the last government which provided no incentive for people to go out and seek additional work. This is something that a constituent of mine raised with me just recently when the rise in the minimum wage was announced. Being reliant on benefits, if her de facto went on the minimum adult wage, she would be only a few dollars better off. Several people have come into my office to point out that, when they pay their additional tax or they move into another bracket and lose benefits, sometimes the gain is negligible. This addresses that problem. These measures will also reduce the effective marginal tax rates for many low and moderate income families to help them raise their children. Twelve types of family assistance will be reduced to three: the first to help families raise their children, the second to provide extra help for one income families and the third to help with child-care costs.This comes on top of three other measures for families in the tax package, which include doubling the $1,000 tax-free threshold for each dependent child to $2,000, thus providing a 70 per cent increase in assistance; doubling the extra $2,500 threshold for one-income families, including sole parents, with a child aged under five years to $5,000, again providing a 70 per cent increase in assistance; and increasing the maximum assistance for child care for lower income families by $7.50 a week. As I pointed out earlier, increasing the level of income at which family allowance will be tested from $24,000 to $28,000 will also be a great help. Of course, many ordinary families, having regard to the fullness of the other tax reform packages, will also benefit from the four per cent rise in social security payments.In this debate the member for Lilley and the member for Grayndler talked about the `erosion' of compensation. As the Prime Minister pointed out in question time yesterday—and I quote:. . . the pension would always be guaranteed 1½ per cent in real terms above increases in the cost of living.. . . . . . . . .It is also an undeniable fact that we were the first government in the history of Australia to provide a legislative guarantee that the pension in this country would be a certain percentage of male average weekly earnings. There has never been any secret about that. There has never been any denial of the fact that you have not only the guarantee of compensation but also, running parallel to that, the guarantee that the pension would always be 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings. We have honoured our promises in full.And, indeed, we have. But in talking about the lack of compensation, the ALP have left their flank exposed. Was there any compensation when they increased sales taxes by one percentage point on two occasions on all categories during their 1993-96 term? That happened twice. So effectively, at the end of that term, the 10 per cent rate had gone to 12 per cent, the 20 per cent rate to 22 per cent, the 30 per cent rate to 32 per cent and, just for good measure, the tax on the family car went up by an additional five per cent—or, if you like, a total of a seven per cent increase in wholesale sales tax.Did the opposition when it was in government seek to compensate families when it raised fuel excises and then slugged the battlers who were driving the old leaded petrol cars an extra 10c because they happened to have leaded petrol in their tanks? Was there any compensation for that?Did they offer any compensation offset when they reneged on their l-a-w tax cuts, to say nothing of the other taxes that would have flowed through the community from the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax, the Medicare levy and the increase to the Medicare levy? None of those things came with compensation packages attached to them. So I was staggered when the members for Lilley and Grayndler had the nerve to question the adequacy of compensation.The member for Grayndler also complained about the Work for the Dole program, saying that it did not offer any real structure. I am advised that 85 per cent of participants in the program say that it has given them a determination to seek a job. If it did nothing but that, it would have been a success.But it is even better than that. As you know, of the 10,000 people who went through the pilot program, 32 per cent of the Work for the Dole participants went on to unsubsidised paid work and a further 11 per cent went on to education and training. The cost of their placement was $3,900 per successful outcome.If you compare that to the Working Nation programs under Labor, you will find that the LEAP program had only a 26 per cent success rate, at a cost of $26,000 per outcome. The Jobskills program had a 30 per cent success rate, at a cost of $36,000 per successful outcome. The New Work Opportunities program—the last flagship program of Labor's term in government—had a miserable 21 per cent success rate, at a cost of a massive $52,000 per positive outcome.How can you have figures like that as recently as 1995-96 and say that Work for the Dole has no structure or outcomes? In all sincerity, how can you say that? I know in my own electorate, in Bundaberg, the Work for the Dole program has performed well, with 34 per cent of participants either gaining work or going on to further education and training.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—That is a disgraceful outcome. It is too low.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—You might say it is too low, but that figure is better than each one that I quoted from Working Nation. It is better than the outcome from any of the programs I have just quoted. The Leader of the Opposition in the past year has shown that he is not a big supporter of families and it is now up to the Labor backbenchers to ensure that they are not lumped into the same boat as him.Terry McCrann hit the nail on the head in his column in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday when he said that the opposition leader had emerged from his intellectual and policy hibernation yesterday—that being Monday—to announce—on the ABC, of course—that he did not understand budgets and was in favour of effectively slugging middle Australia with high taxes.Mr McCrann's well-directed scorn was prompted, of course, by the Leader of the Opposition's absurd and laughable claim that he would have produced a bigger budget surplus than the coalition. This is from the man who was Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister to Paul Keating for at least part of the time when Australia was being dragged down by $70 billion worth of successive budget deficits in the space of five short years. This is the same man who was responsible for part of that, but who says, `I would have produced a better outcome.' It just does not add up.Mr McCrann went on to point out that a Beazley surplus could not have been made bigger by, as he claimed, not giving tax cuts to the so-called rich. As Mr McCrann quite correctly stated, the rich aren't getting a tax cut in this budget, and neither is anyone else, for that matter. In other words, the opposition leader was a year ahead of himself and really looked stupid when he made that silly statement. I must say that I was relieved to read that column. I was relieved to think that at least some sections of the media were finally waking up to how out of touch, how pedantic and inconsistent the opposition leader has become. The opposition leader has, by his anti-intellectual, populist policy-jumping, exposed himself and his party as not knowing who or what constitutes middle Australia.The opposition leader and the Labor Party are in favour of high taxes on average Australian families because they define as rich anyone earning a gross wage of $800 per week or more. The reality, as Mr McCrann so succinctly put it, was that a single income family earning $800 a week would probably see about $600 of that after PAYE income tax was deducted. So according to the opposition leader, and presumably the Labor backbench, if you are a family existing on a net $600 a week, you are rich and should be financially punished.The Labor Party applies the same philosophy to anyone, including self-funded retirees, who earns $5,000 a year or more from their investments. I am proud to be part of a government which takes the opposite view. As well as ensuring that all fixed income earners are more than adequately compensated in the tax package, we offer a 30 cents in the dollar marginal tax rate, or less, for 82 per cent of all Australian taxpayers as at the introduction of the tax reform measures. That is, people earning between $20,000 and $50,000 will be able to keep 70 cents in every dollar they earn and people earning less than that will keep even more.As I move around and talk to a lot of people in sugar mills, council workers and people like that, I find a reluctance to do overtime. One of the reasons is that invariably people jump into the next tax bracket, albeit only for a number of weeks. They see that they are paying tax at the rate of 48½ cents in the dollar after their Medicare levy, and they say, `I don't want to do that work; I don't find that an acceptable use of my time.' Those sorts of people will have an incentive to do a bit of extra work when it is offered because most of them will be able to do it in the knowledge that they retain 70 cents in every dollar. Even those who earn over $50,000 will know that they are retaining 60c instead of the current 50c or 51c.That is fantastic news for families. That is the real expression of compassion, not the sort of feigned and studied hangdog populism perfected by the opposition leader and lapped up by some gullible commentators, most of whom would not know the difference between Struggle Street and Toorak Road.Let us see a policy from the ALP that actually benefits Australian families. I challenge them to put another program on the table as comprehensive as this, instead of going for the populist line every time. I repeat: let us see a policy from the ALP that actually benefits Australian families—or have ordinary families joined the forestry workers as victims of Labor's one-eyed pursuit of a politically correct agenda?In lieu of anything sensible emanating from the ALP frontbench, Labor backbenchers, as I see it, have no option but to give this bill their full support. If they do not, then I have every reason to suspect that they will be judged harshly by the middle and low income families in their electorates.13:11:005381Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise to speak in this debate on the government's legislation entitled A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 and the associated legislation entitled A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 . One of the great things about this government is that when we see on the Notice Paper a piece of legislation entitled `family assistance bill' we have come to expect, with a certain inevitability, in the fine tradition of George Orwell and the ministry of truth and doublespeak, that when we read something called `family assistance' what it means in reality is `family burden'.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—A fundamental contradiction in terms.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—As the honourable member for Bowman rightly interjects, it is a fundamental contradiction in terms. I suggest to the shadow minister, when he eventually returns to the chamber, that one of the amendments which we might seek to move to this piece of legislation would go to the title of the bill itself; and that we might change it from the `A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill' to the `A New Tax System (Family Burden) Bill' or the `A New Tax System (Income Redistribution) Bill' or the `A New Tax System (Experiment in Social Darwinism) Bill', because these go to the heart of what has been undertaken in this most important piece of legislation in terms of this nation's future.The really galling thing about this entire ANTS package, of which this legislation is such a significant part, is that it is as macro-economically irresponsible as it is socially regressive.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Garbage!83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—The minister at the table suggests that that is garbage. I ask him to review the evidence presented by officers of the Treasury, officers representing various other agencies of the government, and a number of expert bodies from academia on the precise economic impact of this legislation if it is introduced. It fails the tests of both economic efficiency and social justice.Let us review, for the benefit of the minister at the table, the macro-economic evidence associated with this package. We have, as a result of the recently concluded Senate inquiries, a much more substantial body of evidence and a much more public body of evidence on this matter than we had before. Let us go to the first test—that of economic growth. You would think, if we were about to embark upon an experiment as large as this, that those opposite would have some confidence to be able to predict how much this economy will grow by as a consequence of this package being introduced, as opposed to what would occur under any other circumstances. When Treasury officers were asked this question, they simply said, `We have not been asked to model this.' Therefore, we have embarked upon this voyage of discovery, involving a huge change in the taxation system, without any expert advice from the Treasury to the government as to what increment of growth will be added as a consequence of the introduction of this total package. Other modellers who have looked at this, beyond the Treasury, have gone on to say that perhaps, in the long term, the most optimistic twist you can put on this is that there may be an additional increase to annual economic growth of 0.2 per cent if you are lucky—if all the variables hang together.I would suggest that if that is the optimal solution which those opposite are hanging this entire package on then it is an experiment too risky to undertake. It dovetails into the recent debates both in Europe and in Japan about how to engender greater economic growth in those economies—in Japan where growth has stalled completely and in Europe where we have had declining economic growth for some time now.The debates at present focus on one thing: in Japan on the abolition of a consumption tax and in Europe on the reduction of the rate. Why? Because the conclusion of the expert analysts in those countries, all of which are OECD economies like this one, is that the tax on consumption is having a huge impact on the retardation of growth and in Japan's case on the failure of the economy to kick-start at all.Mr Sciacca interjecting—83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—When we leave economic growth, as the honourable member for Bowman rightly reminds me, we turn to employment. One logically dovetails with the other. Let us look at the employment projections of the evidence presented to the Senate inquiry. I am sure those opposite have taken time to study evidence rather than the florid phrases of ministerial press releases, which are crafted with as much art as they are science—nil in both cases. I would suggest that those opposite look at the employment projections in terms of the impact on jobs this package would have.Mr Hardgrave interjecting—83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—One body of evidence presented to the Senate inquiry—and I am sure the member for Moreton would endorse this, given the range of his interjections—is that the impact on services sectors in the state of Queensland would range into the tens of thousands of jobs lost. Why? Because services sectors are not taxed and tourism is not taxed. As the honourable member for Moreton well knows, in his own electorate, which he holds by a margin of 0.5 per cent, there are many people currently employed in that sector whose employment will be subject to some risk as a consequence of the introduction of this package.On the upside, to present the other side of the story, the most up-beat analysis presented by the expert evidence before the Senate inquiry was that we would have negligible to marginally improved employment growth in the economy as a consequence of ANTS at about the six or seven year point post introduction. I would suggest that this package fails the employment policy test as well.Let us turn to inflation. We have what can only be described as the heroic assertion by the Treasury and the Treasurer that the total inflationary impact of this package will be 1.9 per cent. There is a stunning silence across the rest of expert commentary, across this nation, across all the economic policy think-tanks, across all the universities, across all the modellers, that this is absolute, unreconstructed codswallop. The mean average projection for the inflationary impact of this package is in the range of four to six per cent. It may even be larger. The government's projections for inflation hinge in large part on an equally heroic assumption about the follow-through effect, the flow-through effect, of the reduction in certain business taxes which occasioned the introduction of the consumption tax.Mr Anthony interjecting—83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—The great assumption, which the parliamentary secretary at the table obviously accepts as well—despite the evidence of the National Farmers Federation, which those opposite would be particularly interested to read in detail—is that there will be a 100 per cent flow-through of business tax reductions. The universal evidence is that there will be nothing like a 100 per cent flow-through of these reductions in business taxes.What is the government's response to the flow-through problem? It is another piece of hocus pocus. It is called the ACCC, the mob who sit out there in Northbourne Avenue, the extra 40 staff which those opposite have a monumental level of confidence in to prevent any form of price exploitation and, therefore, impact on the inflation levels of the country as a consequence of the introduction of this package. I would like to ask how the government expect 40 extra staff to effectively police the economic transactions of 1.5 million small businesses in this country engaged in something like 100 million-plus economic transactions per day. Their heroic assumption is that there will be no fraudulent activity on the part of anyone in business in failing to pass on the benefit which they would have derived as a consequence of the business tax reductions which occur at the same time as the introduction of a GST. The package fails the test of inflation as well.Let me come to the other macro-economic test that I think is of equal validity, the national savings policy. If we look at how this package is constructed, we see what is at best at present a cyclical budget surplus derivative of the normal Australian business cycle. Every four years, every eight years, it turns around and we see the frittering away of a budget surplus delivered by the normal budget cycle into a series of tax cuts to the persons in the economy who do not need them, those at the highest end of the income scale. The package does not set aside effective funds for the rainy day which follows when the business cycle eventually turns.Mr Anthony interjecting—83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—I would ask the parliamentary secretary at the table to sit there and express with extreme confidence in one or two years time, when the business cycle does turn and when the government's outlays for such things as unemployment benefits and the like go through the roof, where its residual budget surplus will be to cater for the economic exigencies of that day. It will have expended every last dollar on providing income tax cuts for those at the highest end of the income spectrum where those tax cuts are not required.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—You will be stuck with the problem because they will be gone.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—As the honourable member for Bowman again rightly interjects, others will inherit and have to deal with the legacy which the current government will leave behind. As night follows day, the business cycle will turn. What you will have is a downturn in activity and a high call on public resources to keep up with those difficulties when they arise. You will not have the resources to contend with them.Let us go to the current account deficit, the great strength of this government's economic performance, which is north of five and heading to six; the Governor of the Reserve Bank has said it could be up to six and beyond. The question I would ask is this: what contribution does this package make to national savings policy vis-a-vis our preparation for a crunch on the current account? The conventional wisdom in the international financial markets to date is that when a current account deficit hits in the order of six per cent you see the beginnings of a reaction from the markets, you see pressure on the Australian dollar. When you see pressure on the Australian dollar you start to see an impact on interest rates. When you see an impact on interest rates you see an impact in turn on activity and employment.Mr Anthony interjecting—83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—What I would suggest to the honourable member at the table, who becomes increasingly excitable at any remote challenge to the logic which is inherent in the package which he so stoutly defends, is that when eventually the current account amber light flashes in the dealing rooms of the world and the government sees pressure brought to bear on the Australian dollar and the consequential effects down through the economic cycle, it is at that point that it is going to need to have husbanded far more effectively the surpluses of government at a time when those surpluses exist to cater for the contingencies of that time. Against national savings policy objectives this package delivers very little indeed. In fact, as time will prove, its net impact on the economy will be negative.If the parliamentary secretary at the table, given his particular portfolio responsibilities, is so sanguine about the future of exports, is so sanguine about the trumpeting around the globe by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, proclaiming one export triumph for this government after another, why does the balance of trade continue to collapse month after month after month? Why is that in turn cascading into serious problems with our external account, which any serious analyst in the Treasury today will tell you will create pressures on the dollar in the future and which will mean that our public budgetary resources will need to be properly conserved for that day?We turn to the social compensation factor. Senator Harradine knows this. The expert commentators appearing before the Senate committee know this. Professor Warren, Professor Harding, Professor FitzGerald and others know that the compensation package offered in this package for those who are going to be affected by it at the low and lower middle income ends of the spectrum is inadequate, and woefully so. But I will come back to that in greater detail in a minute. If you round off the aggregation of economic evidence about the impact of this package, it fails the economic growth test, it fails the employment test, it fails the inflation test, it fails the national savings test and it fails the compensation test. So why are we doing it?The answer lies in a very simple proposition. This is a wealth redistribution tax. This is the Robin Hood tax in reverse. This is the Sheriff of Nottingham tax. This is the tax that robs from the poor and gives to the rich. It does this in three ways. The GST, first of all, is a flat tax on consumption, on food, on elements of education—significant elements of education, such as books—on parts of health, on housing, and on other areas of basic expenditure. It is a tax on the necessities of life, uniformly at 10 per cent, irrespective of the income capacity of the families concerned. Secondly, the impact of the redistributional dimensions of the ANTS package is demonstrated through the withdrawal of government services which has occurred at the same time as this package is being introduced. A series of coalition budgets has seen the government withdraw from such fundamental areas of responsibility as education, hospitals, child care and social security.The budget surplus, which the Treasurer dances about so fondly on when he appears in question time, doesn't exist out of magic; it exists as a consequence of the fact that the government has withdrawn itself fundamentally from key areas of social responsibility. It has imposed $1 billion in higher education cuts. The member for Moreton, presumably, went to university at a time when those sorts of cuts were not imposed. He benefited from a time when university education was much more freely available than it is today. A pity about those who would follow.There are $800 million worth of hospital cuts, $1 billion in child-care cuts and cuts across the social security system—most notoriously, the common youth allowance. Where do all these burdens then fall? They do not simply evaporate into space; they fall in the direction of individual working families.We had the absolutely unprecedented audacity of the member for Hinkler in here before saying that the Leader of the Opposition was somehow not supportive of families. If you deconstruct the elements of this package in terms of what it does as a flat tax and the government's withdrawal from key areas of social responsibility, which transfers that burden back to average working families, not to mention the disproportionate impact of the income tax cuts themselves, it is transparent when you put all that together that what you have with this package is the most anti-family set of policies which could be imagined.On the third dimension, as to how income is redistributed from poor people to richer people, it needs to be noted again for the record that 50 per cent of the income tax cuts on offer under ANTS go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. Why are politicians such as us, such as the member for Richmond, such as the member for Moreton and such as the member for Fisher deserving of income tax cuts of the order of magnitude conceived of in this package, when plainly we do not need them?The member for Hinkler challenged us before to look at comparisons between the tax package which is presented here and what we, the Labor Party, stand for. Those comparisons are most stark indeed. If you look at the tax credit proposal which the Labor Party put at the last election, it is quite clear that there is a fundamental contrast. For a single income family on $30,000 a year with one child the effective tax cut under Labor is $3,000 per annum. Under the Liberal Party's ANTS package it is $2,000 per annum. Under Labor there is $57.69 per week in effective tax cuts and, under the Liberals, $38.25 per week. A single income family on $40,000 with three children under Labor would receive effective tax cuts each year of $4,670 and under the Liberals' ANTS package, $3,900. That is $90 per week under Labor and $75 per week under the conservatives. Labor's tax credits delivered higher effective tax-free thresholds without a GST. Again, for a single income family on an average wage with one child under five, there was, under Labor, an effective tax-free threshold of $20,400 per year. Under the Liberals, it is $13,000 per year. Labor's tax credits also delivered lower effective marginal taxation rates without a GST. For a single income family earning below $30,000 with one child, Labor reduced EMTRs by 10 cents in the dollar. ANTS, under this government, reduces EMTRs by only 3 cents in the dollar. The contrast is clear indeed.If you put the evidence together, if you amalgamate the macro-economic evidence with the social impact and the redistributional impact of this overall tax package, we have an exercise in fundamental inequity. It is derivative of an overall economic philosophy on the part of this government which says that it is right to maximise income inequality through the tax system and it is right to reduce the social function of government by withdrawing activities of government through the budget. This policy approach is not appropriate for 21st century Australia. This policy approach is at home and alive in the 19th century social Darwinism of an age long past.13:31:005385Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am delighted to stand here today in support of yet another set of bills which will deliver a much better deal for average Australians as a result of the new tax system that this government not only proposed before the last election but also delivered. We actually did what we said we were going to do before an election; we did it after we came to office. That is, I think, one of those clear contrasts which the member for Griffith was just alluding to. He talked about a clear contrast with the Labor Party—the 13 years of failure and a record I will not detain the House to work through, root and branch, because I would be here for some time. It would be something akin to a scene out of Mr Smith Goes to Washington if I attempted to completely define the failures of the Australian Labor Party in government over 13 years—such would be my contribution.I will summarise the sorts of clear contrasts in a number of ways. The Australian Labor Party practised, during its time in government, one set of promises, one set of policies and one set of ideas before an election to score some votes. When it came to office, it did not do what it said it was going to do. It actually went about destroying the quality of people's thoughts about this institution. It absolutely devalued the institution of this parliament. Those of us who practise in public life and attempt to do good things for this country equally have been devalued as individuals because those opposite, when in office, misled the Australian people in election after election after election.Those opposite cannot come to grips with the fact that the government side of the chamber—the Liberal and National parties—is actually delivering what it promised. We said one thing and we are doing it. Those opposite should stop this practice of complete delay and get on with the business of passing the legislation which the government has before the Senate. They should stop delaying these changes to the economy which will bring about a new, fresh and strong Australia for the 21st century. I think they should hang their heads in great shame.I am confident that the endangered species in this place are people like the member for Griffith. They have managed to sneak into this place, as a result of the election last October, on the back of telling people doom and gloom in the election period. The member for Griffith is now trying to keep faith with his doom and gloom predictions prior to the last election, which led to tricking enough people into voting for him by an ever so marginal amount, displacing in the process an extremely good local Liberal representative, Graeme McDougall.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He was an excellent member.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The parliamentary secretary, the member for Fisher, is right. He was an excellent, real local representative, in comparison with the current member for Griffith, who is just a real party apparatchik. The member for Griffith, in his daily offerings to this place, is simply trying to continue this doom and gloom approach.I share a very large boundary with the electorate of the member for Griffith. I do not want to turn it into a Maginot line, because I think the people of Mount Gravatt Central, Upper Mount Gravatt, Holland Park and Wishart would not want that to occur. But I often feel very sad for the people who live in the electorate of Griffith because the correspondence they get from the member for Griffith and the matters that they get in the local paper from the member for Griffith are all doom and gloom. They must be feeling down in the mouth and thinking that the world is coming to an end, when all that is happening is that the member for Griffith is attempting daily to try to talk down the economy, as he did today when he talked about cyclical downturns to come and the need for a surplus when, of course, the facts are in place. At least we have a surplus. Labor said it had a surplus before the 1996 election, but we found when we came to office again that it said one thing before an election and the reality was different after—there was a huge deficit of over $10 billion.The contrast is very clear. Unlike Labor, the Howard government has delivered low interest rates. Labor had high interest rates. We have low inflation; Labor had high inflation. We have lower unemployment and there is still more room to go; Labor had 11 per cent unemployment. We have low, and a lowering of, government debt. Labor kept adding to it. There was $23 billion of additional debt in the last two Labor budgets that were inflicted upon this country. This government is all about paying off that debt. The contrast is certainly very clear and I think it is important in this debate, because the government is very firm in its intentions.How is this new tax system going to benefit families? Again, let us deal with some facts, not with Labor folklore. When this package takes effect from 1 July 2000, it will benefit over two million families at a cost of more than $2 billion from 2000-01. That is a benefit. That is money going to real Australian families, and it is going to lower and middle income families deliberately.I will deal with the matter of poverty traps in my contribution today, because Labor did nothing but create bigger poverty traps. Labor killed off the incentive to work. Many families on low incomes desperately wanting to work found that they were losing benefits each time they went to work. I will talk about a real life example.We will substantially increase and simplify the forms of government assistance which go to families. Under the family tax initiative, we will double the extra $1,000 tax-free threshold for each dependent child, thus providing a 70 per cent increase in assistance. That will be $140 per child per year.We will double the extra $2,500 tax-free threshold for single income families with a child aged under five years, including sole parents, thus providing a 70 per cent increase in assistance. That will be equivalent to $350 a year per family. We will increase the maximum assistance for child care for lower income families by $7.50, or seven per cent.They are real life examples of the benefits to come. What about low income sole parents, a group that is particularly hard done by in our community? Sole parents will benefit from the income tax cuts and the reduction in the pension income tax withdrawal rate from 50 per cent to 40 per cent. In other words, the benefit that they get from the government will reduce by 40 per cent, not 50 per cent, for every extra dollar that they earn. It will encourage people who have the capacity to work but are held back from the permanent, paid work force by their circumstances to take that little bit of extra work to help themselves. Unlike Labor, we will not beat them over the head every time they earn extra money. We will make that withdrawal rate a smaller amount.There will be a 2.5 per cent increase in the income test free area, which will also improve work incentives. There will be a four per cent up-front increase in pensions and benefits. We will keep pensions 1.5 per cent ahead of inflation. These are the sorts of real world tactics that this government has in place, and we have credibility on the issue of doing what we say we will do.Currently, the big problem is that Labor's broken-down, old income tax and social security arrangements are destroying incentives. Income tax rates are far too high. One year or so ago, somebody on average earnings paid something like 34c tax for every additional dollar they earned. They now pay 43c tax, and it will rise to 47c tax for every additional dollar earned unless something is done, and that is what this government is in the process of doing.We are committed to maintaining a progressive income tax system so that those who are in a relatively better position to make a contribution to raising revenue will do so—that is, people who are earning large amounts of money will continue to pay a larger amount on a dollar basis when they earn above a certain level of income. We are deliberately targeting tax cuts to those who are on smaller incomes.In 1954-55, the top marginal rate of tax was paid by a taxpayer who earned 19 times the average earnings. Under the current system, the top rate of tax is paid by a taxpayer earning 1.2 times the average earnings. Forty-five years ago, those earning 19 times the average earnings were paying the top rate of tax. Now, it is those earning 1.2 times the average earnings, and that figure will fall to 1.1 times average earnings by 2002-3.Under Labor's old system, the average worker in Australia will be paying the top rate of tax. This is the system they defend here day after day. Every time they ask some half-smart, cheap-shot question about the government's tax reform agenda, that old system is their central argument. They try to talk about the government's tax reform agen da as being only a GST. A GST is part of a system of change. It is not a new tax; it is a new tax system. This is our familiar catch-cry, something that the government promised they would deliver and something the government is attempting to deliver. I invite those opposite to be part of that delivery.The impact of current work disincentives that exist in the system on single income families with two children aged four years to seven years is huge. I could offer average family profiles aplenty in this debate—that is, average families on average wages in average circumstances. Battlers, people who want to do something better for themselves and their families, are not encouraged to do so by the current system.In the process leading up to the delivery of this tax package, I found the Treasurer of this country to be incredibly consultative. A constituent of mine, a woman with six children—which is not an average family—was in certain circumstances that the Treasurer wanted to test against the models before this tax package was released. I had no inside running on what was in the tax package, but the Treasurer's office was particularly interested in testing how well this package of measures before us today, and the overall package, would advantage this particular woman.Her circumstances were these: her husband was the sole income earner in this family of six children, that is, of eight people. He was earning $43,000 a year. Because of the number of children in their family, they were receiving additional assistance. There is a bonus amount of money that is given to people who have four or more children, as you no doubt know. I was rather impressed by her numeracy skills and the graphical representation of the system that she gave to me and which I then passed on to the Treasurer. She had worked out that, for every dollar of overtime that her husband could earn, they were losing $1.50 in benefits from the system. In other words, the disincentive to work was modelled by this constituent of mine.This lady said that, by her reckoning—and the line on her graph proved this—her husband's pay would have to rise to $71,000 a year before they would be in front. A pay rise from $43,000 to $71,000 does not happen overnight. What is worse, every time her husband made the effort to earn that overtime, they went backwards. So he did not do the overtime. When his boss needed him to do the overtime, he was penalised, not encouraged. The Treasurer's office wanted this example; they tested the package against it. I am more than satisfied that this particular lady, who lives in the suburb of Wishart in my electorate, will be advantaged.By July 2000 the government will substantially ease the income test for family allowance by increasing the level of income at which it begins to become income tested from $24,350 a year for one child to $28,200 a year. It will also reduce the income test taper rate from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. So people like my constituent's husband who wanted to do extra work will be able to go out and earn that extra money and know that their benefit is not going to disappear right before their very eyes and, worse still, in her case she was being penalised by 150 per cent under Labor's system—the system that those opposite keep getting up here to encourage. This new measure will signal a return to work for a lot of families who have sat around angry that they cannot, because of the way the system works, get the reward for effort that they should. I think we will see more and more people being more and more deliberately productive and getting that return and that reward for effort that we all should expect. I believe that this in itself is a great plus.So we have looked at the whole system. We have looked at the question of income tax. We have looked at the question of the way the social security system impacts and the requirements of that system, cumbersome as they are, and we have said, `We have to fix this up.' We have also streamlined the way the whole system works. Currently under Labor's system there are 12 different means of getting access—12 different complicated tests and procedures of getting access to assistance for Australian families. Under this government's plan in the bills before us today, we reduce them to three simple and easy to understand systems. The Australian Labor Party are not being family oriented. Yet again they are being the doom and gloom merchants, they are being negative for negative's sake, they are being opposition for opposition's sake. Whatever we say is black they say is white, and it is not good enough in the context of this legislation. It certainly shows that.The three forms of assistance that the government will now bring in will be all brought together under a very simple and easy to understand approach—family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B, and the child-care benefit. What could be simpler and more easy to understand? We will be bringing all of these current confusing variety of systems under one of three roofs—12 go and we get three.Family tax benefit part A will work in this way: it will have the same rate structure as the programs it replaces—that is, minimum and maximum rates—with an extra $140 a year for each dependent child. Extra money is what this government is promising. It will use the relaxed income test for family allowance outlined in the government's tax reform proposals released before the election for the maximum benefit—a threshold of $28,200 a year and a 30 per cent taper rate. It will replace the `sudden death' approach that Labor defends in here for minimum family allowance, family tax payment and family tax assistance with a single relaxed income test for the minimum family tax benefit of $73,000 a year plus $3,000 a year for each child after the first and a taper rate of 30 per cent.Essentially this government is saying, `We want people to go and do something for themselves.' I think there is great dignity in knowing that you have done something for yourself. This government is encouraging that sort of dignity while those opposite are discouraging it. So some people will find that that extra dollar they earn will not beat them up the way the Labor system currently does. The extra dollar they earn will still be allowed to be part of their income stream. We have lifted the amount of money that they are allowed to earn before the taper rate—that is, the gradual decline of the benefit—commences. We have spread the base over which people are allowed to earn income and still receive a benefit. All in all, this is a very family focused, incentive based package. It is one certainly worth supporting. I find it a great matter of frustration and distress, though, to think that so many Labor members will get up in this place and talk it down. They get around their electorates and they talk it down.UU5HORNEMr Horne—And defend workers every time.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It is amazing to hear the member for Paterson say that they will defend workers every time. One should not laugh in the national parliament, but I would like one recorded in Hansard . The side of the chamber which defends workers every time is the Liberal and National parties.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—Hear, hear!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Blair is right. We are the side of the chamber that represents average Australians. We do it on an everyday basis. Those opposite come in here, having come from their own sheltered workshops, working in all the various trade unions that they used to work in. The breeding ground for tomorrow's Labor MPs are today's union movements instead of the union movement being something that stands up for the average workers. It is the Liberal and National parties in government which is proving by its every word to be in favour of supporting the average Australian. This measure before us today is proof positive of just how family focused we are. We are not talking about the richest man in Australia; we are talking about people on average wages. We are talking about people who get the average wage. Under Labor's system that they are defending every day in this place, average workers are going to be paying the top rate of tax. So for the member for Paterson, who had a three-year graze out in the paddocks, to come in here and say—UU5HORNEMr Horne—It wasn't that long.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Well, two years seven months. For him to have a graze out in the paddock and come back here and say that they defend the workers is an absolute joke and he knows it because, under the system he is trying to defend, average workers—people on $34,000 a year—pay the top rate of tax. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame for the way they have misled the Australian people before, during and since the last federal election.I invite those opposite to search inside their hearts and realise that what this government is doing is what it said it would do. This is a great contrast to those opposite. We say one thing before an election and we do it after. It may take time for them to come to grips with the fact that we tell people up-front what our proposals are, allow them the opportunity to judge and to vote, and then we deliver on what we said. It may take time for Labor to catch on to that approach, because they never practised it, but they are going to have a lot of time on the other side to reflect upon how they failed. We are trying to achieve, and to achieve every day in this place, for this country.13:51:005390Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I was very interested to hear what the member for Moreton had to say, particularly some of the interjections that came from the opposition from time to time. In this debate, the government is proposing a series of innovations that will help Australia and help the people of Australia to advance and to enjoy a better lifestyle, to enjoy the fruits of their hard labour and to enjoy them in a way that is appropriate, that is timely and that benefits them the most. The opposition is proposing the status quo. That is no change at all. If we follow the opposition's recipe, we will be staying exactly where we are, standing still—Mr Hardgrave interjecting—84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—We will be going nowhere, as the member for Moreton says—going nowhere fast, in fact. We could go nowhere, we could stay where we are, and, if you were to believe what they are saying, you would think things would be all right. I cannot believe that, and the fact is that I represent an area which knows that things will not be all right if we stay where we are and do not move.The need for change, the need to advance a better way of life in Australia, is no more plain than in the electorate of Blair. There are many disadvantaged people in my electorate. I hear the opposition talking about workers and the disadvantaged, but I do not think they could find them. I do not think they know where they are. A recent study that was released gave a very strong indication of where the disadvantaged are in this country.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—In coalition electorates.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—That is precisely correct. The member for Fisher is correct. We represent them, they vote for us and we are out there advocating their position. The fact is that that regional study looked into disadvantage and it identified large areas of regional Queensland where people are doing it tough.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Including Blair.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Absolutely. I do not accept the idea that we can sit still when people in our electorates are saying to us that they require change, that they require a better system, that they require a better way of life. Members of the opposition might like to sit there and do nothing—and perhaps you could argue that for 13 years they did—but now we have to take steps and we have to do something about achieving for the people we represent, and I think the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 is an excellent example of it.Let me just go through those provisions. I am sure other members have, but it is worthy to go through them for the sake of what I have to say. We are going to basically collapse a whole involved system of support and welfare into three basic streams. Of course, we cannot continue to kill people with paperwork. We cannot continue to drive them right off their rocker with a whole bunch of indecipherable requirements.Mr Horne interjecting—84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—You might as well consult the telephone book for all the good the legislation that you introduced was for people. I would like to refer the member for Paterson to the number of changes we have seen to family assistance, as put forward here in the bill. Some 14 postwar changes were introduced by a Labor government, and every one of them made the system more and more complex. Is it not about time we took a few steps in support of the people who have to live inside this system? Is it not time we were a bit cognisant of the fact that people have to fill in these forms? They have to live with this system. It is an absolute joke.In general, members on this side of the House are pleased to see the philosophy that is being represented in the whole of the new tax system that is being proposed as part of this tax reform. It is a system of simplification. It is a system that is people friendly. It is not saying, `Every time we go around the corner we must come up with a new bunch of forms.' It is not a matter of running a system within even the administration of the sale of fruit and vegetables. The Labor Party had its own system regime for that, and it did not even have anything to do with tax. It was purely to track the apples through the system, to keep track of the oranges, to make sure the bananas did not get away. It was a crazy system.If we look across Australia into those areas of disadvantage, I am very pleased to say that, by proceeding in this manner, we will be advocating their position. We will make it easier for them to encounter and to take on board the welfare support for the general community living requirements they have.Under this system—those three parts—family tax benefit part A is going to have merged with it the family allowance, family tax payment part A and family tax assistance part A. Also, under part 2, which is family tax benefit part B, there is a list of requirements for sole parents, and that includes a guardian allowance, and for single income families there are basic parenting payments, the sole parent rebate and also the dependent spouse rebate. Included in that section for both sole parents and single income families is the tax payment part B and the family tax assistance measure part B. Of course, the third component on the list is the child-care benefit.If I go through some of the notes that have been provided to us along with this bill, I see this important note, and I think it is signifi cant. The removal of the assets test and the easing of the income test, which are two of the changes being put forward by the government in our package, will reverse the trend towards tighter targeting of family assistance to those most in need, which became evident in the mid-1980s. Those excluded by the assets test—farmers and other self-employed people in particular—will benefit greatly. I would contend to you, Mr Speaker, that the people most disadvantaged in our community are precisely those farmers and other self-employed people. They are the ones who have been doing it tough, yet in many cases they are the ones to whom we look for the provision of employment, for the provision of a better way of life and for the provision of the necessities for our communities to grow and prosper.I will turn now to the substance of the changes. The income test free area for the standard rate will increase from $24,000-odd per annum to $28,200. The upper income test free area for the base rate will be increased from $66,000-odd plus $3,000-odd per child to $73,000 plus $3,000 per child. Those are important initiatives. We then have the income test taper rate being reduced from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. We have the income test taper being applied to the base rate. We have the calculation of income being based on current year income.Those are important initiatives. We have to keep those in mind. With the removal of the assets test which currently applies to family allowance, the rate will increase $140 per annum and indexation will be in line with the CPI in July each year. The changes that are being proposed by the government both within its broader tax proposals and within this specific measure in relation to family assistance—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The member will have leave to continue speaking at a later hour when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements53915391Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Depu ty Prime Minister and Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today. He is leaving to visit a number of overseas countries to pursue Australia's trade interests. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice539253925392Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why has your government decided to provide its meagre assistance to those adversely affected by the youth allowance by amending the family assistance bill, an integral part of the GST legislative package, rather than by changing the youth allowance legislation which would allow you to provide such additional assistance almost immediately? Was your decision to take these families hostage and make them wait two years for this assistance simply part of your plan to blackmail Senator Harradine into voting for your tax package?5392Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is not the practice, the policy or the intention of this government to blackmail or even attempt to blackmail anybody. We have been up-front about what we intend to do in these areas. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition asked me that question because it is my recollection that, in the 1993 budget, the former Labor government reduced the right of families with dependent student children up to the age of 25 to continue to get the family allowance. They reduced the age to 18 years, and I do not remember that being told to the Australian people in the 1993 election campaign.53925392Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, the Australian Bureau of Statistics today released their labour force data for April. Minister, what do these figures reveal, what do they indicate about the need for further reform and what are the impediments to introducing such reforms?5392Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for her question. The ABS labour force statistics were put out this morning. The unemployment rate moved from 7.4 per cent to 7.5 per cent, so it moved up marginally. They show that a record number of Australians are in work—8,711,100 people have a job—and obviously that general state of affairs is certainly much better than what it has been all through the 1990s. It flows from the fact that we have had a genuine reform program in place—fiscal policy, labour market policies and the like. But it is also a fact that we would like to do better. Furthermore, we know the changes that are necessary that would provide more employment opportunities than are available today. In answer to the question, the principal barrier to providing further jobs in the Australian economy sits opposite—with 52 per cent of their frontbench being former trade union officials and with the unions having a stranglehold over the `Mr Point of Order' here.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order going to relevance. The minister was asked a set of specific questions about the poor labour force figures today; he was not asked to give a free character analysis about those on this side of the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will deal with the point of order. I call the Leader of the House, and he will return to the question of unemployment figures.WI4Mr REITH—The point I make is that, as Ted Evans once said, the level of unemployment we have is the choice we make. The fact is that we make the choice to create more jobs, and the Labor Party and the trade union officials who sit opposite make another choice. He has the incredible cheek to say this is not relevant to—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I again raise the point of relevance. My point goes to the fact that he was asked a specific set of questions about today's poor labour force figures.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat, and I will rule on the point of relevance. The Leader of the House was referring to the question asked and I call him.WI4Mr REITH—I am of course referring to the issue that most Australians are asking about today—that is, they are asking, `What else do you need to do, and what is in the way of you doing more to create employment opportunities?' The question said, `What are the impediments to introducing such reforms?' The impediments to introducing those reforms—the legislative reforms, in particular—are a pack of Labor senators under the control of the opposition leader who are opposing sensible measures that would give people the chance of a job. They have been doing that for the whole time that this government has been in office—all the way back to the first big fiscal policy changes we made. Never let anybody forget that, in the 1996 budget, the Labor Party and the ACTU organised a protest against measures which since have created jobs.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I go again to the point of relevance. I know he is feeling a bit left out of things and he feels he needs to get up on his scrapers—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to the point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The question was very specific to poor labour force figures today. He is now rehearsing events on his interpretation that are three years old.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and I will rule on the point of order. The Leader of the House has made the point that the question did refer to impediments to achieving the goals he had set. In that sense, I deem him to be relevant and I call him.WI4Mr REITH—Not only did the Labor Party oppose a budget which got interest rates down and which has helped small businesses who have gone out and created jobs; you have been opposing the Workplace Relations Act and all the benefits for small business that were within that legislation. You are today opposing the unfair dismissal—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: how can it be relevant to canvass every conceivable feature of past budgets?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The House will come to order. The Leader of the House is in order and will continue his reply.WI4Mr REITH—When the Leader of the Opposition gets up tonight with his hyperbole about concern for the unemployed, a lot of Australians will be saying, `Why don't you do something to help small business go out and get somebody a job?' It is because you have these ex-ACTU presidents telling you what to do. Why don't you use your numbers to give somebody the chance of a job?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order which again goes to relevance: because we are opposed to a GST, that is the obvious answer. But more to the point, this is way beyond the ambit of the question—way beyond.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition must recognise that a question on unemployment and small business does of itself allow a wide-ranging answer, and in that context the Leader of the House is entirely in order.WI4Mr REITH—The Leader of the Opposition raises tax reform. You are opposed to tax reform. We want tax reform. Why? Because it will be good for small businesses and, if it is good for our small businesses, they will go out and give people a job. Don't give us crocodile tears about concern for the unemployed. You gave us record unemployment in this country back in the early 1990s, the worst unemployment since the Great Depression, and now you use your numbers, not just on unfair dismissals, but on the youth wages legislation. There is legislation you could be supporting today that would give young people the chance of a job and, just as importantly, protect hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people both now and into the future.The fact of the matter, Mr Speaker, is that the Labor Party is shackled to the trade union movement. As the Farmers Federation said only last year when the Leader of the Opposition made a public declaration that he would not be changing his industrial relations policy one jot or tittle:The ALP's reported new industrial relations policy will take Australia back to the unproductive work practices of the 1960s and reduce the demand for labour.The fact is that they are hogtied to the ACTU. The challenge for the Leader of the Opposition is not to make another point of order tonight, but to actually throw off the shackles of the ACTU.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. In 38 months you have created not one-third of the jobs that we created in our last 38.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Speaker will not sit here and tolerate this sort of abuse of the standing orders by both sides of the House. When people are called to resume their seats, they will do so immediately.53945394Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Do you recall that in March 1998 Senator Harradine said he would not support the youth allowance legislation unless you agreed at the very least that for each adult child deemed to be dependent on the parents, $5,400 should be excluded from the income of the parents for tax purposes? Are you aware that this suggestion, which was clearly Senator Harradine's bottom line on the youth allowance issue, would be worth about $89 a fortnight to a one-child family on $45,000, and about $70 a fortnight to such a family on $35,000? Hasn't the government broken the undertaking to Senator Harradine by giving both of these families a miserly $37.50, rather than the $89 or $70 that Senator Harradine's proposal would have given them?5394Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—No undertakings given by me have been broken. While I am on my feet, I must disclose to the parliament that I inadvertently misled the House in my last answer. I said that the Labor Party had only reduced the eligibility in relation to the family allowance for dependent students down to—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—It's irrelevant to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It's not irrelevant.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will go to a point of relevance here. A very specific question was asked with no embellishment to it whatsoever.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition makes a perfectly valid point. As the Prime Minister is aware, it is not without precedent for people to add to answers and I have allowed him to do that. The Prime Minister will now come to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I suggested that the reduction down to 18 had been introduced by the former Labor government in 1993. I did them a disservice. They in fact introduced it in May 1985, and now 14 years later they are feigning concern about the older dependent children of Australian families. You are hypocrites and have no credibility.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was asked a specific question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.53945394Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House how the 1999 budget compares to the 1993 budget in terms of government delivering its commitments? To what extent is there a contrast between these two budgets?5394Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question. Last Tuesday night when the government introduced its budget it was able to deliver on all of the promises that it made in the October election. The government, having fulfilled all of those commitments, seeks the right to introduce in full all of the commitments it undertook with the Australian people in October of last year, and in particular we seek to implement in full the largest cut in personal income taxes in this country's history.Average Australian wage earners deserve income tax cuts. Only one thing stands between income tax cuts and a go for average earners in Australia, and it is the negative, obstructionist, Labor opposition under the leadership of the current Leader of the Oppo sition, who believes that the only thing you win a mandate for when you win an election is a mandate to break your promises, not to keep them. After all, that was his experience.During 1992 was the last time that Australia had access to general income tax cuts. Families had access to income tax cuts under our family tax initiative, but the last time that legislation was put in place to cut income tax was in 1992 with the Tax Legislation Amendment Act 1992. Mr Speaker, this is a copy of the act, No. 197 of 1992. The Labor Party went the 1993 election not promising income tax cuts, but with that piece of l-a-w. After the 1993 election the Labor Party, having won an election on the basis of the l-a-w law Tax Legislation Amendment Act of 1992, introduced a bill called the Taxation Deficit Reduction Bill (No. 3) 1993. They changed that l-a-w so that some part of those tax cuts would apply in 1993-94, but the full benefit would apply under section 2(3) of the act as follows:Part 2 commences at the beginning of the financial year fixed by regulations made by the Governor-General for the purposes of this subsection. The financial year must be later than the financial year beginning on 1 July 1994.The Governor-General has been sitting out there at Yarralumla since 1 July 1994 waiting, waiting, waiting—waiting for the Treasurer of the day, waiting for the finance minister of the day to come out and to say to him, `Oh, Governor-General, please let us implement our tax cuts,' which were not a promise; they were l-a-w. They won an election on them in 1993. All they had to do was hop in the Comcar on any one of those days and go out to Yarralumla and ask for them to be put in place. The thing that is interesting about that l-a-w, which is still on the statute books and never applied to one dollar for one day—the member for Dickson knows all about this, don't you; you had quite a lot to say about it at the time—is that it does cut income tax rates generally, but I think it was deficient in one respect. The one thing the Labor Party never had in the l-a-w was an income tax cut for lower income earners.Mr McMullan interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Fraser says, `We had already done that.' You would think the Labor Party would, therefore, having been embarrassed by never delivering on the l-a-w, be supporting income tax cuts now. No, now they have decided that it is unfair to cut income tax rates, even though this government is cutting the lowest marginal rate, a proposal which Labor never had. This is complete hypocrisy, breathtaking hypocrisy. When they took away the l-a-w in that budget they took away $3.5 billion of income tax cuts. Instead of that—on the votes of the Australian Democrats, whose spokesman is now the Labor member for Dickson—they increased all—Ms Kernot interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Your interjection was?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address his remarks through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Dickson says, Mr Speaker, that people should keep their promises.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—No, you said that.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That was certainly what you were saying at the time. But on the votes of the member for Dickson, not only did the l-a-w never come into effect but all rates of wholesale sales tax were introduced with a $1.3 billion slug on the budget night and another one per cent. What the Labor Party said in 1993 was that winning an election gave you a mandate to break promises. That was the last election that Labor won. What we say on this side of the House is, `Winning an election gives you a mandate to implement them.' That is why—with the member for Dickson saying that people should keep their promises, being elected to keep the Bs honest in the Senate—the Senate ought to give this government the opportunity to make sure it delivers on those commitments. When the Leader of the Opposition stands up tonight, he could look the Australian people squarely in the eye and say why he failed to implement any of the promises he made last time and why they have any basis to believe him ever again. 53965396Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. As I recollect it, we cut the bottom marginal rate from 30c to 20c. But, anyway, we let that pass.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall saying yesterday on the 11 AM program that those Australians who cannot afford private health insurance today will need to change their current spending priorities in order to purchase private health insurance before it gets more expensive, as they get older, after 1 July 2000? Do you recall saying, `You might say to yourself, "Gee, it's more important to stop that and go into private health insurance now than to add another country to my next overseas trip"'? Prime Minister, are you seriously suggesting to a recently retrenched worker who is struggling to pay the grocery bills and who cannot afford private health insurance that what they have to do now is, `Gee, drop a country from their next overseas trip'?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister, you have not as yet been called, because members both behind you and on my left are having conversations that are much too audible for you to be heard. I call the Prime Minister.5396Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The point that I made yesterday, and make again today, is that one of the consequences of this measure is that it will oblige some people to reassess their spending priorities. I quite unapologetically repeat that today. That is the purpose of the measure. This government, unlike our Labor predecessors, believes in private health insurance. The Leader of the Opposition delivers a personal eulogy of private health insurance, but when he was in government he was complicit in reducing the level of private health insurance in this country from 61 per cent down to the low 30s.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You were going to maintain Medibank.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks is not even in his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is typical of the Leader of the Opposition that in 1984, when the Labor Party introduced the Medicare system, the level of private health insurance in this country was around 61 per cent; I understand that it had fallen to about 33 per cent by the time of the change of government in March of 1996. This even caused the Leader of the Opposition's friend—the former health minister Graham Richardson—to warn the then government in 1990 that if it did not do something about the bleeding of the private health system it would face a crisis. As a consequence of that warning being ignored, we did inherit on coming to office a crisis in the private health insurance system. We have set about doing something about it. We have introduced a 30 per cent tax rebate. That effectively means that, for 80 per cent of the Australian population, under our taxation proposals if they are passed by the parliament private health insurance will be fully tax deductible. That measure has been widely welcomed throughout the Australian community. It was so widely welcomed within the New South Wales Labor Party that they begged the Leader of the Opposition to pass it last year. They begged the Labor Party here not to go on opposing it.To further buttress that measure, we have introduced lifetime health cover. That is designed to add another reason, another incentive, for people to take out private health insurance. It is easy for the Leader of the Opposition—who watched private health insurance bleed away, who was prepared to sit there and do nothing to help private health insurance—to sneer now at the attempts of this government, but at least we have matched our rhetoric with a commitment. We introduced a tax rebate; the Labor Party voted against it. We have introduced lifetime health cover. It is designed to buttress the other measures that we have introduced. Unlike the Labor Party, which only believes in the public system, we believe in both a public and a private system. And if the private system is weakened, the public system is weakened. If you believe in the maintenance of Medicare, then you must believe in the maintenance of a strong private health insurance system. We have shown our commitment by our actions. The Labor Party sat by idly for 13 years in government while private health insurance dissipated. It has taken a coalition government to reverse that trend, and I congratulate the Minister for Health and Aged Care for the leadership that he has shown in this area.53975397Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the reaction to the government's budget announcement providing more choice and equity in Australian schooling? How do these initiatives meet the educational needs of the people of Deakin and all Australians?5397Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I know that all the very good non-government schools in his electorate will welcome the government's initiatives, as have many others in the community. The government schools in the member's electorate will also greatly welcome the increased funding for government schools in the budget. The Reverend Peter Tannock, the Chairman of the National Catholic Education Commission, which represents 1,700 schools and 650,000 pupils, says of the government's measures:The new scheme supports and promotes freedom of choice in education . . . it will give catholic schools and systems real increases in resources and a secure, long-term funding base.Building on these comments, Father Tom Doyle of the Victorian Catholic Education Commission said that the changes were:. . . a very good and equitable package . . . The new system is fair, open to scrutiny, yet doesn't drain resources away from government schools. In a caring and democratic Australia, it is vital that we recognise every person's right to choice.Mr Fergus Thompson, the Executive Director of the National Council of Independent Schools, said:The new funding arrangements will enhance educational choice for all families and provide improved equity to school funding arrangements.There is a very good comment from the Christian Controlled Parents Schools:The Government is to be congratulated. Low income Australian parents and their families have been given a real chance to exercise genuine choice in the education of their children. I think the reaction was very well summed up by Mr Peter Crimmins, the Executive Officer of the Australian Association of Christian Schools, an organisation which represents over 150 schools and over 40,000 pupils. In a press release entitled `Solid Justice: Real Choice', Mr Crimmins said:Choice in schooling is now a reality for working class Australian families.These comments capture the reality of the government's education policies. They show that these policies are equitable and fair for all Australian families. They form a dramatic contrast, one has to say, with the comments from the member for Dobell and the Australian Education Union. Apart from the statistical babble that we have heard over the last few days, which I exposed in the House yesterday—Mr Beazley interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—You will hear more of this statistical babble, says the Leader of the Opposition. The Australian Education Union made this disgraceful attack on the Catholic education system: `The Catholic bishops,' the Australian Education Union said, `should feel especially ashamed. Never before have they accepted a system of funding not based on educational standards, equity and the common good.' What hypocrisy! We know that the Australian Education Union writes the policy for the Labor Party. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to dissociate himself from these disgraceful remarks by the Australian Education Union. These policies that the government has put in place are increasing funding for government schools. They are increasing equity for non-government school funding. They are fair to all Australians and at last give working-class Australian families the school choice they have long demanded.53975397Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Minister, can you confirm that members of the ADF will be forced to pay a higher premium under the government's lifetime health cover when they finish their service with the ADF and join the Defence Health Benefits Fund, or any other health fund, after the age of 30? What are you doing to address this inequitable treatment of the men and women who serve this nation?5398Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—Mr Speaker, I cannot give the member a full answer. I will come back to him with a full answer.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You've just dudded the Defence Force.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Brisbane.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You've just increased their premiums.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Not ten seconds ago I called for the attention of the member for Brisbane, and he promptly followed that up with a further interjection. I warn him.53985398Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney inform the House of the government's action to enhance law and order in Australia and to promote a safer community?5398Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Improving law and order in Australia is a priority of the Australian people, whether they are parents, whether they are children, whether they are elderly, or whoever they are. It has also been a priority for the Howard government. The range of our activities in this area is exemplified by two announcements made this week. In his budget speech, the Treasurer announced that there would be four new Australian Federal Police strike teams to fight international drug-dealing criminals, and today, under our expanding crime prevention program, the Minister for Justice and Customs provided $30,000 to people of Burnie Court in Lyons in the ACT to restore vandalised property and involve young residents in community safety action. You can see, Mr Speaker, that we are operating at the international level, and we are operating at the community level; we are also operating at all levels in between.Additional funding was announced by the Treasurer in the 1999-2000 budget totalling some $169 million for improvement of community safety. The government is establishing Crimtrac at a cost of $50 million to provide a national information system to assist in policing, $35.4 million is committed to the Australian Customs Service to enhance drug detection capabilities and $41.6 million is committed to the Tough on Drugs initiative to increase the capacity to intercept drugs.We know that, in the last two years of Labor government, the Leader of the Opposition, as Minister for Finance, ran up a $23.4 billion deficit. What people should realise is that while Labor was running up these deficits through their economic incompetence, they were also cutting the budget of the Australian Federal Police. When we came to office, the AFP were down to one mobile drug team, and in the last five years of Labor government staffing was reduced by 400 personnel. In contrast, the government's sound economic management will enable us to improve community safety throughout Australia into the next millennium.53985398Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. On 11 March, you told this House that an insurance company introducing price rises before the GST applies would be breaking the law. I ask whether you are aware that the Insurance Council of Australia has today written to coalition marginal seat holders telling them:Treasury has now informed us that they do not accept that any changes need to be made in the transitional GST provisions. The only option that has been put to us is for insurance companies to increase their premiums before the GST legislation is passed.Treasurer, were you wrong on 11 March or is the Treasury advising the insurance industry to break the law? Isn't your policy going to cost insured Australians an extra $1 billion in higher premiums even before the GST is introduced?5398Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As it happens I have seen the letter, and I have read the letter. One of the claims that the Insurance Council makes in the letter is that insurers will have to make higher payments to people who are making personal injury claims because income tax cuts will mean that they are entitled to higher compensation. The insurance com panies say that, as a consequence of lowering income tax rates, people will be entitled to bigger payouts and this will cost insurers more.From the government's point of view, we think that is quite appropriate. If income tax rates are being reduced, compensation beneficiaries should be getting more. We are quite happy to ensure that people get the benefit of income tax cuts. Let me turn it around the other way: when the Labor Party effectively put up income taxes by taking away the l-a-w and that meant that compensation beneficiaries got less because you never delivered your income tax cuts, did the insurers say that they were getting a windfall? Did the insurers say, `Because we have to pay people less in compensation payments because Labor's got income tax rates higher, we should be taking less premiums'? Of course the insurers didn't say that. The insurers were quite happy to take the benefit when Labor was putting up income taxes, and the insurers will have to take the liability when we are bringing them down. That is one of the things about taking risk. As far as the government is concerned, the insurers are well and truly entitled to try and get a better deal as a result of lower income tax rates.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance. The question was very specific. Can insurance companies put—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has quite rightly made the point of relevance. I have been listening very intently to the Treasurer's reply, and he has been relevant to the question. He is in order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We are quite happy to ensure that people get the benefit. We are quite happy for the insurers to make their claims. I suppose if the insurers can get the Australian Labor Party to back insurers against people who take out insurance policies, we will stick with the people who are taking out the policies any day.53995399Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Can the minister inform the House what action the government is taking to ensure the 2000 Olympic Games are drug free?5399Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I would like to thank the member for her concern for aspiring Olympians and Paralympians in her electorate. Today I launched the government's Tough on Drugs in Sport strategy. It is one of the toughest sets of measures in the world. We have looked at improving border control methods and the information exchange between Customs and sporting bodies. We are looking at more effective control of supply and the diversion of various products such as veterinary products. We are also looking at the appropriateness of criminal sanctions for some activities. We are educating athletes on the negative effects of drugs and also on the medical commissions that are available to them for the legitimate use of drugs, should they be truly ill. We are committing $3 million to research. This year we are conducting 5,000 tests, which is 25 per cent more than last year. We are committed to ongoing increases in tests over the next few years. This testing will be out of competition. There will also be more tests with no notice. Then we are pushing very strongly for an international standard consisting of a two-year ban for a first offence and a lifetime ban for a second offence. I have insisted on the IOC procedures at the Sydney Olympic Games being rigorous and transparent. I have met with Jacques Rogge of the IOC, and we have agreed to take a look at those procedures. We are convening an international drugs summit in November to shore up the commitment of governments around the world to a strong antidoping position. We are overall sending this message to athletes right around the world: if you are a cheat and you come to Sydney in the year 2000 or beyond, then you will be caught and you will suffer the personal and national embarrassment of being a drug cheat.53995399Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Again, my question is to the Treasurer. Can insurance companies increase their premiums as a consequence of the GST before the GST even commences? If so, didn't you mislead the House on 11 March?5400Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—No.54005400Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister inform the House what the government is doing to improve telecommunications infrastructure and services in regional Australia?5400Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The reality is that under the social bonus we intend to do a great deal in the area of telecommunications for rural and regional Australians. We are proposing another $150 million over three years to extend access to untimed local calls to those people who live outside standard zones; $36 million over three years to enable local call access to the Internet for people in rural and regional areas; and $120 million over five years to provide TV reception and SBS for those who are in television black spots. There are many in this place who represent people who do not have access to television around the country—unbelievable as that may seem to many people in 1999. We are also proposing $20 million to enhance communications for remote and island communities—the Torres Strait islands, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island and so forth—and $25 million to upgrade mobile phone coverage on our national highways.These are all very valuable, and are in addition to some of the things that we have been able to do already through Networking the Nation. As you move around this vast continent of ours, you find that we have been able to do an extraordinary amount over the last couple of years. We have spent over $3½ million for the Victorian Rural Libraries Online project; $3 million for an outback digital network; $1.7 million to kick-start the provision of online learning tools for Tasmanian students from kindergarten to TAFE; and nearly $500 million to Queensland's central west Channel Country. I could go on for a very long time to cover places all over the nation that are benefiting very substantially from what we have been able to do—a very large number of projects totalling over $93 million. What I particularly want to come to is the very mischievous misrepresentation of our clear position on the social bonus, which is worth $670 million in times coming up. We have had the Leader of the Opposition implying that none of this will happen; none of the good things we have committed ourselves to will happen until Telstra is sold. The reality is that the budget factors in the sale of up to 16.6 per cent of Telstra for the 1999-2000 year. It includes provision for the social bonus from those sale proceeds. Subsequent sales are not scheduled until the years 2001 and 2002. Labor likes to portray the social bonus as being dependent upon the full sale of Telstra. It is not. Indeed, the only thing standing between rural Australia having these very valuable programs, which are making a real difference and can continue to make a real difference right across the nation, is their intransigence in the face of good policy.54005400Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that the government would proceed with the full sale of Telstra after an inquiry into regional service levels at the same time the Minister for Finance confirmed that the full sale of Telstra was not recorded in the budget as being subject to any risk. Is it not the case that the government intends that any inquiry it holds into Telstra will not present any risk because it will be a sham inquiry? Why have you rolled over on the full sale of Telstra, and how do you propose to explain this to the member for Dawson and the Queensland National Party?5400Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The fact of the matter is that no-one has rolled over on this. The government's position is perfectly well known. In fact, there is an acknowledgment of the situation in the papers. Just have a good look at them; it is there.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Read out reference to the inquiry. 4K4Mr ANDERSON—There is no need to at all, but I can if you would like:Revenue from the sale could be placed at risk if the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 does not pass parliament.Read the stuff. In the meantime, you who wear no clothes on this, remember your performance over the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. Recognise good policy. Recognise that it is you who are standing in the way of valuable and worthwhile initiatives for rural and regional Australians that can make a real difference. In particular, why don't you move away from the old-fashioned interventionist `government must solve every problem' approach of your spokesman for rural and regional Australia, because it is not very convincing.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order going to relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Has the minister completed his answer?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes.54015401Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister inform the House about the government's achievements in ensuring high quality nursing home accommodation for older Australians?5401Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for her question; I know of her concern for residents in nursing home and hostel care in her region. I think it is important to look at the answer in terms of what we inherited from the Labor Party. The Labor Party did nothing about ensuring capital streams of income for nursing homes during its 13 years of office. Indeed, it commissioned a Gregory report to which it never even filed a response—never even answered its own commissioned report. It never had a policy for introducing streams for capital flow, it never had incentives and it never had any accountability for any policy that it put in place.The Howard government realised that this situation simply could not continue, and it addressed it. The bottom line is that we have put in place a capital stream system which over 10 years will result in $1.4 billion of funding for nursing home care. But, in addition to that, in this current budget we have provided another $25.6 million over four years for assisting capital funding for rural and remote areas, and we have provided another $8.2 million to the already allocated $20 million for restructuring.The bottom line is that all of this is working. In the first year of our reforms, $¾billion of rebuilding, upgrades and renovations have been either begun or completed, and the number of uncertified facilities has gone down from 300 to 90. I know that the Labor Party has a good deal of trouble in recognising this and so I introduced in the House earlier this week some good headlines to help the Opposition understand and come to terms with it. I have a pretty picture here just so that they can understand—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask the minister not to refer to specific charts.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Mr Speaker, I thank you for that advice; I will simply table the chart.54015401Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I ask whether you stand by your claim yesterday that:. . . there are still pockets of underprivileged in our society, and there are still areas of rural Australia which are doing it very hard . . . it's one of the constant challenges of my government . . . to bring about measures that help them.If so, why did you abolish university scholarships for up to 4,000 clever kids from needy and rural families to save a measly $6.8 million a year?5401Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: yes, I do stand by that. There are a number of ways in which any government can address underprivilege in areas of Australian society. It is true that general economic conditions in this country are the best they have been for 30 years—easily the best they have been for 30 years. But it is also true that there are areas of Australia, particularly rural Australia, which are still doing it very tough.In relation to how you respond to that, you respond first of all by indicating as a government that you understand that and, amidst the proper pride that this country feels in its general economic performance, you acknowledge that there are particular measures which are of particular benefit to rural Australia. I would imagine that, of all the developments over the last three years, none has been more beneficial to rural Australia than the massive reduction in interest rates that has occurred.Any member on our side of the House—and we have many in both the Liberal and National parties who represent the people of the bush—knows that the reduction in interest rates has been of enormous benefit. I would imagine there is hardly a farmer in Australia who is not a believer in exchange rate policy being conducted by the Reserve Bank in a totally flexible and transparent way. That is another policy that is of enormous benefit to the Australian bush. I have not found any people in rural Australia who are opposed to getting a $3½ billion cut in their fuel bill, which will be one of the consequences of the taxation policy that is going to be introduced by the government.I can go through a long list of measures for which this government has been responsible which have been directly targeted towards addressing the specific needs of rural Australia. Most recently in the budget, as a result of the policy initiatives of the minister for health, the government was able to announce a number of additional measures in relation to relieving the chronic shortage of doctors in rural Australia. It has taken a Liberal health minister, with the assistance of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, to really come to grips with this problem.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—Absolute waffle!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Before I call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order, I warn the member for Braddon.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. This is just waffle. The specific question was about a cut—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat, and I will rule on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a question about rural Australia, as I noted it down here.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I issue a general warning. By what standard do members imagine they can simply interrupt the Speaker? The Prime Minister was asked a question about rural Australia doing it tough.Mr Gareth Evans interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Holt. The Prime Minister was asked a question about rural Australia doing it tough and the relevance that had to the issue of a scholarship funding program. The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question, and I invite him to continue.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The ruling which you have just given reflects exactly what is wrong with your ruling on a point of order before you hear it, which is what the standing orders and House of Representatives Practice say.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The standing orders require that the Speaker shall rule as to whether or not an answer is relevant, and that is precisely what I have done.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, House of Representatives Practice says that you must hear a point of order before you rule on it. If you had done so, you would have understood that you had misheard the question and that the question was not about rural hardship but about scholarships.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have ruled on the question of relevance. The Prime Minister is being relevant and has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I am profoundly indebted to those who have taken points of order, because it has given me time to recall to memory a number of other government initiatives which have been directed towards the relief of pockets of disadvantage in the Australian bush. Then, dealing as I normally do with these questions in a sequential fashion, I will come to the issue of scholarships. I will come in due course to that, because I have a total and appropriate response to the second part of the Leader of the Opposition's question.The first part addressed in a very general way the issue of whether this government remained committed to fighting areas of disadvantage in the Australian bush. I am delighted to confirm again that we are committed and that we have followed general economic policies, such as lowering interest rates, cutting taxes, improving competitiveness and running a flexible exchange rate, all of which are designed to help the Australian bush. I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that the budget delivered on our commitment to produce another 30,000 apprenticeships in rural Australia. The historic funding formula announced for independent schools in the budget will be of enormous benefit to many schools.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is taking your generosity way too far. The question was this, to remind you of it in relation to my point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am prepared to hear again the question.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The question was: `Why did you abolish university scholarships for up to 4,000 clever kids from needy and rural families to save a measly $6.8 million a year?' I am not surprised he is evading it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has already indicated that he is sequentially working his way through difficulties in the bush. He is relevant to the question, and I call him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And I am continually impeded by points of order. The third measure that I called to mind during the penultimate series of points of order by the member for Canberra and the Leader of the Opposition was that there was a major boost in the budget for the education of isolated children.In relation to the question of scholarships, the minister for education has already made it clear that these scholarships did not in any way reduce the cost burden for low income students while they were at university. All these scholarships did was relieve people from the obligation of repaying their HECS out of future required income. In those circumstances, in giving the response to them, the government came to the conclusion that the money could be better directed elsewhere.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind those on my left that a general warning has been issued; and that warning includes the Minister for Foreign Affairs.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Yeah! He's had two goes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of 304A.The honourable member for Batman thereupon withdrew from the chamber. 54035403Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Can the minister inform the House what the government is doing to encourage children in rural and regional areas to undertake tertiary studies?5403Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—This question follows very appropriately from the answer that has just been given by the Prime Minister. I compliment the member for Hinkler on the interest he takes in ensuring that students, particularly in regional centres, are able to avail themselves of tertiary study opportunities. This budget has been especially good for families. There is a real social bonus in this budget which helps rural and regional families in a whole host of ways. There are a number of largely unheralded but significant initiatives in the budget which will particularly help country children and children from regional centres to obtain a tertiary education.Often it is difficult for young people in rural communities to overcome the extra costs associated with travelling and the greater distances they have to move to obtain higher education. When this government introduced the youth allowance it provided rent assistance, for the first time, to assist people who have to travel away to undertake their tertiary education. Sometimes families, particularly country families with low incomes, have been unable to qualify for the youth allowance because of substantial assets. This budget introduces a significant concession which will enable many students to access the student financial supplementary loan system, even though their families may have significant farm or small business assets. We expect around 1,400 additional families will be able to benefit from this very important measure. This will provide real living expenses money for students who have to travel away to attend university—unlike the scholarship scheme referred to previously.In addition, there have been a number of changes made to the actual means test which will make it easier for families to qualify for some of these benefits. The budget will assist these families to qualify, particularly those who have been excluded under the family actual means test because of the independent employment sibling allowance. In the future, people will be able to undertake this employment within the family business or on the family farm and not have it counted under the actual means test. In addition to that, we are simplifying the arrangements for the secondary student boarder concession, again to make it easier for people to qualify for these benefits. These may be relatively unheralded announcements, but they are very important to organisations like the Isolated Children's Parents Association and families who have small business assets or farm assets because their children will now have better access to tertiary education than they have had in the past.54045404Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. It follows his claim that the funding for equity scholarships was better spent elsewhere. Is the Prime Minister aware that the $700,000 that he spent on renovations to the Lodge and Kirribilli House would have funded 175 scholarships for clever kids from low income families that he abolished when he got rid of these scholarships in this budget? Prime Minister, how can you claim that this money was better spent on your comfort rather than helping clever, needy kids go to university? 5404Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The expenses incurred in relation to the annual maintenance of Kirribilli and the Lodge compare very favourably with the expenses incurred by my predecessors. Over a comparable period of time, my immediate predecessor incurred expenses of $795,000, and the number of staff employed in the two residences has fallen from 13 to nine under my prime ministership. If that is the best question that the member for Dobell can ask in relation to education, he is an even more pathetic education spokesman than he was a health spokesman.54045404Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister inform the House about reaction to the government's commitment to health in the budget and, in particular, reaction to the introduction of lifetime health cover?5404Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Responses to the health initiatives in the budget have been overwhelmingly positive. In regard to our changes in the medical research funding, Professor John Shine of the Australian Association of Medical Research Institutes comments that the budget marks the beginning of a new era for medical research in Australia. Professor John Mattick of the Australian Genome Research Facility says that it is a very positive step in the right direction. The Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association says that it can position Australia as a global player in the biotechnology revolution. The Murdoch Institute's director Professor Bob Williams said that Australia can now hold its head up in the international arena.It is not just spending extra money on medical research that has brought positive comments. Our initiative on lifetime health cover has received comments such as these. The Australian Catholic Health Care Association's chief executive said that the lifetime health cover plan has the best chance of luring young people back into private health insurance. The Australian Council on the Ageing has reacted positively to the various health initiatives, including private health insurance which rewards long-term membership. The Australian Medical Association, not always complimentary of the government, has said that the measure of lifetime health cover combined with the 30 per cent rebate has set in place a structure to ensure the long-term viability of the private health insurance system. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has said that it will certainly improve the access of more disadvantaged groups to public hospitals and that that has to be a good thing.These groups have supported what we have done with lifetime health cover because they know we have done our homework. They know we have allowed for a two-year period of absence for people to leave and still maintain their certified age of entry. They know we have allowed for suspension of membership in cases of genuine hardship or extended overseas postings where people can still maintain their certified age of entry. They know we have made special arrangements for the Australian Defence Force so that any member of the ADF from 1 July 2000 will be deemed to be 30 years of age whenever they leave the Defence Force. They know that people can upgrade or downgrade their cover and maintain their certified age of entry. They know there are arrangements for people to switch between funds and maintain their certified age of entry. They know we are having discussions with the small number of unregistered health funds to look at their options to actually become registered.You see, Mr Speaker, we saw the opposition coming. We knew they would be carping, negative, opportunistic and nitpicking. We knew they would try to misrepresent the initiative. We knew they would react to this as they have to every other initiative in health because, in the words of Graham Richardson, they do not like the private health sector. Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet, I correct an answer I gave on 8 February. I was asked about psychiatry consultations. I tabled a document from which I was reading at the time. I was informed this morning—DT4CREANMr Crean—This isn't on the question.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I have checked with the Speaker and I was asked to do it now, so just stop your stupid interjections.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister indicated to me that he wished to add to an answer. I thought it may facilitate the House for him to do it at the end of the question he was in fact replying to. I thought that would in fact be met with general approval.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under the standing orders, the correct time to add to an answer previously given is at the conclusion of question time. The reason for that is that there are reasonable standards of relevance anticipated anyway in the standing orders related to questions asked and to bring in irrelevant material to the question asked is time wasting in the chamber and is a well-known tactic by governments to try to avoid scrutiny. The correct time for him to add to his answer is later on today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It has been the custom, as the Leader of the Opposition points out, for people to add to answers at the conclusion of question time, and in fact that was the request that the minister made. It was my decision that, to facilitate the House since question time was about to conclude, one presumes, after the normal 10 questions or so each, it would not be unreasonable for him to do it at this stage, and I have so ruled. I call the minister.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just trying to be courteous. It is very hard with the opposition. I was informed this morning by my department that they have become aware that those figures given three months ago are incorrect. I table the letter from the department and I table the correct figures.54055405Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister claim to have delivered an education budget when the wealthiest private primary schools receive an increase of at least $72 a child for the one per cent of students they teach while the 70 per cent of Australian kids at govern ment schools receive an average of only $10 per student extra?5406Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not accept those figures. They sound suspiciously like the figures being dishonestly peddled by the Australian Education Union. What those figures do is repeat the constant dishonest mantra of the teacher unions of this country who deliberately omit in any funding comparison the contribution to the funding of government schools by the state governments of Australia. Everyone who knows anything about education in this country ought to understand that the major source of funding of government schools in Australia is the state governments, who are the owners and operators of not only the assets of the—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order which of course goes to the question of relevance. The question related to the funding in this budget by the Commonwealth government, and what the states do is no answer to that question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is being entirely relevant. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—We expect better of him rather than to make such a pathetic point of order. What the honourable member sought to do with his question was to imply that, through the total funding decisions of this government, we have deliberately disadvantaged government schools. That is wrong, it is dishonest and it is merely parroting in an obsequious fashion the views of the teacher unions of Australia. Let me tell the House that the major call on the budgets of most state governments—not the only call of course, but one of the major calls—is government education. In the coming financial year the financial assistance grants going to the Australian states will rise by something close to five per cent in real terms. It is therefore stark obvious that all of the governments of the Australian states will have more resources to fund government schools.Let me also remind the member who asked the question, and through him the teacher unions of Australia, that, if the goods and services tax legislation is passed, over time all of the states of Australia will have more money to fund government schools. That is why they lined up, and why your premier lined up after he got some extra money. He was one of the most enthusiastic to sign. Bob Carr went along and said, `You know, John, I'm against this—where do I sign?' The reason they did that is that every last one of them, Liberal and Labor alike, are going to have lots more money under the GST to pay for government schools.If you were interested in government schools, instead of parodying the lies of the teacher unions, you know what you would be doing? You would be urging your Senate colleagues to pass the legislation so that the state governments of Australia would have more money to fund government schools. It is the state governments that fund government schools. The federal government is principally responsible for the funding of independent schools. That has been the process followed by Labor and Liberal governments alike. It was followed by the Hawke and Keating governments, as it was and is being followed by the Fraser and Howard governments. We engaged in some top-up direct funding in relation to particular programs for government schools. We have provided literacy and numeracy programs. We have provided $90 million for Asian student instruction. We have provided a teacher training program that is fairly available to people in both government and independent schools.To use the words of the secretary of the Christian Schools Association, quoted by the minister for education earlier in question time, I am immensely proud of the fact that the education initiatives in this budget for the first time have given real freedom of choice between government and independent schools to the working class people of Australia. What really sticks in the craw of those who sit opposite is that it has taken a coalition government to give equity to working class Australians so far as choice in government and independent schools is concerned. No amount of the peddling of the dishonest misrepresentation of the teacher unions will alter that fact. We support government and private schools. We support them fairly; we support them fully. We have delivered like no other government on equity and choice for working class Australians.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members for the Northern Territory and Dobell might like to consult with the member for Batman because, by the standards they were just exhibiting, they should be joining him.54075407Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the reaction to this week's budget? What are Australia's prospects as a result of this week's budget?5407Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—It is great to have a question finally about the budget. I thank the member for Fairfax for asking it, and I note the Leader of the Opposition walks away. This year's budget was a combination of four years of hard work by the Howard government. This was a budget that put Australia back into the black. This was a budget that laid down a path for the future of our country. The Business Council of Australia said:This budget shows how fiscal virtue is its own reward. The achievements of the last few years are returning to the government's bottom line. They are initiating a virtuous circle—reform, feeding growth, feeding the bottom line, enabling more reform and growth.The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:This is a budget which is directed to ensuring that Australia continues to prosper in spite of the severe economic downturn which has affected so many of our trading partners in Asia.The National Farmers Federation said:The government should be congratulated on its economic management over the last three years.The Investment and Financial Services Association said:Low inflation, low interest rates, and a tight rein on government expenditure in combination are good for investment.The National Rural Health Alliance said:The shortage of doctors in rural areas should soon be improved by measures already in place and new programs that have been confirmed in tonight's Federal Budget. The National Health and Medical Research Council said:. . . this commitment would help to put Australia at the forefront of medical research and help support researchers in their quest to create a healthier world. Australia could now be in a position to unravel the mysteries of diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes, and to prevent many of the health problems millions of Australians face each day.The Association of Independent Retirees said:Because health care is so important to older Australians, the introduction of lifetime health cover is particularly welcome.The Sydney Morning Herald , under the heading `Responsible and fair', said:Every budget is a balancing act and the Treasurer made last night's an especially adroit performance. Above all, it is a triumph of a determined focus on economic policy.The Herald Sun said:A healthy Budget.The Daily Telegraph said, under the heading `Setting up the 21st century':The Budget was a platform on which to base policy for the debut decade of the next century, a launching pad for rising growth and employment in stable economic conditions.When the government was elected the budget was $10.3 billion in deficit. It was $10.3 billion in deficit notwithstanding the fact that Labor had taken away $3.5 billion in l-a-w tax cuts and added $1.3 billion in increased wholesale sales tax. If they had delivered on their promises, that would have been another $5 billion on the $10.3 billion deficit of 1996-97.It was the task of this government to get Australia out of deficit. It was the task of this government to lay down a debt reduction program. It was the task of this government to make Australia strong during the Asia financial downturn. It is the task of this government to build a new industrial relations system. It is the task of this government to build a new tax system. It is the task of this government to get the real benefits of privatisation in relation to Telstra. This has been a government which committed itself to good, sound economic policy, and this week's budget was very much a part of a four-year program to recover Australia's opportunity and to give Australia the opportunity it deserves into the next century.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, on that entirely appropriate note, which is good for Australia, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous5408540815:22:005408Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to add to an answer I gave the member for Cunningham.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave is granted.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—Those members of the ADF who are members of the Defence Force on 1 July 2000 will have a certified age at entry of 30. Therefore, if they join a health fund as soon as they leave the Defence Force, they will pay the base rate premium. If they delay joining a health fund until some time after they leave the Defence Force, the normal period of absence rules will apply. This means that, if they join a health fund within 24 months of leaving the Defence Force, the certified age at entry will still be 30. For every additional year that members of the ADF delay joining, the certified age at entry will go up by one year. So members of the ADF will pay the additional two per cent on top of the base rate premium for each additional year they delay joining post retiring as a member of the Defence Force.If members of the ADF leave the Defence Force before 1 July 2000, they will not automatically be given a certified age entry of 30. Under these circumstances, members of the ADF who retire prior to 1 July 2000 will need to take out hospital cover with a registered health fund before 1 July 2000 in order to lock into that wonderful initiative in the budget for lower premiums.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would table the information from which he was reading so we can understand it a little better. I am serious. I would like it tabled. He was reading a document.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand what the member for Cunningham seeks. He will resume his seat and I will ask, as is the custom, whether the minister was reading from a confidential document. The minister has the right to determine whether or not the document ought or ought not be a public document.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—It is confidential.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have ruled on the matter.Questions to the Speaker540854085408Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Mr Speaker, on 23 November last year, I asked the Treasurer question on notice No. 85 concerning the cost of implementing the superannuation surcharge. Pursuant to standing order 150, I ask if you could write to him, ask him to tear himself away from the newspaper editorials and respond to that question.5408Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up with the Treasurer, under standing order 150, for the member for Wills.Documents54085408Reith, 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:Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration—March 1999Supporting Applications of Issues from the Advances to the Minster for Finance and Administration during March 1999Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Special Adjournment5408Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Matters of Public Importance540954095409Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The damage being done to the future of Australia by the policies of the Howard government on education and research.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—15:27:005409Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—It is the week before the budget and the Prime Minister is in his office at Parliament House sitting in his chesterfield chair—the shrinking man in the big chair, arms high on the armrest—working out how he is going to sell his fourth budget. He has been told by his pollsters that the Australian public hate the GST. He has been told by his pollsters that his own standing is shrinking, just like he is shrinking in that chesterfield chair in the Prime Minister's office. He is considered to be uninspiring and backward looking and he is trying to work out how to sell this fourth budget. The next day he goes on the Neil Mitchell program, and I quote:NEIL MITCHELL: Okay, the budget next week—if we were to sum it up, you write the headline for us. What sort of budget will it be?PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD—Neil, I think very much a budget about the education future of this country. I think you'll find quite a bit in it about education.We make two points about that. If this budget, the Howard government's fourth budget, is an education budget, we think we are entitled to say—in fact it is an embarrassment to say—this is such a feeble attempt to try to lift the quality of our schools, our TAFE colleges, our universities and our research institutions right across the country.How can this Prime Minister claim to have delivered an education budget when he has abolished 4,000 scholarships for clever kids from rural and low income families? How can the Prime Minister claim to have delivered an education budget when he has increased federal funding for private schools by $210 a child but has provided only an extra $10 a child for the 70 per cent of Australian kids at government schools?Dr Kemp interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The minister will be careful what he says.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—How could this be an education budget when universities are hit with their fourth year of operating funding cuts totalling $800 million? How could this be an education budget when there is no growth money for our TAFE colleges? How could this be an education budget when Australia's Commonwealth education and research effort is actually continuing to decline? That is the first point. It is a feeble attempt, by any description, to claim it is an education budget. The second point I make is this. John Howard said on the Neil Mitchell program:I think very much an education budget, a budget about the education future of this country. I think you'll find quite a bit in it about education.There are two choices: either the Prime Minister was deliberately misleading Neil Mitchell and the listeners of the Neil Mitchell program or he does sincerely believe that these meagre measures, these attacks on education, actually make up an education budget, and that is a bigger worry. If he actually thinks this is an education budget, then Australia has a very big concern. The students at universities, the students at the TAFE colleges, the kids in government and non-government schools and the researchers right across the country have cause to worry if this is what this Prime Minister thinks is an education budget.The big winner in education was one group: it was the private schools. They have done very well. I am sure some needy non-government schools will use that money in a very good way to lift the standards of education in those schools. The great tragedy is that the government was not as generous to the 70 per cent of kids at government schools. The tragedy is that the government was not as generous to the students, researchers and lecturers at universities, the students at TAFE colleges and the researchers in our quality research institutions across the country. Why weren't you as generous to them as you were to those private schools? That is the question we have. The answer is that this Prime Minister has a blind spot when it comes to the Commonwealth's responsibilities to provide funding for government schools, funding for universities, funding for TAFE and funding for that national research effort.Yesterday in this House, the minister for education disputed this comparison between how much extra money will be spent on students going to non-government schools and how much has been spent on students going to government schools, so I intend to spend a bit of time on that this afternoon. The first point to make is that these calculations are based on the measures in this budget. They do not include the non-discretionary growth, which is built into the forward estimates. They are based on the government's own figures. The $210 increase on average in Commonwealth funding for non-government schools is calculated by adding together, first of all, the additional funding going to the Catholic school system because of the upgrading in the categories from 10 to 11, and there is also the extra money that flows as a result of the switch from ERI to the new socioeconomic status model, and that adds up to $756 million over four years.The second item we add to get that $210 per child for non-government schools is 30 per cent of the quality teacher money. That is 30 per cent of $77.7 million, leaving $23.3 million. Thirdly, we add in 30 per cent of the new literacy money for middle years literacy. We divide that figure by four to get the annual figure and then divide that by the total number of students at non-government schools, and that gives you an average of $210 of extra federal funding per child per year at non-government schools.The $10 figure in comparison is the sum of 70 per cent of the quality teacher money—because 70 per cent of kids go to non-government schools—and 70 per cent of the new literacy money, divided by four and divided by the 2.2 million kids who attend government schools across the country. We do not include a continuation of Labor's Asian language program, and we do not include a continuation of the Howard government's school literacy program. The reason we do not include them is that in the government's own budget papers, page 62 of Budget Paper No. 2, it makes it clear that the Asian language program was started by us and rolled over by them and they expect us to give them credit as if that is new money, extra money for government schools, when they have simply rolled over an existing program. On page 66 of Budget Paper No. 2, they are also claiming credit for rolling over the existing literacy money.It is quite clear that, when you take account of all these details in the budget papers, there is a gap. On average $210 per child per year goes to students at private schools; on average $10 per child per year goes to 70 per cent of the kids at government schools. If the minister disputes that, let him produce the figures here this afternoon. Let him produce the figures that try to shoot any holes in those figures.The first point to make about the minister for education is that at least he is here this afternoon, at least he was able to get himself organised to turn up. In many ways, he is more to be pitied than despised. He stuffed up the Job Network. He lost half of his job in the reshuffle after the last election. He suffers the humiliation of the member for Warringah, of all people, coming in here and day after day getting to do dorothy dixers on the ideological mistakes that this minister is responsible for. Imagine that humiliation! Fancy getting shown up by the member for Warringah of all people.The minister is the author of the VSU debacle, the voluntary student unionism debacle. We not only have the students, staff and vice chancellors opposing this minister's ideological obsession to try to silence student organisations; we also have the sports associations and great Australian sportsmen like Geoff Lawson coming out and explaining the damage that will be done by his legislation. The Tasmanian Liberals, the New South Wales Young Liberals and even members of his own backbench have spoken out against the damage that the VSU legislation will do. To top it off, he could not even get himself organised to turn up here on time to impose the gag on the debate on the VSU yesterday.Is it any wonder that we consider him the drowning man? The drowning man who is cutting away at the funding for unis, the drowning man who is cutting away at the funding for schools. In many ways, the cut in funding for universities he has made is a piece of lead in one pocket. The cut in funding for schools is another block of lead in the other pocket. The cut in funding for TAFE is a bit of lead in his trouser pocket. The axing of some of the funding for research institutions is another piece of lead in his bag. As the arms are flailing and he is sinking deeper in the water, up go the bubbles of air, and the bubbles of air are those distorted statistics and the bogus figures that he gives us day after day in this House. The problem is, David, your colleagues see you drowning but there is no-one swimming out to try to rescue you.Opposition members interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—He has Ross here to support him. You know you are in real strife when you have got Ross Cameron coming in to support you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—He has the member for Parramatta to support him. Not only are they not swimming out to protect him; there is Michael Kroger back in Victoria lining up the numbers to take over Goldstein as soon as they can give the minister the slip.Why would they want to save the minister, when he is putting forward a proposal to abolish 4,000 scholarships for clever kids from rural and low income families? You might have thought a proposal like that would come from the Treasurer or the finance minister. Only in Australia, only under this minister for education, would we have the minister for education proposing the abolition of these 4,000 scholarships.It will be forever to your shame, Minister, that you put forward this proposal to abolish this scheme at a saving of less than $10 million a year. We have the Prime Minister spending $700,000 on renovations at the Lodge and Kirribilli, when they could have used the same amount of money to provide 175 scholarships for needy kids in the bush, in Western Sydney and right across the country from low income families. This minister says he wants to abolish the scholarships. The Prime Minister says that fixing up Kirribilli and the Lodge is more important than those kids in Western Sydney getting scholarships to go to uni. Is it any wonder that no-one is leaping to your defence?The point we make is that under this government Australia's effort on education research is actually declining. There may be a budget surplus, but there is an education and research deficit. Under the Howard government the fiscal surplus is built on a massive education research deficit. Only a fool would argue that Australia's long-term future does not depend directly on our investment in education, training and research. Our Prime Minister is a fool in his actions, if not in his empty words.In Labor's last five years the percentage of the nation's income invested in education, research and training rose from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.99 per cent. I have a graph here which I have circulated. If members look at this graph they will see that in Labor's last five years, as a percentage of GDP, we had a massive increase in the national effort. This Howard government's first four budgets reduced that investment back to 2.53. In our last five years under Labor we went from 2.3 per cent up to almost three per cent. In their first four budgets they have gone back to 2.53 per cent.By the year 2001-02, under the current budget's forward estimates, we will have actually undone all of the good work done in Labor's last five years when the effort went up to almost three per cent of GDP. Tuesday's budget figures show that by 2001-02, including all of the budget measures, John Howard will have reduced the Commonwealth's investment in education, research and training from that three per cent high under Labor back to the 1990-91 levels of 2.36 per cent.If the Prime Minister had maintained Labor's investment in education and research at three per cent, Australia would be spending an extra $2.87 billion in this budget. Imagine what that $2.87 billion could have done. It could have gone out there and helped some of our great researchers, such as the biological scientists working on better ways to regenerate our eucalypt forests. It could have gone to medical researchers developing new ways to detect MS and solve glaucoma. Some of that money could have gone to the Australian electrical and chemical engineers who are working on developing the world's best solar energy panels. Some of that money could have gone to the software programmers in developing multimedia for film and television, and even provided better distance education.One of the great privileges I have as Labor spokesman on education is that I get to meet these people. One cannot help but be bowled over by these often young, always dedicated people who are often working under difficult conditions with less funding than their international colleagues. One cannot help but be inspired by the dedication of these young people and the years of their lives that they are investing in developing new ideas for Australia. This is intellectual property that will not only be good for medical research, not only cure disease, not only provide new ways for Australia to develop high wage, high value jobs, but also guarantee that Australia's long-term future is much healthier because of that effort and investment in R&D.Under this government Australia's hopes were raised when the Prime Minister said this was an education budget. Many of those people had high hopes for the budget. The teachers and kids in schools, lecturers at universities, the people at TAFE colleges and those researchers out there all had high hopes when the Prime Minister said that this would be an education budget. Unfortunately, their hopes were dashed on Tuesday night. But they are not the only ones who will be losers because this Prime Minister broke faith with them. It is not an education budget. Those kids, the lecturers and researchers are not the only losers. All Australians are losers because this government has not been prepared to put that extra funding into universities, schools, TAFE colleges and research institutions. Only a Beazley Labor government will guarantee that they get the funding they need. The schools, universities, TAFE colleges and research institutions will get that money only under a Beazley Labor government and we intend to make sure that happens at the earliest opportunity.15:42:005412Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We have just heard a speech which exemplifies the huge problem that the Labor Party has in education policy. The shadow minister is a pathetic apology for a shadow education minister. The statements that he has made about what Labor might do and would do bear no relationship, of course, to what they actually said they would do at the last election campaign. The real embarrassment for the member for Dobell is that he is the spokesman on behalf of an education policy which his colleague the member for Werriwa refused to have anything to do with.I will illustrate it. It is such an extraordinary example of the fantasy land or fairyland that the member for Dobell is living in that I must emphasise this early on in my remarks. It highlights the complete fabrication underlying the remarks we have just heard. He told us that the Labor Party, if they were in office, would be spending an extra $2.8 billion on research. What did they promise in this education policy that they put forward at the last election campaign? The Labor Party promised an extra $57 million over three years—not $2.8 billion but $57 million, an amount of money that was not even sufficient to restore the funding base of the Australian Research Council.What a contrast this was with our policy at the last election campaign which promised over $90 million, which would restore the research base. What a contrast it is with the commitments that we have made in this budget in relation to university research. We have a government at the moment which is prepared to commit itself to raising total funding for research by some $220 million over the next three years. This is $220 million that will flow into medical and scientific research and into the research base of the universities. This is just an example of how divorced from reality the member for Dobell is. He has, as I say, the embarrassing task of defending a policy which the member for Werriwa made quite clear had been completely stuffed up and which he was not prepared to support. As the member for Werriwa said in the Weekend Australian on 10 October last year:I put 18 months into a policy document to have it butchered by staffers the day before it was released, to the party's embarrassment.That `butchered policy', which promised $57 million, not $2.8 billion, extra for research is the policy that the member for Dobell is actually having to defend. He has nothing to say about maintaining and building education standards. There was nothing in his speech, nothing in the policy that was taken to the last election, about education standards, particularly literacy and numeracy standards. There was nothing in his speech or in that policy about encouraging this country generally—private as well as public investment—to invest in education.There was nothing in that policy about accountability for outcomes. It is a policy that would have discouraged private investment, that would simply have put into place the usual weasel words from the Australian Education Union. It is interesting that about 50 per cent of his speech was taken up with defending the figures of the Australian Education Union, which the Prime Minister during question time quite correctly branded as lies. We will certainly be exposing them, as I did yesterday in question time—MG4LEEMr Lee—Do it now.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—I am invited to do it now, and I will. The member for Dobell has completely overruled the Department of Finance and Administration and the Treasury in terms of their definition of what constitutes `new spending'. He has decided to accept the views of the Australian Education Union which, on exactly the basis that he put forward, would have excluded all the non-government expenditure announced by the government in this budget as well, because they have exactly the same character as the government school programs that he said that the Labor Party would not be considering.The member for Dobell should be out there welcoming this budget with open arms, because on 4 May this year he issued a press release headed `Howard must find $1 billion to keep education promises'. On 4 May this year he said, `Howard must find $1 billion to keep education promises.' Then he listed them—$470 million for Catholic schools, $150 million for research, $112 million for literacy, $90 million to continue Labor's Asian language program—that was that program he excluded from the figures, that he has just spoken about to the House, defending the Australian Education Union's lies—and $75 million for teacher training. Then at the end of his press release he said that the same increase should be given to public schools:The same increase for public schools would cost around $200m a year or almost $1 billion over the four year Budget period.What is the reality of this budget? He is going a little white over there, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker. The reality of this budget is that the Howard government has delivered 100 per cent on all those commitments and promises. They were important commitments for the member for Dobell before the election—important enough for him to demand that the government deliver on them in his press release, but not important enough to include in the statistics that he quotes now in the parliament.What he has totally ignored—and what he does not even want to breathe a word about, because that would embarrass the Australian Education Union, which feeds its policy through to him as their lap-dog, their voice in the parliament—is the increase of $1 billion in spending on government schools over the next four-year school funding period; $980 million more will be received by government schools as a result of this budget in the next four-year funding period than they received in the current funding period.So not only has this government delivered on every commitment we made during the election campaign, but we have delivered on the extra $1 billion for government schools in this budget which the member for Dobell demanded in his press release of 4 May. This shows that this government is committed to quality education for every child. We are committed to improving the quality of government schooling. We are committed to equity and fairness in funding for the neediest families in the non-government sector. As I said in question time and as the Prime Minister said in question time, for the first time now working class Australians will have genuine equity in choosing the appropriate school for their child—and not a word of that in his speech.One of the proudest boasts of this government is that we have taken action to improve the quality of education in government schools in a way that was never done by the Labor Party in 13 years. One of the most important of those commitments has been the commitment to bring every child under a national literacy standard. Under the Labor Party, for 13 years, there was no national literacy standard. Under the Labor Party there was no effort at all to help the 30 per cent of young people who, year after year, were coming through primary schools without an adequate ability to read and write.Why did the Labor Party do nothing over 13 years? Because the Australian Education Union has consistently opposed accountability for outcomes. They call every year for more and more spending. I must say that it is quite surprising that the member for Dobell has not echoed their call for $2 billion more to teach kids to read and write properly.Our view is that $12 billion of taxpayers' money a year on schooling is more than enough to teach young Australians to read and write properly; and what we want is accountability for outcomes. But you will never find that in the Labor Party's education policy. You will never find that there because the unions will not support it.The other great big topic in his speech was of course voluntary student unionism. It is union mates, again, that the Labor Party supports. The policy that we support and that the vast bulk of Australians support, of freedom of association for every young Australian who goes to university, is not supported by the Labor Party because 56 per cent of their frontbench are ex-union officials. They are out there defending the last bastion of the closed shop. He said: `You did not put any more money for TAFE in the budget.'MG4LEEMr Lee—No growth money, that is right.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—No growth money for TAFE.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Dobell, you have had your go. Be silent.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—He does not even know—so ill-informed is he about his portfolio—that there is currently an agreement between the Commonwealth and the states that the growth in TAFE places will be through efficiencies in the TAFE sector. The industry board—the business board—of the Australian National Training Authority has told the government it will not support the policy that the Labor Party is putting forward on growth moneys, because that money should not be there until those efficiencies are gained. Over the last two years, growth for efficiencies has produced an extra 70,000 places in TAFE. We have put the extra money in vocational education and training into new apprenticeships. The Labor Party virtually destroyed the apprenticeship system when they were in office. We now have, from the latest figures in December last year, a record number of young people, 206,000, in apprenticeships and traineeships. That is 70,000 more than when the Labor Party was in office, because we have put in place an apprenticeship system not dominated by the Labor Party's union mates, but an enterprise-friendly system that gives business the training that they need to improve their productivity. That is why we have got more young people in apprenticeships.And what about universities? Let me give the facts about universities. Our policies have been to open the doors. When the Labor Party were in office, they slammed the doors on tens of thousands of qualified students. We remember those queues of students who were qualified to get into university but whom the Labor Party would not let in because they would not support the universities when they wanted to enrol above the fully funded places number. They would not allow the universities to offer to students their first preference choice for a fee. They kept those doors firmly slammed shut.What have we done? We have opened those doors. We pay now for those extra students. We have allowed the universities to create extra places through fee paying undergraduate places. What has the result of that been? It has meant 40,000 more undergraduate students on university campuses this year than when we came to office—I repeat, 40,000 additional undergraduate students. This government has virtually eliminated the unmet demand for university places. Young working-class Australians, locked out by the Labor Party for its ideological reasons—because the Tertiary Education Union told it to—have been allowed into universities and have got the places and the opportunities that the Labor Party was never prepared to give them.And what about university resources, and `let's have more money in the government budget for universities'? Our policy is: let's get Australia to invest in university education. This year, Australian universities will have total revenues from public and private funding of $700 million more than they had four years ago because of the policies of this government. The shadow minister does not even know this. He is totally out of touch. (Time expired)15:57:005415Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—One wag said to me earlier this week, `You always know it is cold in Canberra because the lawyers have their hands in their pockets and the education minister remains unaffected.' This government has a problem with education and this minister has a problem with education. That fact extends further than the nation's shores, regrettably. Expatriates from all over the world inform this side of politics continuously that Australia is increasingly less regarded as far as education is concerned. This Clayton's budget will certainly not alter that view.The coalition has a serious credibility problem with all things pertaining to education. You begin with the leader, the Prime Minister, who in a previous life refused to be a shadow education minister because it was beneath him. You continue with a Treasurer who, in 1996, removed $2.7 billion from the budget and expects to get away with a pea and thimble trick of putting back, supposedly, $600 million—mind you, I can only find $500 million. It continues with the education minister at the table totally mesmerised by the need for necessary coherence in the administration of education in this nation.Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever of any coherent belief or philosophy emanating from this minister. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the minister—the trifecta of dumbing down in this country—have not got a clue where to lead this nation on education. Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever of any recognition of necessary process and understanding of the relationships that support and nurture—you choke on that word, don't you, Minister?—quality educational programs on which the future prosperity of our nation depends, whether it be a primary or secondary school, TAFE, university or adult learning institution.The third part of the educational trinity, following rationale and process, is outcomes. Because education rationale and process have gone missing with this government—or, more accurately, are not even recognised—their education outcomes, which this minister likes to talk about, are simply a motley collection of unconnected issues. For this government, outcomes are not the result of belief, or the result of process or the result of analysis. For this government, outcomes are a confused set of issues that bear little relationship to each other—synthesised outcomes are no recipe for improvements in education in Australia and reflect intellectual shallowness.Many people, ideas people, valued people in education in this nation, have got up and run. They have got the message from this government, this Prime Minister, this Treasurer, this minister, that they are superfluous to requirements. If they did not get the message in 1996, they certainly have got it now. The process people in education, those link people who are often not even recognised within the education system itself, are simply demoralised. The people who have connected rationale process and quality educational programs have finally, in this budget, had their lights punched out. Even those in education for whom rationale and process mean little and outcome everything have been divided into winners and losers. Great tactic, Minister. That will bring everybody together in a joyous collaboration, I don't think.There is money for non-government schools. That is okay. There is money for a deserving Catholic system—money to which they think they are already entitled. But there is precious little to public education when 75 per cent of our children attend primary schools and two-thirds attend government secondary schools. What is the sense of that, Minister? From what administration manual did you get divide, rule and misrepresent? There is money for children in isolated areas, and I commend the minister. But where is the consistency in cutting the disadvantaged students merit scheme in higher education? I note I am to be followed by the member for Parramatta. I wonder whether he chokes when you use the word `disadvantaged'. The member for Parramatta has 146 in his electorate on that scheme.MG4LEEMr Lee—Western Sydney.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—Yes, Western Sydney. There is money for literacy and numeracy programs. I ought to feel a little bit proud of that because I think I was the first person in this parliament to actually take seriously the issue of early intervention in literacy and numeracy. But the mob on the other side have never understood that money is needed for consolidation of social skills, self-esteem programs and confidence programs that underpin the success of any literacy and numeracy program, otherwise they just do not work. There is money for Asian languages, which is great. I noticed that in Budget Paper No. 2 it says `for the continued development'—oh, it is one of our programs. But there is nothing about other important areas like technology, expressive arts, physical education, music and drama. You do not find anything about any of that. Even the minister would be gracious enough to acknowledge that the languages program is one of ours. There is money for fixing drug problems, which is good, but there is no real money to seriously attack the causes. `Early intervention' is a mere slogan for this government.The government have provided money for teacher development—again, a continued program. They will need a lot more than that. At the same time, they are delivering savings to the higher education innovations program. `Disadvantaged': choke. `Innovation': choke. You choked on that too, Minister. You got rid of that. I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House understand the continuing contradictions of the government on education. I know that even some of the coalition backbenchers understand. But I am yet to be convinced that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer or this minister understand.Why is there confusion on the government side as far as education is concerned? One reason is this: if you put up your hand on that side for education they will whack you around the ears. There are half a dozen people on the government backbench who deserve to be on the frontbench; people who have shown interest in education for a long period of time. No such luck. John Anderson, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, had a bit of an interest for a few months. He got out of that real quick. He knew that, if he was to be promoted, he had to have no interest in education whatsoever.I have served on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training since 1989—longer than anyone else, I think. I know it is not a sexy committee. I have noted with great disappointment the non-promotion of quality government backbenchers who do have genuine views about education, employment and training matters. I would like to name them in the parliament, but I will not do them the discourtesy. Far too many on the government side, and their advisers, base education on just a mere reflection of their own experience in education in various disciplines of learning, but never ever in education. So why are outcomes only whether they are connected or not so prominent in this government? That is why so-called `knowledge' is so prominent in the government's rhetoric and distributed propaganda, and why this minister can only speak about outcomes. They have got no idea that, in a taxonomy of educational objectives, knowledge alone is a very lowly intellectual skill. In fact, there are a few on our side who do that as well. But that is another story. That is why the considerable skills of creativity, insight, comprehension, initiative, analysis, perception, application, transference, interpretation and projection are constantly overlooked and misunderstood. That is why this government gets it wrong. That is why this government's advisers get it wrong. The proof is there for all to see.You can say what you like about `up and down and more and less', but here is the real figure you cannot run away from. The Commonwealth investment in education has gone from 2.06 per cent of GDP and it is heading all the way down to less than 1.6 per cent. That is the measure. That is the only measure that is worth talking about. You can say $12 billion for learning, for schooling. You can say $280 million for this, $10 million for that, $6 million for that. It is all smoke and mirrors. That is the only figure that counts.We can all delude ourselves when we watch shows on television like The Panel—I enjoy that—and Good News Week that the young are just sceptical. But the real point to be made by some of those shows is that they are young but they are also disconnected from our society. Why wouldn't they be? Take retention rates—not mentioned at all by the minister. I would have thought any damn government worth anything in the world would have had a view about retention rates. President Clinton can say 90 per cent is the aim of the United States of America. What is the aim of the Federation of Australia, Minister? Get up and tell us, Minister. Get up in question time. Make a speech. Make a second reading speech. Do a doorstop. Do something. Talk about retention rates. Talk about our kids. You have no goals, Minister, have you? You have no rationale, no process. All you have is a motley collection of outcomes quite unrelated to each other.This budget deserts the young. This budget deserts responsibility for the nation's future. This education budget should be universally condemned. Labor, these people on this side of the House, take these matters seriously. When we return to the Treasury bench, we will make sure we address them again. (Time expired)16:07:005417Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The member for Dobell opened his remarks with an expression of pity that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs would be followed by the member for Parramatta in this debate. There are perhaps some grounds for that emotion: I do not have many of the qualifications of the member for Dobell to participate; I do not have his slick sort of salesman like quality, which some have described unkindly as snake oil; I will never be seen appearing at a succession of glitzy society functions and film premieres; I am not on the social A list. Unlike the member for Dobell, I have difficulty distinguishing a chardonnay from a riesling. I am just a humble working boy from Parramatta with a timber cottage, a wife and two kids. I have one qualification for standing before you today, and that is an unshakeable commitment that my children and every young person in Australia should get a quality education.I am proud to be part of a government that shares that simple conviction. It shares it not just in word but by consistent, practical demonstration of commitment to the education of young Australians. It was Abraham Lincoln who said in his first ever published remarks:Upon the subject of education, not presuming to dictate any plan or system respecting it, I can only say that I view it as the most important subject which we, as a people, can be engaged in.That sentiment is expressed by the Prime Minister in his description of this budget as an education budget. It has been consistently expressed by the Prime Minister. Perhaps like Lincoln who went from the log cabin to the White House, John Winston Howard went from the service station in Earlwood to the Lodge and benefited from a quality education and from considerable personal initiative. I suggest that the Prime Minister's consistent preoccupation in the area of education has been two simple thoughts: one is that young people should receive higher standards in teaching and the other is that parents should be offered greater choice.I follow a minister in this debate whom I regard and whom I think history will regard as having been one of the more substantial figures of the second half of this decade in Australian public life. Unlike the member for Dobell, who will be remembered perhaps for the succession of models who were on his arm going from one film premiere to the next, the minister for education will be remembered—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The matter of public importance before the House is:The damage being done to the future of Australia by the policies of the Howard government on education and research.If the member for Parramatta has nothing to say about that, he ought to sit down. If he wants to get up and attack people about personalities, he can do it by substantive motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The member for Watson will resume his seat.MG4LEEMr Lee—On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: on the question of models, I notice there is a photographer in the gallery who was taking photos of the member for Parramatta. Could you assure us that the Speaker has approved that photographer being there?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member knows that that is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for Parramatta has the call and he will address his remarks to the MPI.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—I was just talking about the way in which the minister for education will be remembered. He will have a very considerable legacy. It may be that some will remember him for his work in re-establishing the apprenticeship system for Australia, some will remember his work in ending the iniquitous no new schools policy of the former Labor government; but, overwhelmingly, he will be remembered as the individual champion of Australian literacy and numeracy. He will be remembered as the minister who brought to the forefront of the public consciousness the importance of young Australians being able to read and to write first. We can go on to all the other worthy educational objectives, but if we cannot teach young Australians to read and write we have given them very little. That is what David Kemp will be remembered for.This government has a record of commitment right through every sphere of the educational discussion. Whether we want to talk about literacy and numeracy, whether we want to talk about funding for government schools, whether we want to talk about funding for the Catholic systemic schools, whether we want to talk about funding for the other non-government schools, whether we want to talk about vocational education and training, whether we want to talk about tertiary education or research, there is a great story to tell. There is a story of a government which is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. The member for Dobell, interestingly, couched his reference to Labor's commitment to education as a proportion of gross domestic product. That serves Labor's interest in this instance, because under Labor governments the size of the national economy tends to shrink which inevitably makes any expenditure you make on an area look large. Our great difficulty is that under the coalition government the economy, the gross domestic product, is roaring ahead in leaps and bounds at the most rapid rate of economic growth of any developed nation in the world. I accept that it is difficult for us to match Labor in terms of their ability to shrink the national economy. If we want to talk about the actual spending on education, I would like to quickly go through each of these key fields. Over the next three years this government will spend $131 million on literacy and numeracy. Under this budget, we will extend it for the first time to the middle years of schooling. This budget will see $78 million expended on a quality teacher program to ensure that teachers are given continuing professional education so that they are up to date and have the skills necessary to impart quality education. In this budget we have foreshadowed expenditure in the year 2000 of $382 million on government school funding. There has been a fair bit of discussion about government school funding in the contributions of the three speakers in this debate. Let me make the simple point that this represents expenditure of $1 billion more over the next four years than was expended by the Commonwealth on public schools over the past four years—that is $1 billion more. Anyone wanting to question our commitment to the funding of public education need only look at the facts.We then move to the area of non-government school funding, the sector in which the Commonwealth has a much greater share of responsibility. Thirty-seven per cent of funding for the non-government school sector is provided by the Commonwealth as against only 15 per cent for the government school sector. So Labor in effect is complaining that, while we gave generous funding increases to the public school sector, we did not give equally generous funding increases to the non-government school sector. I simply note that we have much greater responsibility for the non-government school sector.The Catholic systemic schools—and I have to congratulate the efforts of the late Anne Clark and, more recently, those of Anne Benjamin from the Parramatta Diocesan Office of Catholic Education who lobbied intensively and successfully to educate all of us about the needs of the Catholic systemic schools—will receive an additional $553 million over five years. In the rest of the non-government school sector, we see a new, more equitable, less easily manipulated funding formula that will provide incentive to non-government schools to self-fund but at the same time will deliver to the most needy schools in my electorate of Parramatta that serve the toughest communities roughly $700 more per student for both primary and secondary school students. And this opposition has the temerity to question our commitment to equity and the underprivileged.If we want to talk about equity, for the sake of example let us turn to the sector of tertiary education. In every equity group there are better results today than there were in 1996: the number of tertiary students from rural areas is up seven per cent; the number of indigenous students is up 12 per cent; the number of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds is up 9.4 per cent; the number of students with a disability is up a massive 61 per cent.This is a government which, for research and development, has committed $614 million over six years to the National Health and Medical Research Council, the highest amount on record to go to that council. We have $1 billion going to TAFE this year, a record amount. For the first time in our history we have 400,000 Australians in tertiary education. We have over 200,000 apprenticeships.I stand here with enormous pride in following the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in this debate. We have a very proud record. The subject matter of this debate ought more properly be headed `the rescue package' which this government has provided in response to the neglect and lack of innovation of Labor policy over 13 years. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills5419s1915419Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.5419Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5419s1985419Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.5420Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5420The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998Ministerial Statements5420542016:20:005420Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—For the information of honourable members, I present the following papers:Report by the Director of Meteorology on the Bureau of Meteorology's forecasting and warning performance for the Sydney hailstorm of 14 April 1999 and a ministerial statement by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, in connection with the report.and move:That the House take note of the papers.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Committees54205420542016:20:005420Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the fifth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.5420542016:21:005420Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, I present the committee's advisory report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisa tion Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.5420Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—by leave—I am delighted to be tabling a report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO entitled an Advisory Report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . This report contains the results of our consideration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, which was referred to us by the Attorney-General on 13 April 1999. While the short time frame available to us limited the scope of our review, it is important to acknowledge the significance of the fact that the review occurred at all. It is a rare event that the legislation giving effect to our national security and intelligence agency is exposed to public scrutiny.In the report we expressed broad support for the purpose and the form of the bill. We believe the bill generally achieves an appropriate balance between public and private interests—the public interest being to ensure that ASIO has access to the surveillance tools and techniques needed to safeguard Australia against security threats in the modern world, and the private interest being to ensure that ASIO's activities do not impinge unduly on individual rights and liberties, principally the right to privacy. Nevertheless, we do believe the bill can be improved upon. Accordingly, we have made a number of recommendations aimed at clarifying the intent of the bill and further enhancing the accountability and reporting regimes surrounding ASIO.One of the main issues raised in submissions was a concern that the bill proposed to relax the test to be applied by the Attorney-General in considering whether to issue a search warrant to ASIO. We have recommended that a supplementary explanatory memorandum be issued to make it clear that, while the bill rewords the test, it does not lessen the test.A number of submissions also expressed concern about the provision which allows ASIO to add, delete or alter data stored on a computer. We have recommended that the bill and/or the explanatory memorandum should be amended to make it clear that ASIO is not empowered to add, delete or alter data stored in a target computer except for the purpose of gaining access to the computer.In relation to accountability in reporting, we have made three recommendations. First, the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security report annually on the frequency with which ASIO recovers listening and tracking devices outside normal warrant periods. Second, the memoranda of understanding regulating ASIO's access to tax and financial transaction reports and any future modifications to these memoranda be considered and cleared by the ASIO committee before coming into effect. Thirdly, the frequency of ASIO's access to financial transaction report information be disclosed in the annual reports from the Australian Transactions Reports and Analysis Centre, known as Austrac.We also recognise the strength of the argument put to us in submissions that community confidence in ASIO and its operations would be enhanced if it were more open in the reporting of its activities. While there are clearly competing tensions to be addressed, we have suggested to the Attorney that the nature and scope of ASIO's public reporting be considered further perhaps by way of reference to the ASIO committee. I believe our review has been a valuable exercise, and I look forward to the resumption of debate on the bill and the government's response to our recommendations. I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for all their efforts in producing this unanimous report. I commend the report to the House.16:25:005421McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—by leave—I want to refer to two issues regarding the membership of the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and the provision of computer access warrants. Members might note that there is a recommendation of the committee to change the class of people who are eligible to be members of the committee. You might recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, that earlier this year Mr Nehl, who had been nominated to be a member of the committee by the National Party, had to withdraw from the committee because he was the Deputy Speaker of this House.The ASIO committee act itself provides that the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman of Committees of the House of Representatives, which is a position no longer known to our standing orders, and the Chairman of Committees in the Senate are prevented from being members of that committee. They are the only two people in both the House and the Senate who are ineligible to be members of this committee. One wonders whether it means that the people who fulfil those positions such as yourself and myself at one stage are security risks by definition or whether it was a stupid misreading of the standing orders of the Senate by the bureaucrats who drew up this bill.I took particular offence to the provisions of this subsection of the act, because when it was brought in I was the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the House of Representatives. I had long discussions with Lionel Bowen, who was the Attorney at the time. His final words to me were, `Well, you just must be suspect.' I went to some trouble over the years to get onto this committee to find out whether I was suspect, but they will not tell you that. That is the trouble. It is a stupid provision, and it should be struck out. The Attorney should take the advice of the committee on it.There is also a further stupid provision in this piece of legislation: this is the only committee of this parliament that is not nominated by the parliament. It is a committee where the Prime Minister nominates the members of this committee to the Presiding Officers. With all the other committees of this House and the Senate, the parties or individuals are nominated by the particular house. But somehow or other people seem to think that there are all sorts of security risks in this parliament and that we should be very careful who gets on this committee.I have not been on the committee for long, but I know people who have been, and no-one tells anyone anything on this committee that would be a security risk anyway, so that is a bit pointless. It was also suggested to me at one stage that in the past some very famous security risks had become the Attorney-Generals of this country whose job it would have been in the past to oversee if we had had committees like this. I think this parliament should be mature enough to be able to make a judgment among members and senators as to who should be a member of this committee, and the government should give consideration to changing that section of the legislation.The other matter I wanted to address was computer access warrants. A number of people made submissions to the committee about this particular provision in the bill, and there was some interest by members of the committee about this aspect of the bill. The bill states that ASIO should be given permission to add, delete or alter data stored in the target computer. People sometimes get paranoid about security agencies, and that paranoia gets fed by popular culture and movies. The idea of the security services being able to access a computer and add, delete or change the information in that computer might cause concern for people. It did for members of the committee and, in the short time that this inquiry had been advertised, it did for groups who came along and gave evidence to the committee or put in submissions. Organisations like the Australian Privacy Charter Council, Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Financial Services Consumer Policy Centre all expressed concerns about that particular section of the legislation. Indeed, members of the committee expressed considerable concern about that as well. The government should take on board recommendation 3.57 of the committee, which says to the Attorney:Even though his officers assured us that the intention of this clause in the legislation was only to allow ASIO access to computers . . . They said in fact that it would be against ASIO's best interests to change anything once they gained access because that would alert someone to the fact that they had gained access to a target computer. But we believe that the government should put, with great clarity, that it is not the government's intention and certainly not ASIO's ability to be able to do anything but gain access to a computer. If the Attorney's advice is that he is absolutely sure of this, then we believe that he should alter the explanatory memorandum and the wording of the bill to make that beyond doubt. I think—and I am sure other members of the committee are of that view—that if ASIO are going to operate in a climate where people are willing to take them at their word that they do not intend to do anything remiss it should be made very clear what their powers are. The power should be only to enter a target computer and there should not be any ambiguity about whether they could actually do anything to the data stored in that target computer.While supporting the other five recommendations of the committee, I particularly draw the attention of the House and the minister to the first and third recommendations, which relate to those matters I have discussed. Also, we should look at whether the committee should be able to be elected by the House. Even my dear friend the member for Chifley tells me that he is very worried that there should seem to be any ambiguity in the ability of ASIO to do anything once they enter those computers. The member for Chifley would be even more concerned if he thought I was in any way able to influence ASIO's attempts to enter any computer that his name might be stored in! These are the worries we all have. It is the sort of thing the drafters of that legislation should have thought through. They should not have allowed an ambiguity such as that to be there, and they should clear up that ambiguity. In the same way they never thought through the exclusion of certain people in the committee in the first place, they should clear that up as well.5422Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills5423r800Billsr799Bills5423Debate resumed.16:35:005423Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—This is a very important piece of legislation which delivers a significant element of the government's new tax system. It provides enormous benefits for families. I thank those honourable members who have contributed to this important debate, in particular the government members who spoke such as the member for Menzies, the member for McPherson, the member for Cook, the member for Dunkley, the member for Hinkler, the member for Moreton and the member for Blair, who were speaking on behalf of everyone on this side of the House when they highlighted the importance that this government places on families and how these two bills, as a part of the government's tax reform package, will deliver real benefits to all Australian families.The two bills will provide a long overdue simplification of the system for providing assistance to families. Twelve forms of assistance will be reduced to three: the family tax benefit part A, the family tax benefit part B and child-care benefit. Australian families will benefit by well over $2 billion a year from these changes to family assistance. The bills will also improve the work incentives for families through changes to the government's family tax initiative and to the family allowance income test.When you have legislation before the House that delivers such unambiguously good benefits to the families of Australia, it is amazing that such reforms should be criticised. But, true to form, the honourable member for Lilley whipped himself up into a frenzy to try to find fault with this legislation and to criticise the initiatives being introduced by the government. He himself offers absolutely no vision. The frenzy that he whipped himself up into this morning contrasted dramatically with the lack of interest and the lack of content of his `New Directions' speech to the Evatt Foundation just a few days ago. The only real contribution the Labor Party and their spokesman can make on these issues is to acknowledge that Labor got it wrong when in government. It seems they have at last been prepared to embrace some mutual obligation principles. I suppose that is welcome, although Labor is way behind the times in coming on board with those sorts of issues.Once again, the member for Lilley repeated some of his tired old arguments about the tax reform package and youth allowance. It seems he wants to deny families the benefits of tax reform.It was ACOSS which said just a short time ago—I do not quote them exactly, but I certainly quote the intent of their comments—that you cannot deliver decent social policy unless you have a sound economy. What we have seen in this budget and in this legislation is that there is a real social bonus available from good economic management. That good economic management, which has delivered us balanced budgets and small surpluses, is now flowing through to the people by way of tax cuts and the real benefits that are associated with this particular package.The member for Lilley criticised the government's compensation package for pensioners. How on earth can anyone from the Labor Party criticise what this government is doing for pensioners? This is the government that put in place a legislated guarantee that pensions will be at least 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings. In addition to that, the compensation package, as a part of the new tax system, offers real increases—permanent increases—above the CPI for all pensioners—real benefits for the disadvantaged in our community. It does concern me that the member for Lilley can make such dishonest statements. He knows that the ALP never provided a guarantee to pensioners. He was content when in government to see the relative value of pensions fall. We have acted in government to reverse that trend.The government has ensured real increases in the value of pensions, and those are important elements of the tax package we have put before the Australian people. Unlike ALP promises, our commitments are met, and we do it without adding to government debt and without hidden tax increases—methods the ALP adopted when in office. They quickly brought in increases in the wholesale sales tax and axed the l-a-w tax cuts. In fact, when they promised the people they were going to reduce taxes, they actually put them up. It is offensive now for Labor to pass judgment on a government which actually delivers on its election promises and which provides real benefits to Australian families, particularly low income families. Low income families got absolutely no compensation from Labor when they hiked taxes. They also provided no compensation to pensioners and others when they increased taxes.The honourable member for Lilley is also keen to overlook the $13 billion a year in personal income tax cuts, in addition to the $2.5 billion provided in this bill. Those sorts of things are very, very significant rewards—real dividends to the Australian people from our economic good management. The shareholders of this country are going to get a real return for the good management that their board of directors, the government of this country, have been providing to them over the last three years.The member for Lilley also made some comment about sole parents. Sole parents will benefit from the lower personal income tax, the increases in income free areas for pensions, the family tax benefits and the lower taper rates that are to be introduced. The member should also note that the tax reform package does not alter existing payment arrangements for child-care centres. He also seems to be confused about the increases to the maintenance free area contained in the tax package legislation.But, as always, when the honourable member for Lilley gets to his feet it does not take him long to drift off the subject and get back to his old familiar theme of inaccurate criticisms about the performance of Centrelink—quite frankly, absolutely dishonest claims that seem to flow from him with monotonous regularity. Yesterday the honourable member for Lilley put out a media release, which he repeated in his speech today, entitled `Centrelink bombed with massive $1 billion cut'. Putting aside the fact that virtually every paragraph has a statistical error in it—Mr Swan interjecting—GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—You said you quoted from the portfolio budget statements at page 187—but you could not get any of the numbers right. They are all wrong. You quoted the page, but you could not even transcribe the numbers. In fact, the basic premise of the member's assertion that there is a $1 billion cut is absolutely wrong, absolutely false. I guarantee to the House that the claim of the member for Lilley that there are further massive funding cuts in the 1999 budget to Centrelink is completely false. There are no new budget cuts to Centrelink in the 1999-2000 budget—no budget cuts, no new cuts whatsoever. All the statements reported on page 187 that the member refers to have been previously announced. They are a part of the dividend that the government expected and announced, at the time Centrelink was established, would be delivered through a more efficient delivery of government services with a one-stop shop.It is completely dishonest scaremongering of the honourable member for Lilley to go running around the countryside suggesting that there is an extra $1 billion worth of cuts in this budget. This is absolutely wrong. After it was pointed out to him yesterday that his statement was in error, he should have come into this House and apologised instead of repeating the dishonest claim in his speech. Indeed, the budget includes a number of new initiatives to enhance Centrelink services. Call centre operations will be boosted and there will be new measures to improve customer service. I believe Centrelink will continue to provide a really excellent service and deliver government services in the most efficient way possible.Unfortunately, the member for Lilley has once again sought to frighten pensioners and those who are most vulnerable in our society with his inaccurate claims. In his speech he made a number of statements which have been pointed out to him as incorrect. But he does not worry about that too much. He trots out the same rubbish again. He repeatedly says that 81 per cent of callers cannot connect to Centrelink.Mr Swan interjecting—GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—No, not 81 per cent of callers that do not get through. It is not `callers' because many people repeat their calls. He also makes exaggerated claims about waiting times for appointments. Maybe his figures were never accurate, but he might be interested to know that as at 28 April, which are the latest figures available to me, the national average waiting period for an interview for Newstart is not 21 days, as the honourable member for Lilley says, but three days. There are many offices that you can call and have your interview on the same day. The average waiting period for the age pension interviews is now two days and for youth allowances is 2.75 days. No offices anywhere in Australia have waiting periods anything like 21 days. Appointments are available immediately for people in hardship. If you have an emergency situation and you phone for an appointment, you will be seen within 20 minutes. Even if you do not have an emergency situation, on average you can expect to wait no more than two to three days. In many places you can be seen the same day.You have heard the accurate figures. I hope you have taken them on board and that we will not therefore see a repeat of your dishonest figures ever again. It has been pointed out to you clearly in black and white today what the truthful numbers are, and I expect that if you comment on these matters in the future you will use accurate numbers.Mr Swan interjecting—GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—You should use the accurate, truthful numbers. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Lilley is very keen on criticism but offers very little by way of vision for the future. Three years in opposition do not seem to have led the opposition to any kind of genuine reassessment of the failings of Labor policy and philosophy. The member offered 21 pages of emptiness last week about a new social policy for Labor. Very bravely he gave his speech to the Evatt Foundation—hardly a likely hostile environment—but even there they could not help but acknowledge the lack of principle. They were brought along expecting some great landmark new direction speech but got absolutely nothing for their money.One good thing he did do was to confess Labor's role in creating in the past a culture of dependency and to acknowledge that Labor had got it wrong and needed to do a whole lot better in the future. Even in his acknowledgment of Labor's failings, he is somewhat belated. The British Labour Party abandoned unconditional entitlements in 1995 and the US Democrats in 1996. If he is accepting that there are some mutual obligations on people in our society, then that is at least a step forward, and we look forward to support from the opposition in the future when the government introduces further mutual obligations principles in the programs that we have been implementing over recent times.As the member himself said in his speech, talk is cheap. I have been waiting for a sign of this new found recognition of the problems of dependency and the critical role of the family in the hope that that would result in some worthwhile new policies and a willingness to support the government's initiatives assisting families. A really good start, if the member for Lilley is keen on new measures to support families, would obviously be to throw your wholehearted support behind the legislation that is before the parliament at the present time. This would be a great start for an opposition who are genuinely suggesting that they are interested in new measures to support families. The best thing they could do to demonstrate their good faith in that regard would be to give wholehearted, enthusiastic support for legislation that will deliver $2.5 billion in extra benefits to families. Isn't $2.5 billion for families a pretty good start? I am sure you would want to support something as forthright and as unambiguously good for families as this tax package, particularly these two bills before the House.The honourable member for Lilley has moved a quite extraordinary amendment to the second reading. He may not be the least bit surprised to learn that the government will not be supporting any element of it. Again, it is factually inaccurate. In paragraph (1) he talks about low income families and individuals being worse off. They will not be worse off; they will be substantially better off. The average family will be $52 per week better off under the new tax system. The opposition do not want families to be $52 a week better off. They also claim that the compensation is inadequate when it is quite clear that the compensation will provide a real boost in the spending power of pensioners and those less well off in our community.Clearly, this legislation ought to be supported by all Australians who care about families, who want to see real benefits flow through to ordinary men and women and their children so that they can get a share of the economic bonuses that are coming from the good management that has been delivered by this government over the last three years. This is really groundbreaking, landmark legislation. It deserves the support of the House. I thank those members of the government who contributed so constructively to this debate. I urge the whole of the House to support this legislation with enthusiasm.Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Swan's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. [4.55 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Bill read a second time.5426Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:01:005426Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 22, page 23 (line 20), omit the heading to subclause (5), substitute: Individual aged 18-20 [FTB for 18-20 year olds](2) Clause 22, page 23 (lines 22 and 23), omit paragraph (5)(a), substitute: (a) the individual has turned 18 but is aged under 21; and [FTB for 18-20 year olds](3) Clause 22, page 24 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:216 or more(a)the individual has adjusted taxable income, for the income year in which the particular time occurs, that equals or exceeds the cut-out amount (see subsection (7)); or (b)the adult is the individual's partner [FTB for 18-20 year olds](4) Clause 31, page 31 (lines 21 to 31), omit subclause (3), substitute:14 weeks reduced if child would have turned 21 (3) The period for which the individual is eligible for family tax benefit under subsection (2) does not include any day on which the child would have been aged 21 if the child had not died. [FTB for 18-20 year olds](5) Clause 34, page 34 (lines 24 to 27), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) the individual is aged under 21; and [FTB for 18-20 year olds](6) Clause 35, page 35 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:216 or morethe individual has adjusted taxable income, for the income year in which the particular time occurs, that equals or exceeds the cut-out amount (see subsection (3)) [FTB for 18-20 year olds] (7) Clause 65, page 68 (lines 1 to 7), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) For the purposes of the method statement in subsection (1), a day in the lump sum period is an excluded day in relation to the child if the child would have been aged 21 on that day if the child had not died. [FTB for 18-20 year olds](8) Schedule 1, clause 7, page 81 (table item 3, 1st column), omit "19", substitute "21". [FTB for 18-20 year olds](9) Schedule 1, clause 29, page 97 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add: (3) In applying this Part to an individual, disregard an FTB child who has turned 16 years of age unless: (a) the child is undertaking full-time study; and (b) the calendar year in which the child turned 18 has not ended.If disregarding the child means that neither item 1 nor item 2 in the table in clause 30 applies to the individual, the individual's standard rate is nil. [FTB for 18-20 year olds](10) Schedule 4, clause 2, page 119 (table item 3, 1st column), omit "19", substitute "21". [FTB for 18-20 year olds](11) Schedule 4, clause 2, page 119 (table item 3, 2nd column), omit "16-18", substitute "16-20". [FTB for 18-20 year olds](12) Schedule 4, clause 3, page 122 (table item 3, 1st column), omit "16-18", substitute "16-20". [FTB for 18-20 year olds]These amendments implement an initiative announced in this week's budget. These amendments to the family tax benefit will certainly provide significant benefits to families in our community. The government has acted strongly to ensure that social security funds are focused on those people most in need. We introduced the parental means test to ensure that families which are capable of supporting their children do so before drawing upon taxpayers' funds. The community expects this.For the record, the overwhelming majority of the 365,000 young people transferred to youth allowance were not affected or have benefited from the new youth allowance rates. A small number of people—about 2,000—did lose benefits when their unemployment benefits were subjected to a parental income test. In many cases, these people lost benefits because their family income was over $58,000 a year.Governments have for years means tested benefits for students in this age group. With youth allowance, the government simply extended this principle to unemployed people aged 18 to 20 years. The government did grandfather the entitlements of some 30,000 people aged 18 to 20 who were on Newstart at the end of June 1998. These people remained on Newstart and were not subject to the parental means test.With these amendments, the government will widen eligibility for family tax benefit A to cover young people aged up to 21 who do not receive youth allowance because of the parental means test or who receive it at a rate less than the family tax benefit for that person. This will benefit the families of an estimated 51,000 young people who will receive an extra $977 per year.The measure treats 18- to 20-year-olds ineligible for youth allowance in the same way as 16- to 17-year-olds. If parental income prevents them receiving the youth allowance, they receive minimum family allowance instead. That is a very important element of this debate. This measure treats 18- to 20year-olds the same as 16- to 17-year-olds in the same situation. The measure will cost $53 million a year, in addition to the extra $2.4 billion a year for families already announced in the tax reform package. I commend these amendments to the House as extending support to families, and I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.17:04:005427Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—These amendments are somewhat infamous. They should be called the hostage amendments. There are 51,000 young Australians who have been held hostage by this government, who had their family common youth allowance cut on 1 July last year and will be denied additional benefits by this government for two years. The minister just admitted that it affects 51,000 people.Mr Truss interjecting—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I think it is a bit more than that, Minister. I think it is substantially more than that, but we will not argue about the quantum. It is the hostage amendment. We will track down the correct figure because these people are being offered a fraction of what was taken from them in the family common youth allowance. They are being offered $18.75 a week, which is a fraction of the maximum amount they would have retained had the legislation not been rammed through thereby fleecing families—up to $88 a week for a child living at home, up to $133.70 a week for a child living away from home.These are the hostage amendments. This group of people—up to 51,000—who have been held hostage are going to continue to be held hostage because the government has moved these amendments in the tax package bills. What the opposition wants to know is why these amendments were not moved to the original legislation so these benefits could be delivered now to those families that are suffering. Is this just a continuation of your very crude attempt to get Senator Harradine to vote for your $30 billion GST? It is a very, very cynical, clumsy, punitive measure contained within these amendments; they are completely inadequate.Even if you were to measure them against what Senator Harradine has said he requires from the government, they still only provide a fraction of what he has been arguing for. Senator Harradine has said he would not support the youth allowance legislation unless this government agreed at the very least that for each adult child deemed to be dependent on their parents $5,400 should be excluded from the income of the parents for tax purposes. That would mean about $89 a fortnight to a one-child family on $45,000 a year and about $70 a fortnight to such a family on $35,000 a year.This measure—these hostage amendments—breaks all of those commitments that have been made to Senator Harradine in terms of the quantum of money required by these battling families. Worse than that, it holds them hostage for two years because it makes the link to the tax package. The government came into this House on Tuesday night with a measure put in the budget to satisfy Senator Harradine and next thing you know, late yesterday afternoon, it is suddenly transferred to the tax package, thereby confirming Senator Harradine's worst fears: it was being linked to the tax package, not as a measure which was going to help those families who were so severely affected a year ago. They will be held hostage for two years and given a fraction of the amount that was taken from them.As I said in the House this morning, this is a bit like someone who steals a bicycle and then brings it back two years later. But, suddenly, you find there are no wheels, handlebars or saddle, just a frame. That is what this is: a frame, a frame-up, a cynical move by the government to blackmail a senator to get their $30 billion GST through the House, which will be another imposition on all of these families.What do we find in the tax package? There is no compensation for any young adult aged 17 and over. So these families get hit twice: they get hit with a GST and they get hit with this puny payment—a fraction of what was taken away from them. These amendments are cynical; they are wrong; they do not provide these families with the relief they deserve. And they should be seen for what they are: nothing more than part of a blackmail tactic by this government to get an unfair $30 billion tax through the parliament.17:09:005428Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—These amendments are exactly what I said they were in my previous remarks—they are an important budget initiative and we are taking the opportunity provided by the legislation that is before the House to gain parliamentary approval for them.About 2,000 people lost their benefits as a result of the new youth allowance. A small number of others, probably about 5,000, had a partial loss of benefits. Many of these people had family incomes above $58,000 a year. I just wonder who the honourable member for Lilley considers to be poor.We are responding to an identified need. We are treating the 18- to 20-year-olds who are ineligible for the youth allowance in exactly the same way as we treat 16- and 17-year-olds. If their parental income prevents them receiving youth allowance, they receive the minimum family allowance instead. So this measure is fair. It provides a benefit to 18- to 20-year-olds which is comparable to the benefit for younger people. It is being delivered as part of the tax package because it is a tax package measure. It is a family measure. For that reason, it is entirely appropriate that it should be dealt with in this way.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.5429Bill (on motion by Mr Truss)—by leave—read a third time.(Quorum formed)Bills5429r7995429Consideration resumed from 31 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.5429Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills5429r7785429Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Kelvin Thomson moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for the financial uncertainty and hardship it has caused Do It Yourself superannuation fund trustees and fund members, many of which are operated by small businesses, in taking nearly 12 months since it announced its changes to introduce and debate this legislation."17:18:005429Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Great expectations! The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 amends the relevant legislation in three ways. Firstly, it establishes a new category of small super funds with fewer than five members, which will be called `self-managed funds'. They were previously known as excluded funds. Under the new arrangements all members of the fund will be required to be trustees of the fund, and each of the members will need to be in a family or a business relationship. Secondly, the bill will transfer the regulation of self-managed funds from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to the Australian Taxation Office. And, finally, it will reduce the supervisory levy from $200 to a maximum of $50.The more substantial amendments dealing with the government's proposed changes to superannuation investment rules are contained within Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4), which is yet to be debated in this place. Both bills have significant implications for the small business sector and, therefore, honourable members will not be surprised to see the shadow small business minister rise and seek the call on this bill and, indeed, on any superannuation bill that comes before the House.Superannuation policy now represents a very important public policy tool. It addresses national savings issues and meets the challenges faced by government brought on by the ageing nature of the population and the financial burden that places upon government. But policy makers and law-makers should always be mindful of the potential impact of continual changes to superannuation laws on the small business sector.The Howard government has now effected superannuation changes in all three of its first term budgets. In 1996 it was the introduction of the superannuation surcharge. In 1997 we saw the introduction of the legislation to implement choice in funds. And in the 1998 budget we saw emerge the changes that we are debating today and the changes we will be debating when the next bill comes to the House.All of those changes, of course, brought with them implications for the small business sector. They brought with them additional red tape burdens for Australia's almost one million small firms. Every change brings additional red tape and a financial burden for small firms. We must remember that employer contributions bring with them additional red tape and additional burdens, and these come on top of the red tape and paperwork associated with FBT, PPS, CGT, PAYE remittals, workers compensation, tax obligations and business registrations.So I cannot miss this opportunity to point out to the House that, despite all of its pre-1996 election commitments with respect to red tape, the burden of red tape for small business has increased. Members need not take my word on that. The authority on that matter is the government's own Productivity Commission. The commission has found that during the financial year 1997-98 alone the Howard government imposed 1,500 new rules on Australian business, a matter which was very well highlighted, I think, in the Australian newspaper's editorial on 12 January of this year.But the worst thing you can do to small business is to give it uncertainty. And that is what the small business community has been living with now for 12 months, with respect to the bill we are debating today and with respect to amendment bill No. 4 which we will be debating some time soon.It is worth going through the chronology of events of these bills. The saga began, of course, with the 1998 budget where we found—buried deep in Budget Paper No. 2—the government's plan to, if you like, do in the excluded funds by restricting to five per cent fund assets in investments in associated parties, including trusts, investments involving the associated parties, and investments in certain non-associated parties. The second of these would, of course, have brought to the end the time-honoured practice of business lease-back arrangements. Its retrospective operation and the requirement that all funds comply by 30 June 2001 would have forced divestiture, which would have brought with it capital gains implications and would have forced parties to renege on lease contracts, bringing financial penalties. Just two weeks later, we saw a massive backflip from the government in the form of an announcement that the legislation would be grandfathered and therefore the pre-1998 budget arrangements would be protected. Then in March and April of this year, the government released the exposure drafts for this bill and Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4).So the country's 180,000 DIY funds have been living with this uncertainty now for 12 months. That uncertainty has cost small firms time and it has cost them money. For all of that period, they have been living under the fear of forced divestiture.I had to smile when I was listening to the member for Curtin speaking to this bill last night, because listening to her you would have assumed everything had gone swimmingly on this issue, that this was all in the government's plan. She said, `We announced this in the budget last year; then we put out some exposure documents and we have been consulting since. The result is this legislation before the House today and last night.' But of course she failed to mention the course of events along the way which I have alluded to—that is, the total proliferation of newspaper articles referring to the 1998 budget announcement and the continual cries from organisations like the CPAs, in particular, who saw the decision as an absolute disaster and a real blow to the small business community. She made no mention of those articles or of the complaints from the CPA. She tried to give the House the impression that what we are seeing in this bill and in the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) was always the government's plan, and that the government had handled this situation quite well.The whole process has been very shabby and an enormous cost to small business. That is why the member for Wills moved the amendments to the bill yesterday and condemned the government for the way it has treated the issue. I think that is appropriate, and the government should be held to account because the government should be encouraging the growth in do-it-yourself funds. They offer many advantages to small business people seeking a legitimate and tax effective means of providing for their retirement. Not only are do-it-yourself funds a tax effective form of investment but they also give the contributor greater control over his or her investment. They provide greater options in the form of the benefit which is finally delivered as a result of the investment. They deliver lower administration costs and provide critical business infrastructure. This is very important in regional communities where it is important to give businesses an opportunity to invest in and therefore provide that critical local business infrastructure.I noticed that my colleague the member for Wills—the shadow minister—when speaking to this bill yesterday suggested that the Treasurer had been rolled by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business on this issue and that is why we are seeing these massive changes come into effect that differ from the original budget decision last year. I hope it is true that the small business minister rolled the Treasurer, because it is usually the other Peter who wins. That has been reflected in a number of areas in the small business sector over the last three years. It has been reflected in the government's failure to adopt the recommendations of the Reid committee, for example. Obviously, the very dry Treasurer saw those as not being suitable to his ideology. It is reflected in the government's failure to adequately compensate small business for the effects of the GST. I am sure not even the minister at the table would argue that those costs to business, as a result of the GST, are not massive and that the $500 million compensation fund will go nowhere near compensating those businesses for the burden imposed upon them.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: even drawing a Robin Hood-like bow you could not imagine that the GST is related to this bill; therefore, I ask you to bring the member for Hunter back to the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will address the bill in question.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I will point out to the minister at the table that there is an amendment before the House and, for his benefit—because, despite his responsibility for the bill, he obviously hasn't been watching on—I will read the amendment:. . . whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for the financial uncertainty and hardship it has caused Do It Yourself superannuation fund trustees and fund members, many of which are operated by small businesses, in taking nearly 12 months since it announced its changes to introduce and debate this legislation.For the minister's benefit, what I have to point out is that the burden imposed by these changes—or, indeed, the changes in the form in which they were originally proposed—has to be seen in the context of other burdens the government is placing on the small business sector. It has to be seen in the context of the way in which this government has been taking the small business sector for granted. The government sees the small business sector as rusted on.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—They hate small business: they are for big business.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Big business—that is right and that has often been reflected. It was reflected in their reluctance to bring on the retail market inquiry, for example.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has failed to recognise the changing nature of small business. He is so busy running around trying to run eleventh order industrial relations issues that he has failed to see the real issues for small business. He has failed to see the way in which the internationalisation of the economy is changing the nature of small business, the way in which the declining labour inten sive industries are changing the nature of small business and the way in which the contracting out practices of larger business are changing the nature of small business and changing the small business constituency.We see within the Ralph review the government's total lack of willingness to look at small business issues. Go through the Ralph review, Minister, and see if you can find for me issues in there that take any note of the needs of small business. What you will find in there, Minister, are a lot of proposals that will have an adverse impact on the small business sector.Mr Hockey interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The minister says, `What about the 30 per cent tax rate?' We will see about that. I ask the minister about small business operations that are not structured as companies but which might lose in the event that that becomes a trade-off for accelerated depreciation, for example. I do not want the minister to give me his waffle about the impact the 30 per cent rule on company tax might have on small business. The Ralph review has failed to grasp the issues for small business.Going back to the history of this thing, it was just dumped on the small business sector on budget night last year without consultation. Then in the face of the massive outcry from the representative bodies I have mentioned—bodies like the CPAs—the government backflipped. As the member for Wills has indicated, the opposition will not be seeking to deny this bill a second reading, but we do promise to give very close scrutiny to the next slab—amendment bill No. 4, which talks about in-house investments. We will be having a very close look indeed at how they might affect the small business sector.With respect to the shift to the ATO of the regulatory functions for small funds, I understand that APRA no longer feels it has the capacity or the resources to cover what is a proliferating industry. I think it is fair to say that the opposition does not have too many concerns with that. However, I think I should say that the test for the Australian Taxation Office will be to remember that what it has been handed is not another revenue raising venture but a prudential exercise—a responsibility to overlook the industry, to help it grow, to help it prosper, to help ensure that the small business sector in particular has an efficient and effective vehicle for raising retirement incomes. I recommend to the House the amendment put forward by the shadow minister.17:33:005432Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—In summing up, I would like to thank all participants: the members for Wills and Curtin and even the member for Hunter. Yes, I would like to thank him for his contribution to this debate. The government does not support the opposition's second reading amendment to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 —that should come as no surprise to the opposition—primarily because the amendment put forward by the member for Wills is certainly lacking in substantive content. I refer the House to the fact that the government introduced this bill into the parliament as soon as was practical. The bill was released on 5 March for public comment and consultation, and received broad support from industry.The member for Wills raised a number of questions in respect of the requirement that self-managed funds not contain arms-length members, the transfer of regulation to the Australian Taxation Office and the proposed reduction in the supervisory levy for self-managed funds. It should be emphasised that the bill reflects the government's response to the recommendations of the financial systems inquiry that the regulation of self-managed funds be transferred to the Australian Taxation Office and that all members be trustees of those funds. In this regard, the inquiry noted that some self-managed funds had beneficiaries who were at arms-length from the trustees. The financial systems inquiry found this to be unsatisfactory as there was little protection for the interests of third party beneficiaries given the limited scope for effective prudential regulation of these funds. Furthermore, while it was recognised that self-managed funds provided a worthwhile and competitive option for superannuation investors, the inquiry found that these funds should not be subject to prudential regulation.The proposed reduction in the supervisory levy for self-managed funds is also consistent with recommendations of the financial systems inquiry. Levies for all superannuation funds are being restructured to reflect cost recovery principles. Under current arrangements, the supervisory revenue collected from self-managed superannuation funds is estimated to exceed the cost of regulating such funds by around $19 million annually.In conclusion, this bill will 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. At this point in time, I would like to foreshadow a minor government amendment to be moved in the consideration in detail stage. I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.543317:37:005433Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 7 (line 29) to page 8 (line 4), omit subsection (2), substitute:(2) Subject to this section, a superannuation fund with only one member is a self managed superannuation fund if and only if: (a) it satisfies either of the following conditions: (i) the trustee of the fund is a body corporate of which the member is the sole director, or a body corporate of which the member is one of 2 linked directors; (ii) 2 individuals are trustees of the fund, one of whom is the member of the fund and one of whom is an individual linked to the member of the fund; and (b) no trustee of the fund receives any remuneration from the fund or from any person for any duties or services performed by the trustee in relation to the fund. [section 17A—single member funds]This amendment corrects a drafting error by including an additional condition that no trustee of a single member fund—that is, a self-managed superannuation fund—receive any remuneration for duties or services performed in relation to the fund. I also table the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the amendment.17:38:005433Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition does not intend to oppose this amendment. Nevertheless, we do want to place on record, as we have done previously, some of the concerns we have about the way in which this government has treated do-it-yourself superannuation and the way in which it has treated superannuation in this country generally since coming to office.In the May budget last year the government announced changes to the investment rules for the do-it-yourself funds, the self-managed or excluded funds, which created a great deal of uncertainty amongst those funds. It created a situation where, if you were a fund trustee, you did not know whether you could still go on with the same sorts of investments that you had been in the habit of making on behalf of your fund or whether you had to modify the investments to take into account the new rules. Fund trustees have been placed in a very difficult situation. They have not been able to organise their funds with any degree of certainty. As a result of that, the growth of do-it-yourself funds has shrunk during the last nine or 10 months by about 50 per cent. The outcome has been that do-it-yourself or excluded funds, which had been progressing very well, have been damaged as a result of the government's budget announcements.The proposal to transfer the do-it-yourself funds to the tax office has generated concerns that this may create a conflict of interest. On the one hand, the tax office is supposed to act as prudential regulator but, on the other hand, it is interested in collecting more revenue. So the issue arises as to how the tax office will carry out its functions. We understand that the tax office has been giving assurances about the way in which those functions will be carried out. Nevertheless, we do have con cerns about how this will work out in practice.It ought to be said that do-it-yourself funds play a very important role in supporting small businesses. Some 180 do-it-yourself funds have sprung up in the last two or three years. They invest a lot of the money which they have at their disposal often in small towns and in regional areas and, in so doing, they contribute to the prosperity of those small towns and regional areas. In our view, the do-it-yourself funds have been playing a very useful role not only as part of Australia's superannuation system but also in supporting small business prosperity, which is something that, from the opposition's point of view, we want to see continue. We are proposing that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee examine the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 to see whether any of the technical aspects, which we are considering now in the consideration in detail stage debate, do generate problems; whether there are any capital gains tax problems which are triggered by the requirement to reduce any funds, in order to have that excluded or self-managed fund status, from five to less; and whether any other problems are identified in the course of detailed examination of this legislation. We will be inviting, through the Senate process, a range of bodies to come to the Senate committee and to present their concerns so that, if this legislation needs to be improved and tidied up in any way, it can happen at that point.There are issues that arise both in this legislation and in a forthcoming piece of legislation—the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4)—of which the exposure draft has been released. At present we have not had the opportunity to consider that bill in detail, but there are issues in each of those bills that impact on the do-it-yourself funds. As a result, we will be sending these bills off to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which will enable more detailed consideration to occur there.17:43:005434Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—In considering this bill in detail, I would like to draw attention first to what I think are some of the excellent features of the government's superannuation policy and then to some of the defects of previous policy in this area. One of the gutsiest things this government has done is bring in the 15 per cent superannuation surcharge for higher income earners. This surcharge was not popular with some of my constituents. I probably received more personal representations on this subject than just about any other subject over the last three years. It has upset the financial arrangements of many people in my electorate—and naturally I am sorry about that—but the fact is it was important that we give the Australian people, rich and poor alike, superannuation justice.The trouble with the former government's arrangements was that superannuation was much more advantageous for well-off people than for ordinary people. With our superannuation surcharge we have levelled the superannuation playing field whereby superannuation is equally advantageous for all members of the community. So I believe that this government has a good story to tell in the superannuation area.Unfortunately, the former government tended to treat superannuation as a piggy bank to be raided whenever it was short of money. In almost every budget of the former government, the superannuation arrangements were changed. That is hardly the way to encourage certainty and stability. It is hardly the way to encourage people to put money into their retirement. The laudable objectives of the former government were constantly frustrated by its inability to keep the hands of the then Treasurer and the then Prime Minister out of people's superannuation pockets.One of the fundamental principles of good government is the establishment over time of certainty and stability. It certainly was not achieved by the former government. But this government is attempting to ensure that we have a stable, secure and certain superannuation environment in which people can plan with confidence and certainty for their future.It is very important that we try to move away from dependence on the age pension and towards a system where more and more people can provide for their own retirement. The idea that the social security budget will be able to sustain indefinitely the sorts of numbers that the demographers tell us will be in the pensionable age bracket is just wrong. The former government recognised this, and that was why it moved in this area.We obviously are trying to make it easier for people to have superannuation schemes. We are trying to make it easier for people to provide for themselves. We are trying to have recognised that providing for your own superannuation is good social behaviour. We are trying to acknowledge and recognise people who do the right thing by the community and do the right thing by themselves. That is one of the fundamental principles that this government operates on.We want our policy to reward and benefit people who do the right thing by the community. Someone who puts aside money into private health insurance is doing the right thing by the community because they are taking some of the burden off public hospitals. Someone who puts money into superannuation is doing the right thing by the community because they are taking some of the burden off the budget of the Department of Family and Community Services. This is a government which is trying to ensure that Australians who do the right thing by themselves and their fellow citizens get the kinds of incentives and the kinds of rewards that they deserve.So, obviously, I am only too happy to commend to the House the amendment of my distinguished friend and colleague the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. I have to say that my distinguished friend and colleague is doing a magnificent job in his being in charge of this portfolio. He is impressing many, many people right across the financial services community. He is realising all the many promises that he offered the world of politics when he came into this place. He has demonstrated that the Liberal Party is very good at renewing itself, and he will be a very important minister into the future. (Time expired)17:48:005435Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I do not know about the complimentary remarks that the Minister for Employment Services has made with respect to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, but I am very, very pleased indeed that he has introduced the topic of uncertainty at this stage of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 because, as I pointed out during the second reading stage, this has all been about uncertainty. We had three budgets from this government over its first term of office—and what have we seen each year? More superannuation changes, more burden and more red tape for small business. The minister has said that they are trying to promote the idea of retirement incomes. What they are promoting is more red tape, more financial burden and more hardship for small business.For the minister to move this amendment now just highlights and adds to what already has been a farcical process. As I said in the second reading stage, we had these announcements in the 1998 budget. We have had all the backflips throughout the year and now finally, 12 months after the event, we are debating just one of the slabs, just one part of the legislation which will put those 1998 budget changes into effect.Madam Deputy Speaker, wouldn't you think that, over the course of the year, the minister would have identified that the bill before the House today is basically flawed? This is not just a minor amendment. The whole principle of what is being attempted by the government with this new classification of superannuation fund is to recognise that the inherent mutual trust existing between these trust members, five or less, be they family members or business associations, underpins the idea or the very principle of this new superannuation fund. Madam Deputy Speaker, wouldn't you have thought that, if the government were concerned about the idea of any of those trustees deriving an income from any role they might play within the super fund, it would have identified that at the original drafting of the legislation. This is not a minor amendment; it is a fairly significant amendment. One would have thought that over the course of the year—because that is how long the government has had between the announcement of its changes and the debate on this legislation today—the government would have identified that concern.That just highlights the need for the opposition to have a very, very close look at the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4), because it is a far more complex bill than the one before the House today. This one affects what are just three really basic changes to the structure of the funds. But the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) goes to the very heart of the issues that are of concern to small business. It goes to the very heart of a small business person's ability to use his super fund as a vehicle for investing in his own business premises.As has been pointed out by the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Wills, and as I pointed out during my speech on the second reading debate, this is also very important to regional communities. If the local mechanic can use his super funds as a vehicle to establish a new workshop in the town, that new workshop becomes part of the basic infrastructure of that town, and that is a very good thing.We will be looking very closely at that. The further mistake from the government today highlights the need for us to look at it. We will again be having a very close look at the in-house investment arrangements for small business operators looking to invest in business premises as a way of promoting their businesses and as a way of improving their businesses. If a fund is not cashed up enough—it might have $100,000 in it, and the premises might be worth $200,000—we need to ensure that the changes under Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) do not deny a small business operator the opportunity to use another external vehicle to top up that fund. Whether it is a trust or a loan to that trust to divert money into the fund, we need to ensure that that ability remains.Without that ability, the backflip by the government is of no real assistance to small business operators at all. It is the cashed-up funds which may be able to afford the premises which are not so important. They are people who have usually been contributing to their fund for many, many years—if not decades. It is the newer funds we are concerned with. If they are not able to draw in on another vehicle to cash up their fund in order to invest in business premises, then the backflip need not have ever occurred because it is not really going to be of any assistance to them.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.5436Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Sitting suspended from 5.54 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Bills5436r8075436Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.19:30:005436Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—During the election campaign we said that this government did not have a plan for our nation; it had a plan for a tax. This budget shows we were right. Instead of investing in our future, it invests in its own obsession. The price of its folly will be borne by the generations to come, because without the investments needed to make our nation and our future work force smarter and more productive, we will not have the high wage, high skill future the people of this nation deserve.The good growth recorded in this budget stems from the industry and resilience of the Australian people and hard decisions taken by this government's predecessor over a decade ago. We enjoy prosperity today because more than a decade ago government saw the priority of restructuring the Australian economy to secure our nation's future. Back then, a strong national government with an eye to the future saw the need to diversify our economy because global economic trends were promising a brighter and more prosperous future in new industries. We saw the need to broaden our industrial base from our reliance on cyclical industries such as resources and agriculture to get into areas like elaborately transformed manufactures to boost trade, growth and jobs. But the game has moved on yet again.Today, global economic trends are rewarding those nations supplying high knowledge content products. The new competitive landscape is about software, pharmaceuticals, communications and information technology, biotechnology, education exports and the like. We have no choice but to engage. Our capacity to do so means the life or death of jobs in this country. What we achieved in the past was not done with words or by an accounting result; it was achieved by governments investing for the future in education and training, in research and development, in export incentives, in industry plans. So, too, as we look forward our success in today's global economy demands investment in the future. Nothing short of a quantum leap in the education levels, skills and training of the Australian work force and in the national resources devoted to new industries will see Australia join the emerging global prosperity. This, surely, should be the test we set this budget.What we needed from the budget was a strategy for a nation making its way in the world, an understanding of the challenge before us and how together we can rise to it. This is what the times demand of national government. These are the commitments a budget must show: a commitment to fairness for future generations which demands strong fiscal discipline centred on a golden rule that governments do not borrow to finance current spending and save in the good times so that over the cycle the budget balances; a commitment to making every Australian family feel more secure—secure in terms of the income they enjoy, in terms of their jobs, in terms of educating themselves through life, and in terms of their ability, if unemployed, to get back into the work force; but it must also show a commitment to fairness as the centrepiece of our economic progress. It must show an iron determination that none of our fellow citizens is left behind as part of the bargain of our economic progress in a new century.Both of these ideas—fairness and progress—demand the same thing. They demand a commitment to a high wage, high skill future and an opportunity for all Australians to share in that future by developing their talents to the full. Only by pulling together, by pooling our talents, will we progress, and progress with fairness to all our fellow citizens. A good budget for these times must also demonstrate a commitment to the goal that good home-grown ideas fall on fertile soil here rather than go overseas and be lost to Australian business and Australian jobs in the future. These are the tests Australians looking back in 50 or 100 years will apply to this generation.On Tuesday night these were the tests before this Treasurer. He was asked to answer them on television just minutes after his budget speech. He was asked on budget night, `What was the vision beyond the GST?' He was asked for the vision, and what he gave us was `Um'. He gave us `Um'. Then he gave us the mouth opening and shutting, for once soundlessly. He gave us the mouth opening and shutting and then he gave us multiple circular hand movements. Then he started in again on the GST. No performance, Mr Speaker, could have been more eloquent. No performance could have illustrated more completely the real failure of this budget. It is not about investing for the future; it is just about a GST.How indeed could it be about anything else? Because now we have seen the cost of this GST—the cost which means this government cannot afford anything else; it cannot afford what the nation really needs. The Treasurer announced on Tuesday surpluses of $5.4 billion, $7.2 billion, $5.2 billion and $11.4 billion over the next four years. What he did not announce was that the attempt to sell the GST has cost the surplus $5 billion next year, $5 billion the year after that and $7 billion the year after that. That is $17 billion, and that is the real price tag of this GST.Now leave aside for one moment whether you are a supporter or not of the GST. Leave aside the merits for and against. Ask yourself this: is it wise, is it prudent, is it strategic to spend over $17 billion to secure one public policy objective, when the nation faces so many challenges, requiring many different responses, across a range of fronts? Because that $17 billion is not just black ink. That could be the foundation of a new nation and still see a decent surplus maintained—still see all the surpluses announced on Tuesday night maintained. But it is to become just so much spun sugar around a failing tax.What should a mature nation do with such a strong budgetary position? Squander it on measures that feed into consumption and do nothing for investment—economic fairy floss? Spend more on new computers for the tax office's GST enforcement than on labour market programs for the unemployed? No, a mature nation would invest a portion of that in building the knowledge based economy and still leave larger surpluses than this government. The GST is a waste of a strong budgetary position. It is a waste of a surplus built with a tax system claimed to be broken, a surplus built on cuts in past years to our national investment in innovation, to our household savings which are now, according to these budget papers, less than one per cent of household income, compared to six per cent when this government came to power, and to decent industry policy—all of which lie at the heart of a strong future for this country. It is a surplus wasted on a tax the rest of the industrialised world is trying to escape.The European Commission today, recognising that they have been locked in by their past agreements, are desperately trying to work out ways to break out of their GST and restore job growth in the services sector. That is exactly what the European Commission are doing now—trying to work out ways to break out of the GST. Analysts of Japan, as serious as the Reserve Bank of Australia, say that the principal problem of the international economy today is the inability of the Japanese to get consumer spending going and growth back in their economy—a problem stemming in part from the raising of Japan's GST, which in any case is only half of the one proposed for Australia. That is not a judgment of the Australian Labor Party; that is a judgment of the Reserve Bank.And even with all the money the government is spending on trying to sweeten its GST, it still cannot deal fairly with low income Australians. These budget papers show its pensioner compensation has an in-built self-destruct mechanism. If you care to do the maths, they show that pensioner compensation will now be completely eroded within four years. By 2003-04, the pension will be worth around $426 a fortnight under the GST—exactly the same amount pensioners would have got without the GST.But let me return, Mr Speaker, to the dimensions of this budget's failure in providing a strategy for our nation to make its way in the world. The Prime Minister wishes this to be seen as an education budget. It makes you shudder to think what a bean counter's budget would have looked like. Let us understand where we start from in this. Thirty-seven per cent of our labour force did not finish high school. This compares to 19 per cent in the United Kingdom, 14 per cent in Germany, and just 11 per cent in the United States. Fifteen per cent of Australians have at least a university level education, compared to 26 per cent of Americans. We start from behind in the education race, and we have a lot of catching up to do. The place to start is with our children.Modern governments should understand that lifting the educational attainment of children is an investment, a public investment, both in our society and in the future productivity of our economy. You cannot achieve this simply by spending a little extra on a minority of children, and you certainly do not achieve it by giving to some children at the expense of others. But this is the current government's approach. The government's view on education is that its responsibility ceases when it has changed the funding equation of the private school system supporting 30 per cent of our kids.Let me make this clear: we do not have a problem with more funding for non-government schools. But when you are a national government, your responsibility is to all schools, not just some. Prime Minister, do you mean to tell me that when next I go to Safety Bay Primary School in my electorate, as I did a few weeks ago for their Anzac Day ceremony, that the kids I see there are not deserving of decent attention from their national government?Let me tell this parliament something: ever since my father lanced the boil of the sectarian divide which had crippled Australia's education system since Federation, the national government has accepted that all kids are our kids—the responsibility to meet their needs is shared by us all. He offered the opportunity for all kids from all backgrounds to exercise freedom of choice and freedom of conscience. Ever since then, we have not seen blazers or sweatshirts; we have seen the kids themselves. How can this government now say that a child at Safety Bay Primary is worth one-twentieth the amount of extra funding of a child at a non-government school? We have never divided Australian children into federal government children and state government children.Have those on the other side never heard of Jeff Kennett, or John Olsen, or Richard Court? Perhaps they endorse their special brand of care and attention to government schools? We know this: just in case a Liberal premier had a fleeting inclination to do the right thing by kids in government schools, in the 1996 budget this government's new formula meant that, regardless of increasing numbers in government schools, their Commonwealth contributions would be cut. There is not just a single budget that has an effect on education; that was their starting point and it flows through.Prime Minister, you are responsible for every schoolchild in this country. You are responsible for their education now and their opportunities later in life. You cannot wash your hands of any of them, let alone two-thirds of them. But the attitude on schools is of a piece with everything else this government has done on education.This budget celebrates an outcome which delivers $800 million a year less in direct Commonwealth higher education funding than in Labor's last year in office. The minister and his Prime Minister had one fig leaf between them to say that they ever cared at all for the smart kid from the bush or from a poor family in the city who deserved a place at university. That was the merit scholarship scheme. It was paltry, it was parsimonious, and now it is past tense.What is the government's argument? It does not have $6.8 million for scholarships for smart poor kids. `We have a $5.4 billion surplus,' the Treasurer says, `but, $6.8 million, we haven't got that kind of money!' This government thinks it has done its job for the education of this country when it restores just $150 million out of the $2 billion it cut from the higher education system in 1996. It declares itself relaxed with the idea of students doing science and engineering—the degrees which perhaps more than any others will build a knowledge based society in this country—paying more than those doing arts. The government thinks its job is done when it leaves TAFE funding where it is. This government's job is not done.Similarly, the government paints itself as the saviour of Australia's research effort. But know this: taken together, all the Commonwealth support for education and training and for both public and private research and development activity has fallen from three per cent of GDP—not enough—when we were in office to 2.5 per cent in this budget and, in all probability, to 2.3 per cent at the end of this four-year period. Those figures include the government's one lifebelt in this budget—its spending on medical research.Let me make a few points about that. Firstly, the very Wills review which has prompted this spending says that restoration of the 150 per cent R&D tax concession is more important. It is more important to do that than what you have done. Secondly, $600 million for medical research over six years compares to $6,000 million over four years this government is spending on an ineffective failing private health insurance initiative. Finally, this small increase in medical research grants will scarcely compensate, if at all—and this needs to be more effectively understood—for the cash-strapped public hospitals which used to invest in this area dragging their research dollars out.The universities who used to do this research from their operating grants— remember, the ones that are down in direct government contribution $800 million this year; that did not just go to teaching, that went to research—are hauling back their medical research grants as their funding has been cut. They see that there is a little rise in medical research—beauty! What we need to do in engineering, in science and in history is extract it from what we are doing in medicine and put it in there to make up for the fact that in direct government grants there has been an $800 million cut to our activities.That brings me to health. We all remember the John Howard of the 1970s—a new health plan every year. Now we have the ultimate in political nostalgia—a new health plan every year from the John Howard of the 1990s. This government claimed to have solved the problems with private health care when it spent the initial $700 million on private health insurance in 1996. Remember how that was going to lift membership from 30 per cent to 40 per cent? No, it did not. Then it was $1.5 billion a year for a 30 per cent rebate. It thought it had solved the problem then. But, when questioned in parliament by us and forced to confess, the government said it was really about lifting it from 30 per cent to 33 per cent.Now we are told—this time for sure—that the problem will be solved, except the $1.5 billion is now just to tread water. It has gone from 40 per cent to just treading water when half of that $1.5 billion—half of it—would fully meet every single state demand put upon this government at the last session they had with them on the scouring of the public health system. Half of it would reopen all the wards closed in public hospitals, reopen the regional hospitals that have closed wards or closed altogether, put on the nurses, put on the doctors and perform the procedures. Half of the $1.5 billion would have been enough to fix the system everybody uses. This is supposed to be competent public policy—$1½ billion.That is the point. We have in this budget the end of community rating in reality and the introduction of so-called lifetime community rating. I have already indicated we will look at this fairly, but looking at it fairly also means protecting universal health care, not letting it become the next sacrifice to this government's public policy failures. One thing we will seek in scrutinising lifetime community rating is a commitment from the government to guarantee universal access to public hospitals. We will not let the next step—the fifth health plan in five years—be means-testing for public hospital access.In the meantime, what about some mutual obligation here from the health insurance funds? Has this government got them all to close the gaps? Has it got them to control premiums? Has it got them to hold their premiums in the middle of this year at least? Has it got them to do any of that? Nothing at all. It has demanded nothing of the health insurance funds in their mutual obligation deal—nothing whatsoever, except be the cheerful recipients of a Commonwealth blank cheque.But we know what kind of mutual obligation the Prime Minister has in mind for Australians. Yesterday on television he said that families simply had to reorder their spending priorities to afford private health insurance:You might say to yourself, `Gee, it's more important to stop that and go into private health insurance now than to add another country to my next overseas trip.'Gee, indeed. So, workers of Australia, if you are having trouble affording private health insurance, what with all the cuts to government services and a GST around the corner, I have the solution for you: just knock off the stopover in Tahiti on the way back from your skiing holiday in Austria. Just knock that off and you too can afford private health insurance, don't you know.So we say to the Prime Minister and to this government: you have not done your job. You have not done your job, above all, for the families of Australia. You have forced them to be responsible for their young unemployed adults and you have cynically failed—despite your promises and undertakings to the Senate and Senator Harradine—to give them the relief they need. And why on earth not? To build back in the money that Senator Harradine demanded would require an extra $50 million a year from your budget surplus of $5.4 billion. As Senator Harradine points out to you and to the rest of the people in Australia, this was not a deal for a GST vote; this was a deal to allow passage of your legislation which forced middle income Australians to be responsible for their adult young unemployed. That is what that was about. It had nothing to do with the GST—nothing to do with it at all. Here is your challenge: the youth allowance legislation is before this parliament now. Amend it now and we will support you.Finally, as with every budget this government has produced, its greatest failing is on jobs. The budget forecasts unemployment stuck at 7.5 per cent through to the year 2000. But, of course, 7.5 per cent is not really 7.5 per cent. It has only been achieved off the back of thousands of Australians giving up the search for work and continuing to do so in future. If this government had not pushed so many people out of the work force entirely—and remember when we left office there was a participation rate of 63.8 per cent and today it is 63 per cent—the unemployment rate today would be well over eight per cent.Unemployment in this country should be well on the way down to five per cent. Even the Treasurer himself briefly flirted with decency on a five per cent target, but he has come over all agnostic again. We are nowhere near five per cent and with no hope in sight, because employment growth is forecast to fall in this budget. That is the fault of a government which cares not one jot for employment, and so is this: long-term unemployment is higher today than when the coalition began to cut jobs programs, despite three years of economic growth in between. Long-term unemployment is higher today than it was three years ago, despite three years of economic growth in between. It is higher because this government has actively determined against sharing the benefits of economic growth with all Australians.The so-called `new' spending on labour market programs in this budget is a calculated insult to unemployed Australians: firstly, it is a tiny, tiny fraction of the $1.8 billion cut from labour market programs since 1996; secondly, it is not new money at all but an undignified recycling of money cut from the government's failed Job Network which the minister loves to trumpet and hastily rebadged; thirdly, the so-called `new' spending on job programs is less than the amount spent on new computers for the Taxation Office for GST enforcement; and, finally, the government chose employment to break another election promise in this budget. It promised $90 million for Dr Kemp's New Apprenticeships but has lost $40 million of that along the way. Something happened on the way to Dr Kemp's forum—$40 million was lost out the back of the car.But I know this, Mr Speaker. I know that people look to the opposition for an alternative strategy. Well, we are offering one. I return to what I said at the beginning about what this budget could have achieved. If the GST were not implemented, contemplate the investments among which you could choose for a better future. With no GST, you could provide balanced funding for government and non-government schools. Not $210 per student in non-government schools and $10 for government students but fair and balanced treatment for all Australian kids and a bit of relief for those schools suffering under coalition state governments. That would cost just a fraction of the GST compensation, and the benefit would be not miserly compensation for an unfair tax but better educated kids.With no GST, you could provide planned pension increases that would last rather than compensation which disappears within four years. With no GST, you could double what the government has merely recycled from its failed Job Network into Work for the Dole. You could make it real new funding and introduce real labour market programs while you were at it—with training, wage subsidies and in-work benefits, and maybe the hope of a job at the end of it. Some hope, perhaps, for the 200,000 long-term unemployed in this country, including those in regional Australia.With no GST, you could have kept the university scholarship scheme for disadvantaged kids which this government axed in the budget. Indeed, you could even make it a little more generous and be decent in your treatment of universities. You could start to redress this government's failure on private saving. The average 35-year-old worker has lost $100,000 from his or her eventual superannuation payout through government cuts alone. A new superannuation co-contribution would lift national savings and improve retirement incomes and start to deal with that pathetic savings outcome. You could contemplate tax reform without a GST. Remember, we are supporting proposals by this government to ensure people pay their fair share of tax not involving the GST. You could deliver fairer tax cuts and implement the tax credits that this country so badly needs. You could restore those R&D tax concessions. You could do most of these things and still have a surplus greater than this government announced on Tuesday night, greater than the surpluses it expects over the coming years. You could spend far less than this government and achieve far more for our nation.I say all of this to highlight the road not taken—the real cost of a GST even before it arrives, the real cost in terms of the national ambition we are about to lose. This, as much as the unfairness of the GST, is what Labor and Australia have at stake in this tax debate. This is why we are keeping our election promise to oppose the GST. But we are keeping something else too, and that is the idea that a budget is about all Australians—about a national ambition we used to have and which still burns brightly among our fellow citizens. We are keeping that ambition alive. It will not die these three years, and it will return again to those government benches.Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned.20:01:005442House adjourned at 8.01 p.m. until Monday, 31 May 1999 at 12.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.1999-05-13Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members544354435443Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I raise an issue of longstanding interest to me and to the large population of Australian Macedonians living in my electorate in the Illawarra region: the establishment of a permanent diplomatic representation of the Republic of Macedonia in Australia. Despite any differences I might have had with the Illawarra Macedonian community over the past couple of years, I have never wavered from strongly supporting the establishment of a permanent diplomatic representation here.This has been a vexed issue for a number of years, but it is significant that there appears to be progress in resolving issues of disagreement between primarily the governments of Greece and Macedonia. Both governments have made progress in resolving the flag and the prefix issue that for too long drained relations and set populations on a collision course not only in Europe but also in Australia.I have always believed that both governments would need to come together at some point and negotiate the barriers in their relations. It is pleasing to note that both governments have finally come to the table and the end of the Greek embargo in October 1995 has created a more stable political, economic and social environment. Indeed, Greece is now the major source of foreign investment into Macedonia, which has few restrictions on foreign investments in any case.The Illawarra region has a large Macedonian population. Indeed, as the 1996 census statistics indicate, they make up about five per cent of my electorate. The Italian community follows closely behind. The establishment of an embassy in Australia for the Republic of Macedonia would be the final recognition of Macedonia's importance to Australia and to the many immigrants who have settled here. It would also assist the government's stated intentions of placing our bilateral relationship on a firm footing.Australia has already established an honorary consul in Skopje, appointed in April last year. I am aware that the Macedonian Welfare Association based in my electorate has formally raised this matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as have I. The association does tremendous work providing quasi consular service to Macedonians in the Illawarra, with very limited resources.Indeed, my office's immigration cases and other cases primarily involve the Macedonian community, and I believe the office of my colleague the member for Cunningham also faces similar circumstances. An embassy operating here would greatly relieve the pressure on our offices and the association in providing information and quasi consular service to the Macedonian community.The embassy also has the potential to foster trade opportunities between Australia and Macedonia. In 1996, Australian exports to Macedonia amounted to nearly $12 million, mainly in sheepskins and wool. Macedonia has also started to import frozen beef and there is a possibility for sugar. This is something we must not ignore and must build on. There are opportunities in these areas for Australian businesses—many from the Illawarra if they are alert enough. The establishment of diplomatic relations in Australia is again on the agenda. I hope the government will give the matter serious attention. (Time expired)54445444Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to congratulate the government on delivering an excellent budget in the last couple of days, particularly that there is now a surplus of $5.4 billion, contrary to the last couple of years under Labor when they ran Commonwealth debt up to $80 billion and left us with a deficit of $10 billion.The budget is responsible and, importantly, it repays $20 billion in this financial year alone, with no increases in taxation. It is a good budget because it is broad on a lot of social parameters. In this financial year, $4.8 billion will be spent in the area of education. An extra $131 million is to be spent on literacy and numeracy. We believe it is critical for the future to educate our children and, indeed, people of mature age.The Southern Cross University should benefit from the extra $604 million for research and medical development. But I do hope that with the extra funding going to education when the tax reform package is passed—hopefully by not a recalcitrant Labor Party—Mullumbimby High School and Tweed River High School, in particular, receive funding through the Carr government. On that basis, I would like to congratulate Cynthia Kinneally, who recently graduated as a mature age student at the age of 70.In the area of social policy, the extra $221 million for the prevention, intervention, education and counselling for drug education is particularly important as we do have an increasing drug dependency problem on the north coast of New South Wales. Certainly, the extra $80 million over four years is welcome in other areas such as youth suicide and homelessness as well, although I would like to reiterate to this chamber that I am totally opposed to a methadone clinic in Tweed Heads.It is very encouraging to see a doubling of Work for the Dole places from 25,000 to 50,000. I would hope that the organisers in Byron Bay of Last Night, First Light, Rory and Annie O'Halloran, will be successful with Phantast in getting a Work for the Dole Program in Byron Bay, along, of course, with the apprenticeships, which is an extra $51.4 million, which will go towards boosting training opportunities on the North Coast.I would also like to congratulate the government for the extra $8.1 million which will go towards the promotion of domestic tourism. I would like to acknowledge the Brunswick Heads Festival 2000, and particularly thank the president Bruce Garrard; the media officer, Mark Russell; members Doug Bair, Russell Sowicki and others, working closely in conjunction with Peter Wilson, the President of the Chamber of Commerce, for the excellent work they are doing and for the terrific night that we had last week with the state member, Don Page.In the area of aged care packages, there is an extra $228 million in primary care and $7 million in respite care, which is very much needed for the ageing demographics, particularly in Alstonville, Ballina and Tweed Heads. Along with the health initiatives, there has been a major increase in private health insurance. A number of elderly Australians and pensioners are holding private health insurance and this, along with the $210 million for hearing rehabilitation, will help maintain them and it will also encourage younger people.I would also like to acknowledge Fay Ellen Gleve, who received recognition by the State Governor for her voluntary service to St John Ambulance through her teaching of first aid at Kingscliff. (Time expired)54455445Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Yesterday, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs returned to his obsession with my view of 20 years ago to justify his latest dogmatic adventure, the voluntary student unionism legislation. No-one, least of all the member for Goldstein, is entitled to rewrite the history of the ALP-led democratic revolution on Australian university campuses in the late 1970s. I was there. Our opposition to the national student body was led by students, was in student interests, and was ultimately won by students.If Professor Kemp wants to rewrite history like the member for La Trobe, who said yesterday that there was no compulsory student fees at Perdue University—there is of course and has been since 1924, and they now pay $2,000 per annum—I can recount, if the member for Goldstein insists, in voluminous detail the Treasurer's—and pretender to Liberal leadership—support for universal membership of student associations and other ALP views. I could cite his presence at various Young Labor meetings, at the William McKell training school or at Bob Hawke's side at the ACTU headquarters when Bob Hawke announced his candidacy for Wills.But all of this is not germane to the dogmatic ill-thought out legislation designed to destroy viable student gyms, cafeterias and facilities such as the Monash Caulfield Students Union, MONSU, in my electorate. How does this fanatical legislation that attempts to fight the historical battles of 20 years ago through a time warp affect real people today? Dr Kemp should meet the hard-working staff at MONSU with their book rooms, cafeterias and counselling services to realise how much his legislation has alienated the mainly apolitical staff. Of course, as any sensible organisation would with this legislation impending, MONSU has put off all projects that would have enhanced student life.My constituents, beyond the hundreds at Monash University, will be further disadvantaged as Monash will, understandably, have to suspend the building of five tennis courts in a pavilion that were to be built in cooperation with Glen Eira Council. Voters in Glen Eira were to have the bulk of the money put up by the Monash Students Union and, of course, these pavilions were to be available not only to students but to all residents of Melbourne Ports and Glen Eira.Not only the hundreds of students at Monash Caulfield but also my voters in Glen Eira and Melbourne Ports will make the appropriate judgments about the benefits of this blinded fixation. If members of the government and their student supporters are concerned about the policies of this or that student association, they should do what we did and get in there and change the student government. Democratic political life is what distinguishes this great country from so many others. Believe me, even the most radical student associations of today are `pussy cats' compared with the AUS of the past.To imagine that the government is acting for good public policy by effectively ruining student swimming pools, bookshops, cafeterias and gyms is to live in a `cloud cuckoo' land. It is the legacy for which the current minister for education will be remembered.54465446Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise today prompted by a newspaper article published by the Age . The article was prepared following a graduation ceremony at Skillsplus in my electorate for a number of Work for the Dole participants. You would have thought that I was at a different occasion. I happily mixed with many of the participants of the various Work for the Dole programs administered and managed by Skillsplus and was very taken by the up-beat, positive and enthusiastic response from the participants of the program.It must have taken the journalists from the Age quite a considerable length of time to try and trawl amongst the people that were there to draw out some negative comments about the program. All those I spoke to were very positive about their experience and, I think, welcomed the fact that Minister Reith attended that ceremony to present graduation certificates. It was a very up-beat, positive, vibrant occasion, yet the article that was published in the Age painted an entirely different picture.Just to set the record absolutely straight: I have a couple of testimonials from participants in the Work for the Dole programs managed by Skillsplus that I would like to share with this chamber. I will leave out the names because I have not spoken to the people about referring to them in parliament.This one is from a 22-year-old young lady who was unemployed for almost 12 months and started to lose hope of ever finding her career. She said:Then all this news about work for the dole started.At first, because it had a lot of bad press, I had my reservations about it all. I was against it basically. Then I got a letter in the mail from Centrelink. I thought, oh no. When I was told that the work for the dole wasn't just mending bridges and planting trees (not that there's anything wrong with that) and that there were clerical jobs, computer/office jobs and working in schools, I started to take an interest.I had never been interested in working in a school but I thought, why not? We had to do a small course and then they put us in schools. Almost immediately I loved it. I had found my calling. I know that sounds silly but I truly loved it. I had been concentrating on hospitality type jobs and never gave teaching a second thought until work for the dole.I now work part time in the school where I did my work for the dole experience and I have my confidence back which I had started to lose being unemployed for such a long period of time. The people that organised it were all wonderful. Any questions I needed to ask, they were there to help.I personally think of myself as a success story for the work for the dole program. I was negative at first but now I hail it. I'd like to thank Job power [Skillsplus] for helping me find a career path.That is just one of a number of testimonials. That was a constant theme that ran through all of my discussions with the participants. Even if they found some of the work they were involved in not quite to their liking, they were inspired by the contact with employers, by the enthusiasm of those also participating in the program, by the new skills, by the fact that they could go to other employers and say, `Look, I know what it is like. I have been in the work force. I have developed the work ethic.' This work for the dole is a terrific initiative for the young people of Dunkley and we are blessed to have the Skillsplus team managing the programs and delivering real results for young people and worthwhile initiatives for the community. I commend it to you. (Time expired) .54465446Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to make some comments prior to the New South Wales drug summit to be held next week with both parliamentary delegates and delegates also chosen from community representatives. I think it is very important one week before that drug summit to put on record my admiration for the courageous stance taken by Reverend Ray Richmond and others of the Wayside Chapel. I think they have taken a very courageous stance in saying that the main priority that we have on the drugs issue is keeping young Australians alive.This is not a debate in which anyone has moral superiority. It is a very sad debate and we have to express our concern for those young Australians who are addicted to a dreadful, evil drug such as heroin. Moralising does not work. All the evidence shows that you must keep these young people alive until such time as you can find out why they are using this drug, and stabilise the things in their lives that have gone wrong that have forced them to turn to such an addictive drug.The fact is that injecting rooms have, of course, been operating in Kings Cross for decades. They have been run by the sex industry which, of course, is controlled by organised crime. That is why the Wood royal commission in New South Wales recommended safe injecting rooms. You need to break that link between the criminal industry and drug users. You need to break that day-to-day contact, and that has happened with the tolerance room at Wayside. That link has been broken.The services that are being provided at Wayside are not limited to providing a place to shoot up. Counselling, giving advice and trying to assist people in getting off the drug are part of its philosophy. That is why people such as Tony Trimmingham, whose own son died of heroin, has been very involved with this project. That is why people such as Nicholas Cowdery, the DPP in New South Wales, has also taken, I believe, a courageous stance on this issue.Next week, it is very important that politicians put aside their concerns about bad headlines or about being seen to be soft on drugs. Moralising will not work. The way to fix these problems is to acknowledge that these young people need support and assistance. It is unfortunate that the tolerance room was raided yesterday by the police, given that for decades these things have operated illegally. (Time expired)54475447Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I would like to respond to some of the matters raised by the member for Grayndler. I accept his proposition that mere moralising contributes little to a debate such as this. I also find myself in fundamental 180 degree opposition to the thrust of his remarks. I salute and applaud the decision of the police to raid the Wayside Chapel. If you are in a situation where you have a law which is being openly flouted, there is a principle of the rule of law which says that you must either change it or enforce it. The member for Grayndler would ask us to change it.I uphold and support the idea that we make criminal both the sale and the use of drugs which kill people. I uphold and support a policy which says to a generation of young Australians that, if you get involved in the drug culture, it will have very serious consequences not only for your health and life but also for your status within the community in terms of the criminal code.I am not here to pass judgment on the decisions of individuals. What I am here to say is that we as a government have at times an unpleasant and difficult duty to enforce and uphold a principle of life. The idea that you can evacuate law of moral content is the greatest juridical fallacy ever uttered. Every law ever passed has a piece of moral content, otherwise it would not be worthy of being passed. The challenge is to ensure that the moral content in every law is worth upholding.The use of illicit drugs, particularly heroin addiction is a massive problem but, for every Trimmingham, there is a Woods family. I have met with Tony Trimmingham in my office. I accept that he is a well-motivated individual. I accept that he believes he is doing the best for Australia. I just fundamentally disagree with him. By contrast, I find myself deeply resonating with the message of the Woods family who have undergone and suffered exactly the same tragedy, who would urge upon us, as legislators, a determined commitment to the idea of zero tolerance.The question is: what is the message that we, as a government, are sending to young Australians? Is it a message which says, `Drugs have a recreational place, but if you're going to take them, just do it hygienically'? This to me is just throwing in the white towel. It is giving up. It is accepting that, if we are going to see a generation of young Australians die of drug overdoses, let us do it in a comfortable room and let us do it hygienically. I am opposed to that approach.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills5448s1915448Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.09:59:005448Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] . This bill amends a piece of legislation that was first implemented by previous Labor governments. It is in the context of Australia's international responsibilities in a matter of major global environmental concern, which, regrettably, continues to be of concern.It is not an understatement to say that the depletion of the ozone layer is not only a continuing problem but a major continuing problem. Despite 10 years having passed since the Montreal protocol was signed, further action by all nations remains to be taken for many years to come before the damage can be considered to have begun to repair itself.It is probably appropriate in the context of this legislation to speak briefly about the phenomenon of ozone depletion which leads to what is known as the ozone hole—even though it is not strictly a hole in the ozone layer but levels of reduced concentration of ozone in the stratosphere. The science that surrounds the ozone depletion, unlike the greenhouse effect, is fairly universally accepted. The breakdown of ozone into its constituent oxygen components is a naturally occurring phenomenon. As the shadow minister, the honourable member for Wills, has said in leading in this debate, naturally occurring substances such as the sulfates and chlorine given off during volcanic eruptions lead to ozone depletion.Before mankind affected the ozone layers by the release of other gases, however, there was an equilibrium. The ozone would break down into its constituent oxygen components and, through chemical reaction, would re-form. Simply put, as ozone depleting gases percolate up to the stratosphere, those gases break down into free radicals of chlorine, bromide and so on, which act as catalysts in the breakdown of the ozone. They do not involve themselves in the actual chemical reaction but their presence causes the ozone breakdown to occur at a greater rate, interfering with the natural process by which oxygen forms into ozone and thus leading to the reduced concentration of ozone in the stratosphere.Gases released today can take several years to percolate into the stratosphere and produce this effect. Therefore, we have to be very conscious that the measures that we are taking now will take a long time to be of benefit. Further, these gases stay around for quite a while. Immediate action is very important for the necessary long-range improvement.Despite all the action that we have seen since the various international agreements, ozone levels have been detected at record low levels. Compliance with the current international agreements is reducing the yearly emissions of the gases, but it needs to be continued and to be sped up.Monitoring of ozone levels to ascertain the extent of the problem facing the world has demonstrated that average worldwide losses since the mid-1960s is about five per cent. The phenomenon has seasonal factors, also, and the cumulative loss in winter and spring over Europe, North America and Australia is about 10 per cent. Since the late 1970s, the so-called ozone hole has formed over Antarctica each September and October, 60 per cent of the total ozone being depleted. Scientists agree that, in the absence of changes to clouds or pollution, a decrease in atmospheric ozone will increase ground level UV radiation.Australia has had a reputation as a leader in promoting the reduction of ozone depleting emissions and has a proud record of working towards the complete phasing out of such emissions. Australia's licensing system implemented in 1989 has meant that, by 1995, CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and HBFCs were all phased out.The total phase-out of halons was achieved in Australia in 1992, one year ahead of our requirements under the Montreal protocol. The licensing system is now recognised as an effective way of tackling ozone depletion. Subsequent meetings under the Montreal protocol have recognised this.Sadly, there is a growing feeling among environment groups and, indeed, among major players in the international community that Australia has fallen behind in the last three years on a variety of environmental matters. In recent years we have seen the controversy over mining at Kakadu National Park and its subsequent approval and the negotiation of an increase in greenhouse emissions at Kyoto, which have led to that disquiet. This might apply just as well to the way in which people perceive our efforts on issues of ozone depletion.Both Australia and the United States have decided to eliminate methyl bromide by 2005. The United States had originally committed to do that by 2001. Fortunately, the European nations remain committed to that date. What has subsequently happened is that the United States has changed the date to the year 2005, and Australia has decided to fall into step with the United States rather than with the European Community. That is cause for some concern and disquiet.Since the virtual disappearance of chlorofluorocarbons from use, the gas halon-1211 is considered to be the most dangerous ozone depleter. Atmospheric tests conducted by CSIRO scientists have discovered that halon-1211 emission rates are increasing by about 200 tonnes a year. This contradicts the earlier assumption that halon-1211 emissions reached their peak in 1988. Some people would be aware that halon-1211 is from the old yellow fire extinguishers that developed nations phased out in 1994. So that not only demonstrates that these effects have a long lag but is an example of a phenomenon where the developed nations have been able to achieve certain targets and, for a variety of reasons, developing nations have not.It is believed that many of these fire extinguishers that contain halon are still in use in these developing nations, and continue to be released, and therefore have led to these unexpectedly high levels of halon emission. In fact, over the previous decade there has been a 25 per cent increase in concentration of halon-1211 in the ozone layer. Also, experts have extrapolated that this level of halon emission could be responsible for about 20 per cent of the ozone layer's destruction.The other interesting thing about the phenomenon is that there has been various scientific modelling because, whilst the science of the direct phenomenon is acknowledged, the actual way it will go into the future is subject to further study and modelling. The most accepted original modelling foresaw an improvement in the state of the ozone layer by about the year 2030. It is now believed that, because of these increases in the level of halon-1211, it could take even 10 years longer for this improvement to begin. This goes back to the point that I was trying to make originally, that the lag times that we see with this phenomenon are quite great and underscore the need for us to do as much as possible, as soon as possible.Other variations from the original Montreal protocol will lead to further problems. Some of these relate, as I have said, to the scientific assumptions underpinning the protocol. For example, it was assumed that CFC production in 1997 would equal roughly double the total production of developing countries in 1992 and that all production would cease in the year 2006.That projection in turn leads to the conclusion that ozone depletion would peak in the late 1990s and return to benign levels by 2045. However, Ozone Action, an American group which examines issues around ozone depletion, estimates that CFC production currently exceeds the assumed level by some 200 per cent. The protocol's revised timetable for total CFC production is now 2010 thereby blowing out the conclusion about when benign levels return.The reasons why these target dates have not been able to be met include the fact that refrigerator and airconditioning manufacturers are still selling CFC dependent systems in developing countries. There is much written in the media about that—not generally the popular media but those that are concerned with social issues. For instance, the New Internationalist of March 1999 under the headline `Chilly reception' has a subheadline `Mixed feelings about Europe's roaming fridges'. It indicates that many African countries, whilst they have agreed to reduce the use of CFC emitting refrigerators, have become dumping grounds for phased-out fridges from European countries. These are the sorts of practices that have to be stopped because the release of these gases is fairly indiscriminate in its effect. It does not matter who is actually using them; it must be stopped. I think that it highlights a responsibility that developed nations have to ensure that we are giving developing countries assistance and that, whether it is with ozone depleting gases or greenhouse gases, we are giving them alternatives that will enable them to continue their development both socially and economically.Another problem is that hydrochlorofluorocarbons are the next challenge to the parties to the Montreal protocol that will have to be dealt with. Already the European Community has said it was deeply disappointed that there was no result on HCFCs at the 10th meeting of the protocol back in 1997. The European Community's proposal to bring forward the phase out date for HCFCs from 2030 to 2015 was defeated by a coalition of countries led by United States. The phase-out date of 2030 for developed countries and 2040 for developing countries remains despite the fact that there are numerous non-ozone depleting substitutes for hydrochlorofluorocarbons available already.Again, according to Ozone Watch, scientists are planning to recalculate their projections for ozone depletion at some stage this year based on the changed protocol dates. Unfortunately, this will almost certainly show that, rather than being in the peak ozone depletion period at the moment, the world still has to endure depletion levels far worse than ever projected or imagined before things are going to get better. We really have to remind ourselves that the reduction in the concentration of ozone levels and the increased levels of UV are having quite dramatic effects not only on the health of humans through increased levels of various cancers but also on a number of other fauna species by the destruction of habitat and ecosystems. I think that there are plenty of examples of these problems in the way in which the ozone depletion phenomenon occurs and there is fairly great agreement on the effect of these increased levels of UV on different species.This is an important piece of legislation. Whilst the changes are minor and the opposition's disquiet on some aspects has been placed on record, I think that it continues the work that has operated since 1989, when the first Ozone Protection Act was enacted. These are important pieces of legislation. They are examples of the emotive nature of other environmental problems, whether they be forestry issues or issues of mining in or next to world heritage areas.These are issues that should be non-controversial. These are issues that require not only a concerted effort by government but also the awareness of the general public. They require the cooperation of the community. They require the continued efforts of researchers to find alternatives to the substances that lead to this phenomenon. They need the assistance to develop those alternatives and to ensure that they are available to the widest range of nations. If there is only one area of policy where, in a global sense, we should see complete and total cooperation, it is on matters of environment.Sometimes it is a little frustrating that, as a member of the federal Commonwealth parliament, because of the nature of our federation, even in the Australian context we have to go through cajoling, sitting down, jawboning and bribing the states to get their cooperation on a whole range of matters. When those matters involve the environment—and it does not matter whether something occurs one side of a border or not, the environmental consequences can be quite global—we really need to get this type of cooperation, whether it be in the Australian context through the Commonwealth setting in place national policies that the states just put their hands up and accept a bit more readily than they do or whether it is in the international context where we look at what has been achieved by the various protocols that surround this phenomenon, so we can have that concerted effort and this present generation can leave the total environment in a better state for future generations than it has been left for us.With those minor concerns about the timing, the opposition is a little concerned that we are not—in the popular jargon—pushing the envelope far enough or upping the ante. Perhaps we can get that cooperation, get on track and continue to be in the vanguard of world action on this most important phenomenon.10:18:005451Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—The purpose of this legislation, the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] , is the better protection of the ozone layer which exists high in the stratosphere above the earth and which appears to have been declining since the 1960s. The legislation will amend the Ozone Protection Act 1989. Essentially, it will reflect recent developments in international agreements and allow Australia to better fulfil our obligations as one of the parties. The international legal framework, which is concerned with ozone depletion, is governed by the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer—the latter being referred to as the Montreal protocol.The depletion of the ozone layer has been of considerable concern around the world. Over 150 countries are signatories to the Montreal protocol by which national governments have agreed to phase out ozone depleting substances. I am pleased to inform this House that Australia continues to lead the world in phasing out these substances and has been able to achieve a record of success ahead of its timetable under the protocol. With the support of industry, government departments and all levels of the Australian community, our government has shown determination and sound cooperative effort in managing the commitments under the protocol.I would like to quote from Investing in our natural and cultural heritage: the Commonwealth's environment expenditure 1999-2000, a statement by Senator Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, dated 11 May 1999. It is one of the Commonwealth environment expenditure papers, which covers the protection of the ozone layer and what Australia is actually doing. It says:The Government supports the international community's efforts to halt damage to the earth's protective ozone layer. Australia has been an influential participant at Montreal Protocol meetings and is a leader in attempts to secure a phase out of all significant ozone depleting substances.The Government has:. won recognition from the United Nations Environment Programme as a world leader in ozone protection;. supported the international phase out by 2005 of methyl bromide, a significant ozone depleting substance used by the agricultural and horticultural sectors, and developed a strategy for its phase-out in Australia; and. brought the increase of halon 1202 to the world's attention and called for international action at the Working Group to the Montreal protocol in July 1998.The Government will continue to support international efforts to protect the earth's ozone layer including:. encouraging countries to meet their commitment to phase-out all non-essential ozone depleting substances;. promoting the phase-out of non-essential uses of halon by encouraging countries to develop national or regional halon management strategies based on Australia's mandatory programme;. progressing the phase-out of CFC use in metered dose inhalers; and. implementing the phase-out of methyl bromide by developing alternate broad spectrum fumigants.So Australia is taking its lead as far as the reduction of ozone depleting substances on the world stage. Not all nations are having the success of Australia. Unfortunately, Russia at this stage is having some difficulty in meeting its treaty obligations. Environmental notes for parliamentarians is a service of the United Nations Environment Program, which reports:The Russian Federation and seven of the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union have failed to comply with obligations under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It is thought that the ongoing economic crises also makes it unlikely that they will be able to comply in the near future. The UN says that Russia has made `significant progress' in recent years, and CFC production has continued to drop, but levels are still far from the zero tolerance mandated by their treaty status.So this is where Australia is leading the way and it is a record of which all our Australian citizens can be justly proud. The focus of this legislation is to control the import, export and/or manufacture of ozone depleting substances. These substances are defined as `scheduled substances' under the act and activities involving the import, export or manufacture are controlled by the requirement of licences.Certain chemicals used by industrial nations actually damage the ozone layer. The ozone layer is the protective atmospheric coating that forms over the earth's crust. These gases and substances include chlorofluorocarbons, otherwise known as CFCs, halons, metal chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, known as HCFCs, and methyl bromide. These chemicals have many uses in our communities. They are used in refrigerators, fire extinguishers and airconditioners. They are used in dry cleaning, as solvents for cleaning electronic equipment, and as agricultural fumigants.These amendments will require that separate licences be provided for the manufacturing, importing and/or exporting activities of ozone depleting substances and will impose conditions upon licences relating to these activities. This bill will also update the schedules under the act to reflect changes in international agreements and will define the exemption for refrigerated transport containers which contain ozone depleting substances so that only their import, not their manufacture, is permitted in Australia.There is often some confusion between the phenomena of the depletion of the ozone layer and that of the greenhouse effect and I think it would be worth while to take some time to explain the differences. The existence of the ozone layer was discovered in the 1880s. It is found high in the stratosphere, about 15 to 30 kilometres above the earth's surface. By the 1930s, scientists came to understand how the ozone layer was formed and noted its chemical mechanisms whereby it was maintained. I am grateful for the fact sheets produced by Environment Australia which give a very comprehensive explanation on its existence. Its significant feature is that the ozone layer protects life on earth by absorbing ultraviolet radiation from the sun. UV radiation is considered to be the cause of skin cancers, genetic damage and immune system suppression in living organisms and reduced agricultural productivity in agricultural crops and the food chain.The damage to the ozone layer is caused by a chemical reaction. Radiation from the sun passes through the ozone layer, which absorbs most of the harmful ultraviolet light. The activities of our industrial world release gases which damage the ozone layer. The released CFCs and halons rise into the upper atmosphere, where under strong ultraviolet light they break down to destroy ozone molecules. This causes a thinning of the ozone layer, which causes more ultraviolet light to reach the surface of the earth. This then causes health problems, reduced plant growth and a reduction in fisheries. Of course, it is not news that we in Australia have the highest level of skin cancer in the world, caused by our overexposure to UV radiation—the direct effect of the thinning of the ozone layer.Our scientists tell us that the ozone is thinning over most of the planet. Australia has recorded a depletion of between five and nine per cent since the 1960s. The problem is that, as scientific research shows, a one per cent decrease in stratospheric ozone will increase the earth's radiation and skin damage by one to two per cent. This clearly is alarming in our country, where the temperate climate and sunny weather conditions induce the majority of our population to enjoy outdoor pursuits all year round. Besides the overall thinning of the ozone layer, of increasing concern is a more intense thinning over Antarctica which occurs each spring, when an ozone hole appears to form over that region.The phenomenon known as the enhanced greenhouse effect is also caused by pollution of the earth's atmosphere. A similar range of gases contributes to both phenomena, but they affect different levels of the earth's atmosphere in different ways. Enhanced greenhouse effect is found in the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere, when a build-up of gases, especially carbon dioxide, is present. In this lower level of the atmosphere about the planet, these gases trap radiation and warm the earth. The result is a photochemical smog which itself is a minor contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect.The burning of fossil fuels and other processes add excessive carbon dioxide and other gases to the troposphere, preventing infra-red radiation from escaping into space. This causes the earth's surface temperature to increase, thereby causing the atmosphere to warm up and have an effect on weather and climate.In an effort to control the damage, the manufacture and the import and/or export of ozone depleting substances have been controlled in Australia since 1989, and have been banned here far ahead of our agreement under the Montreal protocol. The protocol does allow for a very confined range of activities for specified essential services until suitable alternatives are found. At this point in time, these essential uses are medical aerosols, such as asthma puffers and certain laboratory tests.The use of yellow fire extinguishers was popular a decade or two ago, but these units contain halon, which is considered to be the most potent of the ozone depleting substances. The use or possession of these yellow fire extinguishers without approval has been declared illegal from 31 December 1995, and attracts a fine in all Australian states and territories. The business world is responding by manufacturing ozone friendly alternatives to the use of ozone depleting substances in domestic and commercial refrigeration and airconditioning.I am pleased to inform this House that Australia leads the world in negotiating all control measures on ozone depleting substances and has actively assisted developing nations in meeting their commitments under the Montreal protocol. It is acknowledged that a financial mechanism was required to support the transfer of ozone friendly technology to developing nations, and in 1991 a multilateral fund was established under the auspices of the protocol.Australia is committed to the objectives of the Montreal protocol and is active in the multilateral fund in assisting developing nations in their efforts to protect the ozone layer. We are one of the 14 members of the executive committee which manages the fund and we also contribute through AusAID. I am pleased to say that our commitment extends to being an active partner in bilateral projects in developing countries, where Australian skills and technology contribute to local ozone protection endeavours.In January this year, Greenpeace reported in its Olympic report that in December 1998 the World Meteorological Organisation had confirmed that an ozone hole had formed over the Southern Hemisphere between September and November. The hole itself was three times larger than Australia. The report stated also that the ozone layer increased about 25 per cent from last season, and in Sydney radiation levels rose by about seven per cent as a direct result of this ozone depletion. This publication also reported a link between ozone depletion and global warming, which initially were thought to be two independent phenomena. It is thought that the effect of global warming is inhibiting the repair of the damage to the ozone layer and causing a 20-year delay in its recovery.Our government is concerned about the negative effects of increased ultraviolet light upon the earth and the population of Australia. Clear and precise scientific evidence reveals that such overexposure will cause serious effects on human health. These include sunburn, skin cancers, eye damage and the suppression of the human immune system. There is also an adverse effect on plant growth, photosynthesis and disease resistance from overexposure and adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems which may be more significant than originally thought.For those who are deeply interested in the protection of the natural environment, this legislation will be welcome. Our government is to be commended for the leadership role it plays on the world stage in relation to the regulation of ozone depleting substances and the practical encouragement it offers to developing nations. Ultimately, we will all profit from the positive commitment from the coalition government to protect the ozone layer. I commend this legislation to the House.10:31:005455Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Science has never been my strong hand so I will not develop at length, as the previous speaker did, the scientific nature of the problem. However, I find a distinction between greenhouse and ozone issues useful because it does highlight the degree to which Australia has in recent years fallen somewhat behind the game internationally in environmental matters.In 1997, the United Nations Environment Program could grant this government a certificate for its efforts in relation to these matters, which included the total phase-out of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and HBFCs by 1995. That was the kind of perspective that the world had of this country. As has been mentioned earlier, Australia was prominent in giving financial assistance to developing countries, which obviously are somewhat resentful, seeing themselves as not the main culprits in previous decades but being forced to adhere to these new requirements.That distinction between greenhouse and ozone issues does highlight the degree to which we have somewhat lessened our performance. It is quite clear that there has been an orientation, an emphasis, by the current government, for populist political reasons and because of corporate power in this country, to say in recent years that Australia's dependence on raw materials and on trade should lead us to put more emphasis on industries' needs, supposedly protecting jobs. That has been the kind of rhetoric that has come from the government over greenhouse issues in the last few years. I do not think that it can be denied. The House has been regaled on many occasions by the comments of the Prime Minister that this government protects jobs, this government is not going to be told what to do by international bodies, this government is not going to be in the forefront at Kyoto or in other areas.The issue of ozone depletion is clearly related to very fundamental health problems: the incidence of and morbidity from eye diseases, with the most often cited being cataracts, and non-melanoma skin cancers and infectious diseases. This is a crucial part of why we are all concerned about it, why international conferences have pushed nations to take action and have overcome resistance on many occasions by corporate financial interests.In Australia, an example of the concern with the health issues was the Australian Cancer Society's special edition, volume 20, number 3, of 1996, which commented:Measured total column ozone has fallen steadily from about 1970 to 1994. The minimum is expected to be reached around 2000 and recovery to 1970 levels should occur after the middle of the next century. UV irradiance increases at the surface of the earth due to ozone depletion should peak at about 15% in the mid-latitudes. There are, however, few data that testify directly to the existence and size of this trend in UV irradiance and no satisfactory data on current and long-term trends in sun-related behaviour and actual exposure of humans to solar UV radiation. The incidence of harmful health consequences of UV radiation can be expected to rise, eventually by up to about 40% . . .Another aspect of this is that we do, of course, look at the industrial side of things: the need to phase out the import, manufacture and export of these products, et cetera. Amongst the many needs is the health aspect. The Cancer Society brochure further says:Public health action is still necessary to reduce sun exposure and increase protection against the sun and to develop clear policies on the action that should be taken on early detection and treatment of skin cancers. From a health perspective, to monitor the adequacy of these responses, it will be essential to institute or continue monitoring of stratospheric ozone levels, spectral UV irradiance trends at the surfaces of the earth, personal exposure of humans to UV irradiation and trends in the major health consequences of UV radiation.In the early 1970s when work first started to reach the public mind and government attention, there was a degree of reticence and doubt about this problem. Only in 1985, when the British Antarctic survey illustrated the devastation of the ozone over Halley Bay, did it really become of major interest to world leaders. Of course, the 1985 Vienna convention was the outcome of that.I do note at this stage that there were people in this country that raised these issues before they became somewhat more mainstream. In looking at the debates on this matter in the House, it is worth noting the comments 12 years ago, in 1987, of the then member for Dunkley, Mr Chynoweth, who noted:. . . the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic was larger than ever and . . . a reading showed 15 per cent less ozone than the previously recorded minimum in 1985 . . . The scientific community has reached a very unpalatable finding, that this earth is about to be turned into an immense greenhouse, which will spawn higher temperatures, increased sea levels and, in terms of biological effect on humans, will mean an increase in the incidence of skin cancer, especially amongst fair-haired and fair-skinned people and those living above the 40 degrees latitude.Whilst there were sceptics, there were cynics and there were doubters, members of parliament, such as the then member for Dunkley, were in the forefront of raising this issue.I noticed a number of articles about the continued evidence of the problem, despite some confidence that action by the international community could possibly lead to a lessening of the problem in the mid part of the next century. An article in Nature really drives home the fact that we did have to act internationally and that we did have essentially to not allow the free market to dictate how this problem would be solved. In its 13 June 1996 edition is an article by Prather, Midgley, Sherwood Rowland and Stolarski—and I note that Sherwood Rowland was one of the first people back in the 1970s to raise the international threat. That article said:The threat to the global ozone layer posed by CFCs and related halocarbons has been dispelled because since the early 1970s, the global community has followed a path of scientific understanding, public awareness, environmental activism and boycotts, national regulations, industry studies of CFC substitutes and finally, an international agreement—the 1987 Montreal Protocol . . . The point they make in that article was that it did require action. It would have been a very unsavoury outcome if the sceptics, the doubters and the people who resisted the recognition of this threat had had their way. They commented on page 554:If CFCs had followed a free market growth until 2002, the Antarctic ozone hole would be a permanent fixture throughout the twenty-first century, instead of disappearing by 2050 as predicted in the Copenhagen `92 scenario. Additionally, CFCs are important greenhouse gases and for the period of 1985-2000, their increases would have added more radiative forcing to the climate than that due to typical increases in carbon dioxide.They further commented:The good news is that we as a global community are committed to following the amended Montreal Protocol and the phase-out of CFCs. Effectively, we are now in the second phase of our grand experiment, that of reversing our atmosphere's CFC content. Ozone depletion is expected to reverse and recover measurably in the first decades of the next century—as shown in a panel in that article—This prediction is part of a causal chain, whose verification is an important part of the overall scientific assessment process: production and emission of CFCs have fallen greatly . . . The dominant aspect of that article was the vital need for governments to keep on the game in this matter, and to not relent or be too confident that what we have accomplished so far from these protocols and these conferences is the end of the story.It is worth noting a December 1998 CRC Southern Hemisphere meteorology assessment which stated:In 1998, the area of the Antarctic ozone hole reached record levels . . . The 220DU area remained around 25 million km² throughout late September and early October. Previously 24 million km² had been attained only once, on 30 September 1994. High-resolution in situ measurements by ozonesondes show that depletion was a result of almost total destruction of the ozone—in a particular area. The article further commented:The prospects for the long-term recovery of Antarctic ozone are good. Non-essential consumption of the major ozone-depleting chemicals (CFCs and halons) in the developed world slowed during the early 1990s and ceased in 1996. Stratospheric chlorine levels will reach a maximum between now and the year 2000 and should return to pre-ozone hole levels by around 2050.However the immediate prospects for the ozone hole are not so good. Total chlorine and bromine is not expected to show a significant reduction until after 2020. This is because, under the Montreal Protocol, consumption of CFCs and, in particular, halons in the developing world is continuing at significant levels. Under the Protocol, the consumption of CFCs and halons in developing countries will not cease until 2005.We heard from the member for Scullin about the debate in the US Congress and the pressure of industry to ensure that the US, which is a major player in all these debates, relents from its previous commitments to 2001 to basically move to 2005.In concluding this contribution, I think the main point, as outlined by previous speakers, is that Australia has had some tradition in the forefront of these matters. It has received international recognition of that. We have to be vigilant that we are active in helping the developed world—and are not part of a trade, which the member for Scullin outlined, of essentially off-loading on undeveloped countries which lack accurate scientific knowledge, effective bureaucracies and sufficient vigilance—to ensure that the standards that we want in the First World are not basically thrown out the back door, sometimes with the corporate greed that dictates the movement of refrigerators. Obviously, there is a big challenge because of the wide use of these chemicals—and refrigeration, foam and fumigants and quarantine issues. However, I congratulate the government on the overall legislation.10:43:005457Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—The Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] represents the most recent step in Australia's response to the problem of ozone depletion. It consists of a number of amendments to the Ozone Protection Act 1989 which will improve its operation and allow more effective control of ozone depleting substances.The problem of ozone depletion is one that has occupied the minds of atmospheric scientists for the last two to three decades. As we know, the layer of ozone in the stratosphere provides protection against ultraviolet radiation. Apart from interference by man-made chemicals, the levels of ozone, while fluctuating periodically, have generally remained intact. However, the action of high energy ultraviolet rays striking molecules of oxygen—O2—creates ozone by splitting the O2 molecule, thus creating free atoms of oxygen, which then attach themselves to other oxygen molecules, thus forming O3 or ozone. This ozone then absorbs ultraviolet light, but in the process the ozone is depleted, with the O3 molecules being split to form molecules of O2 and further free atoms of oxygen.Generally, the natural production and destruction of ozone, apart from natural cycles and occasional phenomena such as volcanic activity, had remained relatively stable, thus ensuring ongoing protection to the environment. Since the early 1970s, however, scientists have become increasingly aware of evidence that the production of chlorine containing chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, is depleting the concentration of ozone in the stratosphere. Because the CFCs are relatively stable, and do not react with other chemicals in the lower atmosphere, they are able to migrate up into the stratosphere.When exposed to UV radiation, the CFC molecules themselves break up. The free chlorine atoms released in this process then react with ozone molecules, effectively destroying them. The problem is the intensity of this process of destruction. The reaction is a repetitive one whereby one chlorine atom destroys a very large number of ozone molecules. In fact, one chlorine atom can destroy as many as 100,000 molecules before the process dissipates. Other chemicals such as bromide, used in pesticides, halon, used in some fire extinguishers, and methyl chloroform have added to the attack on the ozone layer. The ozone layer began declining in the 1960s but entered a period of now rapid decline which began in the late 1970s.Ozone levels have been dropping so low in the Southern Hemisphere, especially in spring, that scientists had begun in the early 1990s calling it a hole in the ozone layer. In 1992, worldwide ozone levels were the lowest ever recorded to that date. While no-one is absolutely sure, the effects of ozone depletion have the potential to be extremely dangerous. The depletion of the ozone layer will have significant repercussions on human health and impacts on other forms of life as well.Ozone depletion means that less UV radiation of all wavelengths will be absorbed and screened out, especially wavelength UVB, which is particularly hazardous for humans. This will mean increased levels of skin cancer and increased formation of cataracts. There are also concerns regarding the possible impact on suppressing the immune system, thereby reducing the effectiveness of vaccinations as well. Elevated UVB can also affect aquatic ecosystems, which provide a significant share of the world's animal protein production. Solar UVB radiation is expected to impact negatively across the range of aquatic life from microbial mats to macroalgae, seagrasses and phytoplankton and the whole marine ecosystem. Potential consequences include loss of aquatic biomass and loss of aquatic biodiversity.Similarly, increased levels of UVB radiation may well impact negatively on terrestrial ecosystems, although studies to date are not quite as conclusive here. Several studies, though, have indicated potentially adverse effects of UVB radiation on aspects of plant reproductive biology, which has implications for us all.The initial concerns in the 1970s led several countries to ban the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants. However, as other uses for CFCs were discovered, its production grew rather than declined. In 1985, following growing concerns, the Vienna convention was adopted to formalise international cooperation on the control of CFCs. It had 165 signatories, including Australia.In 1987 the Montreal protocol was signed with the aim of halving the production of CFCs within 10 years and the ultimate phasing out of all ozone depleting substances. However, subsequent measurements of ozone concentration showed more rapid deterioration than initially expected. The result was stronger action by the signatories to the initial convention. They decided to end production of halon by 1994 and CFCs by 1996 in developed countries and later in developing countries. In 1990 the London amendment included hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, which are less damaging than CFCs but still destructive of ozone and potentially just as dangerous because of their increased quantity of production. The Copenhagen agreement of 1992 also included targets to phase out methyl bromide, also destructive of the ozone.Risk assessments estimate that, in the absence of the Montreal protocol, elevations in UV levels reaching the earth's surface could lead to skin cancer rates four times the current levels by the end of the next century—that is, if nothing has been done, we could have skin cancer rates four times the current level within a century. Under the agreement of the original Montreal protocol, this would be doubled rather than quadrupled—a significant improvement. If the Copenhagen amendments are achieved, the increase will be limited to an estimated 10 per cent increase in skin cancer rates by the year 2060. That is a significant improvement but, nonetheless, a long way to go.There is obviously uncertainty about these predictions, although we have been able to measure the rate of ozone depletion to date. For instance, we know that, since 1979, average year-round ozone depletion over South Australia has been around five per cent. As a result, people are exposed to around seven per cent more harmful UV radiation than in the past.Dr Paul Fraser, from the CSIRO, estimates that, but for the Montreal protocol, global ozone losses today would be at three times the rate we are currently experiencing. However, future rates of ozone depletion are hard to predict.In the developed world, non-essential consumption of CFCs and halons, the major ozone depleting substances, slowed during the early 1990s and virtually ceased in 1996. However, production and consumption of CFCs and halons in the developing world are continuing at significant and alarming levels. For instance, greater than expected increase of CFC and halon production by China occurred over the last decade.Concentrations of halon in the ozone layer have increased by about 25 per cent over the past decade. While the Montreal protocol required consumption of these ozone depleting substances to cease by around 2010, there are serious doubts as to whether this can be achieved. Further, chlorine levels will not decrease significantly until after 2020, due to the consumption of HCFCs in developed and developing countries. Consumption of HCFCs is not expected to peak until around 2010, and it will be years thereafter before the levels of chlorine in the atmosphere start to decrease.A third complication in predicting the rate of decrease of ozone depleting gases is the effect of greenhouse gases. One result of the greenhouse effect is the cooling of the stratosphere. This creates a much greater rate of ozone destruction per volume of chlorine and bromine. The impact is uncertain but it is becoming the subject of increased research. Nevertheless, the importance is stressed of complying with protocols to reduce ozone depletion and to reduce the production and consumption of ozone depleting gases of all types.While there are some indications that emissions of ozone depleting substances in developed countries are beginning to fall, the global picture is still not so promising. In fact, in September 1998 the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic reached its largest recorded extent, at 25.7 million square kilometres, up from the previous record of 25 million in September 1994.Under the more optimistic interpretations, the production of ozone depleting substances may be brought under control over the next decade, causing chlorine and bromine levels to peak sometime thereafter. This will allow the ozone layer to eventually heal itself. However, this will not occur without determined action from developed and developing countries alike. Australia is playing its part.To meet Australia's obligations under the Vienna convention and the Montreal protocol, in 1989 the Commonwealth passed the Ozone Protection Act, which was significantly amended by the Ozone Protection Amendment Act 1995. The legislation as it stands does several things. It prohibits the import, export or manufacture of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and hydrobromochlorofluorocarbons from 1 January 1996 without an essential uses or used-substance licence. It established a system of controlled substances licences and reporting requirements for the import, export and manufacture of HCFCs and methyl bromide. It introduced two-yearly administrative fees for licences, with a fee set under that ozone protection legislation. 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.Australia achieved a total phase-out of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and HCFCs in 1995. Halons were phased out earlier than that, in 1992, a year ahead of the Montreal protocol requirements. Australia froze the consumption of HCFCs and methyl bromide from 1 January 1996 at 1989 levels, and the consumption of methyl bromide from 1 January 1995 at 1991 levels. These were significant achievements.The bill before the House today contains a number of minor amendments to improve the operation of the 1989 act. It allows for more effective and targeted regulation of ozone depleting substances, and improves the operation of the act and the licensing of quota systems. It replaces the definition of the activities in which a controlled substances licensee may engage, with the intention of ensuring that manufacturing is not commenced in Australia without due consideration. It clarifies that the exemption regarding the manufacture or import of refrigerated transport containers containing CFCs applies only to the import of such containers, not their manufacture. Tighter control on any future manufacturing will make it more certain that Australia will reach agreed targets for the phase-out of the controlled substances.In conclusion, Australia has made significant progress in the elimination of ozone depleting gases. These amendments continue the progress by refining the legislation. They were developed after ongoing dialogue with industry and with the Office of Regulation Review, and reflect the government's determination to work with industry on this critical issue. These amendments will ensure that Australia continues to meet its obligations under the Montreal protocol and demonstrates it ongoing commitment to the recovery of the ozone layer.10:56:005460Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—in reply—In concluding the debate on the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] , I thank all speakers from both sides of the chamber who have made a contribution on this bill. It is an important one and it indicates the government's commitment in this area.As a party to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, known as the Montreal protocol, in 1987 and to its subsequent amendments and adjustments, Australia is required to phase out the consumption and production of ozone depleting substances. Australia implements the Montreal protocol through the Ozone Protection Act 1989. The act ensures Australia complies with the Montreal protocol's phase-out schedules through the operation of licensing and quota systems which regulate the import, export and manufacture of ozone depleting substances.The Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] aims to improve the operation of the Ozone Protection Act's licensing and quota systems. The amendment bill will ensure that applications to manufacture HCFCs or methyl bromide in Australia can be more effectively considered, and takes into account the fact that these ozone depleting substances are currently not manufactured in Australia and are scheduled for phase-out in 2020 and 2005 respectively. The bill will also ensure Australia's phase-out of HCFCs continues in an orderly and predictable manner by providing scope to better regulate the quantity of HCFCs any licensee may import in a given quota period.The decision to implement the legislative changes contained in the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] was taken following consultation with industry, state and territory governments and relevant sectors of the community. The Office of Regulation Review was also consulted on these changes. It is important to note that industry is particularly supportive of the proposed amendments and has anticipated them for some time. The amendments contained in the bill will enable a more effective and targeted regulation of ozone depleting substances, and reflect the government's commitment to maintaining Australia's status as a world leader in ozone protection.In commending the bill to the House we should also note that, whilst we support the measures taken and the protocol, there are side effects for other parts of our economy. For instance, with regard to the wind-down of production of CFCs across the world, one of the by-products of CFCs is a chemical called Frenic, which is used extensively in agricultural industries. We have to find a replacement product because that will not be produced. It is not an ozone depleting chemical but it is a by-product of these chemicals. So there are other effects. We support this bill, we support the intent of the Montreal protocol, but we should also be cognisant of some of the side effects of these changes in other industries. As a government we certainly are, and we are working in an area where we can develop replacement products and replacement controls that can be used. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5461s198Consideration resumed from 11 May.546211:00:005462Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 gives effect to a budget decision last year to address the problem of medication, subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, being taken or sent overseas either for sale or for use by persons not eligible to receive medication subsidised by the Australian taxpayer.The bill does not affect travellers who are entitled to medications subsidised under the PBS and which are for the traveller's personal use or are for the personal use of a person accompanying the traveller. In conjunction with the legislation, the HIC will undertake action to inform potential travellers, prescribers and pharmacists of the amendments to the National Health Act 1953. The information will be advertised in professional and travel publications, on ethnic radio and in ethnic newspapers. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.11:02:005462Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—On indulgence, could I ask the minister to explain for the benefit of this chamber the export of pharmaceuticals overseas and to perhaps go into a little more detail on its impact on budget and on other countries. I came across a situation—I was in hospital for an operation and was in a bit of a mess with facial additions—where a patient next to me was bragging about how he funded his overseas trip each year. It was funded by pharmaceuticals which he sold in Eastern Europe. He did the running around to doctors and used various chemists and various prescriptions. Over a period of time he collected quite a sum of money, obviously, and this funded his trip overseas. I think there have been a number of references by members of the government to these instances, and perhaps the minister may like to inform us of some of those.11:03:005462Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—by leave—As I said, the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 gives effect to a budget decision last year to address the problem of medication subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I might add that I am introducing this bill on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Health and Aged Care.The bill prohibits the export of medications unless the medications are not prescription drugs or they are prescription drugs but no Commonwealth benefit has been paid or they are for the personal use of a person or another person accompanying the person. Based on data provided by the Australian Customs Service and on information obtained by the Health Insurance Commission, it is estimated that medication subsidised to the value of some $20 million per annum is being exported inappropriately. As the PBS has just topped $3 billion, this bill is a sensible measure.The bill provides the ACS with the power to detain medication in cases where the Customs officer forms the view that the medication is not for the personal use of the person who is either carrying or shipping the medication overseas. Medication detained by a Customs officer will be transferred to the HIC. The Customs officer has a discretion to detain only some of the medication, allowing the traveller to retain the remainder.The HIC will be responsible for determining whether or not a Commonwealth benefit has been paid for the medication. The medication will be forfeited to the Commonwealth unless the medication is not a prescription drug, or no Commonwealth benefit has been paid or is payable, or it is for the personal use of the person concerned.The bill allows for the chief executive officer of the ACS to issue guidelines for the use of Customs officers relating to the examination of baggage, detention of medication, transfer of medication to the HIC and copying and retaining documentation provided in relation to the medication. The bill further provides that the HIC may issue guidelines for the use of HIC officers when dealing with medication transferred from the ACS, dealing with the claims for the return of medication and dealing with the disposal of medication that has been forfeited to the Commonwealth.Where the HIC establishes that the detained medication is prescription drugs, it must notify the exporter that an application is being made within 60 days for the return of the medication. The HIC must consider any submissions seeking the return of the medication in order for the medication to be forfeited and destroyed. The HIC must apply to a court for an order authorising the proper destruction of the medication.The bill is addressing a needed gap which allowed medication to be exported inappropriately. I see now that the opposition member has arrived and he might like to speak to the bill.11:06:005463Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—On indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I thank you and thank the minister for those comments.11:06:005463Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I would like to open by thanking both the minister at the table—the Minister for Aged Care, Mrs Bronwyn Bishop—and the member for Port Adelaide, and also the chair, for their assistance with respect to my arrival. It is a bit hard speaking on the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 when you are as unhealthy as I am. I have just run from the other end of the building where I was at a National Pharmacy Week launch, which the minister was at, and I must admit that I was watching more the movements of the minister for health rather than of the minister for aged care in the conduct of the question of when this debate was actually going to occur—and my pager did not work. Nonetheless, I am here now.Let me firstly indicate that Labor opposition members are supporting this bill. I note that Labor senators supported its quick passage through the Senate to this place.There are a few observations and comments I would like to make about the nature and operation of the bill, the history of the illegal export of subsidised pharmaceuticals and what this practice says about the successful operation of the PBS in Australia for over 50 years now. The bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to restrict the export of medication subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In plain English, the problem is that some people who travel to other countries are thought to be obtaining prescriptions for medicines in Australia and having them dispensed in Australia utilising our generous Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidies. They then take substantial quantities out of the country for resale on the black market or distribution to friends or family overseas who are not Australian residents. The cost of buying these products overseas is generally much greater than here—even where they are available.Currently, access to subsidised medicines under the PBS is restricted to Australian residents and visitors from countries with which Australia has a reciprocal health care agreement. The Health Insurance Commission, the Australian Customs Service and now the government recognise that there is a problem with pharmaceuticals being diverted overseas. This practice is thought to be occurring at quite a significant cost to the PBS.On the issue of costs and savings, this is one savings measure in relation to pharmaceutical costs that the opposition is pleased to support. It is not aimed at the sick, the poor or the elderly, which is a nice change. However, it is difficult to quantify what savings will actually be achieved. Estimates of savings given in the 1998-99 budget were $68.2 million over four years. The size of this figure gives an insight into the potential magnitude of the problem. However, the financial impact statement predicts savings of around $20 million per year, which are based on departmental estimates of what is currently being lost, which no-one really knows or can ascertain for certain. I would hope that the implementation of the bill will actually produce these savings or more.It has been recognised for some time, at least anecdotally, that the inappropriate export of pharmaceuticals occurs. However, due to loopholes and deficiencies in legislation, it is often very difficult to prevent.There are a number of scenarios under which diversion of medicine overseas could occur—beyond the obvious one of a person legitimately taking a supply with them for use whilst away. Overseas visitors are one; obtaining medication for relatives who are living overseas and who may be Australian residents is another. Collecting medicines simply to ship them overseas for resale is another. It is these more organised and large-scale activities that presumably cost the PBS significant amounts of money.The problem was explicitly drawn to the attention of the government by the now Leader of the Democrats, Senator Lees, during Senate estimates hearings in 1996. At that time it was asked whether something stronger was needed in the National Health Act to prohibit the export of drugs obtained under the PBS. The response was that, whilst it is always good to have a broader range of remedies, at that time it was thought that existing provisions were adequate and that counselling did produce a substantial change in behaviour.I understand that action was taken under the previous government through the HIC and Customs, and publicity was undertaken to deter people from the practice. I am also aware that the Health Insurance Commission, the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police have tried, over a period of time, to take action on the problem. In one instance, in early 1997, 24 persons were charged with offences under section 103(4) of the National Health Act 1953 involving the disposal of a pharmaceutical benefit in a manner for which it was not intended. Drugs seized included pain killers, antibiotics and ulcer medication and were valued in excess of $3,500 on that occasion. The magistrate, R. Cater-Brown, who heard the case, recognised clearly the flow-on implications of the practice in saying, `On a larger scale, such an offence would be costly to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; therefore these matters are viewed very seriously.'It is recognised that inappropriate export of pharmaceuticals occurs, and some action has been taken in some instances. It is reasonable to ask how in practice though does this bill propose to improve efforts to stop the removal of these drugs. The problem is that there is a significant deficiency in the current legislation, in that action can only be taken against the person for whom the drugs were prescribed or supplied. If Customs detects somebody else who was not originally prescribed for or supplied carrying drugs through, no action can be taken against that person. The bill establishes a legislative framework in schedule 1 for restricting the export of certain medications that are subsidised by the federal government under the PBS.Schedule 1, item 2, amends section 103 of the National Health Act 1953, which deals with offences. It provides a penalty of two years imprisonment for persons who possess or consign for export more than the `designated quantity' of pharmaceuticals with appropriate defences provided for.Of course, in deciding to support this bill in its current form, the opposition did need to consider people who did have an actual need to take larger quantities of pharmaceuticals overseas. They must be protected and not made subject to overly draconian rules.On the face of it, the bill provides, for appropriate exemptions, three criteria used repeatedly to determine whether the restriction and related enforcement machinery are applying. The restriction does not apply to drugs that are not prescription drugs, are not obtained under the PBS or are for personal use or the use of a travelling companion.If the new law is properly administered and applied in the regulations yet to be developed by the CEO of Customs and the Health Insurance Commission, these criteria should be sufficient to allow for the genuine needs of people who need to travel with pharmaceuticals. It should allow our authorities to crack down on the other dubious practices.The opposition supports this type of measure to help ensure that money spent on the PBS by the Australian taxpayer is in fact used as it was intended.I would like to reflect for a moment on what this practice says about our PBS overall. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was established in 1950. By the time the bill finally became law, it had been the subject of a great deal of political controversy. The original bill had been rejected twice. It had been the subject of a national referendum in 1946 to alter the Constitution to grant the powers to the Commonwealth to establish the PBS.At the time of inception, it listed 139 drugs, aiming to provide lifesaving and disease preventing medicine. Over the intervening years it has grown as our society's needs changed and new pharmaceuticals appeared. It now subsidises approximately 1,800 products, helping to make essential medicine affordable for all Australians. Currently, every Australian contributes around $150 in taxes every year to the scheme and fills around six prescriptions annually. Yet research conducted last year on the 50th anniversary of the PBS showed that only four in 10 Australians had even heard of the PBS.In the context of the activities this bill is aiming to prevent, we must recognise why there is a problem to prevent. It is because there is an incentive to export subsidised drugs to other countries from Australia. The incentive exists because Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is effective. It is one of the most generous of its kind in the world. This is something of which we should be proud.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Hear, hear!VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—It is something that I wish to state clearly Labor is committed to continuing. The PBS is a great tool to make ours a fairer and better society so drugs are available to those who need them, not just to those who can afford them.I wish I could honestly feel that this government had the same view. Senator Tambling, in his reasons for introduction and passage in the autumn sitting, stated:The Bill is designed to contribute to continued viability and effectiveness of the PBS.I am encouraged by the interjections of the members opposite with respect to their support for the PBS. We hope this statement does reflect a genuine commitment on behalf of the government to the PBS, a commitment that goes beyond lip-service.I hope you will forgive me for my scepticism on this point but, if you look back over the treatment of the PBS and users under the first three years of the Howard government, I am not greatly encouraged by decisions like the therapeutic group premiums in the 1996-97 budget, raising of general copayments and, in particular, pensioner copayments without properly compensating pensions. There is no good news in this year's budget for pharmaceuticals, as we shall hear in the coming weeks.This history gives you a fair base to anticipate further attacks on the PBS in future Howard government budgets—anywhere from further therapeutic group premiums to the ridiculous concept floated during the last term of handing back the responsibility for pharmaceuticals to the state. I hope these visions do not come to pass. I note that Labor will advocate strongly against such measures if the government tries them. Nonetheless, the opposition is pleased to be able to support this bill. I recommend its speedy passage.11:16:005466Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I also speak in favour of the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , because it is commonsense legislation and something long overdue. I am pleased that the Australian Labor Party are also lending their support to this finetuning of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is a $2.8 billion a year investment by the federal government in Australia's health to make sure that pharmaceuticals are available to those who need them rather than those who can afford them, as the member for Bruce quite rightly said.I think it is important to note that what we are amending today is an act of parliament which was passed in the era of that great Liberal Sir Robert Menzies—the 1953 act. Over 50 years the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has been operating and providing consistent, reliable, timely and affordable access to important medicines for all Australians. The member for Bruce noted that originally 139 medicines were caught within the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—I wish I had some now.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—He says he could use some now, as the shadow parliamentary secretary for health. He would like to be a walking advocate for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in his entire being. From 139 in the original act back in the early 1950s in the Menzies government, in the Howard government era we now have something like 2,000 different brands and formulations of prescription medicines which are medical safe and clinically effective as well as being cost-effective.A lot of people do not really well understand how some medicines get on the list and some do not. The Commonwealth government employs the services of a chemist so that the clinically sound, clinically effective and medically safe approach is guaranteed. But it also puts pressure back on the major pharmaceutical providers to make sure that they are providing cost-effective brands once a subsidy is put on a particular brand of medicine to make it available at a more affordable price for the consumer. We are also making sure that we are not paying a heavier subsidy per medicine than we may necessarily have to.I think all members in this place get constituents coming to them saying, `My doctor says X brand, and it is not on the pharmaceutical benefits list.' From time to time we will get those inquiries.I must say that the minister has never shut the door in my face, and I thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, for his generous approach to listening to any alternative views from a clinical and medical viewpoint as to whether or not a particular brand that is on the list is as good as a brand that perhaps should be on the list. I can think of a number of instances where some brands that have been pushed onto me by concerned constituents have ended up on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme list as a result of a rethink or a reappraisal.That in itself shows the flexibility and the ongoing generosity of the system, but it is not simply a matter of a particular brand or brands prescribed by a doctor suddenly being on the list. They have to prove to be medically and clinically safe and effective as well as being cost-effective. At the end of the day, the taxpayer is meeting the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and I do not think any taxpayer would begrudge that contribution as it stands.The member for Bruce suggested it was $160 a year per taxpayer on average that finances this scheme. I guess that is a simple equation into the $2.8 billion a year that the scheme costs, and I suspect his figure is right. Most Australians on average will have about six prescriptions off the PBS medicines each year. A lot of Australians probably do not appreciate that even things commonly purchased like paracetamol, the Panamax brand, which a few of my chemist mates call `pensioner paracetamol' because it comes at a cheaper price on script, are themselves heavily subsidised.The one thing that all Australians—whether they be in the taxpaying system or the benefit receiving system or both—should try to do is to always consider that access to a script in the form of, say, paracetamol does cost money in the form of a subsidy. A box of Panamax is worth about $7.40. The taxpayer subsidises the price down to $3.20 on a script, and about $4.50 without a script on a retail price, so access to paracetamol is also, as I understand it, subsidised. I have had occasions in this place to report, in lamentable terms, those who have gone to a doctor to get a script, paid via bulk-bill and picked up their paracetamol for $3.20 to save themselves $1.30 off the retail price. They have added more money to the overall cost of public health in this country. I think we all have a responsibility to exercise in looking for cost savings.The federal government subsidises the cost of 75 per cent of prescription medicines in this country. We have to make sure that those who need them get them—not just those who can afford it. What this is about today is trying to prune around $20 million off the cost of that. We want to make sure that the particular practice whereby $20 million is currently lost in subsidised medicines out of the country—by people exporting Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines overseas with the purpose of trying to retail them on the black market in other countries where they are more expensive—is outlawed and stopped. It has always been outlawed but this will add an additional set of measures that will bring some hefty penalties, including up to a two-year gaol term for somebody found participating in this particular act.It is an important measure. It is a measure that is good commonsense. The export of pharmaceuticals purchased under the PBS for redistribution in those other countries should be stopped, and that is why both sides of politics are supporting this particular measure. It is important to know that those who may plan to leave the country for extended periods of time, and understandably export Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines, are not going to find themselves in trouble as long as the prescription labels do not relate to somebody else. In other words, if a prescription label for somebody else is exported out of the country or if the label has been defaced or removed so that the identification of the person to whom they were supplied is hidden, understandably there would be some concern about whether or not it is legitimate. Those sorts of matters are important to qualify. Large quantities that cannot be reasonably considered to be personal use will also obviously draw some attention from the Australian Customs Service. If the Australian Customs Service mistakenly detains a person's legitimate medication, the Customs officers will have the discretion to detain only some of the medication, allowing the traveller to retain the remainder.Once this bill is enacted, the ACS will forward the medication to the Health Insurance Commission. The HIC will examine the medication to establish whether the medication is a prescription drug or a prohibited export. If the medication is neither, it will be returned to the person to whom it belongs. If the HIC determines the medication is a prohibited export, it will pass it on to the appropriate agency and it will also invite the person to apply in writing within 60 days for its return.The sensible measures contained within this bill show that the government is not being pedantic but is determined to ensure that the benefits of the PBS are maintained in Australia and that people do not simply take medication offshore for some additional personal benefit, as has been the practice on too many occasions in this country.The current legislative deficiency needs to be remedied early. Without a system for control over the export of drugs and medicinal preparations, the PBS will continue to be exposed to inappropriate practices which result in the Australian taxpayer funding supplies of medicines either for the treatment of persons who are not residents of Australia or for sale overseas on the black market.I support the bill. It is worth restating the government's commitment to the concept of the PBS. We believe strongly that Australians should be able to gain access to the 75 per cent of prescription medicines that are subsidised by the federal government. We have never said no to entertaining another viewpoint on what should or should not be on the list. In my state of Queensland, asthma sufferers perhaps do not realise fully the extent of pharmaceutical subsidies that are applied. Some medicines would otherwise be very costly indeed for Australians. Medicine for asthma could cost up to $60 a prescription without the PBS. Medicine for high cholesterol could cost up to $120 and medicine for stomach ulcers could cost up to $125 without this scheme.The PBS is an important scheme. It provides a safety net to concessional patients and pension recipients, who pay only $3.20 per script. General patients pay $20.30 per prescription. Also, concessional patients have to pay for no more than a maximum number of scripts per year. The integrity of this very sensible scheme is worth protecting, and this bill certainly does that. I congratulate the minister for health, who is at the table, on his administration of this area of his portfolio.11:27:005468Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—As has been outlined by the honourable member for Bruce, the opposition supports the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . As the honourable member for Moreton has said, it is important that we protect the integrity of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Whilst the savings in the context of the overall scheme are modest, it is still important that, as a matter of principle, we put in place measures that ensure that the scheme is used for the purpose for which it was intended.At the outset I would like to say that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has stood the test of time. It celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. It is an effective scheme which ensures that the Australian community is provided with essential drugs, at minimum cost not only to the consumer but also to the government on behalf of the community. This is a scheme which stands in the context of the way in which Australia has tried to ensure, with respect to pharmaceutical medicines, that we have a strong pharmaceutical industry that is able to research and develop new products and is reasonably able to get the newly developed products, if they meet the relevant criteria, onto the PBS list so that they are accessible.I note with some satisfaction that the government, in introducing this bill, acknowledged in the second reading speech that the legislation flows from a recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs in its report Concessions—who benefits?. Whilst I was not a member of the committee for that inquiry, it is pleasing to me as a former chairperson of the committee that the work of the members and staff of the committee is recognised by the taking on board of comments and recommendations that were made.The inquiry highlighted that there was a degree of anecdotal evidence about the phenomenon of people taking PBS drugs offshore in their luggage, or posting them, and that this was worthy of attention by the appropriate authorities. This is something that not only the HIC has to be involved in but also the Customs Service and the Federal Police so that it is a cooperative effort by government to ensure that the practice is minimised or wiped out.I have a couple of concerns about the implementation of this legislation. Whilst it is not highlighted, one might imagine that some of the people who are involved in this practice may have limited English language skills. I believe and hope that, as has been past practice, the HIC and other authorities will be conscious of that and will ensure that that is taken on board not only in the policing but also in the educative process that will have to go on.Whilst there are, as has been outlined in the debate, some simple and fair measures which enable the person who possesses these drugs, if they are possessed legally and are being taken out legally, to have redress and recourse to proper legislative action, I am concerned that this might be a confronting experience, perhaps even for those who have very good English skills. For instance, if it has to be explained that it is best not to tamper with the labels, and to ensure that if they have been prescribed properly to a person that person keeps that packaging, and things like that, we should make every effort to ensure that people understand that. I would hate to see what is a very worthwhile measure cause distress and concern for people who are going about their business legitimately.The second comment I would like to make—and this is not a general touch-up of the medical profession—but I note that—3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—You mean it is going to be one?HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—No. But I note that in the budget there is also emphasis being placed on trying to modify prescribing habits of medicos. I am sorry, I did not notice the honourable member for Boothby is in the chamber too, so I stress again this is not a general touch-up of the medical profession. In this year's budget there has been a measure put forward that is an incentive measure to try to modify the prescribing habits of the medical profession. This is an ongoing task that previous governments have carried out with a great degree and variety of success.It is important that we ensure that, at the source of prescribing or dispensing, these practices can be cut out. I am sure that as part of the general way in which the HIC is administering and monitoring what is happening with the PBS, these types of things will also be picked up. Whilst there is no doubt that people who have decided that they are going to take quantities of PBS drugs overseas, either for sale or to give to relatives and friends, will be very clever in the way they try to deceive both doctors and pharmacists, we should be conscious of using the tools that are available to the HIC to minimise that practice being carried out.In this debate it has been indicated that this is a further step to ensure that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has the greatest degree of integrity possible and that the amount of government expenditure that is put to the PBS is used for the purposes intended. It is a recognition, in part because people decide to take the drugs out, that we have a successful PBS that makes available drugs at reasonable cost to consumers and therefore people will try to circumvent it, probably sometimes with good humanitarian reasons but also with inappropriate and illegal reasons, so this measure is necessary.I do not think this is a piece of legislation that we need to delay by great and lengthy debate. I indicate my support for the legislation as long as, in its implementation, a proper educative process will be undertaken.11:35:005470Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank honourable members for their contribution. I thank the Labor Party for their support of the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . I am not expecting it to become a habit but it is a nice occasional occurrence. This bill is long overdue. It is a sensible measure. Anecdotally, we have evidence that this problem is larger than one would expect. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment5470Motion (by Dr Wooldridge) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.547011:35:005470Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—The Labor spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs has been refused approval to visit East Timor. We should ask why. In August last year, the shadow minister for foreign affairs visited Jakarta. He met with President Habibie on Thursday, 20 August. The Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, John McCarthy, was also present.Issues discussed included East Timor and Indonesia's economic crisis. After the meeting, the member for Kingsford-Smith declared that the settlement of the East Timor issue rests with Jakarta and the people of East Timor, not outsiders. He then went on to say he was convinced Indonesia would observe the principles of human rights in the future and that, if the Australian Labor Party won the October 1998 election, Indonesia and Australia would become closer. I quote: `We will build friendlier relations.' So in Australia we have language like `dishonest' and `immoral,' while in Indonesia, it is `friendlier relations'.The member for Kingsford-Smith also met with foreign minister Ali Alatas on 19 August 1998. Unlike in the meeting with President Habibie, Mr Brereton requested that no representatives from the embassy accompany him on his call. That is a little unusual. Why did he do it? During his visit, the Indonesian government complained that the approach he was taking to Indonesia was not helping a delicate situation. There is a story circulating in Jakarta that the member for Kingsford-Smith told them that his rhetoric was for public consumption before the election but that, after the election, relations would be much better than they had been. His comments posted on the Indonesian department of foreign affairs web site are consistent with this.The inference the Indonesian government was given was that the ALP would not be changing the Hawke-Keating government's policy on East Timor if elected. This may be the missing piece in the jigsaw to explain the contradiction between the Labor spokesman for foreign affairs attacking Indonesia with language like `dishonest' and `immoral' and maintaining that Labor would improve relations after the election, if elected. The only conclusion you can reach from that is that they never intended to change their policy.There have recently been some articles in the Business Review Weekly and Australian about how talented the Labor backbench is. There have not been too many about how talented the frontbench is. The Labor Party have on their backbench a former foreign minister and a former DFAT diplomat with ambassadorial ranking. Yet the day after the budget, the Leader of the Opposition arrives at the House of Representatives ready to give his doorstop, ready to give the Labor view of the government's budget.His first question was, `Has Laurie Brereton gone too far in his comments on East Timor?' His second question was on the member for Kingsford-Smith. His third question was on the member for Kingsford-Smith. His fourth question was on the member for Kingsford-Smith. His fifth question was on the member for Kingsford-Smith. So the Leader of the Opposition is forced to spend his time, instead of focusing on opposition, actually defending a member of his frontbench, Danger Man. Here are a couple of quotes:I don't think you should have a bomb thrower in a portfolio like foreign affairs—reported to Laurie Oakes in the Bulletin . Describing the danger for Labor, two days ago, Greg Sheridan reported:Significant sections of elite opinion will come to the view that it is irresponsible and would make a mess of Australia's most important relationships. Numerous caucus figures are deeply unhappy with the line he has taken.`Shallow, shonky and shabby': these are not my words. They are Gough Whitlam's words, as are `the least educated of any foreign affairs spokesperson, Liberal or Labor'.A member of the Keating cabinet told me recently:Laurie is an absolute hypocrite on this issue because he agreed with Evans on East Timor. Laurie could remain in parliament for 100 years and he would not achieve the standing in the Labor movement of Evans or Whitlam.These are not my words. These are words of Labor cabinet ministers, Labor Prime Ministers.These revelations, if accurate, raise serious questions about Labor's credibility. Does it have one approach for opposition and one for government? This is a rugby feint, dummying to the left, while moving to the right. The wording of the Labor resolution on East Timor of January 1998 was ambiguous. On 11 June last year on Darwin ABC radio, the Leader of the Opposition indicated Labor's policy had not changed from when they were in government. In response to a question about whether Labor policy gave East Timor the right of self-determination, which includes independence, Kim Beazley responded:We have accepted that this is a matter that is ultimately to be resolved internally within Indonesia, Timor is part of Indonesia . . . We have sought within that framework a capacity for self-determination. His comments could have been those of the member for Holt when he was the foreign minister. (Time expired)547211:40:005472Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In response to the member for Boothby, I say that there is no need for anyone on this side of the House to defend our shadow spokesperson on foreign affairs. At least Australia goes to bed each night knowing that, unlike the foreign affairs minister, the shadow minister for foreign affairs does not parade around and bring Australia into ridicule in fish-net stockings.I rise this morning to talk about the independence of the judiciary and, more importantly, the access of the Australian community, especially those who are disadvantaged, to that independent legal system. In doing so, I refer to a recent state and federal government commission review of legal services which proposes changes to the way community legal centres are funded and organised. My concern is that such changes may limit the rights of local people and organisations to access them. From my point of view as a representative of the seat of Batman in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, I very much rely on the high level of service provided by my local Darebin legal service under the existing arrangements.The concerns as to the recommendations of the report that are ringing around my electorate relate to the potential forced merger of legal centres, people being denied legal assistance, reduced service to clients, the lack of a community voice on the law, the question of restrictions on volunteer participants and the loss of community control and ownership of the local community legal centre.This is exceptionally important. For example, in my area, it is proposed that a range of community legal service centres such as Darebin, Coburg-Brunswick and Broadmeadows be amalgamated into one legal centre to service the whole of the northern suburbs of Melbourne. The real value of these community legal services relates to the fact that they do involve the local community, that they are managed and operated by the local community, and that they very much depend on volunteers who give freely of their own service to go along and assist those in a disadvantaged position with advice which also helps overcome their fears of the law.In that context, I would urge the Commonwealth government, in association with state governments such as the Victorian state government, to be very hesitant about pursuing the recommendations going to changes in the operation of community legal centres. The truth of the matter is that, for the wrong reasons, a lot of disadvantaged people in the Australian community have a fear of the law. They see themselves as isolated. They really depend on people who treat them in a proper way and seek to overcome their fear of the law and advise them in a sensible way to make sure that they are properly represented in legal matters. On behalf of my own Darebin legal community centre, I seriously recommend that the Commonwealth government think twice about pursuing the implementation of the recommendations of the review of community legal services.My local community centre assists the community. I have a high number of people of a non-English-speaking background. I represent an area of high unemployment. These people cannot afford legal representation when they need it from time to time. The community legal service model is a successful model. It ensures a sense of equity of access to legal services in Australia. Why seek to force a range of mergers which will take away from the local community their sense of ownership, participation and control in the operation of local legal representation?To my way of thinking, yes, we need to improve the performance of our legal system from time to time and to fight to maintain its independence. But in doing so, we need to maintain local representation which is about free education and advice and about information sessions to try to break down people's fears of the law to ensure that they maintain respect for the independence of the law in Australia in the knowledge that not only are they receiving appropriate legal advice but also when they are required to front tribunals they know that they are going to get a fair chance. (Time expired)547311:45:005473May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—As patron of the Gold Coast Eating Disorders Association, I want to speak today about an issue which, sadly, is affecting too many of our young people—eating disorders. In an age when women are bombarded with body beautiful images in glossy magazines and on glamorous television shows, eating disorders are all too common. The Gold Coast Eating Disorders Association is providing a beacon of hope in the area of eating disorders, offering support for sufferers and their families. The association was founded in 1994 by Peta Hartman, a qualified psychologist who was the recipient of the Gold Coast junior Chamber of Commerce achiever of the year award and she is currently undertaking her PhD research into bulimia.Peta is a remarkable young lady who was herself a sufferer of anorexia between the ages of 15 and 20. Peta, a high achiever and school leader, suffered what she calls all the classic symptoms of anorexia. It started with a bit of dieting following an offhand remark by a boyfriend on her appearance and it led to excessive exercising, taking laxatives and surviving on meagre amounts of food.After recovering from the eating disorder and beginning work as a psychologist, Peta recognised the need for a support group on the Gold Coast. None was available and children and families were suffering from a lack of support. The association was established with the support of the Queensland Association for Mental Health. Today, on a limited budget, it offers support group meetings to sufferers of eating disorders and their families, carers and friends, and provides information and written material for those interested. The association has relied on voluntary support to maintain this service and to date has been unsuccessful in securing grant money from either state governments or the federal government to expand or, indeed, maintain the level of service required.The association's aim is to work closely with health professionals and other interested parties to foster the understanding and support that is needed in this area. It also aims to be a voice in the community in the area of education on eating disorders and to strive to provide an environment where sufferers and their families feel supported and cared for during their time with the association. Today Peta Hartman and her dedicated small team, including Mel and Alan Spencer, Gai Byrnes and Jane Pedler, are campaigning for more support to stop children becoming anorexic or bulimic using preventive measures such as education at primary and secondary school levels.I strongly support Peta's plans to foster the positive development of self-image in children through a program she aims to start in both state and private schools within the next 12 months. The program aims to free young people of the negative self-concepts that find expression in eating disorders and other behavioural problems, such as substance abuse, or abuse and suicide.The association sees its focus as prevention through support and education rather than treatment and cure. Research indicates that eating disorders are on the rise especially in younger children. Some as young as seven and eight are suffering from eating disorders. Available figures indicate that one in every 100 girls in Queensland aged between 14 and 35 suffers from anorexia. For bulimia the official figure is higher: three in every 100 girls between the ages of 15 and 20. Eating disorders are not restricted to girls. The number of boys affected by eating disorders is increasing. Current research indicates that between five and 10 per cent of those affected are male.The Gold Coast by its very nature and relaxed lifestyle is image focused, and members of the association believe that the prevalence of eating disorders on the Gold Coast may be higher than that reported for the rest of Queensland. Research also indicates that the answer may not lie in treatment and tertiary prevention. There is a suggestion that primary prevention through education about eating disorders is the key. As Peta points out, there will always be a need for treatment but at the same time the prevalence of such problems may be greatly reduced if factors such as self-esteem, self-concept and body image are addressed before a deficiency in these areas manifests itself in a disorder.The association now has a permanent home and that will have a great impact on the whole Gold Coast community, both now and for future generations. The association will use this home to provide counselling and client support, as a campaign and fundraising headquarters, and for group activities such as educational seminars.547411:50:005474Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—On 30 April, against community objection, Telstra closed its call centre in Footscray, in my electorate of Gellibrand. This closure resulted in a loss of 100 jobs from my electorate and had a consequent impact on local business. It is a loss that my electorate can ill afford. Gellibrand has an unemployment rate of 11.8 per cent, nearly twice the national average, and we have a youth unemployment rate of over 28 per cent.The Footscray Call Centre was part of a new and expanding telecommunications industry. It is part of that new growth industry which we all held out so much hope for, and in the west of Melbourne we were proud to be part of that industry. As soon as I heard about the decision to close the call centre, I contacted Telstra's management. Telstra initially told me that it might consider making some contribution to our community, perhaps through sponsorship of a local organisation in the region, but since then it has been ducking any contact with me.I pleaded with Telstra for a review of this decision. I wrote to Telstra. I raised the matter in parliament and I sent Telstra copies of my speech. I pleaded for consideration of our regional needs. That was over a month ago, and Telstra's only response has been deafening silence. I am furious at the way that Telstra has treated our community. Not only has it taken 100 jobs from Footscray but it has shown complete disregard for our community by avoiding my requests for discussions and running from its decision to abandon our region.Telstra's new CEO, Mr Ziggy Switkowski, was quoted recently in the Australian Financial Review as saying that `his first objective was to ensure that Telstra continues to deliver real value to its shareholders and customers'. This decision by Telstra to close its call centre shows that we are not getting real value in Melbourne's west. It seems as though this is the way that Telstra intends to treat complaints and community concerns: simply by ignoring them. Is the west of Melbourne so low on the new CEO's list of priorities that regional Telstra managers cannot even respond to community queries?As I have said before in this place, Telstra is not just any business. Telstra plays a vital role in our community, and we are all its customers and all still its owners. Telstra should have taken a community view on this decision to close the Albert Street call centre, not just a business view. At the very least, Telstra could have had the decency to talk to the community, and to me as the community's representative, about this issue.Had Telstra implemented its suggestion of sponsoring a local organisation in the region, that would not have fixed the problem of removing 100 jobs from our high unemployment area but it might have eased the pain a little. Telstra could have put something back into the community from which it is taking those much needed jobs. Telstra could have contributed to the youth programs that are struggling for funds in our area. It could have contributed to the drug initiatives in the region. Telstra could step in and contribute towards saving the specialist parenting phone counselling service Parents Anonymous, due to close this Friday.Telstra has mishandled the important issue of this closure, and has been contemptuous of our community. I call on Telstra to meet with me and to take this chance to show its commitment to our community in the west by making an appropriate contribution to our local region.547511:54:005475Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—One of the most important changes that have taken place in our secondary education system in recent years has been the assistance given to students to manage their transition from school to work. I recently had the honour of launching the federal government's NAREET Jobs Pathway program for 10 high schools in the northern and north-eastern area of Adelaide. The Jobs Pathway program is a federal government initiative designed to assist school leavers to make a successful transition from school to the world of work, building on the strength of school based vocational programs, often through partnerships involving schools, industry and the local community.Special congratulations must go to Peter Turner and the Salisbury High School Council Inc. and all of the teachers, students and others in the NAREET cluster area who have worked so very hard to have this achieved. Max Davids and everyone working with and for the Northern Adelaide Development Board are also very worthy of sincere congratulations for all of their hard work on this project.In 1998-99 we expect some 25,000 eligible school leavers across Australia will be helped via the Jobs Pathway program. We also aim to give young people a strong message that the best way to secure their future is to invest their time and energy in building up skills and experience as well as knowledge and awareness in the pathways that lead to employment, in some cases while still at school. High schools involved in the Jobs Pathway program include Para Hills, Salisbury East, Paralowie, Salisbury, Gawler, Parafield Gardens, Elizabeth, Fremont, Smithfield Plains, Craigmore and Para West Adult Re-entry.I am also pleased to be able to report to the House that the Interface program is providing valuable school to work services for students at a number of high schools in my electorate of Makin. Interface stands for industry networked transition education reaching forward and creating enterprise. The aim of the Interface program is threefold: to connect existing community structures; to create strategies to increase employment and educational outcomes for secondary school students; and to enhance the existing partnerships between the program and local industries and community groups.The following schools have become involved in this important and worthwhile program: Banksia Park High School, Gleeson College, Kildare College, Modbury High School, Ross Smith Secondary School, St Paul's College, Thomas More College, Valley View Secondary School, Enfield High School, Golden Grove High School, King's Baptist Grammar School, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart School, The Heights School, Tyndale Christian School and the Windsor Gardens Vocational College. I congratulate these 15 schools on their participation in a program which is sure to be valued highly by the students who participate.I would also like to congratulate the Torrens Valley Vocational Education Services Inc. This organisation is made up of the 15 schools and their students and teachers, 58 of our local employers and the members of the management committee, representing schools, businesses and community groups.The government has shown in the budget it brought down on Tuesday night that it is concerned not only with good fiscal management but with the social values that we develop and the social priorities within which we as a community operate. In particular, it was a budget that was strong on education, with more funding to private and public schools. Our support for school to work transition programs also demonstrates that we are creating an environment in which students are given strong support at that crucial time when they are moving out of the school environment and into the world of work. I commend the government on these initiatives, and I commend the schools, teachers, parents and students in my electorate of Makin who have embraced the opportunity that they present.547611:58:005476Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I am delighted that earlier on in the adjournment debate the member for Batman raised the same issue that I wish to speak to, and that is the Attorney-General's report titled Review of Victorian community legal centre funding program . As the local representatives who are affected by this report have taken the view that its recommendations ought to be rejected, I hope our concern will carry some weight with the Attorney-General and he will reject the recommendations of this review.Yesterday in the House I was debating the voluntary student unionism legislation which seeks to silence dissent amongst student groups. In that speech I reflected that this is not the only time that this government has taken the axe to groups or organisations that have had the temerity to criticise it. Indeed, in my electorate of Wills there is a very fine community organisation, the Coburg-Brunswick Community Legal and Financial Counselling Centre, which is one of these groups now facing federal government attack.A key recommendation coming from the Attorney-General's joint report with the Victorian Attorney-General is to merge the current legal centres in the metropolitan area into regional community legal centres. We have seen this sort of tactic before: creating mergers in the name of efficiency and increased productivity where the real outcome is reduced services. In this case we have a report recommending that Darebin, Broadmeadows and Coburg-Brunswick services be merged to create a regional legal service which would be stripped of its administration and policy setting function, which would be given to a central body, and we would be left with a service delivery arm.It ought to be understood that many of the people who are clients of these community legal services have poor English and many have come from other countries. They have a poor understanding of the Australian legal system. They are the sort of people who would get into financial difficulties and when they need legal assistance are completely unable to pay for it themselves. They even experience difficulties in obtaining transport. When they go to community legal centres that is the only option available for them. Often what they need is simple advice and often the difference in getting that advice or not getting it might be time in gaol. It is not a good outcome for either society or them. The work of the centres helps ensure that the legal system operates fairly and that everyone has their say. They are certainly places that I refer constituents to when they have legal problems and nowhere else to go. As far as I can tell they do an excellent job in providing legal advice to people in those situations. I know that some of my parliamentary colleagues, such as the member for Batman, in neighbouring electorates do exactly the same.It is my concern that merger of these services would make them less accessible to the people that need them and would also remove one of the most critical parts of the service—the fact that they are part of the community, they know the people, they know their problems, they are able to help and therefore they deliver a more efficient service. One of the particular concerns is that one of the recommendations relates to the establishment of a metropolitan based, or centralised, call centre. The sort of people who need to go to a legal service will not be able to make good use of these call centres. I think those of us who have seen how Centrelink has gone with its call centres would regard it as a dreadful thing if this government went down that same path, because Centrelink has become a place where you can get one of those alienating engaged signals up to 80 per cent of time when you try to get through to it. That is a recipe for disaster.We also have, from the review, eligibility criteria that would restrict legal assistance to only those who have an income level that makes them eligible for a health care card. This means that precisely the people who are being denied legal aid due to cuts in the system will not even be able to access the legal services. I am concerned that this seeks to muzzle the body which from time to time is critical of government legal actions. I do not believe there are genuine efficiencies. The Coburg-Brunswick legal centre receives a mere $153,000 in funding. It provides over $200,000 worth of volunteer help. It represents excellent value for money in my community in my electorate. I believe that it ought to be supported with greater financial help rather than being reduced and expected to become part of a regional organisation which will be much less accessible for people in my electorate. (Time expired)547712:03:005477Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I live on the Lefevre Peninsula in my electorate of Port Adelaide. It is a suburb that began some 20 years ago with a very attractive marina but is situated adjacent to a working port. There is an island off the peninsula called Torrens Island which has a power station. The constituents who live on the Lefevre Peninsula are very unhappy with the Olsen government in South Australia. The reason for their unhappiness is an agreement with a British company called National Power about building a power station on the Lefevre Peninsula on one of the most beautiful vistas of ocean you have ever seen in your life—undeveloped, acknowledged but beautiful vistas.The community are just shocked. On Mother's Day 2,000 people came out to the foreshore of Semaphore and listened to a range of speakers who included the mayor of Port Adelaide Enfield, Johanna McLuskey; the state member for Port Adelaide, Kevin Foley; me as the federal member; and a Democrat, Sandra Kanck. Jack Mundey came over because he has recognised that this particular environmental issue is in fact a very serious one.It is not that the people on the peninsula are against the power stations; they already have power stations on the peninsula. They are against the location, the technology, and the reasons why this has occurred.There is another group in South Australia who desperately want this power station. They are the people of Whyalla. Whyalla, like a lot of regional cities, has suffered a downturn in population and employment activity. There is no question that Whyalla could very well do with a 250-megawatt or even up to a 400-megawatt power station. It is something which the people in my electorate support. But the Olsen government has ignored the people at this stage. In fact, one of their own backbenchers, a fellow called Peter Lewis, a country member and head of the Public Works Committee, is also very angry with his own government about the lack of process in this particular development of a power station. It is quite clear the reasons are wrong and they are not simply stated. The power station could be at Whyalla. The power station could be alongside the existing one at Torrens Island.The technology is wrong. You would be very pleased, if you came down to my electorate, to see the dolphins. They are all known by name. People actually know these dolphins by name. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allowed for debate has expired. The committee stands adjourned until a day and hour to be announced by the Deputy Speaker.Main Committee adjourned at 12.06 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing5479The following answers to questions were circulated:5479(Question No. 267)2675479McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) What Commonwealth funding was provided in each financial year since 2 March 1996 directly to projects or programs operating in the electoral divisions of (a) Barton, (b) Watson, (c) Banks, (d) Hughes and (e) Cook with the purpose of (i) combating or (ii) preventing the negative health effects of opiate addiction.(2) With respect to each project or program referred to in part (1), (a) what is its name, (b) who operates it, (c) what are its aims and objectives, (d) what funding has it received and (e) in what year did Commonwealth funding commence.5479Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth does not provide funding directly to organisations except through the National Illicit Drug Strategy. Under the Public Health Outcomes Funding Agreements (PHOFAs), New South Wales receives a grant for public health initiatives including drugs. The State determines the priorities and organisations funded.Under the National Illicit Drug Strategy, $10.16 million has been allocated directly to non-government organisations in New South Wales for new and existing illicit drug treatment services.Details of the organisations funded under the first instalment were provided in my Media Release of 28 August 1998.(2) Not applicable.5479(Question No. 375)3755479McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) Is legal aid available to native title respondents; if so, are applicants required to demonstrate financial hardship.(2) Is the legal aid referred to in part (1) available to corporations as well as individuals; if so, is a corporation which is a respondent to a native title claim entitled to legal aid regardless of its income or profitability.5479Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Financial assistance for native title matters may be provided to respondents and non-claimant applicants under:. Section 183 of the Native Title Act;. Special Circumstances (Native Title) Scheme in those cases where assistance may not be available under s 183; and. Common Law (Native Title) Scheme to assist persons involved in common law native title claims.Financial assistance may be granted where:. the applicant is not eligible to receive assistance from any other source;. the provision of assistance to the applicant is in accordance with the guidelines determined under sub-section 183(4); and. in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application be granted.Section 183 of the Native Title Act was amended to remove the need for the applicant to establish `hardship' before assistance could be granted. However, under the current guidelines financial considerations are one of a number of factors that may be taken into account in assessing any application for assistance.It should be noted that financial assistance for native title matters is administered separately from the Commonwealth's legal aid funding, which is administered through State and Territory legal aid commissions.(2) Financial assistance is available to individuals, partnerships, small businesses, local government bodies and other organisations. Incorporated bodies as well as unincorporated bodies may be eligible for assistance. As stated above, under the current guidelines, financial considerations. are one of a number of factors which may be taken into account in assessing any application for assistance. Paragraph 6.7 of the Guidelines provides that any person who has significant financial backing is unlikely to be provided assistance. Where the applicant is not a natural person consideration will be given to its financial position and whether other financial resources may be available to it, eg guarantees from directors, provision of further funds from shareholders and levies from members.5480(Question No. 504)5045480Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr Ripoll83EOxleyALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1999:(1) Is it a fact that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has changed its practice from investigating every complaint against employers for nonpayment of compulsory superannuation contributions to gathering the information in a database and developing profiles of industries and employers where compliance is a problem; if so, (a) is the information used to conduct targeted investigation and education measures, (b) when was the practice of investigating every complaint changed, (c) how many complaints of nonpayment of compulsory superannuation contributions (i) were investigated annually under the previous practice and (ii) are conducted annually under the existing practice and (d) what effect will the change have on persons affected by noncompliance.(2) Will the Government ensure that the ATO acts on every reported breach of the superannuation guarantee regulations to protect the entitlements of Australian workers, particularly low-income workers.(3) Will the Government provide legal aid to enable low-paid workers to act against their employers when the ATO has failed to act.(4) What is the (a) cost of, and (b) number of ATO employees involved in, compliance activities concerning (i) PAYE taxpayers, (ii) business taxpayers and (iii) compulsory superannuation contribution by employers.(5) Is the ATO's superannuation compliance unit adequately resourced.5480Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is using its resources to ensure maximum possible coverage of the Superannuation Guarantee (SG).The ATO has changed its compliance approach in respect of SG. We have adopted the ATO compliance model which means putting into place best practice by tracking compliance patterns and the causes of non-compliance by employers with the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (the SGAA). This data is analysed and appropriate compliance activities occur.Under the new strategy all employers identified in employee notifications will receive a reminder of their superannuation obligations. Further to this, high risk employers will be included in a compliance project and subject to further investigation.(1) (a) The information obtained from notifications by employees is recorded on a computer database along with other risk indicators of non-compliance: anonymous `dob-ins', referrals from other areas of the ATO, etc. This information is analysed and this analysis assists the ATO to better target those cases that need further investigation.(1) (b) The review of the ATO's compliance strategy for compulsory superannuation contributions was undertaken in October 1998, and the new approach implemented between November 1998 and February 1999.(1) (c) (i) Approximately 5,000 notifications annually were investigated under the previous practice.(1) (c) (ii) See answer to Question 1 above.(1) (d) The new strategy will also address the superannuation entitlements of persons who currently do not contact the ATO about the non-compliance of their employer. In many cases this is because the employee is unaware of their entitlements. Typically, industries involving lower skilled, lower paid work represent the greatest risk. The strategy seeks to increase overall compliance in an industry or employer group, thereby increasing the number of employees receiving their entitlements. The education campaign undertaken by the ATO last year with the key message "Super—It pays to take an interest" is an example of a strategy to inform employees as a way of improving compliance by employers.(2) All reports of non-compliance by employers with their compulsory superannuation obligations are valuable to the ATO in targeting their compliance action. This information is actively sought from employees when they contact the ATO and recorded on a compliance database. Past evidence shows that `one to one' follow up in not appropriate and imposes unnecessary costs on employers who have made superannuation contributions. At the point of initial contact employees are advised that it is in their interest to first check with their employer, or the relevant superannuation fund if known, before providing information about their employer to the ATO. Callers are also advised that action may not be taken immediately in respect of the information they provide, but that all the information we receive is recorded and used to guide and target compliance at particular industries, regions and other employer `groups'.The shift to a more proactive and leveraged compliance strategy, based on analysis of the employee notifications and other risk indicators, is a productive way of making the most of the ATO's resources to ensure all employees receive their entitlements. (3) No. The Superannuation Guarantee Charge (the charge) is a debt owed by the employer to the Commonwealth and the employee has no recourse to legal action under the SGAA to enforce the payment of the charge .(4) It is not possible to provide precise figures for the resources allocated to compliance activities for PAYE, compulsory superannuation and business taxpayers as these three groups are not distinct segments (ie, they overlap) and an integrated, cross ATO approach is adopted where possible. For example, examination of compliance with compulsory superannuation is included in the audit of business taxpayers for withholding taxes (PAYE) and income taxes.To provide an indication of the relative allocation of resources to PAYE, compulsory superannuation and business taxpayers however the following figures (for the 1997-1998 year) may assist:Large Business and International (Income Tax)—1196 staffSmall Business Income (Income Tax)—2948 staffIndividuals Non Business (Income Tax)—4033 staffWithholding and Indirect Taxes (PAYE, PPS, Sales Tax)—2750 staffSuperannuation (Compulsory Super)—671 staffSource: Commissioner of Taxation, Annual Report, 1997-1998(5) Superannuation Guarantee compliance activity is adequately resourced. The ATO believes its new strategy for Superannuation Guarantee compliance will enable it to maximise the compliance of employers through improved compliance intelligence and analysis, and targeted compliance projects including educative, reminder and audit measures. The organisational structure of the area has been redesigned to focus resources specifically on compliance activities relating to compulsory superannuation. The ATO's survey of employer compliance with compulsory superannuation requirements conducted in 1998 demonstrated that although a small number of employers are fully non-compliant, of equal concern is the rate of partial compliance where employers are making errors in attempting to comply, or are not fully aware of their obligations. The new strategy addresses this area of compliance risk through educative, information and reminder activities. At the same time, audit and investigative action is targeted at those employers aware of the requirements but choosing not to comply.The shift in strategy is a recent one and the ATO will continue to review the effectiveness of its approach to compliance. The ATO is confident that it will be able to build on the already high rate of compliance, increasing the coverage of superannua tion for all employees, to their benefit in retirement.5481(Question No. 515)5155481Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:Is it a fact that (a) the Government paid $1.2 million for tickets to the Sydney Olympics for entertaining visiting dignitaries and (b) it had initially asked for the tickets to be provided without cost; if so, (i) who initially raised the issue of free tickets with the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG), (ii) on what date was the issue first discussed, (iii) how many free tickets were requested, (iv) how many tickets were purchased, (v) for what events were the tickets purchased, (vi) what criteria apply to distributing the tickets, (vii) how many departmental officers are establishing the criteria, (viii) what is the cost of using departmental officers to establish the criteria, (ix) will the Government meet the (A) travel costs to and from Australia and (B) expenses of the visiting dignitaries; if so, what are the details and (x) will she publish a list of the recipients of the tickets.5481Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The Government has not yet purchased any tickets for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Out of the $32.0 million allocated by the Government for payment to New South Wales to enable the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) to purchase services, facilities and equipment to assist with the staging of the Games, some $850,000 has been earmarked for the purchase of tickets to enable the Commonwealth to extend hospitality to visiting international dignitaries and business people at the Olympic Games as part of its broader strategy to maximise the national benefits of the Games.(b) (i) and (ii) Yes. The matter was raised by Commonwealth officials and staff of the Office of the then Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games as part of the initial negotiations with SOCOG over Commonwealth assistance for the Games in January 1998. SOCOG subsequently agreed that the cost of tickets would in fact be met from the total funding provided by the Commonwealth.(iii) Some 400 tickets per day were initially sought for the Olympic Games, with a similar allocation for the Paralympic Games, and an additional 200 Olympic tickets per day for distribution to the general public. (iv) No tickets have as yet been purchased. Precise requirements are not expected to be finalised until later when there is a clearer picture of the number of dignitaries visiting.(v) Tickets will be purchased for a range of Olympic events including the Opening and Closing Ceremonies.(vi) Criteria are being developed by the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Foreign Affairs and Trade and by Austrade.(vii) A number of officers across several agencies as part of their normal work on the Games.(viii) No additional costs are being incurred.(ix) (A) and (B) There is currently no intention to meet the travel costs or accommodation expenses of government dignitaries visiting Australia for the Sydney 2000 Games.(x) A full list of the recipients of tickets purchased by the Commonwealth to Games events will be available after the Games are concluded.5482(Question No. 525)5255482Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5482Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Austrade has not entered into any contracts during the period specified with Australasian Research Strategies, associated companies or Mr Mark Textor.5482(Question No. 526)5265482Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5482Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No.5482(Question No. 531)5315482Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non- government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5482Truss, 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:There is no record within the Family and Community Services or the former Social Security portfolios of Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mark Textor being engaged to undertake research.5482(Question No. 532)5325482Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organi sations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5483Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has not entered into any contracts during the period specified with Australasian Research Strategies, associated companies, or Mr Mark Textor.5483(Question No. 536)5365483Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5483Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As far as I am aware, Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor have not been engaged to undertake research for the Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (nor its predecessor, the former Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs) and the Australian National Training Authority for the period 2 March 1996 to 24 March 1999. Following the machinery of Government changes in October 1998, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will provide a separate response covering the employment related functions for the period 21 October 1998 to 24 March 1999.The Australian Maritime College, the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board, the Australian National University and the University of Canberra which are listed under Administrative Arrangement Orders as a responsibility of my portfolio for part or all of the period in question, have not been approached in preparing a response to the question because they operate autonomously. The University of Canberra and the Australian Maritime College have not been covered by my portfolio since December 1997 and October 1998 respectively.5483(Question No. 539)5395483Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5483Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) No(b) No(c) No(i) N/A(ii) N/A(iii) N/A(iv) N/A(v) N/A.5483(Question No. 547)5475483Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 25 March 1999:(1) Since Australia acceded to the 1979 UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the States belonging to the European Region, when and where have there been sessions of the Regional Committee responsible for promoting the application of the Convention. (2) Who represented Australia at the sessions.(3) When and where will the next session be held.(4) Who will represent Australia at the session.5484Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia acceded to the UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the Europe Region in August 1986. Since then the Regional Committee responsible for promoting the application of the Convention has met as follows;9th SessionParisSeptember 1998.8th SessionRomeJune 1996.7th SessionBudapestJune 1994.6th SessionParisNovember 1992.5th SessionWarsawJune 19904th SessionBucharestSeptember 1988(2) The Australian representatives at the sessions were as followsParis, September 1998Ms Shelagh Whittleston, Counsellor (Labour, Education and Social Affairs),Australian Delegation to OECD.Rome, June 1996Ms Jennifer Ledgar, Assistant Secretary, National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition and Ms Shelagh Whittleston, Counsellor (Labour, Education and Social Affairs), Australian Delegation to OECD.Budapest, June 1994Dr Peter Whitney, Counsellor, Australian Delegation to OECD, Paris.Paris, November 1992Mr Pat Watson, Counsellor, Australian Delegation to OECD, Paris.Warsaw, June 1990Mr Laurie Fisher, Counsellor, Australian Delegation fo the OECD, Paris.Bucharest, September 1988Professor Kevin Westfold, Chairman, Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications and Mr G E Mannell, Director, Strategies and Development Section, Overseas Professional Qualifications Branch, Department of Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs.(3) The 10th Session of the Regional Committee for the application of Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the Europe Region is likely to be held in Warwick, United Kingdom in 2000, in conjunction with a scheduled meeting of European academic recognition information centre representatives.(4) No decision has yet been taken on Australian representation.5484(Question No. 548)5485484Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 25 March 1999:(1) When and where have there been sessions of the Regional Committee responsible for promoting the application of the 1983 UNESCO Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific.(2) Who represented Australia at these sessions.(3) When and where will the next session be held.(4) Who will represent Australia at the session.5484Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Regional Committee responsible for promoting the application of the Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific has met as follows:5th SessionParisSeptember 19984th SessionSeoulSeptember 19973rd SessionBangkokDecember 19942nd SessionParisNovember 19921st SessionBangkokFebruary 1990(2) The Australian representatives at the sessions were as follows:Paris, September 1998Ms Jennifer Ledgar, Assistant Secretary, National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition.Seoul, September 1997Ms Jennifer Ledgar, Assistant Secretary, National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition.Bangkok, December 1994Ms Angela Mays, Counsellor (Education), Australian Embassy, Bangkok.Paris, November 1992Dr Judith Winternitz, National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition.Bangkok, February 1990Sir William Keys, Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Skills Recognition and Mr John Rowling, Director, Office of Overseas Skills Recognition. This session was chaired by Mr E G Whitlam (Australian Ambassador to UNESCO, 1983-1986, member of the Executive Board, UNESCO, 1985-1989).(3) The venue and date for the next session have not yet been set.(4) No decision has been made on Australian representation.5485(Question No. 549)5495485Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 25 March 1999:Is it a fact that more than 76 per cent of work-for-the-dole projects have been carried out in electoral divisions held by Coalition Members; if so, what action is he taking to ensure that national distribution of the projects is fairly balanced.5485Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Round 1 of Work for the Dole was announced in July 1998, in which 71 per cent of the 227 successful project sponsors were located in Government electorates. However, many of these successful projects have multiple sites (534 in total) of which 64 per cent were situated in Government electorates. Round 2 of Work for the Dole was announced in December 1998, in which 56 per cent of the 236 successful project sponsors were located in Government electorates. Of the 688 separate work sites, only 48 per cent were in Government electorates.To put these figures into context, at the time of the Round 1 announcement, 64 per cent of House of Representatives seats were held by Government members. At Round 2, 55 per cent of seats were held by the Government.The entire selection and allocation of Work for the Dole projects is undertaken by officials from the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in accordance with strict guidelines and at every stage this is closely oversighted by Probity Advisers. Once officials have completed their selection process all recommendations for Work for the Dole projects are confirmed by an independent national selection committee.Work for the Dole projects are allocated by Labour Market Regions of which there are 29 across Australia. Allocation of projects was targeted to regions with high unemployment and hence many regional areas of Australia were targeted. No allocation is made by electorate.At no stage are Government members involved in the assessment, selection or location of any Work for the Dole projects.5485(Question No. 571)5715485Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:(1) During the Migration Agents Regulation Authority's (MARA) first three months of operation, (a) against which migration agents were complaints made, (b) what was the name of each agent whose registration was suspended and (c) what was the period of suspension in each case.(2) What penalties can MARA apply to agents who breach MARA's code of conduct, other that suspension of registration.(3) Is there a need to improve migration agents' conduct, especially because, many agents are lodging applications which they know have no chance of success and which are designed to delay their clients being made to leave Australia; if so, does his Department record for each migration agent (a) how many applications they lodge (b) their success rate and (c) the fees charged for the service they perform.(4) Who will the Government consult, other than MARA, on ways to further improve migration agents' conduct.5486Ruddock, 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) (a) It is not possible to provide to the honourable Member the names of agents against whom complaints were made. Unless the name of an agent has been published because of a decision by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) to cancel or suspend the agent's registration, the names of agents who are subject to complaints are not made publicly available. To do so may prejudice the agent, especially where the complaint has been resolved in the agent's favour or has not been resolved.(b) One agent, Mr John (Qun) Du had his registration suspended in the period.(c) The period of suspension was for six months.(2) Under section 303 of the Migration Act 1958, MARA may cancel the agent's registration by removing his or her name from the Register of Migration Agents, or caution the agent. When an agent has been cautioned, that fact is included on the Register for the period of the caution.(3) Yes. MARA was established to undertake this function and has taken firm action to discipline agents who have been involved in unethical conduct.Regarding visa applications with "no chance of success", my Department in consultation with the Migration Institute of Australia is examining ways of further strengthening the Code of Conduct to address this matter.(a) The Departmental data base records whether a visa applicant has been assisted by a migration agent.(b) The Department does not collect information relating to the number of applications lodged by a particular agent or on the success rate.(c) Agents are not required to inform the Department about fees charged for services.(4) The Government will consider constructive proposals from any source to improve migration agents' conduct.The Code of Conduct will be examined by the review of statutory self-regulation which is being conducted by officers of my Department and guided by a Reference Group of independent experts.