1999-05-313913REPS549501999-05-31Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous549510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I wish to advise the House that I have agreed that the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag may be displayed with the national flag at the entrance to the chamber to mark National Reconciliation Week from 27 May to 3 June 1999. These flags are being displayed in protocol order in the same manner as agreed by Speaker Sinclair to mark the same event last year.Committees54955495549512:31:005495Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Review of Migration Regulation 4.31B , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—On 6 January 1999, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, asked the committee to review Migration Regulation 4.31B. This regulation was introduced by the government on 1 July 1997, at which time the government agreed to a sunset clause of two years and a review of the operation of the regulation by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. This inquiry arose from that commitment.The committee advertised in major newspapers in each capital city. It also wrote to a range of individuals and organisations, including Commonwealth government departments and the Law Council of Australia, seeking submissions. It received 24 submissions and it took over 100 pages of transcript evidence from witnesses in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. The witnesses included the Depart ment of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Refugee Review Tribunal.Regulation 4.31B was introduced as part of a package of measures to combat abuse in Australia's refugee determination system. Other measures included streamlined processing of primary applications and limiting work rights to applicants who applied within 45 days of entering Australia. The aim of the package was to deter people who knew they were not refugees but were using the refugee appeal process to prolong their stay here, often for the purpose of obtaining income from employment in Australia. The purpose of regulation 4.31B was, in conjunction with other measures, to deter non-genuine applicants from appealing to the RRT after their primary application had been unsuccessful. The regulation imposed a $1,000 fee on those applicants whose appeals to the RRT failed. Successful applicants to the RRT were not required to pay the $1,000 and neither were unsuccessful applicants who were subsequently granted protection visas on the basis of ministerial discretion.Organisations, including the Refugee Council of Australia and the International Commission of Jurists, which objected to retaining the fee did so on a number of grounds, including claims that it was unnecessary, that it impeded genuine refugees from applying, that it was inconsistent with Australia's international obligations and that it had been ineffective. Evidence to sustain these claims was not substantial, possibly because of the short period of time that the regulation had been in operation.The committee was presented with only three examples of instances where the regulation may have deterred refugees from applying for review. The first was a hypothetical case of a Fijian man who marries an Australian, applies for a protection visa, fails, appeals to the RRT, fails, is subjected to the fee and has to leave the country. The second was a genuine case of a Filipino woman who was seeking to marry an Australian and the third was a Sri Lankan family who had failed on their primary application and who needed to be convinced to appeal to the RRT because of the fee.Although the applicants in two of these cases had claimed refugee status, they returned to their homelands to apply for spouse visas. No harm befell them in their native country and while there they applied for and received Australian spouse visas which enabled them to be reunited with their new families in this country. In the third case, the Sri Lankan family was granted protection visas and did not have to pay the fee. As a result, the majority of the committee concluded that there was no real evidence that the fee had deterred genuine refugees.Even those who opposed the fee were aware of abuse that had occurred or was still occurring in the system. Of particular interest to the committee was evidence from the RRT that almost half the applicants who had lodged an appeal to the RRT and were invited to appear before the RRT did not attend. DIMA and the tribunal said that those who did not make the effort to plead their case were most likely not genuine. The majority of members on the committee agreed.Several organisations indicated that abuse came more from migration agents than applicants. However, DIMA pointed out that 39 per cent of applicants had never seen agents, so the latter could not be held responsible for all the abuse. DIMA also noted that many refugee applicants had made plans and had paid considerable sums to come to Australia, and suggested that it was incongruous to regard them all as victims.Several organisations stated that they believed the fee breached our international obligations because it was discriminatory and because it hindered access to our refugee determination procedures. Legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department was that this was not the case. The Attorney-General's Department emphasised that the fee only applied to those who were not granted protection visas. The majority of committee members accepted the advice from the Attorney-General's Department in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.Various organisations suggested that there were alternative methods to regulation 4.31B to reduce the abuse of the refugee process. The proposals ranged from changing the migration agents scheme to introducing an onshore humanitarian visa. The majority of committee members felt that none of these proposals was practical. For example, the onshore humanitarian visa had been in operation but was cancelled over 10 years ago because of the level of abuse. Experience showed that a visa class intended for a small number of people in compassionate circumstances became a means by which a large number of people tried to stay in Australia.DIMA argued strongly that the $1,000 fee was an essential element of the package of measures and claimed that it had caused a decrease in the percentage of applicants from countries that were traditionally not associated with refugees, such as Tonga. It also said that the percentage of applicants from countries where there was a high level of genuine refugees, such as Iraq, had remained steady or had gone up. On this basis, DIMA concluded that the fee had deterred non-genuine applicants but had not inhibited genuine refugees. The committee was not satisfied by the statistics provided by DIMA at their first hearing and requested a further hearing with more comprehensive statistics.While the majority of committee members accepted that the more comprehensive statistics provided by DIMA indicated that the package which included regulation 4.31B was working, they also felt that two years was not a sufficiently long period in which to establish application trends, and more time was needed for DIMA to collect more definitive information. Our recommendation, therefore, was that regulation 4.31B be retained but that it be subjected to a sunset clause of three years, when it should be again reviewed. This should enable DIMA and other organisations, including those opposed to the fee, to gather more evidence about the specific impact of the fee on both genuine and non-genuine applicants to the Refugee Review Tribunal.My thanks go to all the members of the committee, especially the deputy chair, Senator Jim McKiernan. As chair, I acknowledge the goodwill with which all members tried to reach a common position. But, as chair, I also express my regret that several members felt constrained to dissent. We strove hard to find a compromise. It was unfortunate that we were unable to do so. The emotiveness of the issues and the conflicting evidence led some members to take different paths.My thanks also go to the secretariat staff: the secretary, Margaret Swieringa, and Gim Del Villar, Penne Humphries, Rohan Tyler and Margaret Atkin. I commend the report to the House.12:40:005497Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Four of the 10 members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration have agreed with a minority report. As well as me, these are Mrs Julia Irwin, the member for Fowler, Mr Bernie Ripoll, the member for Oxley, and Senator Andrew Bartlett of the Australian Democrats. As the author of the minority report, I wish to make the following comments, which I am confident the dissenting members agree with.The minority of the committee takes issue with the recommendation and many of the reasons put forward in the majority report. In our view, the recommendation to retain regulation 4.31B was contrary to the overwhelming proportion of the submissions to the inquiry and denies justice for genuine refugee applicants. Nearly every major organisation of note was opposed to the fee and wanted its abolition. Distinguished bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the International Commission of Jurists were strongly opposed to the fee. Both bodies representative of the ethnic communities, such as the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, and bodies representative of the refugees themselves, such as the Refugee Council of Australia, were just as strongly opposed.In fact, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was the only body to support the retention of the fee. Its evidence, however, was not persuasive on many points. Let me start by noting that the department was reluctant to admit that genuine refugee and humanitarian applicants can be exposed to a $1,000 debt. Before the fee came into effect the minister himself claimed on the Sunday program that few genuine asylum seekers would be subject to the fee, but it is clear that they have been. The reason is that the definition of a refugee is very narrow. It does not cover people from countries like Somalia and Algeria, where there is widespread violence and no rule of law. It does not cover people who are the victims of natural disasters in their homelands. It does not cover people who have medical conditions that are untreatable in other countries. It does not cover people who have genuine humanitarian reasons for accessing the minister. When any of these people fail at the Refugee Review Tribunal, they must then pay a $1,000 fee.But they have not been deliberately abusing the system. Some people also apply for protection visas not because they are trying to abuse the system but because they have little or no access to proper advice. Most migration agents are expensive and free legal advice has been severely restricted. Even the department was aware of cases where people had applied for refugee status without knowing what they were doing. All that regulation 4.31B does is to expose such people to an additional $1,000 debt.Let me address the question of the regulation's effectiveness. Every organisation, apart from the department, questioned its effectiveness. The Refugee Review Tribunal noted that the percentages of appeals had risen significantly and that this indicated that the fee had not been a deterrent. The Refugee Council of Australia made a similar point. The Migration Institute of Australia reported that there had `not been even a single case known . . . in which the prospect of the $1,000 penalty was . . . a relevant consideration when clients were considering whether or not to apply for a review.'Given such evidence, the minority of the committee believe that it was incumbent on DIMA to show that the fee had clearly worked. This it failed to do. The department's case rested mainly on the claim that the percentage of review applicants from `low refugee producing' countries had dropped, yet the department needed three attempts before it could provide any real evidence for this. Even on its third attempt, the statistics were unconvincing. The percentages remained steady in 1997-98 and there was a puny 2.5 per cent decrease during this financial year. The size of the decrease and the short time frame in which it occurred belied the claim that the fee had been effective. Sadly, this was the department's strongest evidence.There were other flaws as well, as the department conceded it was difficult to separate the impact of the fee on applicants from the impact of other measures. Nonetheless, it claimed that it was reasonable to infer that the fee had contributed to a reduction in abuse. The argument, however, begged the question. The fact that other measures might have achieved their aims did not logically mean that the fee had been an effective deterrent. For the department to assert the contrary was simply fallacious.As if these problems with the department's evidence were not enough, its approach also seemed contradictory. On the one hand, it claimed that many refugee applicants had the potential to pay the fee. On the other hand, it claimed that the fee was a financial deterrent to abusers of the system. If most applicants can afford the $1,000, how can it be an effective deterrent? The department never seems to have asked, let alone answered, this question. In those circumstances, the minority concluded that the department had failed to provide any convincing evidence that the fee had worked.I now turn to the issue that perhaps divided the committee most of all: the effect of regulation 4.31B on genuine refugees. Many organisations—including Amnesty International, the Kingsford Legal Centre and the Campbelltown Legal Centre—believed that the fee could deter genuine refugees from applying for review. Their reasons for believing this were compelling. Asylum seekers face many pressures in deciding whether to appeal. They are confronted with a complex body of law concerning refugee status. Their English skills are poor. They do not have enough money to obtain private legal assistance and they have little access to free legal services and advice. It is understandable that the prospect of having to pay $1,000 may lead some to abandon their review applications.Despite these cogent reasons, the department claimed that the fee had not deterred any genuine applicants, and the majority of the committee accepted these claims. In our view, the majority was wrong to do so. The committee was presented with clear evidence that the fee had caused hardship to genuine asylum seekers. And the problems with regulation 4.31B do not cease there. Amnesty International, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the International Commission of Jurists were among the organisations which pointed out that the fee violated Australia's obligations under human rights treaties.Once again, the only organisation that thought differently was the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. It produced excerpts of legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department to support its claims. Given the track record of the Attorney-General's advice on human rights, we were not satisfied that this was sufficient to assuage our serious doubts. In fact, the deputy chairman of the committee made a very telling point in relation to the advice on these matters that had been received from the Attorney-General's Department.Let me now turn from the defects of the fee to the issue of alternatives. The minority believed that more attention should have been given to two proposals. The first was the proposal to restrict the $1,000 fee to vexatious or abusive applicants. We could have done that. This would have the advantage of levying the fee only on those who were abusing the system rather than on genuine applicants. More importantly, its disadvantages would be few. It would not provide unmeritorious applicants with more time in Australia as the decision to impose the fee would not affect a person's migration status. Nor would it create further litigation because such decisions could be excluded from judicial review under the Migration Act.The second proposal was to create an onshore humanitarian stream. Australia has been one of the few immigration countries without an onshore humanitarian visa. People with compelling humanitarian reasons for staying have been forced to apply as refugees because it is the only way in which they have any hope of accessing the minister's power to intervene on their behalf. Even the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs recommends that people try this course of action when they have a humanitarian case. The result has been the overburdening of the refugee system and the exposure of such people to the $1,000 fee. The department alleged that the introduction of an onshore humanitarian visa would create great difficulties, yet most European countries, as well as Canada, have such a visa. It is incredible to think that other countries could manage such a system successfully but Australia could not. This, however, was the upshot of the department's argument.The minority concluded that limiting the fee to vexatious applicants and creating a humanitarian visa were better alternatives than regulation 4.31B. The benefits of adopting these proposals were obvious and the disadvantages seemed few. Unfortunately, the majority did not pursue these alternatives and were not persuaded of their merits. The rejection of these alternatives by the majority left us no choice in our recommendation because we have to protect the genuine applicants and the humanitarian applicants. Faced with the choice between retaining a clearly inequitable fee that did not work and that breached our international obligations or advocating its demise, we recommended that the fee should cease to apply after 1 July 1999.The minister should take account of all the arguments in the minority report before making a determination and should find a solution to this problem rather than simply continuing with this iniquitous fee. I conclude by thanking the secretariat, who also assisted us in the preparation of the minority report.12:50:005499Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise in support of the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and her recommendation to the House that the $1,000 fee continue, at least for a limited period, with an appropriate sunset clause so that it can be reviewed at the end of that time to see whether there is further evidence that it should be reviewed.I have some sympathy for the member for Calwell in terms of his views on this issue. Initially, you could ask, `Why would we impose a $1,000 fee on applicants who are applying on a genuine basis for a refugee visa?' On that basis alone, you would say, `Look, there are two good reasons why we should not impose this cost.' The first is that this is not about genuine refugees. Those who apply for refugee status and are awarded that status, having been through the tribunal, have no charge placed on them. They are reimbursed for any costs that they have and do not pay this $1,000 charge.Secondly, this is about getting at those who rort the system. We want to assist people who apply on a genuine humanitarian basis. The ones we want to get are those who clog up the system and those who are simply using it as a mechanism for extending their stay in Australia. Surely we should not support a process where some people are limiting or delaying the opportunities for genuine refugees to be considered reasonably urgently. There is also the problem of the costs involved.If you actually look at the statistics, as we the committee have, it appears that there is an overrepresentation of certain countries in the applications that are seen as being non-genuine—that is, those who are clearly abusing the system. Migration agents—not from the department—who are servicing the industry are clearly using the mechanism to extend people's stay in the country by applying to the courts. On the basis of that application, their length of time in Australia is extended. There are significant costs involved in this whole process. There are significant delays for those who are genuine in their approach. The whole system, therefore, needs a disincentive for those who want to abuse it.In terms of those who find themselves faced with a charge, those who are genuine do not have to pay. Those who are found to be outside the tribunal's requirements do not have to pay if they are leaving the country. If they leave the country, they can leave without paying. It is simply noted that, if they want to come back into the country, when they apply for a visa they will have to pay the $1,000 charge before entering the country. I think that is fair enough. If you have taken the government through the process by claiming that you are a genuine refugee but you have been found not to be and you have taken up resources and Australian taxpayers' money in relation to that application, when you come back into the country there should be some charge on your doing so.This is not about taking a non-humanitarian view. I am sure that all of us on the committee, especially the chairman and the member for Calwell, whose views I respect on these matters—there are a whole number of areas on which we agree in terms of visas, but that is for another day—believe that it is a question of assisting those with a genuine need and a genuine concern so that we try to remove some of those who are not genuine from the system and we encourage those who have a legitimate basis on which to claim to come forward. I cannot find anything wrong with that.We have not had any evidence in this regard. It is apparent that the size of the decrease in the applications and the short time frame in which this has occurred make it difficult to assess whether the fee has been effective. That is what the report says. From what I have seen, it is too early to assess. If this parliament later finds that there is a genuine disincentive for those who have a legitimate claim in terms of the tribunal, then it will be a very different matter. (Time expired)12:55:005500Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—This report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on the review of Migration Regulation 4.31B and its recommendation to retain the $1,000 Refugee Review Tribunal penalty is in opposition to both the advice and the evidence supplied to the committee in nearly all submissions. The recommendations, which are a wholesale adoption of the department's submission, seem to ignore the overwhelming arguments and imposing weight of evidence provided to the committee by organisations and individuals with a direct and genuine role in helping refugees.Against this, the recommendation to retain regulation 4.31B relies solely on the submission of the department. That submission was dominated by one particular notion held by DIMA—that a vast majority of Refugee Review Tribunal applicants are not bona fide. The department seems to have failed to account for the distinction between an unsuccessful review and an unmeritorious applicant. When considering the range of reasons that may contribute to an unsuccessful review, it is apparent that we need not assume that most failed applications are vexatious. The department has also failed to provide evidence that the penalty, while exorbitant and punitive, has succeeded in reducing the number of so-called abuses. This fact once again illustrates that a failed application is determined by matters unaccounted for by most unsuccessful applicants.Arguing against the department's prevailing viewpoint are some of the most respected welfare organisations in Australia. Organisations such as Amnesty International, the Migration Institute of Australia and the Network for the International Protection of Refugees have argued against the imposition of the $1,000 penalty. The Refugee Council of Australia argued strongly against both the penalty and the dogmatic approach of the department. The council recognised that:Official statements about this abuse tend to be very black and white—either a person is a refugee or they are abusing the system.The council, however, identified several categories of claimants not likely to be successful in a Refugee Review Tribunal application who should not be viewed as abusers. These were people with well-founded fears of returning to their country for non-convention reasons, such as the fact that their country is in a state of civil war and they fear generalised violence; and people with compelling family or medical reasons to remain in Australia—for example, a condition for which treatment does not exist in their country—which properly ought to be brought to the minister's attention. These groups of people are not abusers. While the convention definition of refugee may not apply to these people, they clearly believe they have a genuine claim for humanitarian protection.The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs described refugees recently as the neediest of the needy. By that definition, there is nothing that separates these people from successful applicants. There are other cases of people who have had no reason not to return, other than a desire to extend their stay, and who have sought advice from agents who have promised them a work visa, usually at considerable expense. Commonly in these cases, the applicant had no notion that this hinged on an application for a protection visa or that their conduct was in fact abusive. These people have had the misfortune of being either conned or poorly advised by those seeking to profit from the ignorance and desperation of the applicant. These people have paid and will pay further in an attempt to achieve what they do not understand to be a vexatious application.Looking upon these groups, it is easy to understand why the level of unsuccessful claims will be substantially altered by the imposition of a hefty penalty. Those who genuinely believe that there are compelling reasons never to return home will, of course, continue to do all they can to avoid returning to the generalised violence and personalised suffering in their homeland. In fact, the Migration Council of Australia reports that there has `not been a single case known . . . in which the prospect of the $1,000 penalty was even a relevant consideration when clients were deciding whether or not to apply for a review'.DIMA, of course, contends that the penalty has been effective, citing a drop in primary applicants. However, this figure corresponds with international trends that illustrate a global reduction in refugee applications. The department also failed to build a significant link between the primary application rate and a penalty imposed after review. It is therefore difficult to support the department's assertion that the penalty has been effective in meeting any objective. However, the penalty has hurt people—people that the minister described, as I said earlier, as `the neediest of the needy'. The impact of a potential penalty on deserving applicants is an unconscionable burden of anxiety on people who have so often suffered too much already in one lifetime. If we focus on the substantial number of people who have been successful in their review application, they have left violence, torture and persecution. They rarely have the language skills and social supports to adjust quickly to their new home. How many would-be successful reviews are turned away by this penalty? How many lives are turned upside down by the stress of this further imposition? (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Hindmarsh wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?5501Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Private Members' Business5501550113:01:005501Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the significance of Murray River bridge crossings to the national economy;(2) recognises the deteriorated condition of many existing bridge crossings and their urgent need of major capital for upgrading to meet modern safety and traffic load standards;(3) commends the federal Government for its funding commitment of $44 million for upgrading of bridge crossings at Corowa, Echuca and Robinvale and a further $203 million for a new bridge and approaches on the Hume Highway at Albury and Wodonga;(4) acknowledges the Murray River Crossings Transport Economic Study which clearly establishes the regional and national economic significance of all Murray River crossings and establishes a priority for the upgrading of bridges for the first time; and(5) calls on the State Governments of Victoria and New South Wales to provide like funding for reconstruction of bridges requiring urgent replacement. This is an important motion, Mr Speaker, which I am sure holds your interest. It is a pity that you have to depart the chair. The motion calls upon the parliament to do a number of things: firstly, acknowledge the significance of Murray River bridge crossings to the national economy; secondly, recognise the deteriorated condition of many existing bridge crossings and their urgent need of repair and major capital upgrades to meet modern safety and traffic load standards; thirdly, commend the federal government for its funding commitment of $44 million for upgrading of bridge crossings at Corowa, Echuca and Robinvale and a further $203 million for a new bridge and approaches on the Hume Highway at Albury and Wodonga; and, fourthly, acknowledge a very important report, the Murray River crossings—transport economic study , which establishes for the first time some regional and national economic indicators of how important the Murray River bridge crossings are. Fifthly, it calls on the state governments of Victoria and New South Wales to add like funding to meet the ongoing need for urgent replacement of these bridges.The first point of the motion calls for the recognition of `the significance of Murray River bridge crossings to the national economy'. This matter is no better summarised than in the report referred to in part (4) of the motion. The Murray River crossings—transport economic study was completed by PPK Consultants in January of this year and was commissioned by the Murray River Crossings Group. This group has membership from local government and regional development organisations across New South Wales and Victoria. The report has been instrumental in raising the profile of the deterioration which has occurred over many decades to most of these crossings. This is the matter I am calling to be recognised in part (2) of the motion. I am looking forward to the support the parliament will give to the ongoing needs of river crossings.The report establishes very clearly the economic significance of these crossings not only to the local economies but to the national economy. I will say more on that as I proceed with my comments. But, firstly, some background.The number of crossings on the Murray River is quite a surprise to many people when it is brought to their attention. For the entire length of the Murray River associated with the Victorian and New South Wales borders there are 28 road crossings, four rail bridges and two ferries or punts—a significant number of crossings and a nightmare, considering their age. But, most importantly in terms of economic significance, 23.9 million tonnes of freight per year finds its way across these crossings. This translates in terms of freight value and commercial traffic to $33.5 billion per year, a significant amount of money in terms of their national importance. The traffic volume is 39,900 vehicles each day per crossing. These are significant figures. In fact, in terms of the economies of the eastern states, South Australia and the southern states there would not be one commodity I could think of that has not found its way in some way or another over the Murray River crossings.The transport study described in the report was based on a traditional engineering assessment of the bridges which translated itself into the economic value by taking distance of diversion of freight and traffic into account. The Murray River Crossings Group saw a need to quantify these crossings in economic terms, such as in the value of long haul and short haul traffic. The economic study in the report illustrates the significance of the crossings as a major link for domestic markets as well as for shipping terminals for export markets. Also highlighted is the important link between the New South Wales and Victorian economies. The study provides a basis on which to prioritise replacement or refurbishment funds and identifies routes of regional and national importance—something that has been missing in the debate over these crossings for many years.Just to make the point, in respect of the deteriorated condition of these crossings it is worth noting that four of the bridges are over 100 years of age, two bridges are over 80 years of age, 10 bridges are between the ages of 50 and 80, and seven of these bridges are constrained to single carriageway traffic. There is a mixture of timber and steel. Some are entirely timber, and some have a steel main span for the river with timber approaches across the flood plain. Some are in reasonably serviceable condition. But, sadly, others can only be described as substantially dilapidated and not up to modern safety or economic standards, which is the issue of point (2) of the motion before us.There has been considerable representation to the parliament over the last three years on the matter of Murray River bridges which I have been pleased to see. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform took evidence in the last parliament and produced a report in October 1997 entitled Planning not patching. The report was essentially to do with road funding but, very importantly, it recognised the importance of bridges in Australia's road infrastructure. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth request the Australian Transport Council, in association with local government, to develop a program to address deficient bridge infrastructure. It is out of that recommendation that the PPK report was produced.The committee report uses the Murray River crossings by way of example to illustrate the depleted nature of bridges in general. The report acknowledged the importance of the Murray River crossings in the movement of agricultural produce and inputs, manufactured goods, tourism traffic and local traffic. Many of the Murray River communities have a township on either side and hence there is a high volume of commuter traffic on a daily basis. The report also acknowledged, quite importantly, the large volume of produce that finds its way across these bridges, and the subsequent economic importance of the bridges to the whole of eastern Australia and indeed the nation as a whole. Paragraph 3.87 of the report of the standing committee says:Clearly the majority of those bridges were not designed to provide for the freight efficient vehicles currently operated and the proposal to further increase heavy vehicle mass limits will exacerbate existing inadequacies. Nothing highlights more the future problem for these bridges if they are to continue to meet the increasing demands of a modern traffic system. The committee report also highlights, in paragraph 3.88, what is essentially a very difficult problem. It says:The involvement of the Commonwealth and the two state governments in the funding of these bridges raises cross-jurisdictional issues, highlighting the need for intergovernmental cooperation in the planning and funding of Australia's road network.It has been very pleasing to see the focus that this report has produced, and I commend the membership of the committee in the previous parliament on their production of the report. I congratulate all the members involved in that report because it brought a very positive response.The PPK report satisfies the question of economic importance and establishes a process for prioritisation. The response from the federal government has been very encouraging. I am delighted to commend the federal government for its response to the Murray River crossings problem. Up to $247 million of Commonwealth money is now committed: $17 million for the Robinvale bridge replacement, $15 million for a new bridge at Echuca, $12 million for a new bridge at Corowa and $203 million for a new bridge and approaches at Albury. That is a commendable sum of money which requires a small commitment from the two states—Victoria and New South Wales. I commend the member for Farrer for the fine work he has done in responding in a very real way to that important report of the committee.I believe it is very fitting that the Murray River will be the focus of the Centenary of Federation celebrations. It was, after all, in this region that the drive for Federation first commenced, especially in Corowa where customs and duty requirements made life very frustrating for people with family and commercial interests on both sides of the river. It is my hope that the momentum that has been created will continue. I am looking forward to resolution of the funding difficulties in the construction of the two new bridges—if I am allowed to be a little bit parochial, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins—at Swan Hill and Tooley buc. The report clearly establishes the need for two new bridges at these locations. The present bridges are of great economic importance: $1.03 billion of freight per year is carried over the Swan Hill bridge and $0.91 billion per year is carried over the Tooleybuc bridge. Both are timber bridges and both are in urgent need of upgrading. I call upon the state governments for funding to match the commitment by the Commonwealth. (Time expired)XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak13:11:005504Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I begin by picking up the tail end of the speech of the member for Mallee where he referred to the money the government has allocated to what he describes as `the bridge in Albury and its approaches'. They must be fairly long approaches because I understand that that funding commitment is for the whole of the Albury bypass. I see the Deputy Prime Minister leaving the chamber. No, he is not leaving the chamber. I appreciate that. Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister, for returning to hear my contribution. I understand that that bypass is fairly contentious in Albury, and no doubt, therefore, the Deputy Prime Minister has a more intense interest than would usually be the case.Private members' motions are a very effective way for members to put forward important issues in their electorates. This is, of course, an important issue for the member for Mallee and the regions he represents, and I congratulate him and the others who are sponsoring it. I see that the member for Murray has put up her hand—yes, I recognise her. The member for Indi will be speaking shortly. I recently had the opportunity to drive through the electorate of the member for Indi. I was in Rutherglen sampling some of their fine wines—they are almost as good as the Hunter's samples—and I drove further on into Corowa just to experience the Murray crossing. Indeed, it is a rather appalling situation and is no doubt worthy of consideration for additional funding.The contention by the member for Murray that the Murray River Crossings Transport Economic Study clearly establishes the eco nomic and regional significance of all Murray River crossings is without challenge. I must admit I have not had the opportunity to read the study, but I do not think any member would question his argument. Indeed, the contention that all public investment in transport infrastructure plays a critical role in the economic development of our nation is also without challenge. We are all aware that, since the mid-sixties, government investment in infrastructure generally, including in road infrastructure, has been in decline as a percentage of GDP, and I think it would bode us all well to focus on that fact.The motion moved by the member for Mallee could be divided into three subjects. First, there is the need for what I have already mentioned—that is, greater recognition of the need for greater public investment in our transport infrastructure. That again is without challenge. Secondly, the motion represents a thinly veiled attempt to give the federal government a bit of a pat on the back for some recent funding allocations. Thirdly, it is a less thinly veiled attempt to put a bit of a rocket up state governments in order to see them come to the party in some of these funding arrangements. Two and three merge together because I understand that the money announced by the government will not fully cover the cost of these projects, and therefore state government cooperation is crucial to these projects going ahead.That all comes back to the question of Commonwealth-state financial relations, about which there has been a fair bit of talk in the context of the recent GST debate. I think it is fair to say that the recent deal struck between the Democrats and the government on those Commonwealth-state financial relations puts those relations under some strain, and no doubt it could be argued that it puts in question some of those arrangements the member for Mallee is seeking.I have talked about the importance of government investment in transport infrastructure. There has been little talk about it so far today. I was surprised when, in its first budget, the 1996 budget, the Howard government did two things: it first moved to completely abolish the Division of Regional Development and secondly, and more importantly, it cut $622 million out of the national highway budget over four years. When you consider that the government prior to that was spending only about $840 million annually on the national highway budget for the whole of the national highway right around the country, $622 million over four years is a not insignificant cut. That cut surprised me.It has had ramifications for important regional transport initiatives in my own electorate, including the Kurri Kurri corridor, an important transport link which would extend the F3 freeway to the New England Highway just north of Branxton. This link is crucial to the towns of Cessnock and Maitland, in that it would provide those towns with a bypass for the community. It is also crucial to the Upper Hunter, because it would bring the Upper Hunter that much closer to the port of Newcastle and to Sydney and all the markets that go with it. Projects like the Kurri Kurri corridor, the Weakley's Drive-New England Highway intersection, the extension of the Belford Bends and the Muswellbrook bypass have all now been put back and are under some uncertainty, as a direct result of those budget cuts we experienced in John Howard's first budget.Bridges are a big issue in my electorate as well. For example, Cessnock council has no fewer than 100 wooden bridges under its control and responsibility and has nowhere near the amount of money necessary to keep them in any sort of decent state of repair. Scone council has more than 50 bridges and is in a similar situation. There could be no real expectation that the council could possibly keep up the maintenance on those bridges to what the community considers a satisfactory standard.This is an important issue. I am happy to support the member for Mallee on it. I am happy to recognise the significance of the Murray River Crossings Transport Economic Study, and I am happy to recognise that Commonwealth and state governments and indeed local government need to work more closely together to address these problems. I know that the New South Wales government is doing its bit. It has been contributing significantly to the bridge problems in New South Wales regional areas. I have mentioned Scone council and I know that it was a very happy recipient of that new program to address those issues. We should all recognise that those bridges do play an important role and that transport infrastructure generally is crucial to the economic wellbeing and economic efficiency of our nation. I am happy to support the motion of the member for Mallee.13:19:005505Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I commend the member for Mallee for his initiative in bringing forward to the parliament this very important motion acknowledging the policies and actions of the Howard-Fischer government in addressing urgent infrastructure needs in transport in Australia.I also wish to acknowledge the contribution of the parliamentary secretary, the member for Murray, who is at the table. She is one of the federal members in the Howard team with me and the member for Murray and the member for Farrer, the Deputy Prime Minister, who have been determined, since 1996, to recognise adequately the contribution that the regions that we represent will be able to make to Australia's economic wellbeing, and also the urgent need for infrastructure projects to be addressed so that the burgeoning regional economies of those parts of Australia can achieve their full potential and make their full contribution to Australia's future, especially to the future of our children and grandchildren who will rely very much on the modernisation of Australia's infrastructure for their future wellbeing.As the member for Indi, I share with the Deputy Prime Minister the satisfaction of seeing the result of what has been mainly his hard work in having the bridge constructed at Corowa from Wagunyah. This bridge, as the member for Hunter has generously acknowledged, is desperately needed and will complement the burgeoning industrial activity, manufacturing value added exporting activity going on in that region. We just cannot allow what was previously proposed by the New South Wales government—an inadequate upgrade of an inadequate bridge—to go into the next millennium. It is good to see that project go ahead.The member for Murray—like me a backbencher in the government since 1996—has been determined to see the bridges across the Murray addressed, not just because we personally know the area so well but also because we recognise the enormous economic contribution the Murray-Darling Basin is making as the major food producing region in Australia. Its potential to feed the rest of the world and to add to Australia's export income is absolutely exciting. In Albury-Wodonga we have had an incredible saga unfolding, where the efforts to improve the bridge between Albury and Wodonga have been frustrated and delayed over many years. I will not go into all of that—it would require a lot more time—except to say that, thank God, the three governments, Victoria, New South Wales and the Commonwealth, have now signed an agreement to proceed at last with constructing a modern highway connecting the two cities and building a second Murray River crossing.I take this opportunity to appeal to all the people in that region to get behind the construction of the bridges which are needed. Unfortunately, even in today's newspaper in Albury there is an indication by a group that they propose to use whatever means they can—and they are offering free legal advice and perhaps indemnity; I wonder about its legality—to encourage people to join in activities to frustrate, delay and prevent the construction of projects such as this second Murray River crossing between Albury and Wodonga. It is quite remarkable.There have recently been state and federal elections and on each occasion the people of Albury-Wodonga have voted for this project to proceed. Albury-Wodonga is the fastest growing inland regional centre in Australia. Believe it or not, there is only one bridge over the Murray River between those two cities, both of which have a population of about 100,000. There are often traffic delays due to road accidents and other incidents. Recently, a tanker transporting petrol from Albury to Wodonga—it was not interstate in the sense of Sydney-Melbourne; it was locally needed fuel—turned over on the highway between Albury and Wodonga. The traffic delay was horrendous—some two or three hours—and the only alternative route for the traffic between those two great cities was to go about 20 kilometres further to cross the river at Lake Hume where there is a bridge that is not suitable for heavy traffic, or to go through Corowa, which is even worse. (Time expired).13:24:005506Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—It is encouraging to see members of the coalition lining up to speak on this motion. We obviously share the desire to see infrastructure investment go ahead, particularly infrastructure investment in the form of bridges across the Murray River. There is a need for additional investment in infrastructure, as recognised by a graph that has been produced by Delta Electricity and Access Economics in Investment Monitor No. 30 December 1998 . That graph shows since the 1960s a dramatic slide in public investment in infrastructure as a proportion of output. It shows a sharp fall in Australian public investment as a proportion of output over the last three decades, with the ratio almost halving from eight per cent in the mid-1960s to under five per cent recently.If you do get a chance to have a look at that graph, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see that there has been a dramatic slide under the present government, reflecting its philosophical approach to public investment in infrastructure which is to effectively oppose it and to argue in support of more private investment in infrastructure. We could have a debate about that, but one of the implications or the logic of that approach is to raise the possibility of toll bridges across the Murray River. We would not endorse such a proposal, but it shows the inescapable logic of the decisions that this government has been taking in terms of investment in infrastructure.I particularly want to focus on part (5) of the motion which calls on the state governments of Victoria and New South Wales to provide like funding for reconstruction of bridges requiring urgent replacement. It is all very good to call on the states to do that, but the other decisions that the same coalition members are making in the party room on new financial arrangements between the states and the Commonwealth under the goods and services tax proposals are completely undermining the very sorts of aspirations that they are expressing. I draw attention to the document that was released by the Prime Minister on Friday, past most media deadlines so that there was not proper scrutiny of it. In that document the Prime Minister said:It is proposed that debits tax be removed by the states and territories by 1 July 2000. It is also proposed that states and territories defer the abolition of the remaining business stamp duties . . .That is, defer indefinitely. So we are now in a situation, unfortunately, where the states do not know whether they are coming or going. The Prime Minister indicated in that material that he would be writing to the states to tell them what this all means. I know, for example, that Queensland officials are seeking to get in touch with Commonwealth officials. They have had no clarification of what all this means, what implications this partial GST-free tax arrangement will have for the states.In fact, a number of the members who are speaking from the coalition side are from Victoria. On the front page of the Age the Victorian Treasurer, Mr Stockdale, is quoted as saying, `It was a very disappointing deal that would hurt Victoria,' and he called for a new Premiers Conference. `This is not what the states agreed to,' he said. `It will make life tougher for the state in terms of improving the state's tax mix overall.' Mr Stockdale's attack was based on the decision to keep the financial institutions duty on deposits until 2002 and the bank account debits tax on withdrawals until 2005. It will be on until at least 2005; in fact, it will be on the never-never. The article continued that Mr Stockdale said:`The worst part is the decision to defer the abolition of some of the most negative taxes for Australia's future.'That is from the Victorian Treasurer, yet we have a motion here calling upon the Victorian and New South Wales governments to put extra funding into this infrastructure. I think that members opposite really should be going back into the party room, re-examining what the Prime Minister announced the other night and having a look at its implications. When the Prime Minister says, `Look, it's all right, we're going to give them all the GST,' they are now going to get less GST and are going to face, from 1 July 2000—XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I realise the member has been indulged to wander along the tax path, but he is now talking total humbug. The Labor Party is opposed to tax reform and it is now pontificating against the motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member was drawing what might have been considered by some a long bow, but he tried to relate his comments to the motion. (Time expired)13:29:005507McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I wish to talk about the bridges across the Murray, not the current tax debate, and to concentrate the attention of the members on this side to this important issue. I do so because I was part of the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform that travelled around Australia and produced the report entitled Planning not Patching . That was a landmark report on funding by federal, state and local government authorities and the ongoing dilemma of how we might keep Australia's roads in very good condition.There are 27 crossings on the Murray River between Victoria and New South Wales. One of the things that impressed me particularly was the crossing at Howlong. I did not appreciate that not only was there a bridge across the river but there were another four bridges along the flood plain on the New South Wales side plus six on the Victorian side, meaning that not just is there this particular bridge but, in anticipation of the flood plain, there is another set of structures that require a lot of capital expenditure and maintenance. This particular bridge is of timber construction going back to the 1900s.These crossings are very important for agriculture, tourism, industry and, of course, local traffic going both ways. Exports are dependent on these bridges and, of course, there could be emergencies on these old bridges that need attention, such as we saw in the Swiss tunnel disaster in Europe where something unforeseen happened. Half these bridges were built before the 1950s—the average age is 61 years—and some were built around the 1900s when the freight limits were very much less than the 41-tonne axle load limits that we now have. The problem is that the states—New South Wales and Victoria—are responsible, although the Commonwealth makes some contribution, and there is a difficulty with jurisdiction: who is actually responsible and who will pay the money.The Murray Regional Development Board put in a very good submission to the standing committee in which they drew to the attention of that committee all the difficulties involved with the 27 bridges, from Mildura to Echuca, to Howlong, Albury and Tumbarumba. The Murray River, as most members would be aware, divides and ties the persons along the river, and that makes the problems we are debating here in the parliament rather unique.In 1936 there was an agreement between the Victorian and New South Wales governments to split the funding on a fifty-fifty basis. One of the problems the committee encountered was the identification of the state boundaries at the high water mark. The question raised by both state governments was where that boundary was and what defined the high water mark. Most of these bridges, as we observed on our inspection, had passed their economic life, and both states were passing the buck for their maintenance, repair and reinstatement. The federal government have taken up the cudgels both in this matter and in the matter of the Albury-Wodonga bypass. As the member for Indi would be fully aware, there has been a fair bit of debate about the location of that bypass, and the Commonwealth government have made a considerable contribution. The Commonwealth government are also assisting with the bridge at Tocumwal on the Newell Highway and the bridge at Mildura on the Sturt Highway, which the honourable member for Mallee has no doubt referred to.It is estimated that it will take $2.2 million over a 10-year period to stabilise, maintain and reinstate those bridges. The submission of the Murray Regional Development Board to the standing committee states:8 bridges are inadequate for current day loadings . . . The bridges range from 12 to 117 years old with an average age of 61 years;18 bridges are over 20 years old;8 bridges require repainting . . . 4 bridges have structurally inadequate high maintenance decks—and we observed that personally—. . . 10 bridges have partial or total single lane restrictions in place;3 bridges are totally width deficient;15 bridges have deficient safety barriers.It is quite clear that these bridges across the Murray have unique problems, and governments of all political colours have walked away from funding them and fixing them up. If you observe them, you can see that many of them were built before the turn of the century and that it is only a matter of time before we have a very serious accident on one of these bridges, which are not designed or maintained to modern-day standards. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)13:34:005508Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to speak on this important motion moved by the member for Mallee. I am sure that no-one would disagree with the significance of the Murray River crossings. Highlighted in a number of speeches has been the contribution they make to the export of produce and other things throughout Australia. But this motion should be seen in a much wider context than just the Murray River crossings, important though they are. It should be seen as raising questions about funding to different modes of transport, especially to infrastructure.To give an example, my local council, Shellharbour City Council, have been in contact with the current federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, and the former minister, Mr Vaile, and have expressed their concern in relation to increased axle weights on roads. The council have constantly pointed out that the new weight allowance in most states—except in New South Wales where, as I understand, legislation will be introduced in July—has increased from something like 41 tonnes to 44 tonnes. It is up to the councils then to spend their available ratepayers' money on bridges and roads to deal with that increased weight. If the federal government persists with the weight increase, it follows that there should also be an increase in untied road maintenance grants to councils.The federal government has indicated, and this motion acknowledges, that much of the money for the upgrading of bridge crossings will go to coalition held seats. Last year the minister said that the impact of the increased weight on lightly trafficked roads would be minimal, but there will be an impact and, as Shellharbour Council has rightly said, local roads are designed for local traffic and any increase in council load limits will reduce the effective pavement life of those roads. As has been reported, in all states this new weight will be introduced on 1 July 1999; that is, except in New South Wales.Of course, governments of all political persuasions have not adequately funded rail in comparison with road. If they had maybe this motion would have been unnecessary. One of the reasons the bridges across the Murray and the bridges in other parts of Australia, and indeed some of the roads, are deteriorating is the weight that they have been expected to take. Speakers on the other side have been telling us how old the bridges across the Murray are. I have no argument with that, but those bridges were designed to take loads that were not even thought about when they were built. It is the same with the roads. I do not want to get into an argument about road versus rail, especially as I see the honourable member for New England is here. What I am going to say is that it is not an either/or situation. It is appropriate that some things be carried by road and others by rail. It seems to me that, with the traffic that is on our roads today, especially some of the heavy stuff, it would be more appropriate if some of it went by rail or, indeed, by sea. We would not then be having this constant argument. I sometimes wish that the rail lobby had as much clout as the road lobby.It is time that we looked seriously at the whole infrastructure question, including funding. I have made the point before that a lot of money from the state and federal governments, and rightly so, is being put into the Pacific Highway but, if all that money and those improvements do is take freight off the north coast rail and put it on the Pacific Highway, then the amount of money that is being put there will not be enough. I support the motion as there is no argument at all with the need for this bridge work; there is no argument with the money being put in there. But it is time that, instead of just looking at the bridges over the Murray, we had a serious look at the funding for all transport infrastructure in this country.13:39:005509Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I commend the member for Mallee on the motion he has put before the House today. Of course, bridge infrastructure in general has created a very serious situation, particularly in regional Australia. I had first-hand experience of this when travelling between Gladstone and Bundaberg in my electorate. I could have driven into a hole on the Three Mile Creek bridge on the Bruce Highway north of Miriam Vale. It is one of four timber bridges on the Bruce Highway between Brisbane and Cairns targeted for elimination. On that occasion, I drove onto this bridge to find a large chunk of asphalt decking missing. Fortunately, I had a wide bodied car and I missed the hole but some others behind me were not so lucky. I wrote to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and, thankfully, he acted promptly on my concerns. I recently announced that the federal government will, at a cost of $2.5 million, replace that bridge on the national highway system.I also look forward to the opening of a $24 million bridge at Wallaville on the Burnett River. This bridge is also on the Bruce Highway boundary of my electorate and replaces a dangerous, flood prone wooden structure. So, already sensitised to situations like this, I see the Murray River bridge crossings as something of an icon issue in the debate on regional infrastructure, as my colleague the member for Throsby has suggested.In October 1997, I had the privilege of bringing down the report titled Planning not patching—the findings of an inquiry into federal road funding by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform. The committee's attention was drawn to the inadequacies of the road infrastructure serving Australia's major food producing and processing regions. Evidence was presented during the inquiry that deficient bridge infrastructure was emerging as a major weak link in the efficiency of Australia's road network, with implications for tourism, agriculture and resource industries.The majority of the deficient bridge structures occur on state and local road networks. However, the efficiency of these networks has, by extension, a direct bearing on the ability of the national highway system to meet its objectives. The ability of bridges to cater for existing and future heavy vehicle loadings is dependent on the original design, the standard of construction and maintenance, vehicle overloading, repeated loading cycles and natural deterioration. Recognising the adequacy of bridges as a critical issue, I commend the government for committing $44 million under the Federation Fund for the upgrading of bridge crossings at Corowa, Echuca and Robinvale. This is in addition to bridge works on the Albury-Wodonga bypass which are also planned.As I said earlier, the Murray Valley region remains an icon of the commitment of governments, state and federal, to regional infrastructure. There are 27 crossings across the Murray River. The bridges form part of the road networks serving the needs of industry and the communities of both New South Wales and Victoria. But it is not just the bridges; approaches are also important. The Murray Regional Development Board advised the inquiry that six of the Murray River's 27 bridges will require associated approach works across the flood plain. The board also noted that `the road to our export markets for many products starts on a dusty track in regional Australia and at some stage a large volume of this product crosses the Murray River.'Nearly half of the Murray River bridges were built before 1950 and some date back to the turn of the century, with an average age of 61 years. As the Murray River forms the border between Victoria and New South Wales, both states share funding responsibility for the bridges—three are on the national highway system and are fully funded by the Commonwealth. With this $44 million, the Commonwealth is shouldering its share of responsibility. I join with my colleagues in urging the Victorian government to continue the good work it has been doing and for the New South Wales government to lift its game in this respect.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being almost 1.45 p.m., the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Miscellaneous551055105510Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to speak about Mr George Smith, the Chairman of the Blacktown RSL Club. George recently received the Order of Australia Medal from the NSW Governor, Gordon Samuels. He received the medal for more than 30 years service to the 7th Australian Division Association. He joined the Australian Army in 1939 and fought in the Middle East. George's unit was one of those recalled to defend Australia on the insistence of the Australian Prime Minister, John Curtin, after the Japanese entered the war. Its first action was at Milne Bay, a famous Australian victory. The unit fought up the New Guinea coast to Buna and then on to Lae. George continued his association with his old unit after the war. He has been a member of the 7th Australian Division Association for well over three decades. He has been secretary and treasurer for the past 18 years. George has been a member of the 2nd/5th Field Regiment Association since 1945. He is a past president and the current vice-president and editor of the unit's magazine. I offer this parliament's congratulations to George Smith OAM on his well deserved award.55105510Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Today I wish to comment very briefly on the two measures in the budget which are of great interest to constituents in my electorate, namely the federal government's proposal to spend $70 million on building a Commonwealth courts building in Adelaide. This is a long overdue project. For 15 years or more the Adelaide legal fraternity has been lobbying the federal government, and I am delighted to be able to congratulate the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Attorney-General on finally coming up with the required funds to make sure that Adelaide has the same sorts of facilities as every other capital city on the mainland in the area of the Federal Court, the Family Court and of course the High Court, when that court visits my happy state.The new Commonwealth courts building will be built on the Angas Street site of the police headquarters—with which you, Mr Speaker, would be familiar—a traditional eyesore on the Adelaide skyline, that will be demolished and the Federal Court building will be built there in the next two years. The proposal will begin in the next 12 months. I look forward to the sod turning ceremony and the final opening of that building so that the current arrangements—the cramped conditions, the unsafe conditions and the unhappy situation that the Family Court judges as well as the legal fraternity and the clients of the law firms find themselves in—for the Family Court and the Federal Court can finally end. If I have a few seconds left, I would like to congratulate the government—(Time expired)55115511Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—During a busy two weeks off from the House I held a function at one of my local RSL clubs to present certificates of appreciation to many of our local veterans. What was so special about this occasion at the Oakleigh RSL was I had the opportunity to present a Civilian Service Medal to a long-time Box Hill resident, Irene Davies. Irene is a fantastic lady, still extremely active in her local community particularly in her tireless efforts at the Box Hill Senior Citizens Club.Irene Harris, as she was on 3 September 1939, joined the Australian Women's Land Army and served six years until 2 September 1945 to help the Australian war effort. Irene describes her work on the land as her bit to help the boys overseas. Irene has recounted many fond memories of her time with the AWLA, and it is a fantastic thing that the service of those who served in Australia during World War II in support of the war effort, particularly the many women, is recognised.It is a pity the government of the day did not see it as such and destroyed most of the AWLA's records. It is therefore pleasing to see the Ex-AWLA Association putting in a great effort to record this part of our history. Irene received her medal surrounded by her sons and friends, and it was particularly pleasing to pin a well earned medal on one of our unsung heroes.55115511Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—It is with some sadness that I rise today to speak about the late Mr Fred Morgan of Coomoora near Daylesford in my electorate. Mr Morgan was tragically killed in a car accident on 16 April this year. Fred Morgan was born in Melbourne in 1940, trained as a commercial artist and took a casual job at the Pan recorder factory at Hawthorn, staying there for 10 years. He had played the recorder from the age of 12 and he loved the work. In 1970 he won a Churchill Fellowship and this opportunity was a key to his future success. A talented performer, Fred Morgan went on to become a master craftsman, renowned for his beautiful high quality recorders. On hearing of his death, many overseas and local musicians spoke of his tremendous skill, generosity and modesty. Mr Morgan is survived by his wife—harpsichordist Ann Murphy—and three children. This extraordinarily talented craftsman will be very sadly missed.55115511Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I would like to celebrate a commendation from the Australian Tidy Towns award organisation to the town of Smithton on the north-west coast of Tasmania as part of the municipality of Circular Head. The town unfortunately was not successful in being the tidiest town in Australia, an award which went to a South Australian town, but its neighbour, Stanley, won this in 1997 because there is a great interest in tidiness in Tasmania in particular, especially on the north-west coast.Smithton was applauded in its commendation for a number of initiatives, including the White Hills transfer station and the Port Latta landfill site. The Tidy Towns judges said that Port Latta in particular was Tasmania's first waste disposal site to meet the very stringent environmental guidelines established by the committee and was a model for other local government authorities not just in Tasmania but throughout Australia. Environmental sustainability in Tasmania, in particular on the north-west coast, is strong in the area with timber, dairying and seafood industries all managing their operations in an environmentally sensitive way. I would also like to commend the Circular Head community for being the first in Tasmania to enter into partnership agreements between local government and the state government. In concluding, the road from Wynyard to Smithton has been in need of upgrading for some time and I hope the federal government will seek—(Time expired)55125512St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—Last Saturday night, in the little village of Ben Lomond, high in the mountains of my electorate of New England, a very special occasion took place. Over 300 people gathered to celebrate the 80th birthday of Mr Frank Presnell of Frama, Ben Lomond. Frank Presnell moved to the Ben Lomond area of the tablelands some 54 years ago and has become an inspiration to all people who live and do business in that part of the world.Frank's contribution to charitable work within the region is legendary. He is often referred to as `Mr BBQ'. No matter the function, its size or its importance, if a barbecue is to be held in any part of the function, Frank will be there. All manner of different groups, including Rotary, as he is a member, have benefited from Frank's commitment to others that he believed were less fortunate than he was. As a farmer of spuds, peas and beans and of prime lambs and fine wool, Frank has seen changing times in the country. Through goods times and bad, through the ravages of drought and the damages of flood, Frank's help for others less fortunate has never waned. I had the honour of being the master of ceremonies last Saturday night and being with Frank's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and the hundreds of friends to celebrate this great occasion. May I say in closing, as I did the other night, the world has been made a better place because Frank Presnell is in it.55125512Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I wish to commend St Peter's secondary college in Cranbourne—in particular, Principal Terry Feely and the SOSE coordinator, Mr Robert Tassoni—for its initiative in celebrating National Reconciliation Week, which the school concludes tomorrow. To assist this fine Christian school focus on how it may assist the reconciliation process, students have undertaken activities which hopefully will assist them to understand the culture, traditions and many issues confronting our indigenous peoples.These initiatives include workshops on land rights, the stolen generation and Aboriginal health and housing, with a view to developing the school's own internal reconciliation policy. Parents have been encouraged to participate wherever possible. The celebrations will conclude tomorrow with a paraliturgy, at which the school's pledge to continue to work towards the reconciliation process will be renewed. I know the federal parliament will join with me in commending St Peter's on its commitment to the reconciliation process, which mirrors the school's strong desire to work towards a more harmonious society.55125512Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—On Monday 24 May I attended a public forum on community aged care, organised by the Wesley Mission. More than 100 people attended and my congratulations go to Bernard Boerma, the regional manager of the Wesley Mission in Brisbane North, and his team. Community and home care issues were very high on the agenda, as well as local and state government issues. For instance, one lady who attended made the observation that Brisbane City Council should give a reduced rate for dog registration as, for many old people, their dogs and cats are the only friends that they have to keep them company at home—a very sad and true fact.Home help is important. Older people need help with shopping, home maintenance and cooking meals. It is therefore crucial that the home and community care programs continue, particularly the initiatives put in place under the government's Staying At Home package. Older people also need choice in how they live their lives, and this package particularly delivers on that need. We also need to recognise that elderly people are very vulnerable in their homes and that accidents can happen. When people live alone this can have very disastrous results. The provision of emergency call buttons and the commitment in the 1999-2000 federal budget of $6.6 million over four years to reduce the incidence of falls should be applauded in this regard.A comment was made at the forum by one gentleman, who highlighted to me how important it is for older people who are staying at home to maintain contact with the community. The gentleman made the point that the recipients of Meals on Wheels are often hungrier for company than food. The feedback I received was excellent. (Time expired)55135513Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise to state my opposition to the recent approval given for the uranium mine situated at Beverley in South Australia by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. The government's decision to approve uranium mines in Australia is one that many constituents in my electorate of Lowe find abhorrent. One of the principal concerns includes what is done with the uranium once it has actually been mined. At present, the main markets for Australian uranium include Japan, South Korea, the European Union and the United States. Potential markets are also developing in Taiwan and China, and my constituents are concerned about further expansion of nuclear use by these countries.Other concerns include the social impacts on the communities involved. The cultural implications of the Beverley mine for the Aboriginal community in the Flinders Ranges have been ignored. According to the Australian Heritage Commission, there was inadequate consultation with the community during the environmental impact statement process.Possibly the largest concern is the environmental impact on the area being mined. According to a research paper by Mr Paul Kay of the Parliamentary Library, the in situ leach mining process which is to be used in the Beverley uranium mine contains sulphuric acid, which is added to water pumped from the aquifer containing the uranium deposit. The acid leaching process has led to ground water contamination and surface pollution at uranium mines in other parts of the world. I was appalled to find that the restoration to potable water of the Beverley aquifer is considered an unreasonable standard as the premining condition is salty and radionuclide contaminated. (Time expired)55135513Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise today to congratulate a constituent of mine on two significant events, the first one happening two weeks ago. Mrs Jessie Hurley had the honour of having a street named after her, which is something that does not happen often to many people—certainly not in their lifetime. The reason that Jessie Hurley had this street named after her is that she is one of Australia's oldest residents, and she is certainly the Central Coast's oldest resident. On 15 June this year she will celebrate her 109th birthday—a marvellous event.I remember Jessie at the sprightly age of 105 coming to my office when I was first elected, having baked me a cake to celebrate my election. She is a good friend and has collected a number of congratulatory certificates from the Prime Minister. On 15 June she will receive I think her fourth certificate from Prime Minister John Howard. The amazing thing about Jessie is that she is very sprightly. She still has her memory and her faculties and is an inspiration to everyone who meets her. She has six children, 20 grandchildren, 47 great-grandchildren and 51 great-great-grandchildren and lives with her daughter Jessie Montgomery, who we affec tionately know, at the age of 83, as young Jessie. Together they have been caring for themselves at the Tarragal Glen retirement village for many years, and recently Jessie Hurley has moved into the Tarragal House nursing home. (Time expired)55145514Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise this afternoon to speak about Parkinson's disease. An important drug, Tasmar, that recently was made available for the treatment of that regrettably has been removed from national sale following a decision of the Minister for Health and Aged Care in January this year. There are some 40,000 sufferers of this disease across the country—probably more. Why has it been withdrawn from sale? In the United States, of the 90,000 people who have used the drug—which has provided enormous therapeutic value to those users—three have died. As a consequence of that, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has advised the health minister that it should be withdrawn from sale in Australia—and without demur the health minister has proceeded to do that.The impact on the lives of average Australians who have been dependent on this drug for some years has been most significant. It beggars belief as to why, when it has such an enormous value in improving the quality of life of average Australians, a decision has been taken to withdraw it from sale and from use. Of course the out is that the minister allows people to personally import the drug from countries like the United States and New Zealand, where it is still available. However to do so is to do so at great cost—some $900 for three months supply, meaning that it is available for the rich but not for others. Why is it in this country we can have access to drugs like Viagra but not Tasmar?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice551455145514Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Today at Red Rooster the chicken bar has on sale—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The House will come to order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I will start again, Mr Speaker. Today at Red Rooster the chicken bar has on sale `Today's hot cooked chickens, hot cooked chickens sold cold today, hot cooked chicken pieces and cold cooked chicken which can be cut into pieces on demand'. Treasurer, which of these items will attract a GST under your proposals and which will not?5514Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I accept the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition that today at Red Rooster there are cooked chickens, uncooked chickens, parts of chickens—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No, not uncooked chickens.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Not uncooked chickens. He is familiar with them all, Mr Speaker. In fact, I believe Red Rooster counts him as one of its greatest patrons and with income tax cuts he will be able to buy more Red Rooster.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. I do frequent, like most Australians, Red Rooster Foods' chicken bar. What I am interested in, like most Australians, is an answer to my question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition was granted some indulgence from the chair because of the level of levity existing in the chamber. He has asked a question which I believe the Treasurer was answering, and I call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The point I was going on to make is that, like other Australians, the Leader of the Opposition will be getting income tax cuts from 1 July 2000 which will enable him to cope with any price increases in Red Rooster, Kentucky Fried Chicken, or whatever it might be. The basic rule that the government will be following in its legislation is that takeaway products will be taxable. That is the agreement that we have with the Australian Democrats.55145514Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the latest devel opments in the government's quest to reform Australia's inefficient and outdated taxation system?5515Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am delighted to inform the House that last Friday the basis was laid to finally achieve something that this country has needed for a quarter of a century, and that is fundamental reform of the Australian taxation system. Taxation reform will boost economic performance; economic performance will produce more jobs.Under the plan that we will seek the support of the Senate for, and now believe will pass through the Senate, 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers from 1 July next year will be on a top marginal tax rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar. Eighty per cent of Australians—the great bulk of Australian taxpayers—will receive the greatest tax cut they have ever had from any government. The last time the tax scales were adjusted by the Labor Party every single rate of indirect tax was increased. By contrast we have now been in office for over three years and there has been no increase in personal income tax.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—It is a nightmare.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes. It is a political nightmare for those who have been left in the grandstand of Australia politics. They are spectators. They are not players; they are not participants. They are merely spectators.Not only will it be possible for somebody's income to go from $20,000 to $50,000 a year without going into a higher taxation bracket, not only will 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers have a top marginal rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar, but we will also be honouring the architecture of the new arrangement with the states.For the first time since the end of World War II the Australian states will have access to a growth tax. No longer will we have the farce of annual premiers conferences. We will now deliver to the Australian states a basis over time for a sustained growth in their revenues. What that means, Mr Speaker, is that the Australian states will have a sound financial source of the money they need to provide government schools, roads, hospitals, police services and all the other things that are needed.This is the best financial deal the Australian states have ever had. Not only are there enormous income tax benefits, not only are there enormous benefits for the states, not only is there a boost to productivity and therefore to jobs, but may I say very proudly that what was announced on Friday is even better for the bush than the earlier package. What was announced on Friday represents the delivery in full of the promises I made to the National Farmers Federation at Longreach two weeks ago when I said that, in any negotiation relating to tax, the interests of Australian farmers would be protected. The bush is a big winner out of last Friday. The bush of Australia not only preserves all the benefits it received, but in addition, because the concessional approach to diesel has been extended to rail transport, it means that there are vast cost savings for wheat growers and also significant cost savings for those in the mining industry.For 25 years governments on both sides have grappled with the challenge of tax reform. The Labor Party in government squibbed it. The Labor Party in opposition has retired to the grandstand. Pryor in the Canberra Times had it right today when he showed the Leader of the Opposition in the grandstand. They are not players; they are not participants. They have been recreant to the national interest, and the great challenge of tax reform was taken up by the coalition, and it will now become a reality as a result of last Friday's agreement.55155515Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is also to the Treasurer. Why is the Treasurer proposing to make lobster and fresh salmon GST free but to tax fish and chips? Does he agree with the Democrats that fish fingers should be untaxed? How does he propose to deal with crumbed calamari: bones in, bones out? Treasurer, is this what you meant when you described the Democrat proposal as a nightmare on main street?5515Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We are very pleased to see some interest in tax reform from the Labor Party at last. The Labor Party apparently has shown no interest in the complexity of the wholesale sales tax system, which they had been running at rates of 12, 22, 32, 41, 45 and 47 per cent for the last three years. In answer to the honourable member's question, as I said earlier, the basic principle agreed with the Australian Democrats is that takeaway food will be taxable. That was a proposition that was put by the Australian Democrats and agreed to by the government. But the Prime Minister could not have said it better when he said, `Where does the Labor Party stand on the great issue of tax reform?' Oh, it stands to its feet.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I go to relevance. The question was quite specific about a set of goods to determine whether or not they would be taxed. This is your nightmare on main street, Treasurer, and you are Freddy Krueger.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. It will be obvious to the House that in question time today there will be a number of questions that could be deemed to be hypothetical but they have been allowed to be asked. It is also reasonable therefore for the Treasurer to be given some latitude in the way in which he responds to those questions. I call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Having pointed out the basic principle, I then asked the question, where does the Labor Party stand on the question of tax reform, and the Leader of the Opposition got to his feet to make a point of order on the grounds of irrelevance. How well he demonstrated his position! The Labor Party apparently is now resorting to ringing up Australian Democrats pleading with them not to pass the bills. As reported in today's Australian —PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I again raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I go to relevance. We have had six months of blah on this stuff from the Treasurer. The time has come to answer specific questions. He was asked a specific question as to how he justified that fish fingers should be taxed and asked how he proposed to deal with crumbed calamari.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition wil resume his seat. I will, of course, require the Treasurer to be relevant to the question. The question deals with the matter of tax reform.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said, under the definitions of food, takeaway food will be taxable. The Australian Labor Party, in its efforts to be relevant, has now been apparently ringing Democrat offices trying to argue that this tax reform should not become part of the Australian legislation. The Democrats were at first worried about this, but they noticed that a number of callers could not pronounce the name—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I go to relevance. This is way beyond the scope of the question. The article happens to be nonsense, but it is way beyond the scope of the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition asked a question about tax reform. I was prepared to hear—Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I presume the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in the Speaker's ruling on the matter which the Leader of the Opposition has raised! The House will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition raised a matter of relevance. As I have indicated, when the Treasurer turned to the question of the way the Australian Democrats were dealing with this question, it struck me that he may well be talking about some of the structure that determined the way in which food would be taxed. For that reason I had allowed him to continue down that track. If he does not return to the question of food and the specific matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I will require him to resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said, the government has agreed with the Australian Democrats that takeaway food should be taxable. That is the agreement we have come to with them, and that is the definition that has been drawn. The Australian Labor Party spends its time ringing Democrat offices—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is nonsense!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Nonsense! They were ringing up over Natasha Stott Despoja and, as the Democrats reported, they could not even pronounce the name.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, under standing order 145. This is precisely the matter that you said the Treasurer was not to refer to and that if he did you would require him to resume his seat. I ask you to do so now.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will rule on the matter of relevance. The Treasurer had the call and I was waiting to see where in fact his point was going. He had not made any points that he had not made earlier prior to being interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition, rightly, on a matter of relevance.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In making those phone calls, allegedly furious about Natasha Stott Despoja, they were mispronouncing her name. Numerous people call her Dr Poyer and one called her Dr Pergola.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat.55175517Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the very capable Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the background to the recent lifting by Standard and Poors of Australia's credit rating? What was the rationale behind this positive development? What does this demonstrate about the policies of this government and the underlying strength of the Australian economy?5517Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—In a news release dated 18 May 1999, Standard and Poors announced that Australia's foreign currency rating had been raised to AA plus. This reversed the downgrading of Australia in 1989, which was presided over by the Australian Labor Party. During its term in office, the Australian Labor Party had Australia downgraded twice—first in 1986 and second in 1989. As a result of this present government's policies, we have now managed to undo the first downgrading, the first piece of damage that the Australian Labor Party left Australia, with long-term borrowing downgradings and causing Australian business higher interest rates.When Standard and Poors made its announcement reversing the effect of that 1989 downgrading, Standard and Poors noted that Australia's favourable economic performance and prospects were `as a result of economic reforms, reinforcing resilience, flexibility, diversity and competitiveness'. Standard and Poors noted that the stable outlook reflects the likelihood that the government's strong demonstrated and ongoing commitment to privatisation and fiscal consolidation will, in improving the government's stock position, provide enhanced flexibility to deal with economic stress in the years ahead. I think all Australians would welcome the fact that Australia's economic performance has now been recognised and that Australia has won, through hard and long economic reform, an advantage which it lost in 1989 because of the poor economic performance of the then government.Let it also be remembered that, when this government determined to pull the Australian budget out of deficit and put it into surplus to strengthen our economy, we were fought every inch of the way by Labor. It was Labor that determined, having created the fiscal deficit and the fiscal mess in Australia, that it would do everything it could to keep it there. We might well observe the same in relation to tax. The Australian Labor Party wants to fight every inch of the way on tax reform and then they say, `Once it is implemented, if we were elected'—what would they do about it?—`we would keep it.' They would keep it! In other words, it is precisely the same strategy that they followed in relation to the budget—they fought every inch of the way to prevent Australia getting a surplus budget and then announced that they have actually been in favour of surpluses all the time.The importance of fiscal responsibility has been borne out both with the stability that has been given to the Australian economy in the last two years and the confidence that is now returning in relation to our economy. We have seen again, with international trade data releases, the pressures that are coming onto the Australian economy as a result of a downturn amongst our trading partners. From 1 April 1999, coking coal producers are receiving prices on average 17 per cent lower in US dollar terms than they were last month. Steaming coal prices are down by around 13 per cent on average, with iron ore prices down by about 10 per cent on average. As a consequence of that, you saw in today's trade data a fall in relation to exports only partly offset by a fall in relation to imports—an international trade deficit for the month of April, as a result of poor export prices, of around $1.9 billion.In relation to that, the government has forecast for the financial year that it would be expecting a current account deficit of the order of 5½ per cent, with a current account deficit of the order of six per cent in some of the quarters leading up to the end of the financial year. At a time when your export prices are at historical lows, you will get pressure on your trade position. You will particularly get pressure on your trade position if, at a time when your export prices are at historical lows, you have a strong domestic economy—and the Australian economy is still a strong domestic economy, growing at one of the fastest rates in relation to the developed world.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Therefore, you do not erode the surplus.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That means that, in relation to economic reform, there is no room for complacency. There is no room for complacency in relation to fiscal policy. That is why this government has put the budget into surplus and why this government has a policy which, if it were not opposed by the Australian Labor Party, would completely eliminate Commonwealth debt by 2002-03. What a magnificent achievement that would be.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You are speaking like a drunken sailor.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition yells at his loudest when he is at his weakest. The reason he is yelling right now at the top of his voice is that he knows that it is his strategy to try to defeat the possibility that Australia has once in a generation to eliminate its debt, just as he tried to defeat the government putting the budget into surplus and just as he is trying to defeat the government in relation to tax reform.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, come on, Peter. You can do better than this.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Australian Labor Party, which used to pride itself on being one of the parties of Australia, is now reduced to phoning up Democrat offices and posing as outraged Democrats to ask the Democrats not to pass the legislation—ringing in and allegedly complaining about `Dr Pergola'. The only other person who was unable to pronounce the name of the Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats on the weekend was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He had trouble getting that out on the Sunday program. One might wonder where these telephone callers are being instructed from. It is the same staffers who are brought in on Thursday nights when the Leader of the Opposition delivers his pathetic replies to the budget and who are instructed to sit up there and clap loudly when he finishes. They are the same people who were instructed to ring around the Australian Democrat offices. The Australian Labor Party is on its uppers, down for the count, and it has no relevance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order which goes to relevance: this is so lame—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I presume that the Treasurer has concluded his answer.55185518Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall describing the Democrats' food proposal as `a proposal for a nightmare on main street' and saying, `You would be in a milk bar and, if you sold bread and butter, it would be tax free, but if you put butter on the bread it would be taxable. You would have sandwich counters where they would say, "Here's the bread, here's the butter—you go and make your own sandwich because, if we put the butter on the bread, it suddenly becomes taxable"'? Treasurer, are you planning to tax a buttered bread roll, but not an unbuttered bread roll? What is your position on cheese-topped rolls? Treasurer, won't your deal with the Democrats produce the very nightmare on main street you were railing against?5519Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The point I have made repeatedly in the House is that, where you have a comprehensive tax base, you reduce complexity. I have made that point a thousand times. It is one of the reasons why we are against an indirect tax system which has rates of 12, 22, 32, 37, 41 and 45 per cent. It is one of the reasons why we disagree with the Labor Party on wholesale sales tax where it says you should tax a toothbrush but not toothpaste. Which one is taxable under the Labor Party?DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order again in relation to relevance. This was a very specific question as to what his new deal is going to tax. He either answers yes or no, or he obfuscates and should sit down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is being entirely relevant to the question as I wrote it down.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The point we have made on a number of occasions is that the GST applies to takeaway food. I have made that point in relation to all of the answers so far. A moment's thought will tell you not to proceed with the remainder of your 10 questions, which have been carefully written out for you and which lead to the same position.A 10 per cent single rate which applies to takeaway food is much simpler than Labor's policy. Labor's policy is to have the following indirect taxes: zero, 12, 22, 32, 37, 41 and 45.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order going to relevance. He can arrange his own dorothy dixers on wholesale sales tax, but he is way off the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is infinitely simpler than zero, 12, 22, 32, 37, 41 and 45 per cent, which is Australian Labor Party policy. It is infinitely simpler than having in a supermarket one or the other of a toothbrush and toothpaste—I do not remember which—taxable and the other not. It is much simpler than having different rates on detergents, soaps and all of those particular things. It is simpler than having different rates on orange juice. You simplify complexity in two ways: one is by having a single rate and the other is by having a broad base. In relation to indirect tax reform, we have one rate, which is much simpler than six, and we have a significantly broader base, which is much simpler than the classifications that occur under indirect tax at the moment. As a result of that, not only do we raise revenue to fund legitimate social services but, with the exception of the Labor Party, I think all members of the House will say that we are able to radically reduce income taxes, which will give families in this country a much better deal.55195519Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the adequacy of the government's compensation arrangements offered as part of the new tax system? How does this compare to that which was offered in order to offset the effects of the increase in the wholesale sales tax rates in 1993?5519Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. One of the things that the government will be doing as part of the new tax system is broadening the indirect tax base, radically reducing income taxes, increasing family allowances and improving Commonwealth-state relations. As a result of tax reform, people who are receiving pensions and allowances will get a real increase in their income. Those people trying to defeat tax reform—let us say it plainly—are trying to defeat real increases in pensions for the aged. If the tax reform goes through, the aged get real increases in their pensions.If tax reform does not go through, you will still get 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, but you will not get the four per cent supplement on top of it. If tax reform does not go through, you will still get allowances indexed to the CPI, but you will not get the four per cent increase and the two per cent real. From the government's point of view, to be able to reform the tax system and improve the lot of pensioners and allowees shows you what you can do with social policy on a better economic base.What is the alternative to no tax reform? We know that the Australian Labor Party wants the wholesale sales tax of the 1930s and the rates of 10, 12, 17, 22, 32, 41, 45—you name it, there is a rate of some description. We know that Labor's policy is the same now as it was in 1993. In 1993, because they had a declining—Mr Speaker, he does not like being reminded of his record.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. He constantly makes the point about the 1930s tax, then defends his 1940s tax. But he defends it irrelevantly, because his question was not on Labor policy; it was on his own intentions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition needs to note that the Treasurer is being entirely relevant and was asked to make a comparison.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, Mr Speaker, I was asked whether or not there have been times in Australia's history when indirect taxes were increased without compensation. The answer is there have been.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—And look at the rates you are increasing.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Although the Leader of the Opposition is interjecting again very loudly, the fact is in 1993 the Australian Labor Party increased the rates of all wholesale sales taxes—every single one of them. There was a rate of 10, and the Australian Labor Party took it to 12. There was a rate of 15, and the Australian Labor Party took it to 17. There was a rate of 20, and the Australian Labor Party took it to 22. There was a rate of 30, and the Australian Labor Party took it 32. How much compensation did they introduce? How much compensation did the Australian Labor Party give to pensioners? I see the member for Werriwa is smiling up the back. He knows.How much compensation did the Australian Labor Party give to pensioners when it increased all rates of the regressive wholesale sales tax? Not only did they decide to give no compensation but, just for good measure, they decided to increase income taxes as well. They took away the income tax cuts that they had promised. Actually, they were not a promise; those income tax cuts were l-a-w. They took them away. They gave no compensation. They increased wholesale sales tax rates. This is the government which is broadening the indirect tax base, increasing compensation, reducing income taxes, giving a new tax system for a new century. Leaderless, directionless, chained to negativity because they cannot put forward a positive idea on anything, guess who is opposing it? None other than the reactionary party of Australian politics, the Australian Labor Party.Distinguished Visitors55205520Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Mikhail Gorbachev, the former President of the Soviet Union, and Mrs Raisa Gorbachev. On behalf of the House I extended a very warm welcome to our visitors.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice552055205520Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Again my question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, yesterday you ruled out producing a list of what food was going to be caught in the GST net. Have you seen the GST food list circulated by the Democrats yesterday? Do you agree with this list?5520Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I acknowledge the presence of Mr Gorbachev in the House, and I welcome him. Russia, of course, is a country that has a value added tax.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You are an old leftie, Peter.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will not repeat to Mr Gorbachev the interjections from the front bench of the Labor Party, but—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I wish to take a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It is again, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call. The Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I go to the point of order of relevance, Mr Speaker. He was asked again a specific question about the Democrats' list. He was not asked whether or not Russia had a GST in comparison with the United States, which does not.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Oh, that is a stupid statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. It is a frivolous point.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for the Northern Territory. The Treasurer was asked a question, and he extended a hospitable indication to our guests. I did not think that his one sentence warranted that sort of intervention. I call the Treasurer to answer the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was asked a question about the application of GST or value added tax, and I make the point that value added taxes are considered mandatory throughout Europe—France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy. They are widely adopted in nearly every Asian country. But wholesale sales taxes are shared between the Australian Labor Party, Swaziland, the Solomon Islands and Botswana.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—And the United States.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The United States does not have wholesale sales tax. The member for Melbourne interjects. I was asked a question—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I expect the Treasurer to come to the question. I am conscious of that.CT4Mr COSTELLO—of what the GST should apply to in relation to food. As I said yesterday—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, that was not the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. Is the member for Hotham seeking the call?DT4CREANMr Crean—I am. Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the question of relevance, because he is trying to re-write the question. My question was does he agree with the Democrats' list? Simple answer: yes or no.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was asked about the application of a value added tax or a GST in Australia and, as has been the case, the government has agreed on principles with the Australian Democrats, which of course we will be putting into legislation. As I said, we will be taking out any of the rough edges when we put it into legislation and we will be expecting it to be enacted. But in relation to modern developed economies, it is no new thing to have a value added tax or a GST. It is mandatory in Europe. It is adopted all the way through Asia. If this were occurring in some other country—somebody was seriously suggesting that a 1930s wholesale sales tax should be adopted—they would get a fair hearing in Botswana and Swaziland and in the councils of the Australian Labor Party.DT4CREANMr Crean—I seek leave to table the list which the Treasurer will not agree to in question time but which the Democrats say is agreed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?Leave not granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat.55215521Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Can the minister outline some of the positive outcomes the government has secured for Australian exporters in the period since the budget, including how a new tax system will boost Australia's export competitiveness?Opposition members interjecting—5521Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—This is an entirely predictable and noisy opposition here. I think I almost heard the member for Banks—in a time warp, when I was in Budapest last Thursday night—shouting: `We want Gough.' He is a bit out of date. The member for Dickson had the article from hell on Saturday—the shadow ministry from hell, buried in the Weekend Australian . That is a bit embarrassing. Let us get back to the real business: getting on with the job of trade. We are getting the job done. We have a policy that counts. We had a budget with a $5.4 billion surplus.I thank the member for Parkes for his question. There have been two developments since the budget that I particularly want to highlight to the House. Firstly, I was able to complete negotiations with China in respect of the accession of China to the World Trade Organisation. These negotiations have been going on for a couple of years and have been very hard yards. But on this occasion in Beijing my team of Australian negotiators were able to secure additional tonnages and a reduction in tariffs in a range of areas, including sugar and wool, in a way which will be very satisfactory for Australian exporters upon the accession of China to the World Trade Organisation. Australia now has a deal in place with China. The sooner China is a member of the World Trade Organisation on proper terms the better for the future trading pattern of the world—a win-win situation overall.Secondly, we have the ANTS package mark II. I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage on an outstanding job for the future of all Australians. This package delivers an economic boost to the country areas of Australia, the rural and regional areas, in a way which could have only been tripped by Labor's stance of barricades against our exports.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—The federal government is removing all diesel excise from rail operation, in case you missed it in the detail, my friends. All diesel excise comes off rail freight operations, and all exports will be GST free.There is no such thing as a level playing field. What we are about is finding a way of tilting the playing field in favour of our exporters and getting the job done. I am just sorry that this country is shackled with an opposition which stands only for push styling and no policy whatsoever.55225522Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Treasurer, the Democrats' list says that a whole cooked chicken will be GST free. Will takeaway whole cooked chickens be GST free if bought from Red Rooster or Woolworths?5522Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I was as interested as anybody in the clause on chickens and, when I inquired of the Democrats why they had a chicken clause, they freely admitted that it was to answer the attacks that I had launched on them. So I think if you want to blame the Democrats for putting that into the clause you will have to go back to me. I think I was asked a question at the press conference about the taxability of chickens, and I think I said that I thought on reflection it could be done in far less scientific ways than I had previously indicated.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It is a Bruce Goodluck clause.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Bruce Goodluck would look like a giant compared with you—with a greater intellect too. The general objective of the Democrats' amendments, to which the government will agree, is that takeaway food will be taxable.55225522Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's tax package delivers on the Liberal-National Party commitment to deliver significant benefits to rural and regional Australia, in particular the delivery of lower transport costs?5522Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The fact is that the negotiations last week constitute a magnificent outcome for the bush. Let me come to some of the specifics. Road transport costs have been slashed by around $1 billion a year—a thousand million dollars a year. Rail transport costs have been slashed by an estimated $160 million a year. All businesses will save 7c a litre on their diesel and petrol. In addition to that, the abolition of the wholesale sales tax mess that the opposition created and want to maintain will mean that trucking and transport equipment will be cheaper to purchase and cheaper to operate. We will be cleaning up diesel and other engine technology in a way that makes a real contribution to environmental outcomes in our major cities where pollution is something of a problem. The outcome for all heavy vehicles of 20 tonnes or more will be a 23c a litre reduction in their excise, and in rural and regional areas that reduction will apply to all vehicles over 4½ tonnes loaded. In addition, we are looking at another $30 million a year for upgrading key freight roads and bridges, which will allow for a very significant increase in transport efficiencies across the nation.The benefits available now under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme will be kept in full—although they will be known as diesel fuel credits—and will include bunker oil and light fuel oil. That has major benefits for our shipping industry. All diesel used off-road by primary producers stays excise free. Farmers do extremely well out of this. We are delivering all that we committed ourselves to—and then some over and above it. Marine users such as ferries and charter boats get the full credit; so will bush nursing homes, hospitals, aged people's homes, and so forth. We are providing incentives for the use of alternative fuels like natural gas.The interesting thing about this is that the ALP says in its reincarnated form that it cares about rural and regional Australia. These specific initiatives deliver a huge benefit to rural and regional Australia. Remember that the bush is all about exports. These measures constitute a $4½ billion reduction in the cost of exporting Australian goods and services. That is more jobs and more prosperity for the bush.I would have thought that it would be a remarkable day in Australia for us to have negotiated outcomes on something as important as this when the ALP is totally absent from the debate. They are absent without leave. They are just not present. They are out to lunch. The member for Dickson has, I know, been having an exhausting time getting to understand what the bush is all about and what regional services and regional needs are all about. As yet we are still waiting for so much as a sleepy comment on it.55235523Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, is it a fact that your new diesel fuel rebate scheme excludes truck operators in the Gold Coast-Brisbane-Sunshine Coast corridor and the Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong corridor? What is efficient and rational about giving the diesel concession to drivers operating in Tweed Heads but not in Coolangatta? What is efficient and rational about giving the diesel concession to drivers operating in Goulburn but not in Gosford?5523Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I was asked this question by Peter Charlton on television yesterday. If the question had not been handed across by the tactics committee I do not think the member for Hunter would have asked it, because it was fully answered. As we said at the time on Friday and as I said in answer to Peter Charlton's question on channel Ten's Meet the Press with Paul Bongiorno yesterday morning, all trucks above 20 tonnes will receive a diesel fuel rebate back to a user charge of 20c per litre. The reason for that is that it is assumed that if you are above 20 tonnes you are involved in long-line haulage.One might well ask: what does the Labor Party rebate back for trucks? The answer is nothing. We get a member who is defending a policy of no rebates standing up and complaining that we are only giving rebates to rural and regional Australia. That is your position. We give it to all large trucks because it is assumed that they are involved in long-line haulage and trucks of 4.5 tonnes to 20 tonnes also get the rebate if they are engaged in rural and regional transport. You ask a question obviously implying a negative. What is your policy? No rebate. No rebate anywhere. That is your actual policy. For somebody who believes there should not be a rebate at all to get up and complain that we are only giving a rebate of 20c to rural and regional Australia is not a terribly consistent policy. It is always worth asking the questions committee what answer they want when they give you the question.Rural and regional Australia is defined as those areas that are outside mainland capital cities or conurbations. The conurbations are as defined in relation to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The reason for that was that we wanted to make sure that we got additional benefits to rural and regional Australia. We acknowledged a point that was made by the Australian Democrats that they wanted to keep fumes and emissions down in capital cities, large cities and large conurbations. That is the agreement that we have reached to protect rural and regional Australia, help the trucking industry and reduce diesel excise.DT4CREANMr Crean—Here we go. Another dud.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Hotham says, `Another dud; another dud' when we have got diesel excise back to 20c and he wants to tax it at 43c.55245524Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister inform the House of the benefits for the health sector and the wellbeing of Australians flowing from the introduction of Australia's new tax system?5524Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. After the agreement with the Australian Democrats, health is a big winner under the GST. All mainstream medical services will be GST free; commonly used drugs from pharmacies will be GST free; preventative measures will be GST free; and some alternative therapies will be GST free. All professional relevant medical services provided by a doctor will not be subject to the GST; all hospital services—with a very limited number of exemptions—will be GST free; dental, physio, speech therapy, occupational therapy, podiatry, chiropractic, audiology, audiometry, osteopathy and speech pathology services will all be GST free.One change that we have made is to add traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture and naturopathy to the list, and these will have a period of exemption to get registered under state regulations, which will be very much in the public's interest. All schedule 2, 3, 4 and 8 pharmaceutical drugs, plus the special access scheme will be GST free. The change here is to add schedule 2 drugs to the list. Another change is that goods with a proven public health benefit such as condoms, folate tablets or sunscreen, will be GST free. The government is also making all first aid courses through charitable organisations and ambulance services GST free. All up, this will mean about a 1.8 per cent reduction in health costs. It will mean there are 18 million winners in health from the GST.552410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Dickson.Government members interjecting—5524Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I am so pleased at your interest. Thank you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dickson has the call and is entitled to start her question again.XW4Ms KERNOT—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, on the enforcement of the on-road diesel fuel rebate, will you confirm that truck operators seeking to claim this rebate will be required to keep a logbook which records, for each and every trip taken, distance—Government members interjecting—XW4Ms KERNOT—Hang on. Distance, areas travelled, weight, trip purpose and destination of each delivery? Will you be having tax inspectors running around sticking dipsticks into fuel tanks and isn't this a case of transferring the nightmare on to highway one?5524Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I am left speechless as to how to respond to the first contribution from the person responsible on that side of the House for a debate that goes to the very heart of the competitiveness, job opportunities and indeed future of rural and regional Australia.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, going to relevance, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call and he will not have the call until the House comes to order! I now call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—A highly specific question was asked of the minister. He does not have an answer for it, but that is not an excuse for irrelevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no way that the minister's preamble to the answer could have been deemed anything other than relevant.4K4Mr ANDERSON—After negotiations with the Democrats, we made our policy position in regard to this as reasonably clear as they need to be at this point. The reality, if only the spokesman opposite knew it, is that the overwhelming bulk of truck operators—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—On a point of order as to relevance, Mr Speaker: the question is simply about enforcement. We have not heard one word yet on the matter of enforcement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister's answer is deemed to be relevant to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The overwhelming bulk of truck operators in this country keep logbooks anyway. When it comes to finalising these arrangements, we will enter into negotiations with people who not only have an interest in the outcome but have something relevant to say as well.Opposition members interjecting— Mr Adams—You just don't know. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lyons.55255525Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Minister, given the government's commitment to improve the environment, would you advise the House how the government's revised tax package will help to improve urban air quality and assist in combating global warming?5525Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Of course, as part of the historic agreement that was reached last week between the government and the Australian Democrats to move Australia into the next century as far as the Australian taxation system is concerned, the revised package not only delivers on all the commitments to rural and regional Australia but also includes major benefits for the environment, both in terms of improving air quality in our major cities and in helping cut the growth of greenhouse gas emissions across Australia.Some of the programs included in the agreement include funds to assist in the conversion of commercial vehicles to LPG, a program to provide rebates to households of up to half of the cost of solar power systems, a program to assist in the commercialisation of renewable energy technology and a program of grants to assist people in remote areas to convert from diesel power generators to renewable energy resources. Also included in the revised tax package are major commitments to reducing urban air pollution through measures such as moves to accelerate the introduction of low-sulfur diesel, bringing forward the introduction of new diesel and petrol vehicle fuel standards to bring them in line with international standards, maintaining the price relativities between diesel and compressed natural gas, providing subsidies to accelerate the conversion of buses and other suitable vehicles to LPG and, most importantly, providing rail with a full excise credit to maintain its competitive position.It should be noted that the measure which has been included in this revised package for rail means a $2 a tonne reduction in the freight of grain across Australia, a significant benefit to rural Australia. These measures will have a dramatic impact on improving air quality across Australia. At the same time, we will be delivering in spades on our commitment of providing real benefits to the communities of rural and regional Australia—a far cry from what the Labor Party has been trying to achieve in opposing these measures. I finish my answer by quoting the editorial out of the Daily Telegraph on Saturday which said: A wave of maturity and responsible decision-making swept our national administration last night and Australia will be substantially better for it.. . . . . . . . .It is easy to count the real winners of last night's breakthrough in mature and constructive carriage of national affairs.There are 18 million of them—Eighteen million winners, and that decision making was undertaken in a mature and responsible way that excluded the Labor Party.55265526Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you recall the Prime Minister's statement on Friday that, `The government will put in place rigorous enforcement measures to police the diesel rebate scheme'? Will you today rule out the Australian Taxation Office using the national satellite tracking system to check on the movement of trucks around Australia?5526Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—In a sense, the honourable member has answered her previous question. It may be that with alternative technologies, such as intelligent transport systems, the trucking industry will be able to provide a modern alternative to logbooks. We are not going to play Big Brother; we are going to work cooperatively. Not only do the Labor Party not want any rebates but they want us to play Big Brother! We have said that, because the trucking industry is already engaged in developing new technologies, we will underwrite a trial of intelligent trucking systems. If in the future that becomes a mechanism by which the industry were able to say to us, `We can develop a more effective, more cost efficient, more user friendly approach to the verification of activities for the purposes of claiming rebates,' I cannot see why in the name of good fortune we would stand in the way of it. But it does not have to be the only way.55265526Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the government's response to the conviction in Yugoslavia of the CARE Australia workers Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace?5526Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for her question, and I particularly appreciate her interest—which I think reflects the interest of just about all Australians—in the fate of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. Like all Australians, the government was angered by the conviction and sentencing of Pratt and Wallace in a Yugoslav court in the last few days. The decision of the court to acquit the original charges against Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace and then to convict them on a separate charge we regard as quite unacceptable. I have said on many occasions, and I think the House realises this, that these two men are innocent men; they are aid workers. We would like the government of President Milosevic, and President Milosevic himself, to treat these two aid workers with at least the humanity with which the aid workers have been treating the people of Yugoslavia; and that is not asking too much.Today I called in the Yugoslav ambassador to reinforce to the Yugoslav government that the Australian government regards the decision by the court as unacceptable and that we would like President Milosevic to exercise an act of clemency and allow the two aid workers to be released. The alternative is that the defence for the two aid workers will appeal the decision of the court and, obviously, in that circumstance, we would hope that the appeal would be upheld.Can I say in conclusion—and I am sure this reflects the view of all members of this House—that our thoughts and our prayers are very much with not just Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace but their families. This is an extraordinarily difficult time for their families, and I must say that I think the families of both men have shown very great courage and very great decency during this difficult time. And they know that not only the Australian people but the Australian government—and, I am sure, all members of this House—are behind them and that we will do everything we possibly can to get justice for Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace and have them released.5527Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—On indulgence, we agree absolutely with the statement just made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We also think the time has come for the personal presence of the foreign affairs minister in the area to seek the freedom of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. If he determines to do that, he will go with full support from the opposition in that mission. I think at this stage of the process that might be a very useful addition to the pressure in Australian diplomacy.55275527Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Is it not true that your GST deal with the Democrats creates a multibillion dollar hole for the states, as the revenue from keeping state taxes is less than the forgone $4 billion in GST revenue, and always will be? Why are you robbing the states of money you said could be used for hospitals, schools and roads and breaking your promise that the GST was a growth tax? Isn't the only option left for the states to raise the GST rate from the year 2005 or are you prepared to spend even more of your ever-shrinking and highly expedient budget surplus on this unfair tax?5527Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Hardly any of that is true, and it really would be worth while for the Leader of the Opposition—he is engaging in conversation, Mr Speaker, and is not interested in my reply—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne and the Member for Prospect, the Treasurer has the call.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—What a way to behave.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect who, as an occupier of this chair, knows better than to answer back.CT4Mr COSTELLO—to do at least half an hour's homework to understand Commonwealth-state relations. The Leader of the Opposition makes statements like, `This is no longer a growth tax.' Of course it is a growth tax. He makes statements that the states will be worse off. The states will not be worse off.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yelling interjections does not change facts.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No, but it gets your position on the record.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Let us make this point clearly: the Leader of the Opposition, on the one hand, wants to get up here and say, `The poor states, they are not getting a growth tax.' On the other hand, he wants to oppose GST.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Absolutely.CT4Mr COSTELLO—`Absolutely,' someone says. So what is the growth tax that the states get out of wholesales sales tax? There is none. The Australian Labor Party want to stand here and attack the government as if their policy does not produce problems—and more so. The Australian Labor Party's position is no growth tax for the states. So what would you think the Leader of the Opposition would get up here and ask? He would ask in a question, `Why aren't the states getting a growth tax?' That is your policy: not to give them a growth tax. It is bad enough to have to explain our policy to him; we have to explain his own policy to him in this House.Because the revenue base—the growth tax—does not have all food in it any more, there is a revenue hole of about $3 billion which is being made up totally by the Commonwealth resuming funding for local government—something which local government has sought incidentally—which is made up by states deferring for six months the abolition of FID and which is made up by the states deferring until 2005 the abolition of BAD tax. So they keep their own revenue base, the Commonwealth relieves them of the obligation to fund local government and the Commonwealth says in relation to the balance that it makes up the difference off its own balance sheet, which is why there is a cost on the Commonwealth's own balance sheet. The one group of people that is not worse off as a result of these modifications is the states.DT4CREANMr Crean—You go and tell them.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will go and tell them.DT4CREANMr Crean—And go and speak to Stockdale about it.CT4Mr COSTELLO—And I will speak to the Tasmanian Treasurer—somebody who was only too keen to put his signature on the deal for GST. Half an hour of disciplined thinking and work would have revealed all of that to you and the question would have been unnecessary. It would be worth while for him to invest half an hour to try to come to grips with the facts.55285528Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Can the Minister advise the House of any recent developments in the delivery of newspapers and magazines by Australian newsagents?5528Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I have some good news for the House. We all like to hear the thud of a morning newspaper hitting our door. The government made a commitment in 1996 that it would guarantee home delivery. For 24 years, there has been uncertainty for the newsagency industry in the light of the operation of the Trade Practices Act. After six months of extensive consultations involving representatives of Australia's four and a half thousand newsagents and 25,000 subagents, and the country's major publishers, including News Ltd, PBL and various other publishers, we have come to an agreement for a course forward that has won the widespread approval of the Australian Newsagents Federation. In fact, yesterday I went to Surfers Paradise to speak with the Australian Newsagents Federation about the proposals put forward. The Australian Newsagents Federation have embraced the proposal that gives them control of the future of their own industry.Essentially, it is about the publishers offering contracts to individual newsagents for periods of between three to five years. Those contracts are guaranteed for three areas and make up three separate subcontracts. The first area relates to retail distribution, the second area relates to distribution to subagents, and the third area relates to delivery to households. Individual newsagents, under some of the proposals from some of the publishers, will be able to trade amongst themselves individual components of their contracts. Therefore, if a newsagent wants to specialise in home delivery, that newsagent is able to purchase another newsagent's home delivery service and thereby provide guarantees. To ensure that, in areas where there is only one newsagent—particularly regional and rural Australia—home delivery continues, newsagents will not be able to trade the home delivery service to someone else. They must continue to guarantee home delivery.This important initiative brings an end to the uncertainty that has been hitting the newsagency industry for far too long. The greatest challenge to the newsagent industry is technology and how it is going to impact on their businesses, and also the uncertainty of the Trade Practices Act. Now they are given three to five years guaranteed distribution rights associated with each publisher. That is welcomed by the newsagency industry, it is welcomed by the publishers, and it is welcomed by the subagents. We look forward to a new and prosperous future ahead for Australian newsagents.55285528Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you admit that the government's proposed Commonwealth-state reforms are now completely in tatters following the attack by the Liberal Treasurer of Victoria that `This is not what the states agreed to; the worst part is the decision to defer the abolition of some of the most negative taxes for Australia's future', and of the Liberal Premier of Western Australia that `Any federal government that tries to bypass the states is going to run into trouble'? Will the Prime Minister convene a Premiers Conference to sort out this mess?5528Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the question is no. As to the other part of the question, I had discussions with a number of premiers this morning and I can assure you that none of them were making the allegations being made by the Leader of the Opposition.DT4CREANMr Crean—Will you have the Premiers Conference?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham persistently interjects. I have already asked him to exercise some restraint. I will not indicate this sort of tolerance to him again.55295529Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Has the government met the objectives it set for tax reform when the government's policy was announced in August 1997?5529Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am very pleased to inform the House, in response to the honourable member for Bradfield, that the five principles the government set for tax reform in August of 1997 have been met. It is worth taking a moment to remind the House of those five principles.DT4CREANMr Crean—This will be interesting. Which ones?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hotham.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The first objective that I set for the government in August 1997 was that there should be no increase in the overall taxation burden. I am happy to report to the House that that commitment has been met in full. I remind the House that since this government has been in office there have been no increases in personal income tax, there have been no increases in company taxation, there have been no increases in indirect taxation. There has been a conversion of a $10½ billion budget deficit into the healthiest surpluses that this country has had for decades.The next commitment that I made to the Australian people was that any new taxation system should involve major reductions in personal income tax, with special regard for the taxation treatment of families. I am happy to report that, under the arrangements announced on Friday, there will be a $12 billion reduction in the level of personal income tax in this country. It involves, I say again, 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers having a top marginal rate of no more than 30c in the dollar.The income tax scales that we inherited provided for a 34c rate. This was the Beazley rate scale. It was 34 cents in the dollar from $20,700 to $38,000. At $38,001 it became 43 cents in the dollar and it remained 43 cents in the dollar until $50,000. Under the rate scales that have now been locked in, 80 per cent of Australians, whose incomes lie below $50,000, will pay no higher a rate than 30 cents in the dollar. That means that you can pass from $20,000 to $50,000 without going into a higher tax bracket. There has never been incentive for middle Australia remotely approaching that proposition.I go on to remind the parliament that in addition to the $12 billion reduction in personal income tax there are $2 billion of family taxation benefits. That fulfils the commitment that I made that we would reduce the personal income tax scales, which of course in themselves give great benefits to Australian families. But on top of that you have got $2 billion of additional family benefits, which recognise the cost incurred by Australian taxpayers in raising Australian children. So that is a $14 billion injection into the pockets of Australian families and Australian taxpayers. When you put it on top of the $320 a month that they are better off as a result of interest rate reductions and when you bear in mind that Australians' real incomes have risen—because we have higher productivity built on the back of low inflation—you have a wealth situation and a disposable income situation the Australian people have not seen for years.The third promise I made was that consideration would be given to a broad based indirect tax to replace some or all of the existing indirect taxes—and of course that will happen. I remind the House that the hated, dreaded, complicated wholesale sales tax, the one that Labor increased without compensation in 1993, will go in full on 1 July next year. It is part of the agreement. I have very good news for the Australian people: no longer after 1 July next year will any future government of Australia be able to do what the Keating-Beazley government did in 1993, and that is increase the wholesale sales tax without giving the Australian people compensation.The fourth promise that I made to the Australian people was that there would be appropriate compensation for those deserving of special assistance. As the Treasurer pointed out, we have not only maintained the compen sation—we had compensated for our changes; you did not compensate for your 1993 changes—but we have also significantly increased it. Finally, we have brought about—in fulfilment of the promise I made to the Australian people in August of 1997—fundamental reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations. We have given the states access to a growth tax. We have restructured Commonwealth-state financial relations in a quite dramatic and enduring fashion.May I say in conclusion what I said to the Australian people last Friday: that the negotiations conducted by the government with the Australian Democrats were conducted in an open and candid fashion. I want to record in this parliament my appreciation for the constructive attitude that was adopted by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees. I want to say to her that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Australian Democrats put the national interest first. The Leader of the Australian Democrats declined to join the Leader of the Opposition in the grandstand and watch the game go on; she got on the field, she became a participant and as a result of she achieved outcomes.It will ever be to the shame of the Australian Labor Party that on this great issue of economic reform the Labor Party has done no more than huff and puff and say no instead of participating in the debate, instead of doing what Senator Lees did; and that is to say, `We don't agree with a lot of your policies but we are prepared to be a participant. We know this country needs taxation reform and we know that the only way you can achieve taxation reform is to treat with the government that is in power.'The Australian Democrats entered into an arrangement with my government. That arrangement will be honoured in full. It was an arrangement that I believe will be to the enduring benefit of the Australian people. It will deliver significant improvements in relation to air pollution, which is a matter of major concern in the Australian cities. It has delivered a better outcome to the bush. It has resulted in a strengthening of what was still a fundamentally very fair and generous compensation arrangement. It has underwrit ten the provision after 1 July next year of taxation scales that will give the greatest burst of incentive to middle Australia of any taxation scales that this country has seen. In other words, the Australian Democrats have put their hands up for the national interest; the Labor Party, to its shame, has skulked away into the grandstand and it deserves to be condemned by the Australian people. Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous5530553015:21:005530Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—Mr Speaker, during question time the member for Hindmarsh asked me a question about Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace and the Leader of the Opposition made some remarks in response to that. I thought I might just add to my answer in the light of the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that I should `visit the region'—I think that was the way he put it—and perhaps specifically visit Yugoslavia. Can I say that I, on behalf of the government, appreciate the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition; indeed I appreciate the faith he places in me as the foreign minister. But can I say that, when I met with the Yugoslav Ambassador earlier today, I made it clear to him that I would be prepared to go to Yugoslavia if I felt that that would resolve the problem. We have had nevertheless Mr Fraser as our special envoy; we have sought and received the assistance of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of Nelson Mandela, the President of South Africa, and of a number of other people.The point I make is that we have made a very major diplomatic effort. We will leave no stone unturned and, in the end, whether a minister from our government goes or not is a very fine point of judgment—it is a difficult judgment to make. We obviously do not want to be caught up in some propaganda exercise within Yugoslavia, but at the same time we want to do everything we can to get Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace out. I can only repeat that we will do everything we can, and we will keep our options open in terms of further initiatives that we might take.Questions to the Speaker553155315531Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is in respect of a letter to you from the president of the press gallery committee, dated 25 May 1999. The letter is in respect of a proposal by the Joint House Committee that a media licence agreement system be introduced for occupation of space in Parliament House by members of the press gallery. Mr Speaker, my question to you is: have you replied to that correspondence from the president of the parliamentary press gallery? If you have, what was your response in respect of two specific points: namely, that the introduction of a commercial rent would breach the agreement made between the Joint House Department and the gallery in 1990, when a flat-rate system fee was introduced; and, secondly, that this would be an abuse of a monopoly power, given that we would see rent increases in the order of 300 per cent? If you have not already replied to the press gallery president, when are you proposing to do so? At the same time, could you indicate to the House the attitude you take to those two points which I have raised?5531Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Perth. I will respond to his question by indicating that I have had a question from the president of the press gallery. I will be meeting with the President of the Senate tomorrow to discuss the issue. I have already sought some legal advice on the matters he has raised and, when appropriate, I will deal with the issue as I think appropriate in terms of his question.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—And report to the House?10000Mr SPEAKER—If necessary, and if I believe it to be appropriate.55315531Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—My question is to you, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention, under standing order 150, to question No. 497 to the Attorney-General, asked on 22 March, to which I have not had a reply. I request that you write to the Attorney-General seeking such response.5531Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take up that matter with the Attorney-General under standing order 150, on behalf of the member for Chifley.Personal Explanations553115:25:005531Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I was misrepresented by the Prime Minister in question time when he accused me—directly, personally—of having presided over no tax rate changes when we were in office. Seven times we reduced the marginal tax rates. We took the bottom marginal rate from 30 cents under Howard to 20 cents. There were $30 billion worth of personal tax cuts—three times those in this bagatelle reform package here.553110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:55314083SBurke Anna MPTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of St Michael and All Angels' Anglican Parish, Bennettswood, Victoria 3125 and the High Street Road Uniting Church, Mount Waverley, Victoria 3149 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Ms Burke83SMs Burke(from 40 citizens)553219BT4Kemp Dr David MPTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of All Souls' Anglican Parish, Sandringham, Victoria 3191 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Dr KempBT4Dr Kemp(from 19 citizens)553215BT4Kemp Dr David MPTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of the St Stephen's Anglican Parish, Highett, Victoria 3190 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c. Dr KempBT4Dr Kemp(from 15 citizens)553215BT4Kemp Dr David MPTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of St Agnes' Anglican Parish, Black Rock, Victoria 3193 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Dr KempBT4Dr Kemp(from 15 citizens)553224QK6Sercombe BobMPTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of the Multicultural Seminar at Moonee Ponds, Victoria 3039 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr SercombeQK6Mr Sercombe(from 24 citizens)553332UK6Thomson Kelvin MPTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of the Brunswick Baptist Church, Brunswick, Victoria petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson(from 32 citizens)55334HK5Andrews Kevin MPRestitution: A Basic Human RightMore than fifty years after the holocaust, jews around the world continue to fight for and receive restitution for material and non-material losses inflicted by the Nazi regime throughout Europe. More than fifty years after the Palestinian people were displaced and dispossessed by an exclusive Jewish state established in Palestine in the aftermath of Nazi atrocities in Europe, Palestinians are still being dispossessed, dispersed, and denied any kind of restitution. Restitution is a universal human right. Persons now fighting for restitution are therefore to be supported.We the undersigned, believe that Palestinians, of whom two-thirds are refugees, also have the right of restitution, including the return of the rightful owners to their property as well as restitution for other material and non-material losses. Resolution 194, which recognizes the right of refugees to restitution, has been reaffirmed one hundred and ten times by the United Nations. Further, as recently as November 1998, the UN GeneralAssembly reaffirmed in Resolution 52/644 the principle, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law, that Palestinian refugees are entitled to all revenues from their property.We appeal to all fair-minded people, governments, parliamentarians, human rights groups and particularly Jewish organisations, to recognise, support and call for restitution of Palestinians through the restoration of homes and properties to their rightful owners as well as restitution for other material and non-material losses. While restitution can never fully make amends for all losses, suffering, and crimes against humanity, restitution establishes a precedent which should prevent the repetition of such catastrophes in the future.Mr AndrewsHK5Mr Andrews(from four citizens)5533918T4Ferguson Laurie MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to: Retain compositional and ingredient requirements for basic items so that meat pies still contain meat and jam contains fruit; Prevent misleading labelling of low fat foods; Keep responsibility for food regulation in the Department of Health; Make no tax changes that discriminate against healthy foods.We are among the big majority (90% plus) of Australians who want all foods accurately labelled. It is our right to make informed choices on what we eat.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Laurie Ferguson8T4Mr Laurie Ferguson(from 91 citizens)5533139LS4Ferguson Martin MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Batman points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Mr Martin FergusonLS4Mr Martin Ferguson(from 139 citizens)553330628K6Fitzgibbon Joel MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors in the division of Hunter draws to the attention of the House the threat posed by the potential impact on postal services in rural and regional Australia of the Australian Competition Council's recommendations stemming from its review of the Australian Postal Corporation Act.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House commits itself to ensuring a role for Australia Post in rural and regional Australia and the retention of existing postal services.Mr Fitzgibbon8K6Mr Fitzgibbon(from 3,062 citizens)55341608K6Fitzgibbon Joel MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of Wollombi and district residents draws to the attention of the House of Representatives dissatisfaction with the recent closure of the Wollombi Postal Agency. We request the house to fully restore a Post Office Agency facility to the community of Wollombi.Mr Fitzgibbon8K6Mr Fitzgibbon(from 160 citizens)55342083NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are opposed to the National Competition Council (NCC) Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal services. We are gravely concerned that this would drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post and result in adverse impacts on most Australians (including increased postal charges and reduced frequency of services), especially for those in rural and remote areas.Your petitioners respectfully request that the House call on the Government to reject the NCC Report proposals in their entirety and to support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, and the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service.Further, we ask that the existing community service obligation of Australia Post be extended to encompass a minimum level of service for financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels service and access to counter services, through either corporate or licensed post offices.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 20 citizens)55342083NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We, the undersigned petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas, are deeply concerned at the prospect of the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST).A GST is unfair since everyone pays the same tax on goods and services, regardless of their ability to pay. A GST would also tax essential everyday items such as bread, fruit and vegetables, milk and eggs, making life more difficult for struggling Australians.Under a GST, big business benefits and will pay less tax because the full tax burden is passed to consumers, particularly people on lower incomes. Such a tax would be detrimental to Australian families, small business operators and people on lower incomes.We therefore call on the House to reject any plans to introduce an expensive, inefficient and unfair system of taxation such as a Goods and Services Tax, and to ensure that our tax system is just, fair and enforceable with everyone—big business, small business, high income earners and low income earners alike—paying their fair share of tax.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 20 citizens)55341883NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned shows we are opposed to the Government's funding cuts to Centrelink, which will mean the loss of 5,000 Centrelink jobs. This staff cut will mean increased waiting times, reduced access and reduced service levels for clients. It will place more stress on an already understaffed and underfunded service. It is an attack on our right to an efficient and accessible social security system.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives should stop the Centrelink staff cuts.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 18 citizens)55341283NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plans to further privatise Telstra.Further privatisation of Telstra will result in the loss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worsening services to regional and rural Australia, and the loss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australians earned from Telstra profits.We believe these profits, both now and in the future, should be set aside to secure improved educational opportunities for our children, increased research and development funds for our scientists and doctors, and more money for rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House reject any further sale of the Commonwealth's shares in Telstra and that the annual profits from Telstra be used for the benefit of all Australians.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 12 citizens)5535140DH4Hollis Colin MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House the inequalities in the child support system. In particular, the formula used to assess contributions. We also believe contributions should be based on net income, not gross income, and overtime worked should not come into the equation.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to introduce a more equitable child support system.Mr HollisDH4Mr Hollis(from 140 citizens)553580HK6Lindsay Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the grossly unfair and biased nature of family law and child support system in Australia.Your petitioners therefore request that the House, for the sake of the children of Australia: investigate and inquire into the family law system; amend after significant consultation with, and input from, the Australian community the child support agency system; change frivolous protection orders so that children can share equal and unopposed access to both parents; take action so that parents can not take it upon themselves to deny access to either non-custodial extended family.Mr LindsayHK6Mr Lindsay(from 80 citizens)5535529PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that:(1) 30% of Australians seek alternative medical treatments each year;(2) the Government intends to proceed with its Goods and Service Tax (GST) (3) this tax will be paid by persons seeing alternative medicine practitioners but not when seeing medical practitioners.Therefore, your Petitioners request that Australians retain a choice of medical treatment and ensure that:(1) all services provided by alternative medicine practitioners, as currently recognised in Schedule 1 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations, be GST-free; and(2) all medicines listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all medicines mixed extemporaneously by practitioner, be GST-free.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 529 citizens)553582FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that a Goods and Services Tax on reading material is a tax on knowledge and learning. It will increase the cost of education, which will particularly disadvantage low to middle income earners, add to the administrative costs of education institutions leaving fewer resources for education itself and have a negative effect on the publishing and book selling sector.The majority of Australians oppose a GST on reading material. Your petitioners request that the House does not proceed with legislation for a Goods and Services Tax.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 82 citizens)55355FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the undersigned deplores the failure of the Government to appoint a judge, from the Newcastle legal profession, to replace Justice Renaud in the Family Court in Newcastle. We are deeply concerned about the delay in dealing with custody and access cases that this will cause.We believe that the profesion in Newcastle has lawyers of the calibre required to fill this position and the inference, by the failure to appoint, is extremely insulting.Your petitioners request the House to strongly support the replacement of the judge at the Newcastle Family Court.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from five citizens)55351RW5Nelson Dr Brendan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament The petition of a certain elector of the Division of Bradfield;draws to the attention of the House the fact that students entering university are required to join the University Union, regardless of personal preference;The petitioner therefore prays that the House will:1. Repeal the Higher Education Funding (Student Organisations) Amendment Bill 1994;2. Affirm that the principle of voluntary association is fundamental in a truly democratic society;3. Introduce legislation to permit voluntary student unionism, in keeping with point 2;4. Take note of the editorial comment in The Australian (dated December 28, 1998) that `compulsory union membership is wrong' (copy attached)Dr NelsonRW5Dr Nelson(from one citizen)55361655KV5Neville Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of the citizens in Gladstone and the surrounding areas draws to the attention of the House our strongest support for the establishment of an aged nursing care facility in Gladstone.In Gladstone area the number of elderly is ever increasing and it is unjust that they should be forced to leave their home town, family and friends in search of care in an adequate nursing facility which will meet their specific needs.We the undersigned respectfully ask the House of Representatives to urgently support the building of a nursing facility to cater to the Senior Citizens of Gladstone and the surrounding areas as a matter of urgency.Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville(from 1,655 citizens)553635UT4Nugent Peter MPTo the Honourable speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that:(1) the Government has proposed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) and, relying on the outcome of the recent elections, intends to introduce legislation for such a Tax.(2) the Government's proposals, as published, discriminate between the providers of orthodox and complementary medicines and services by making the former GST-free and the latter subject to a 10% GST; and(3) many Australians desire freedom of choice as to what medicines and services they use. Therefore your Petitioners request that, in the design of a GST, the House ensures that complementary and orthodox medicines and practitioners are treated equally, so that:(1) all therapeutic goods on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all herbal remedies prepared extemporaneously by herbalists and other natural therapists from raw materials, are GST-free; and(2) all services provided by herbalists and other natural therapists are GST-free.Mr NugentUT4Mr Nugent(from 35 citizens)553613083MPlibersek Tanya MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives here assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows that residents of Millers Point support the retention of Millers Point Post Office.Millers Point Post Office provides a vital public service in a valuable heritage building.Not only does it provide postal and related services, but it is used by many local residents to pay their Department of Housing rents.Your Petitioners ask that the House of Representatives should urge Australia Post to ensure that Millers Point Post Office continues to operate from its current site, as a post office.Ms Plibersek83MMs Plibersek(from 130 citizens)55362095V5Smith Stephen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia points out to the House:That we, the undersigned, object to the mining of uranium at Jabiluka, in World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park. Uranium mining and nuclear energy are damaging to the environment for hundreds of thousands of years, and we believe that these industries are unethical and not in the national interest, nor in the interest of the global community.The Jabiluka site is being developed against the wishes of the Mirrar people, the traditional owners of the land. We support them in their opposition to the Jabiluka Mine.Our petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives to call on the Federal Government to: Stop Jabiluka Uranium Mine. Save Kakadu.Mr Stephen Smith5V5Mr Stephen Smith(from 209 citizens)55369272V5Swan Wayne MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The Petition of Certain electors of the Division of Lilley draws the attention of the house to the unfair fees and charges which the Big Banks continue to impose on their customers, particularly the elderly and families. Especially, unfair fees charged for those who require `over the counter' banking, and minimum balance penalties, which hit pensioners and families. Your petitioners therefore request the House use all measures available to ensure the banks provide an affordable `basic bank account' which provides at least one free `over the counter' transaction per week and has no account keeping or minimum balance charges. Further, a formal monitoring process should be put in place to report regularly in the interests of banking customers.Mr Swan2V5Mr Swan(from 927 citizens)55372592V5Swan Wayne MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of residents of Golden Downs Relocatable/Mobile Home Park located at Brisbane, in the state of Queensland draws to the attention of the house that we completely oppose the GST and how it would apply to Relocatable/Mobile Home Parks.We the petitioners therefore respectfully urge that these residential rents be exempt of GST in association with other residential rents.Mr Swan2V5Mr Swan(from 259 citizens)5537154SU5Vaile Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Australian government is offering temporary residency to four thousand refugees from Kosovo.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House significantly increase the number of refugees from Kosovo being offered temporary residency in Australia.Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile(from 154 citizens)553719SU5Vaile Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Lyne draws to the attention of the House the strong case for funding to expand SBS Television services to the Lower Mid-North Coast through a transmitted on the National Transmission Agency site at Middle Brother Mountain, north of Taree. We the undersigned ask the House to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Communications so that he may pursue the matter as a high priority as part of the Federal Government's expansion program of SBS Television services across Australia.Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile(from 19 citizens)5537243VK6Vale Danna MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The Petition of the Citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Australian Embassy is not situated in Israel's capital, Jerusalem, even though this is where the Israeli Government, the Knesset, is located and from where the affairs of the State of Israel are conducted.We bring to your attention to the following facts:Jerusalem has been the spiritual and political capital of only the Jewish people for 3000 years.Since 1967 the Israeli government has demonstrated sensitivity to the concerns and needs of all Jerusalem residents, including arabs calling themselves Palestinians.Israels Biblican right to Jerusalem as a sovereign capital is by Divine mandate and is secured by God's irrevocable covenant made with Abraham (Gen 12:7 & 8, 15:17-21) and reiterated to Isaac, Jacob, Moses (Lev 26:44-45) (Deut 7:6-9) David (2 Sam 7:12-16) and to Abraham's heirs, (Ps 89:34-37, 105:8-11)Judaism is the only religion in which the city of Jerusalem is an inseparable part of religious faith.Jerusalem is mentioned 800 times in Jewish text and not once in other religious holy books.In accordance with international law, Israel is the only state which can show legal title to Jerusalem having occupied her in an act of self defence against a belligerent aggressor.Your petitioners respectfully urge that the House take immediate steps to establish the Australian Embassy in Israel's capital, Jerusalem.Mrs ValeVK6Mrs Vale(from 243 citizens)5537984FWasher Mal MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia point out to the House:That we, the undersigned, believe that the start of the new millennium should be a time to give hope to the impoverished people of the world.To make a fresh start we believe it right to put behind us the mistakes made by both lenders and borrowers and to cancel the backlog of unpayable debts of the most impoverished nations.We call upon the leaders of lending nations to write off these debts by the year 2000. We ask them to take effective steps to prevent such high levels of debt building up again. We look for a new beginning to celebrate the millennium.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House:Would do all in their power to support this worldwide petition which seeks to press for the cancellation of the unpayable debts of the poorest nations of the developing world as a once-off `fresh start' for the millennium. We ask that pressure could be put upon the Treasurer and the Foreign Affairs Minister to speak out on debt relief in the G22 forums.Dr Washer84FDr Washer(from nine citizens)5538307984GWilkie Kim MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia, assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the City of Canning in the State of Western Australia, draws to the attention of the House that the Preliminary Draft Master Plan And Environmental Strategy For Perth International Airport was developed by Westralia Airports Corporation without opportunities for effective public consultation. Recently revised estimates of projected aircraft noise levels reveal that thousands of residents across large areas of residential, suburban development will be subjected to severe environmental risk. Westralia Airports Corporation did not inform residents of these serious changes in projected noise levels.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House may suspend consideration of the Preliminary Draft Master Plan And Environmental Strategy For Perth International Airport currently before the Minister, until Westralia Airports Corporation undertakes comprehensive community consultation in relation to the management of projected noise pollution.Mr Wilkie84GMr Wilkie(from 3,079 citizens)5538102284GWilkie Kim MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House the intolerable situation of increased aircraft noise in the areas including but not limited to Beckenham, South Guildford, Hazelmere, Kewdale, Queens Park, Cannington and East Cannington. Your petitioners therefore request the House consider all aspects of protection for residents from the noise. Mr Wilkie84GMr Wilkie(from 1,022 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business5538553815:31:005538McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I move:That this House deplores the complete disregard of mobile phone carriers for the rights and health of 500 000 hearing-impaired people shown by the failure of the carriers, particularly Telstra, to address the problem of GSM interference with hearing aids.Once again I find myself speaking out about an issue concerning the hearing impaired who are the largest disabled group in this country. This is a group of people in our community who are disadvantaged enough already and face the prospect of more discomfort and inconvenience with the complete changeover to digital mobile phones at the end of the year. Indeed, in the last few days the Deputy Prime Minister made the first phone call from the CDMA system, a system that has not addressed the problems of the hearing impaired.This is not a new problem or a recently discovered one. The carriers, the bureaucrats and those who suffer this discomfort, the hearing impaired, have all known about this problem for some time—about seven years in fact—and have done nothing about it. It is a disgrace that nothing has been done. Despite the best efforts of the hearing impaired and their advocates, there seems to have been an inability on the part of those on the other side—that is, the carriers and the relevant government departments—to accept any responsibility for addressing the problems experienced by people who have hearing aids and come into contact with mobile phones.In fact, Telstra is singing the praises of the digital network and refusing to acknowledge that it will be a problem for those who wear hearing aids. It is seen as the responsibility of the hearing aid wearer to make adjustments at their own expense, if indeed the carriers say there is a problem. They wash their hands of it and say that it is nothing to do with them.It seems that the carriers want us to believe that they are mere bystanders. They own and operate the networks, but allegedly—if you listen to the rubbish they put forward—they are not involved in any of the research and development of the equipment that they install. How very convenient for them to be able to wash their hands of a problem facing their customers. They may not actually physically produce the equipment, but surely we can reasonably expect them to be able to influence the manufacturer of the equipment to meet the needs of all their potential users.They could quite easily put in the tender specification for this equipment that it should not interfere with hearing aids. The tender specifications for telecommunications operations go into hundreds and hundreds of pages, but Telstra and the other smaller carriers are not the least bit interested in dealing with a problem experienced by half million Australians. When the issues are raised with Telstra, for example, their response is to tell users how wonderful it will be and that they are confident that the users' requirements will be met. That is not much consolation when you know that at the very least the system is going to cause you discomfort and, in a lot of instances, pain.For the benefit of members and those listening I should explain what happens to wearers of hearing aids when digital mobile phones are used either by themselves or by people nearby. Digital mobile phones cause an electromagnetic interference to hearing aids. Thus there is an interference and amplification of the sound. This can be a loud and irritating ticking which distorts other sound or it can be a very loud noise which causes pain or discomfort for the hearing aid user.Any person can find out how painful and discomforting this can be by just placing a mobile phone next to their radio. Every now and again you hear the mobile phone sending a signal out to the base station and you get a bipping noise. Alternatively, you could put your mobile phone near an ordinary telephone and you will get the interference on the ordinary telephone. That happens when a person is listening with the device some metres away from them. Imagine if your radio was screwed into your ear and you got this loud interference amplified. This causes a lot of pain, concern and unhappiness for a large number of Australians.But what do Telstra say about it? They just say that it is not their fault. They just happen to be the largest carrier by a factor of about five in this country, but it is not their fault. They are quite happy to rip out the profits from the mobile phone system, but they are not willing to engineer this system so that it does not cause discomfort and, in some cases, suffering to half million people in this country. Constituents have visited my office complaining and demonstrating to me what happens to their hearing aids when a mobile phone is used, and it is not a very pleasant experience.What advice has been offered to help solve this problem? To date it has all been put back on the hearing impaired. The attitude of the carriers is, `We don't admit there is a real problem but, if you think there is, here are some suggestions about what you can do.' What are these suggestions? They range from the absurd to the bizarre. One is to get yourself a suitable high immunity hearing aid. Of course there are high immunity hearing aids around, but they cost a lot of money. It sounds straightforward enough, but it assumes a number of things. You cannot just wave a magic wand and get yourself a new device. Those who are most disadvantaged in the community—the poor, elderly and hearing impaired people—have to wait their turn, and it could take years to avail themselves of the latest in hearing aid technology. And who can be sure that it will work effectively in all circumstances?The next suggestion of the carriers is to use a suitable hands-free set. Once again, that sounds fairly simple, but they cost about $200 each. That is not a very good suggestion, is it? Sorry, hearing impaired, but you cannot take advantage of this new wonderful piece of technology called GSM or CDMA unless you have got a $200 hands-free set. It is a pity if you have already just purchased a mobile phone, and no-one you know who might want to stand near you and use their phone could ever stop the apparent defect. Another suggestion is that you use a suitable personal induction loop coupling. How nice—as if people do not feel conspicuous enough without having to have the further indignity of a loop slung around them which may or may not work in their own personal situation. It is a little like the 19th century concept of the leper's bell.Yet another suggestion that has been made by the carriers is that you ask users of mobile phones near you to move away. Can you just imagine the scene, Mr Deputy Speaker? You are in a queue to purchase tickets or to pay at the supermarket and someone's mobile phone near you goes off. Are you supposed to say to them, `Look, one of us has got to get out of the queue. Who is it going to be, me or you?' They are busy screaming into their mobile phone, which is making it harder and harder for you to understand them and yourself. These are really stupid propositions put forward by the carriers.Telstra claims that it is examining overseas experiences and making its own investigations in relation to possible interference issues. It has even commissioned Australian Hearing Services to conduct independent testing. That all sounds pretty good, but in the end it is not going to do anything about it. It has had seven years to do something about it, but still we have got this buck-passing. Telstra tells potential GSM customers to seek expert advice from their audiologist. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, while acknowledging that the problems do occur, puts the bulk of the responsibility on the hearing impaired to try before you buy. It is good advice, but hardly likely to reassure those who already have a problem. What is needed is action. Either the government need to get the telephone companies such as Telstra to fix this problem or the government need to do something about it themselves. Half a million people deserve a better telephone service than Telstra is providing them. I commend this motion to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?83DMURPHYMr Murphy—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:41:005540Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—It is true, as the member for Watson has suggested, that there are some difficulties, particular ly with the newer digital phone technologies. If you are a person who is being affected by the situation, you can well understand the frustration that would arise. Research conducted in this country and internationally suggests that digital mobile phones in certain situations do interfere with some hearing aid brands with poor immunity. Interference may be experienced when using a phone or when in the vicinity of another person using such a phone. Interference levels vary depending on the nature of the hearing loss, the kind of hearing aid used and the type of mobile phone in question. Hearing aids have fallen into three main categories: (1) those unable to handle interference of this kind, (2) those that comply with standards that prevent interference for a nearby user and (3) those that allow the use of a mobile phone by the hearing aid user. Whereas this interference has been associated with GSM type digital phones, similar interference has not been experienced by users of the old style analog phones.The potential for difficulty is exacerbated by the planned closure of the analog mobile phone system from 31 December 1999 to 31 December 2000. That is a closure stemming from the policies of the former government in 1991. Since its election in 1996, the federal government has been working to find a replacement system for AMPS that will best serve mobile users, especially those in rural and regional Australia who are more likely to be adversely affected by the analog closure. Thankfully, the code divisional multiple access system, known as CDMA, will be introduced by Telstra in time to replace the existing AMPS network.On the issue of CDMA, just as the closure of the AMPS network threatened to disadvantage rural and regional mobile users, so it has also threatened to adversely affect those mobile users with hearing aids. Thankfully, the introduction of CDMA will help resolve both these potential problems. Like GSM, CDMA is a digital technology. But, unlike GSM, it has a coverage equivalent to that of AMPS and is therefore well suited to non-metropolitan areas. By the end of the year, the CDMA network should be up and running and dual mode handsets capable of using CDMA and AMPS networks should be available for purchase through Telstra. In conjunction with Australian Hearing Services, Telstra has already commenced trial examinations of the effect of CDMA handsets on hearing impaired people. We will soon know much more clearly whether CDMA handsets will cause similar interference with hearing aids to that experienced with GSM. I understand that later this year further tests will be carried out to determine further detail of any interference, including effects at various power levels and for coder rates.On the issue of hearing aid standards, the government has also instructed the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which regulates hearing aid sales in Australia through the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, to progressively upgrade the interference immunity standard for hearing aids. Therefore, the TGA is assisting with the phasing-out of type 1 aids which suffer constant interference. It has encouraged the migration of users to the compliance level that allows users to utilise a GSM phone. Mobile accessory kits, which feature hands-free plugs, are also allowing the hearing impaired to more easily use this important and popular form of communication. The government also intends to use new literature to inform hearing aid users about GSM phone use.It is timely that the member for Watson should bring a matter relating to the hearing impaired before this House. Only weeks ago, the government informed the House in the federal budget of a significant boost in the services provided to the hearing impaired by building on reforms announced two years previously. At present, a subsidised hearing program is run by the Commonwealth for the benefit of pensioners, part-pensioners, eligible veterans and children and young people under 21 years of age. Additional funds of around $209 million over four years will now be provided to ensure that the demand for hearing service vouchers is met in a timely fashion and that quality services will still be provided. As a result, an extra 67,000 adult Australians annually will be able to participate more easily in family and community life by being able to access otherwise unavailable services.Some $12 million will be used over four years for the targeted assistance of around 40,000 children and young adults. As part of the community service obligation required of Australian Hearing Services, eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, clients with complex needs, eligible people in remote areas and children and young adults will continue to receive quality hearing services. Other changes to the Australian Hearing Services program will continue to assist hearing impaired Australians—including the consumer price indexation of the maintenance charge paid by Australian Hearing Services clients, a nominal charge for lost or damaged hearing aids and encouraged use of assisted listening devices.In conclusion, the federal government has a proven commitment to assisting the hearing impaired and to meeting their special needs. That commitment was underlined by the initiatives in the recent federal budget. The member for Watson has brought an important issue to the attention of the House today, but I fear that he may not have been in full possession of all the facts. Nevertheless, I hope that I have allayed some of his concerns about the work that is taking place. The government and the mobile communication providers are working together to alleviate this problem, in the same way that they cooperated to resolve what could have been a very difficult situation with the forced closure of the AMPS network that the former Labor government passed on to the nation. I urge the member for Watson and other opposition members to jointly work through their concerns with the government to seek a constructive and worthwhile solution.15:48:005541Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—As has already been stated, the use of mobile phones in the Australian community is now widespread. The mobile phone has become as much a part of our way of life as the pocket calculator, the computer or the many plastic cards that we all have in our wallets. Most of us benefit enormously from mobile phone usage. However, one group in our community—the group we are talking about in debate on this motion today—has suffered enormously from the use of mobile phones. That group is the hearing impaired people in our community who rely on hearing devices to hear what is being said. The quality of life of these people has been impacted on enormously by the advent of the mobile phone in our community.Mobile phones can cause enormous discomfort for people who use hearing aids or who have cochlear implants. As has already been stated, people using hearing devices experience interference when in the vicinity of a person using a mobile phone. I am not convinced by what I have heard here today that enough is being done. The interference that people wearing hearing devices experience is a buzzing noise. You could compare that to the noise that you or I might hear when we are on a normal telephone and a mobile phone near us starts to ring, or when electrical interference impacts on a radio that we are listening to. It can also impact in an inaudible way and cause a malfunction in the device.This interference causes a lot of problems for people. I have a friend who has a young daughter who is hearing impaired. When that girl goes to shopping centres and is in the vicinity of mobile phones, she cries out from the pain she experiences from the interference from the mobile phones. I do not think enough has been done to date about this. It is a health and safety issue which impacts on people who rely on hearing devices to hear what is happening in the world around them. To date, very little has been done at all.The big initiative of the government and the carriers has been to produce a pamphlet to inform people about the effects of mobile phones on people with hearing devices. It is important that we are aware that there is a problem for people with hearing devices, but what does a pamphlet do to remedy the problem for these people? I might add that that brochure is no longer in production and the information in it is no longer up to date. People with hearing devices need action by the government and initiatives by the carriers to remedy the problem.The digital network is expanding and yet there have been no obvious research or initiatives by either the carriers or the government. The carriers should undertake research and they should show some initiative. As a partially government owned carrier, Telstra should be leading the way. It should be showing the other carriers what needs to be done. But what has happened to Telstra? It has had staffing cuts. It has been making an enormous profit. All its efforts and energies are going into making a profit—not into providing services and not into being involved in research.Telstra and the other carriers should be making a commitment to this very significant group of people in our community—people who must have hearing devices if they are to be able to function in our society the way we do. If they do not have their hearing devices, if they are not able to hear what is being said around them and if they are caused pain by people like you and me using mobile phones, it is not good enough. The carriers and the government must show the initiative and must lead the way. They must go out there and make a commitment to people who have to rely on hearing devices. They have to make a commitment to people, not a commitment to profit. I encourage Telstra to show some leadership and to be a model for other carriers in our community. (Time expired)15:53:005542Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I rise to speak against this motion today. I am surprised that such a motion has come from the opposition who, when they were in government, did much to create the problems in the area of telecommunications but offered little in the way of solutions to these problems. This motion does nothing to advance the cause of hearing impaired people and does a great disservice to the actions that are being taken to address the difficulty of mobile phone interference with a range of electrical devices, including hearing aids.The existing analog mobile phone system is being phased out as a result of a decision taken by the previous government, of which the mover of this motion was a part. On coming to office, the current government found that it was legally untenable to reverse that decision, and it fell to us to undertake a considerable amount of work to make that decision workable. That decision had been taken by the previous government without regard to the issues of planning, regional coverage or interference. Now in opposition, they have the temerity to raise these issues, which they did nothing to resolve, as a criticism of this government, which has been working steadily and effectively to solve them.Be that as it may, the existing analog mobile phone system will close in the major metropolitan areas and in approximately one-third of the country areas by the end of this year. It will be progressively phased out in the remaining rural areas by 31 December 2000. Australian and overseas research indicates that digital mobile phone systems may cause interference to some models of hearing aid. The first important point to note about this is that there is variability among hearing aids themselves in terms of how much of a problem this is. Most later model devices have greater immunity to this problem.The second important point to note is that the interference that is reported only occurs within one to two metres of most hearing aids in the case of GSM phones. With CDMA technology, this reduces to about half a metre. So the big issue here is not that there is wide scale interference by GSM phones with other people's hearing aids—as the opposition would like to suggest with this motion—but that there may be some difficulty for people with hearing aids who want to use a mobile phone themselves.Australian Hearing, formerly Australian Hearing Services, has also undertaken research in this area and published a report in 1995 with recommendations regarding the interference effects of GSM phones on hearing aids. Arising out of this was the development of an Australian standard for hearing aid immunity, with two classes. C1 gives immunity at distances greater than one metre. This category is referred to as low to medium immunity. C2 gives immunity to interference when the handset is being used by a person wearing a hearing aid. This category is referred to as high immunity. It was concluded that some high immunity aids would be usable with GSM phones by some hearing impaired people. A number of handset accessories are available, which are known as hands-free kits.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—They are $200 each.848Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER—These kits can comprise a handset or a neck loop which attach to a mobile phone handset via a cable. They do not cost anywhere near $200. These kits aim to increase the separation between the phone and the aid to reduce the potential for interference. The new network based on code division multiple access, or CDMA, technology, which was announced recently by Telstra, further improves on this. It is not clear at this stage to what level CDMA handsets may cause interference to hearing aids, but because of the lower power level used by CDMA handsets it is likely that there will be less interference.I am advised that Telstra is cooperating with Australian Hearing to conduct testing on the compatibility of mobile phones with hearing aids. The results of these tests will be known later in June. Further tests are scheduled for later this year. This will involve a range of tests, including objective tests as well as subjective tests—that is, with the effects being reported by actual users of hearing aids.So far it would appear that the medium and high immunity hearing aids can be used with mobile phones. Furthermore, the telecommunications carriers are happy to work with hearing impaired customers to determine the combination of options that is most suitable to the individual user. We will be working closely with Australian Hearing and the mobile phone carriers to ensure that the interests of hearing impaired people are properly looked after in this important area. (Time expired)15:58:005543Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I oppose the closure of the analog mobile phone network. This House will be aware that, pursuant to section 361 of the Telecommunications Act 1996, on or after 1 January 2000 a person must not install or operate an analog mobile phone system, or AMPS, network. I oppose this provision taking effect for two reasons: firstly, electromagnetic interference to hearing aids from the global standard for mobile, or GSM, digital mobile system and, secondly, the code division multiple access, or CDMA, system.The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts must now acknowledge that the relevant provisions of the act dealing specifically with the phasing out of the AMPS network, and the envisaged cut-over to a fully digital grid, are an unmitigated failure. The minister will remember that he exercised his discretionary powers under section 362 of the act in relation to rural mobile telephone users. Section 362 gives the minister power to permit a person to install or operate an AMPS network in a particular area on or after January 2000 if the minister and each eligible mobile carrier agree in writing. The minister may also exercise his power if he has consulted each eligible mobile carrier and the minister has determined that the installation or operation of the AMPS network will not erode unduly the practical value to an eligible mobile carrier of the regime embodied in sections 360 and 361.Mr Deputy Speaker, I bring to your attention the facts about the existence of the CDMA network. Let us recall the reasons for the implementation of the provisions in sections 360 and 361 of the Telecommunications Act 1996. Most significantly, the policy rationale behind the shutting down of the analog system is that no carrier should enjoy an unfair advantage over another. Thus, the three carriers should enjoy the common market benefits of the GSM system. However, the permission by the minister allowing the existence of the CDMA system creates an unfair market advantage in favour of Telstra. CDMA is not analog but uses the same frequency spectrum and hardware infrastructure. CDMA has been put to the rural community as the alternative to analog when the analog really shuts down on 1 January 2000. However, even the CDMA system continues to have frequency conflicts with hearing aids.The problems are thus raised under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act. Firstly, what provisions exist to protect Vodafone and Optus from the unfair advantage now afforded to Telstra by virtue of its right to operate the CDMA system after 1 January 2000? Telstra already has significant analog mobile infrastructure which is also used by the CDMA system. Whilst Optus or Vodafone could create their own CDMA networks, Telstra enjoys the advantages of their pre-existing infrastructure. Secondly, what amount of compensation will be paid to Vodafone and Optus resulting from this unfair advantage created by the minister's permission for Telstra to operate the CDMA? Thirdly, what reason is left for the elimination of the analog system?I put to this House that the commercial—albeit statutory—reasons for the elimination of the analog network have been totally nullified by the minister's permission for Telstra to operate the CDMA network. For these reasons, I call upon the House to oppose the phasing out of the analog network. There are some 400,000 hearing impaired people living throughout Australia. My electorate of Lowe has a significant percentage of people who are hearing affected. Put simply, the GSM and CDMA technologies cannot be implemented alone without serious deleterious impacts on existing hearing aid technologies and without exorbitant price increases for modified hearing aids.This problem has not been solved, irrespective of the unreasonable responsibility loaded upon the TGA, Therapeutic Goods Administration, to list a high immunity hearing aid—C2 class hearing aid—with neither a time frame for its regulation nor the power to show compliance. I have received protests from many parts of the community: local constituents, the Deafness Council of New South Wales, the Deafness Forum of Australia, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Penrith City Council. I am further advised that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has placed a practice note entitled `Public inquiries' on its home page. A constituent of my electorate and another complainant have alleged discrimination against Telstra and the minister in regard to mobile phone interference, and they have indicated that they will seek a public inquiry by HREOC as the first part of their complaint procedure. This is an issue that will not go away. It is a travesty that a possible 400,000 persons will be denied mobile telephone services by 1 January 2000. Does the government understand that in the last week of 1999 the analog system and the CDMA digital system will be operating together on the same frequency spectrum? Does the Howard government realise there will be no conflict between these systems and no undue hardship for any eligible mobile phone carrier if they remain switched on? Where is the Howard government's sense of justice?I urge this House to compel the minister to act quickly. Further, I shall personally make an application on behalf of the growing class of individuals and organisations calling on the minister to see the maintenance of the analog system after 1999. Phasing out the analog grid ensures that those people who use hearing aids are going to miss out on this so-called technical revolution, this super highway—denied any access to this essential service through no fault of their own, simply because they have a physical disability. It is immoral. It is unjust, and it is wrong. (Time expired)16:03:005545Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The motion before us today relates to the failure of telephone carriers in this country to recognise the rights and also the health of about half a million hearing impaired people. It is a failure of the carriers, particularly Telstra, to address the problem of the GSM interference with hearing aids. In the broad concept it is a motion that is rightly debated here in the private members' business section of the House's business. It is meant to bring us all together to talk about the issues and to bring about a statement of a number of concerns that we have. I suspect that in his contact with the hearing impaired in his electorate the member for Lowe is attempting to ensure that people ignore the fact that it was the Australian Labor Party that actually signed the contract to get rid of the AMPS network—the analog mobile phone service that is going to be phased out at the end of this year in the member for Lowe's electorate and in my electorate. All of that is happening because of the Australian Labor Party. History cannot be changed, no matter how much we try to gild the lily—no offence to the member for Lilley, who is in the chamber right now.I think it is worth noting that the Labor Party and their revisionist approach exposes yet another `head in the sand' approach as far as understanding what is going on. We have heard calls from a number of the contributors today for inquiries, research and so forth. I am pleased to report that research is ongoing. In fact, in its time this government has established research, the most recent of which came as a result of the meeting of industry representatives in Sydney on 4 March this year. Members of the Australian Mobile Telephone Association committed themselves to funding research—so they are paying for it—to test the impact of the 1800 kilohertz digital mobile phone transmissions on the range of hearing aids. The research program was commenced in April of this year, with the research expected to be completed by June. That is two months. What an unreasonable time frame they have set for themselves. The Office of Hearing Services has suggested that the range of hearing aids to be tested be expanded to include aids which are frequently prescribed by contracted private sector service providers and by the hearing services program and has also asked that testing on cochlear implants be considered.The concept of hands-free accessories for hearing aid users was also discussed at that 4 March meeting. It was noted that such accessories are becoming commonplace in the community for people without hearing impairment. I have one myself. It was given to me as part of my entitlement as a member of parliament. I have to say to you that the idea of frying my brain through the use of the digital technology which seems to have become part of the tools of everyday life is something I do not seek to do. So that hearing aid type device and hands-free microphone is something that I use, although I suspect that people who are sticking it in their pockets may want to consider that they may in fact be doing damage to another part of their anatomy. But, either way, these matters are being discussed and have been discussed in the term of this government. It is yet another of those sets of conditions that we have had to repair since coming to office.The other thing, of course, is the appeal to mobile phone users to understand that a mobile phone's role should be, in fact, a tool for business, a tool for commerce, a tool for security. You are not meant to be a slave to it. So one of the things that a lot of mobile phone users could do is turn the darn things off. In fact, turning them off may in itself be a community service.I support the broad parameters of this motion before us today, but I think it is important to note that a great deal of work is being done. In fact, this government's own Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts is convening a conference of parties interested in the issue of potential digital phone interference with cochlear implants on 23 June this year. In a few weeks time there will be yet another conference to discuss that matter. The Office of Hearing Services will be involved with the proposed conference, along with other major stakeholders.In bringing this motion before the House today the member for Watson is trying to carve himself a piece of the action. But I think the great value out of the debate that we have had here today and the various issues that have been brought up—some on and some off the broad agenda—is the fact that the issue has been raised. It has made a lot of us realise the impact of mobile phones, particularly digital mobile phones, and lament for yet another reason the Australian Labor Party's decision to cause the end of the analog system, a system which was being used by the hearing impaired to great effect. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.554616:08:005546Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes that 1999 is the International Year of the Older Persons; (2) notes the large number of middle-aged persons who have been retrenched in Australia and who have little chance of obtaining further employment;(3) recognises that aged care services should provide a continuity of care in which services come to the people;(4) further recognises that many older persons who have been retrenched will have used up their superannuation entitlements by retiring age and will need to fall back on the aged pension; and(5) agrees that more work needs to be done to preserve Australian jobs, so that people are free to make their own retirement decisions based on quality of life issues rather than be forced to retire due to a management decision of their employer.The United Nations has determined that the principles articulated for this year, the International Year of Older Persons, are independence, participation, care, self-fulfilment and dignity. The primary thrust of the year is towards greater age integration and cooperation towards a society of all ages.The International Year of Older Persons allows all Australians to recognise the contribution that our older citizens have made to our way of life. Many of our now retired people are men and women who have fought overseas to defend our nation. Many more are people who have worked in industry and commerce and have therefore contributed to the economic development of our country. These people continue to contribute to our nation, sometimes in paid employment but more often in a voluntary capacity.There are two periods of time that contribute to the peace of mind of older persons—that is, that period of a person's working life that leads into retirement, and the period of retirement itself. While the ageing process is gradual—we do not suddenly become old—the economic effects of reaching a certain age can be dramatic, such as sudden loss of employment. This can mean that people have not planned or are not in a sound economic position to retire. We are finding that it is becoming more and more difficult for mature age people, particularly men, to obtain secure employment. In August 1996, some 80 per cent of 60- to 64-year-old males were employed. By August 1998, only 43 per cent were employed. There is also a greater tendency to long-term unemployment amongst mature age workers. Using the 1998 data, some 34 per cent of the total unemployed population has been unemployed for 12 months or longer, but among unemployed people aged 55 years and over, 52 per cent fall within the long-term unemployed group.To add to this we also have an increasing incidence of premature and forced retirement amongst mature workers. Their premature withdrawal from the labour market means less adequate superannuation coverage for mature workers. What has not helped these people is the decision in the 1996 budget to remove the exemption in the social security means test for superannuation and rollover benefits for unemployed people between the age of 55 and the aged pension. Fifty-five seems to be the age that a lot of employers think is a good age to ease older workers out of the work force. However, many people in this particular age group still have financial commitments—children at school, mortgages and various other debts arising from supporting a family. Many older people have had to substantially eat into their super and may well become full-time clients of our social security system a lot earlier than anticipated as a result of the government's decision. It is worth noting that while Australia spends 2.6 per cent of its GDP on pensions, France and Germany spend 11 per cent, while in Italy the figure has climbed to 13 per cent.There are sound economic reasons for people to continue in employment until they have reached a stage where they are able to contribute towards their own retirement. With working people being encouraged to provide for their own retirement by compulsory superannuation, it is much better to provide government assistance for a few short years to age 65 than to cause these people to become long-term clients of the government after they have used up their super savings. There are also sound social reasons for employment security as many people in this age group still have post school-age children seeking to enter a fragile employment market. These young people need the assistance of a secure home environment as they themselves seek permanent employment.This employment security for older people is a major question to be addressed by governments in this International Year of Older Persons. It is a far greater question than I can address in just a few short minutes, but a few ideas quickly come to mind. Governments may consider a retrenchment scholarship that could be accessed in midlife employment to enable retrenched workers to undergo an extensive period of full-time re-education to equip them to obtain highly skilled employment in, say, the last 15 or 20 years of their working lives. Governments also need to look at the emerging technological age which is reducing the people-to-people contact in our major government departments, public transport and financial institutions. Is the reduction in the use of people in this way an advantage to our society? I think not.16:13:005547Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The previous speaker, the member for Greenway, Mr Mossfield, has rightly brought to the attention of the House a concern which I think all members in this place share—that is, the situation of those older Australians who have in some cases fallen through the net and in their forties, fifties or sixties find themselves retrenched and having to seek employment again. There is no doubt that those in that older age group are faced with some barriers to employment which are not present in the same way for younger job seekers. It is the duty of each of us in this place to do what we can to try and ensure that their re-entry to the work force is speedier and more efficient and that more opportunities exist for that to take place.The member has addressed the motion in the context of the International Year of Older Persons. I take the opportunity to congratulate the minister, Mrs Bishop, for her outstanding leadership in the area of celebrating this significant milestone and bringing it to the attention of the Australian people and the expenditure by this government of almost $11 million to ensure that the International Year of Older Persons results in lasting and tangible benefits for older people. Particularly, I acknowledge the minister's launch in my electorate at the Parramatta Leagues Club of a new initiative with the Australian Bankers Association to help older Australians understand and feel comfortable with the technology now available to access banking and financial services. That is an important step forward and I am very pleased to see that being launched in my electorate of Parramatta.We come to the question of what we do for older Australians whose job security is perhaps less today than it was a generation ago. There is no doubt that, with the speed of change in our economy, the move from a traditional, industrial based economy to a services, tertiary based economy, the revolution in information and the speed of change, there have been those who have fallen through the cracks. One day in my electorate this was vividly brought to my attention. On the one hand, I read in the newspaper that Telstra had signed a $900,000 contract with an 18-year-old schoolboy from Sydney who had developed a new software package called Launchpad, which is now available on Telstra's Big Pond home page on the Internet. They had paid almost a million dollars to that 18-year-old schoolboy for his efforts.Then that afternoon I had a call from one of my constituents who had worked for Telstra for over 20 years, had joined Telstra straight out of school and at the age of 40 was looking at the possibility of retrenchment. This particular gentleman's father likewise had joined what was then the Postmaster-General's office out of school and had worked with the PMG, then Telecom and now Telstra for 40 years. His son had, I suppose, the rational expectation that he likewise could expect lifetime employment in that organisation, only to find at the age of 40 that he was seriously having to look at a complete change of direction and change of vocation and that his expectation of lifetime employment was almost certainly going to be defeated.In my maiden speech in this place I said that I wanted us to ensure we were educating young Australians for the industries that are emerging rather than those which are passing away. How do we address what is clearly a serious social and economic problem? No body ought to trivialise the significance of the problem which the honourable member has raised. The answer is not to somehow hope to stand like King Canute on the point and urge the tide to go out. The wave of change is upon us. It is going to continue to come at a faster and faster pace. There is really nothing we can do, as a small island nation, to stop that international wave of technology and change.I would not want to change that—it creates enormous opportunities. But we have to create an economy which is growing sufficiently quickly, is lean and competitive and offers opportunities for anyone in the job market. My colleague the member for Riverina is going to talk about the specific initiatives this government has taken in the employment services market. But the macro management of an economy which actually creates jobs is the greatest hope for every job seeker. In that regard the Australian people have been tremendously well served by this government. What it means is that, for an older person who perhaps had not expected to lose their job, there are opportunities to get back into the work force.16:19:005548Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I congratulate the member for Greenway on his motion. He has shown consistent support for older people and working people in his community. I share his concern. The year of the older person is a time to reflect on matters affecting both older Australians and Australia's ageing population. There is an old French saying that says, `Forty is the old age of youth and fifty is the youth of old age.' It is true that people in their fifties and beyond ought to be looking forward to their older age with the vigour of youth and looking forward to security and confidence in their retirement years. Working people 50 and over should be enjoying the prime of their working life. With good fortune, children are becoming self-reliant adults and the last working years can be utilised for saving and building for many happy and relaxing years after work has finished.The older worker should also look forward to the attainment of respect and dignity in the workplace that comes with the knowledge and experience only years can bring. The older worker should be enjoying unprecedented respect in the community as well as in the workplace. They have, after all, contributed to their community through a lifetime of activity, enterprise and of course tax. These should be the golden years. However, the dreams and plans have been taken from this generation and replaced with fear and doubt.Where in previous generations the middle-aged moved eagerly towards retirement, it now seems retirement lurks grimly towards them. The casualty rate of middle-aged workers from the retrenchments and downsizing and economic rationalism is a national tragedy. Over 350,000 mature age workers have lost their jobs in the corporate squeeze. Many caught up in that statistic have lost more than a job. They have lost the security that came with permanent work and the dignity of being the breadwinner. While it is easy to outsource a job, the same cannot be said for a family, a future and financial obligations.For the older unemployed the struggle is that much harder. Changes in technology have compounded the differences between industries and occupations. The resume of older workers may seem more like a history lesson than a record of qualifications. However, older workers clearly have the skills and the commitment to contribute to a new employer. But for the prejudices held by many employers, older workers with their lifetime of experience and work principles would be welcome recruits for any number of organisations. Instead many workers are faced with the fact that they are not likely to return to work at the status or pay they once enjoyed. Tragically, many will never return to work at all.They are faced instead with either living off their superannuation in their middle age or ending up on unemployment benefits. Either way, they face their 65th birthday with very little to look forward to except the pension. This is a far cry from the gold watch and the retirement party in the dreams of their youth. It is sometimes said that you are dead a long time. These days it could also be added that you are retired a lot longer and a lot earlier. With increasing life spans, retirements are now counted in decades rather than years. Add to this an aging population and we understand the challenges faced by older Australians.As quickly as the number of retired Australians increases, so too government services decrease. This government is aware that our ageing population has a significant public policy implication. Its response though, it seems, is to turn its back on older people and hope the problem goes away.In 1960, John F. Kennedy noted that, `A medical revolution has extended the life of our elder citizens without providing the dignity and security those later years deserve.' We have had 40 years to understand and plan for the ageing of the baby boomers. In that time we have preached savings and self-sufficiency to move away from pensions and into national savings. But running contrary to this we have destroyed the philosophy and practice of permanent employment. This philosophy is the bedrock of society. This is the only philosophy that creates the financial security that builds lives, makes families and enables us all to save. Yet this government proclaims proudly that no job is safe.I commend this motion to the House. It speaks compassionately for all of the working people of Australia who want self-sufficiency in their retirement, who want more than just the pension, but are left marooned in the shifting sands of the harsh economic rationalism supported and practised by this government.16:24:005549Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—Reading this private members business motion, I find it most interesting that the member for Greenway has noted the large number of middle-aged persons who have been retrenched in Australia. I wonder whether the member is aware—I am sure he produced figures—that in 1978 labour force participation rates for men aged 45 to 54 stood at 92.1 per cent. This rate had fallen to 88.6 per cent by 1993—rather a startling reduction in jobs. Even more startling was the enormous decline in jobs for men aged 55 to 59 years, where rates fell from 80.9 per cent in 1978 to 73.1 per cent in 1993. Yes, there have been a large number of middle-aged persons who have been retrenched in Australia. When did these retrenchments take place?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Under Labor.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—Correct, under the rule of a Labor government. The member also makes mention of the need for people to be free to make their own retirement decisions, rather than be forced to retire. I remind the member for Greenway that the largest decrease in labour participation rates, between 1978 and 1995, was in men aged 60 to 64 years. The member should also be aware that figures from the Australian Bulletin of Labour tell us that it was men aged 60 to 64 years who were the most severely affected by the recession under the leadership of the former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating.However, there is some good news; that is, employment has grown by 21 per cent over the past five years for those persons aged 45 years or more under this government. The coalition government recognises the difficulties being experienced by some ageing people in the work force. It has put in place new policies as incentives for these members of the Australian community to continue in employment, such as removing the compulsory retirement age of 65 years for statutory office holders, introducing the Pension Bonus Scheme to reward people who choose to keep working past their normal retirement age and initiating the aged persons savings bonus that will benefit retirees and assist them in maintaining the value of their savings following the introduction of the GST.In addition, Minister Reith has requested an inquiry into the social, economic and industrial issues specific to workers over the age of 45 years who are seeking employment or establishing a business following unemployment. However, the question is: will the opposition support new initiatives that emerge from this or any other inquiry, or will it be another youth wages bill debacle where Labor denied many thousands of youths jobs when it joined with the Democrats in blocking the bill in the Senate, just as Labor voted against health fund rebates that would allow health security for older persons? They would have our older persons on endless waiting lists in a public health system that was left in utter decay after 13 years of Labor rule.Yes, member for Greenway, this government does recognise that aged care should provide a continuity of care. We know that in 20 years time there will be almost twice as many people over the age of 65 as there are now. That is why the Prime Minister has established a ministerial reference group to develop a national strategy for an ageing Australia.The focus of the group will be helping Australians to be independent and to provide for their later years through employment, life-long learning and financial security; delivering quality health care through new approaches to service delivery, coordinated care and independent living; and improving attitudes to older people and ageing, lifestyle issues such as personal safety, housing, transport, recreation and community support. It appears to me that the opposition has discovered that the government is committed to aged care services and aged employment, and I am proud to be able to support the member for Greenway in his acknowledgment of this fact.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Grievance Debate5550Question proposed:That grievances be noted.555016:28:005550Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—This is the first opportunity I have had since my election to this place to air a grievance. There is a matter of concern which I believe goes to the heart of the quality of the democracy and governance we enjoy. It impacts on every public policy issue considered by this government. It lurks in the background in every discussion, in every negotiation undertaken by those opposite. It is the issue of succession of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party. In this context, I wish to turn first to the Liberal Party of Australia, in particular, to the Victorian branch.The Liberal Party was founded to promote the cause of liberalism. How would the man credited with its creation, the Rt Hon. Robert Gordon Menzies, react to the news that the Auburn North branch of the very same party had refused admission to a prospective member on the basis of to whom she is married? Surely he would not be pleased. Ms Ann Peacock was the unsuspecting victim of a most un-Liberal act. The daughter of a former Liberal foreign minister, her only crime is to have walked down the aisle with Michael Kroger.For those who might see this act as part of the wider war within the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party—between the forces of Mr Kroger and his nemesis, the Premier of Victoria—the news is: you are wrong. All the people involved in the refusal to accept Ms Peacock's membership have been completely disowned by the Premier of Victoria. Indeed, the dust was flying in the rush by prominent Liberals to disown the actions of this renegade branch. The Premier swooped to Ms Peacock's aid, as did the Prime Minister, as did Mr Kroger's candidate for the leader of the Liberal Party: the Treasurer.The member for Kooyong intervened in the affairs of the local branch and ensured Ms Peacock's membership was accepted, against the wishes of his local upper house member, David Davis. Even Ms Peacock's mother, Lady Renouf, threatened to withdraw her extensive involvement in Liberal Party fundraising. This is but one incident in the tensions seething below the surface of the Liberal Party. It appears that this may be merely the latest example of the continuing dispute between Messrs Kennett and Kroger—the Brutus and Mark Antony of modern conservative politics.The next great flashpoint for the continuing wars between these two will undoubtedly be the carving up of preselections for that state's election, which is due later this year. There has already been a delay in the processes. One thing that is guaranteed is that there will be a number of very hotly contested contests later on. The state seat of Bulleen promises to be one of the nastiest contests. The local member, David Perrin—a bete noire of the Premier's—will be facing a challenge from Nick Kotsiras, an adviser to the Premier. In Doncaster, there may be a challenge to Victor Perton. Mr Perton is in the invidious position of being disliked by both the Kennett and Kroger forces, so it would appear his only chance of survival would be a strong performance in his local plebiscite.But the battle for Bulleen may be of wider moment. The most interesting aspect of the fight is not who might win but whether there is a larger agenda involved. The Premier of Victoria likes a good purge, so in some circles the fact that he might be supporting Mr Kotsiras for Bulleen comes as no surprise. It might also be the case, however, that the Premier has a more mid-term interest in the preselection than merely who will be the next member for Bulleen. Mr Kotsiras may be paving the way for Mr Kennett's eventual challenge in the seat of Menzies. It is no secret in Victorian political circles that the current member for Menzies, regrettably, is opposed by some sections of his own party. Indeed, it has been suggested the honourable member will find his most trenchant critics among the ranks of state Liberals. These people whisper that Mr Kennett is a more palatable choice for them as their Canberra representative. Indeed, one of the Greek language pamphlets distributed in the Bulleen preselection claimed that the Kotsiras push was organised for this very purpose.No-one knows whether Kennett will go federal, but his recent interest in everything from the preamble to youth suicide, heroin and One Nation shows some inclination. It will be especially so if his `friend' the Treasurer falters in his bid for Liberal leadership. In an article in the Herald Sun on 8 April, Michael Harvey, the Chief Political Reporter, wrote:If however, he (Kennett) decided a Canberra career was the next step, the Premier would have little difficulty landing himself a safe Federal seat. Victorian Liberals concede the outer eastern metropolitan electorate of Menzies, held by Liberal Kevin Andrews, is Mr Kennett's for the taking. The margin slipped to 5.5% at the October general election . . . Perhaps he will be joined by the member for Goldstein, whose mooted early retirement might leave Michael Kroger with a clear run in the resultant preselection.This leads us fairly naturally to the state of play in the festering ambitions of the two Petes—P1 and P2, as the press gallery's Michelle Grattan calls them. It is interesting to watch from over here their assiduous working of the backbench and other colleagues. Who can forget the memorable announcement by Michael Kroger on Lateline of his friend the Treasurer's candidacy for the top job? According to a fascinating report in the Sunday Herald Sun, events are more advanced than any of us realised. You will forgive me, Mr Speaker, but because the source of my analysis is a Melbourne weekend paper I was not sure that it had been given the attention that it deserves, so I intend to read from it. The article stated:It is common knowledge that Mr Howard, who turns 60 in July, always wanted to be Prime Minister for the Sydney Olympics, but as the event approaches, some Howard confidantes say Malcolm Fraser's record of seven years and four months and even Bob Hawke's term of eight years and nine months are beckoning.But Mr Costello will not want to wait that long. In fact, there is growing evidence that his backers believe he should not even wait until after the next Federal Election . . . Costello supporters are quietly working the backbench suggesting a voluntary changeover is highly probable this term . . .Gerard McManus added:The PM's office has learned of a network of key Costello organisers from each state who have been selected to gather support.One influential Liberal in the Howard camp this week unkindly described some of Mr Costello's supporters as comprising "the desperate, duplicitous and the dispossessed".The dispossessed is said to include former ministers still scarred from being dumped by Mr Howard—Queensland's David Jull, New South Wales MP Andrew Thomson and WA MP Geoff Prosser and Judi Moylan. The desperate is said to include Dr Brendan Nelson, Christopher Pyne and Petro Georgiou, who, despite their political skills have been frozen out of the Ministry.Mr Pyne, an influential moderate, has been wooed by Mr Costello and powerbroker Michael Kroger since the last election.Turning to the ambitions of the member for Flinders, according to some, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is a ubiquitous guest at Liberal Party backbenchers' birthday parties—most recently attending Senator Grant Chapman's celebrations. I cannot believe the stories, however, that the minister is travelling the country cutting the cake and singing `happy birthday'. It is unclear whether he was travelling with or without his prime ministerial baton. Tony Wright, the chief political correspondent for the Age , wrote on 27 February:. . . Peter Reith is busily reminding everyone he is not only a republican, but tripping off to Sydney right in front of the TV cameras to talk to former independent MP Ted Mack about giving the people of Australia the right to elect their own President. The people's Peter. And just for good measure, he popped up on TV last Sunday, suggesting he was such an optimist that he believed Australia could reduce unemployment below 5 per cent—if only his ideas are adopted.The same day, on another station, Costello was claiming ownership of Reith's leaked ideas on how to reduce unemployment, declaring "Well, what Peter has done, is he's really put some detail on some of the things that I was saying . . . "Another tantalising explanation for the enthusiasm of the minister for workplace relations for the ultra-republican position appeared in the Australian of 15 February:There are those inside the government who, in trying to divine Reith's tealeaves, suspect his republican play may have been aimed at currying favour with Howard.The various activities of P1 and P2 could be an irrelevancy, however. My mail is that the smart money is on a dark horse; a senator even—the Gorton option again. The Prime Minister has a favourite, but his name is not Peter; it is Nick. It is Senator Nick Minchin. If the Prime Minister can swing it, he reputedly would much prefer to hand over the reigns to the senator from South Australia.This may seem mere speculation, perhaps even mischievous speculation, on my part. I reject any such suggestion. Let us not forget some of the immortal quotes from other famous conservative leaders who said they would never challenge for the leadership: `I can assure you of our complete loyalty to John Gorton'—Sir William McMahon pledging loyalty to Sir John Gorton in 1969, some months before he toppled him from the job. `The party room has a right to express a view. It has done this, and I respect its decision and I support the parliamentary leader of the Liberal Party'—Malcolm Fraser in November 1974 after losing a challenge to Billy Snedden, four months before he defeated him. `Look, John Howard is the leader, and I would not challenge his leadership'—deposed Liberal leader Andrew Peacock in September 1985 after losing his job to Mr Howard. In May 1989, Mr Peacock did just that, and won. Finally, `I accept completely that I'll never be the leader of the Liberal Party again. It's out of the question'—John Howard in May 1994, eight months before winning the Liberal Party leadership again. It is my strong contention that these matters and particularly the matters raised by Gerard McManus in the SundayHerald Sun about the various factions operating in this House should be of great concern to the Australian people.555316:38:005553Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I want to say a few words in this grievance debate about unemployment in my electorate of Fairfax, and the Sunshine Coast region of Queensland generally. At the outset, I will repeat what I have said many times—I believe firmly that only the private sector can create and provide long-term sustained job growth in Australia. You can have as many public sector jobs as you like, you can try to hide the level of real unemployment in training schemes, you can use public moneys for public works to either inflate or deflate the economy, but there is no substitute for private sector jobs created through investment and growth and by the willingness of individuals to risk their capital.The Labor government, in 13 years, tried to stimulate job growth through public sector spending. They hid the unemployment in training figures, and in five short years racked up $70 billion worth of public debt. Consequently, the Labor government gave us the recession we had to have, record bankruptcies in the engine of growth—that is, small business—and, because the Commonwealth was a major borrower in the market, record high interest rates. Labor left us with an army of unemployed people. This government realises that the private sector, especially the small business sector, is the creator of jobs.In my electorate on the Sunshine Coast we have always had a higher rate of unemployment than most places. We have some of the fastest growing shires in Australia, with 1,200 to 1,400 people being added to the electoral rolls each month. Many of these new people are retirees or younger people wanting a better lifestyle than they have in the cities. Sadly, and this is by no means unique to the Sunshine Coast, we do tend to attract unemployed people who have no intention of working but who find it more pleasant to be on the dole in Noosa, Maroochydore or Mooloolaba than in Sydney or Melbourne. However, these people are not my main concern. My main concern is for the 6,000 children of school leaving age who reach work force age during the life of each parliament in my electorate. That is at one end of the scale.At the other end of the scale is my concern for older people who lose their jobs in their 40s and 50s. I grieve for the despair I see on the faces of these older people who feel they are on the scrap heap at a time when they should be at the peak of their working careers. The Howard government is on the only track to generate employment and provide these desperate unemployed people with some hope. Running a strong fiscally responsible government, paying off Labor's debt and taking the pressure off interest rates creates a climate of business confidence the like of which we have not seen for 30 years. Australia is growing and has weathered the Asian economic crisis—and remember that Labor voted against every measure that enabled this government to weather that crisis.Unfortunately, growth and jobs do not occur uniformly across the nation or even by region. In my electorate, Coolum is such a place. Jobs growth, investment and development have occurred rapidly over three years on the Sunshine Coast at Maroochydore, Mooloolaba, Noosa and other places but not at Coolum. That is where this government's policy of help and assistance to the unemployed is a different approach from Labor's. This government is not getting carried away with the good news that we tend to hear more and more frequently on a daily basis as a consequence of our sound economic management. We know that we needed growth to generate jobs but we also know that jobs growth has not occurred uniformly and that some regions and towns either need help that others do not need or need help more urgently. Because this government is a compassionate government, it is our policy to provide special help where it is needed.Coolum will benefit from economic growth and jobs that will be created in the long term. In the short term, unemployed people need special assistance because of the lack of public transport and because government and employment services are located in nearby larger centres in Maroochydore, Nambour and Noosa. I applaud my colleague employment minister Tony Abbott, a relatively new minister, who visited Coolum recently and immediately recognised the special problems of the town and approved the installation of an employment touch screen in the local community centre. Coolum is an old town on the Sunshine Coast that tends to have lower accommodation costs than many of the other more glamorous centres in the area. Coolum tends to have a lower household disposable income, higher unemployment and many more social problems than the surrounding areas. The installation of this touch screen was very valuable. This is the first time a touch screen which accesses the Australian jobs market has been installed outside of the Job Network providers. It gives me great satisfaction to see that unemployed people in Coolum now have immediate access to the jobs market enjoyed by other people on the Sunshine Coast.The Work for the Dole scheme is providing the unemployed with self-esteem and is restoring to many in despair the work ethic. The special access to job vacancies gives these people hope and a chance of jobs that they have not had for a long time. The Work for the Dole program is helping long-term unemployed people gain skills and experience while they help with local community projects. These are all good initiatives that this government has introduced and they are supported by most Australians. But the chal lenge now is to ensure that people living in regional areas like my electorate of Fairfax do not miss out on jobs because of geography. I want to again thank the Minister for Employment Services, the Hon. Tony Abbott, for recognising the particular difficulty we have had in my electorate and for doing something very positive about it.My electorate office is also located at Coolum. As I said before, it is located between Maroochydore and Noosa, where government services like Centrelink and Job Network are located. It is not far from either township or from Nambour. Nambour is about 30 minutes away inland—that is if you have a car and can afford to run it. For most unemployed people in the Coolum area, the only option is public transport and in regional areas buses do not run as cheaply or as frequently as they do in the cities. That is just one stumbling block for Coolum people in getting a job. The other, as I said, is accessing a jobs touch screen to see what jobs are available. The director of the community centre, Rod Holt, tells me that the touch screen is a great help and very popular with the local community. Many people from Coolum have now been placed in jobs as a result of Tony Abbott's agreement to put that touch screen in the community centre. However, I must say in conclusion we still need more government services in Coolum.555416:47:005554Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I am very pleased to be speaking today on the need for renewed efforts to reduce smoking in our community. Smoking is the largest preventable cause of death and disease and it generates health and social costs of $12.7 billion annually. Twelve years ago, I was working for the then Minister for Health in Victoria, David White, when he introduced landmark legislation to control tobacco advertising. This legislation established—as a world first—VicHealth, a foundation that redirected tobacco taxes into health promotion activities including the Quit campaign. There has been steady progress since then with reductions in adult smoking rates. However, young people are still taking up smoking in alarming num bers and smoking remains our number one health problem.Smoking still kills more than 18,000 people every year. Almost a third of cancer deaths and a quarter of heart disease are directly attributable to the use of tobacco. Every year more people die from tobacco related diseases than from breast cancer, liver disease, homicide, suicide, AIDS and all accidents combined. Yet there remains an absence of a clear strategy and adequate funding from the government in its attack on this problem. There has been a loss of momentum in the last few years and the resources being put into tobacco control have failed to keep pace with the problem.The Minister for Health and Aged Care put out a statement today that suggested the anti-smoking movement started in 1996. What I would rather do today is give due credit to all those who have been campaigning for so many years in the fight against tobacco related diseases. Included in that I would like to mention the efforts made by the member for Fremantle, who put in place a number of initiatives during her tenure as Minister for Health which are bearing fruit today. One of her initiatives was the establishment of the Rassaby inquiry to find a solution to the vexed problem of the international sponsorship of sport—and we are still waiting for the minister to implement those findings. She also provided $3.1 million in 1994 to enable a substantial national television campaign to be conducted with a principal target of deterring young people from commencing a smoking habit.The news today that the number of regular smokers has been reduced by 1.4 per cent is indeed encouraging. The recent series of shock advertisements that the government has run has been effective, even if it has been a rather modestly funded campaign. But it is not good enough to run just an isolated campaign or two and then to sit back and admire the results. What we have to have is consistent, on-going effort.Another important factor in reducing smoking rates has been the rapid spread of nicotine patches, which have been heavily and effectively promoted by the manufacturers of these products. Nicotine replacement therapy, as it is formally known, has become a major weapon in the fight against smoking because it gives a real hand to the addicted, heavy smokers for whom willpower alone is insufficient to stop smoking. By providing an alternative source of nicotine, it becomes possible for heavy smokers who are at most risk of damaging their health to work towards their goal of completely stopping. At present nicotine patches are very expensive and beyond the reach of some of the most addicted smokers—working people on middle to low incomes.For every one of these people who give up smoking, the community—and the individual—stands to gain handsomely in reduced health costs in future years. And, remarkably, this effect is not limited by age. For example, a person of 50 who has smoked all of his or her adult life will still benefit, by giving up smoking, through improved health in the remaining years of life and a longer life expectancy. It is never too late for us to quit. Hence there are great advantages for the community as a whole in promoting anti-smoking campaigns and in maximising participation in nicotine replacement strategies for those who find it very hard to give up. In the UK Tony Blair's Labour government has introduced radical new measures to provide nicotine patches free for the first 30 days as a central plank of a new national strategy on smoking cessation.I sincerely hope that the minister will take up this suggestion and incorporate a subsidised approach to ensure the success of nicotine replacement therapy and to make sure it is available to everybody in the community. But getting people to quit is not good enough if we continue to have 70,000 young people a year take up smoking. A child who starts smoking at 14 is five times more likely to die prematurely than a person who starts at 24 or older. Surveys show more than one-quarter of 15-year-old students had smoked in the preceding week. There is a lot more that needs to be done to convince young people not to take up the smoking habit and to help working people overcome their addiction.I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of the present minister in relation to this issue. As a doctor, he is well aware of the impact of smoking, and he displays the commitment common amongst the medical profession to strong and effective measures to reduce the extent of smoking and the harm that it causes. But if the minister wants a reputation for achievement on tobacco he will have to do more. The Rassaby report recommended a clear strategy to phase out international sponsored events. This seems to have been shelved, and foreshadowed legislation to end this backdoor advertising has failed to materialise.The only recommendation from the 1997 national cancer control initiative that has been implemented is the change to the method of calculating excise duty. The industry has just been given a $140 million break in this year's budget by a deferral of the effective date for introducing `per stick' excise charges. There has been no action on tougher warnings on cigarette packets and no crackdown on sales to underage smokers. The tobacco industry, in its own documents, has acknowledged that it has manipulated the level of nicotine in cigarettes to ensure that people continue smoking. There is no regulatory mechanism in Australia to track the nicotine content of cigarettes.The minister set a deadline of last July for tobacco companies to finally disclose the chemical content of cigarettes but has taken no action on the replies that I understand he has received. For too long, Australians have been kept in the dark about the numerous chemical additives that are being put into cigarettes to make them more marketable without regard for the health effects. The minister should start by disclosing whatever information he has. The next step would be for him to introduce legislation to require the contents of cigarettes to be printed on the packet. This is a requirement for all food and most other products that are for personal use. Despite the widespread impact on the community, tobacco remains relatively unregulated.The federal government collects around $4.5 billion each year in revenue from smok ers, including $64 million from underage smokers. Total expenditure on anti-smoking education in Australia by contrast has declined from 0.77 per cent of total government revenue from tobacco in 1989 to 0.14 per cent in 1997. The amount spent on anti-smoking advertisements is just one-third of the amount spent by this government promoting private health insurance. It is not enough to leave it to the states. There must be strong national leadership and access to federal government funding.The government is currently consulting on a draft tobacco strategy for the next three years. I urge the government to be bold and to ensure that the campaign against smoking does not falter for lack of funding or willpower on the part of the government. The government needs to look at a comprehensive approach that includes subsidised nicotine treatment, controls on advertising at point of sale, enforceable targets for the tobacco industry to deter underage smoking and either enforcement of the underage sales provisions or further controls on the places where cigarettes may be sold.The momentum of the anti-smoking campaign will be lost if this minister does not act soon. It is time that we saw a strong strategy for the next three years to put this campaign back into gear. If we do not see that from this government, substantial progress will have to wait until the next election when we can look forward to the Labor government tackling the unfinished business that we left in 1996.555616:57:005556Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I agree with much of what the member for Jagajaga said, but I have to sadly disillusion her on the last point—she will be still sitting in opposition after the next election. I rise today to urge the Senate to pass the legislation for the sale of the next 16 per cent of Telstra. I want to outline some of the terrific benefits of the sale of the first 33 per cent. Apart from the significant reduction in government debt, a number of benefits have been passed on to people particularly in regional Australia. It is interesting to note that the Labor Party continues to oppose this, and yet it was the Labor Party that went down the path of privatising the Commonwealth Bank. Before an election, a former Labor Treasurer, Mr Willis, even went so far as to say, `We have no plans of further privatisation,' only to go past the election and take the next step towards privatising part of the Commonwealth Bank.The sale of the first 33 per cent of Telstra erased nearly $15 billion of debt. It is interesting to note that while that sale made many new shareholders—many Australians for the first time in their lives became shareholders in Telstra—the sale of the next 16 per cent will probably raise a similar amount of money because the value of those shares has gone up quite significantly. It would mean that not only have many Australians benefited but also the taxpayers of Australia would receive a direct benefit because we would be paying off government debt and doing a number of other things that would also mean lower interest charges and therefore lower taxes. It is interesting to note that, as part of this sale of the next 16 per cent, the government is proposing a $671 million social bonus. I understand that the matter is still under some negotiation, but I hope that the Senate will see the sense of this social bonus and the value that it will mean for regional Australia in particular but Australia in general. There would be $250 million more for the Natural Heritage Trust. This very important program was started by the coalition government, and it is one that I believe now has widespread support throughout the community. It has ensured that the environment is now a mainstream policy issue and will remain that way.It has meant we have had community based projects that have involved tens of thousands of Australians. In the last two rounds in my electorate of Wannon we have seen many local organisations successful—in fact, more than 100—and more than $2½ million in federal funding has come through that program and is being spent very wisely and in a way that I am sure all Australians would be very pleased to hear about. These programs have included restoring vegetation, repairing land that has been eroded, eliminating feral pests and weeds, clearing our rivers and working on our coastal strips. There is no doubt that future generations will gain great benefit from the work that has been done there.In many areas it has set out to reverse the degradation of our land, our waterways and our coasts. It has also set out to conserve some of our precious biological diversity and to ensure that we can act in a way that does not damage the life support systems on our planet—very important programs and ones that I think have widespread support. The fund is also helping to clean up our rivers, restore some native vegetation and tackle dryland salinity. Again, I think it is so important that the proposed sale of the next tranche of Telstra goes ahead so that we can continue this excellent work.The next area that is very important, particularly for people in regional areas, is the extension of SBS and also the work on eliminating television black spots. In my region and in many other parts of regional Australia there are many people who cannot get SBS television, yet it is provided free of charge to people in the city and they take it for granted. One hundred and twenty million dollars will establish a television fund which will be used to expand SBS to all broadcast communities of more than 10,000 people. This, coupled with fixing between 200 and 250 transmission black spots around the country, will mean that more than one million Australians in regional areas will get a service that city dwellers have been taking for granted. It is clear that the high cost of providing the additional transmitters cannot be met locally and, through the sale of Telstra, this is a logical way of using some of the dividend so that it is part of the social bonus.In September last year I lodged a submission with the economic development committee of the Victorian parliament which was conducting an inquiry into the effects of government funded national broadcasting on Victoria. In calling for community input to the submissions, I received written input from 67 individuals, several petitions and representations from several community groups. There were many submissions following similar lines, but SBS was one of the main areas that came through from those submissions. People felt that the inequality of living in the country and not being able to get that access was just unreasonable and something that the government had to address. In its report that committee has followed through on these points and on a number of others and has recognised the benefits of SBS for people in the country as well as in the city.Another area that the social bonus will be applied to is the rural transaction centres. This is a policy that the current government developed, and it developed it in direct response to the then Financial Institutions and Public Administration Committee, now the Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee of which I am honoured to be the chairman. I note another member of the committee is here, the member for Grayndler. He knows that we did some excellent work in looking at the impact in the country of the closure of local bank branches. The committee's work, even though the committee had not reported at the time of the next election, had direct influence on both the coalition and the Labor Party in the development of their policies for regional banking.The coalition came up with an excellent policy of the rural transaction centres, and over $70 million from the social bonus from the sale of the 16 per cent of Telstra is to be applied to establish a network of rural transaction centres. These are not only to assist in providing banking where that may not be but also to extend postal, Medicare, phone and fax services to smaller country towns. Clearly, by assisting in establishing this infrastructure, the government can apply this money sensibly and in a way that, again, helps people in regional Australia to benefit from getting services that people in larger centres just take for granted.Another area where this money from the sale of Telstra will be applied is to extend mobile phone coverage. Twenty-five million dollars will be used to provide continuous mobile phone coverage along 11 of the nation's busiest highways, thus eliminating irritating and potentially dangerous black spots of mobile phone coverage—again, something that people in the city tend to take for granted but something that can be ex tremely frustrating in the country. I can say on behalf of all my country colleagues from both sides of the chamber, as members of parliament I think they all know just how frustrating it is when you are driving around your electorate trying to use the phone—of course in a hands-free mode—AV5QUICKMr Quick—Come to western Tasmania.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—If you come to western Victoria it is no different. There is that frustration of not being able to use that telephone when you know that your colleagues in the city just take it for granted. These mobile phone base stations are quite expensive—they can cost up to $300,000 each—and so the phone companies will not always find it economic to extend that coverage. But, by using this social bonus, again we can see tremendous benefits.There is also money for Internet local points of presence—another thing that will directly benefit the country—and more money for the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, which is already doing some fantastic work in the country areas but clearly is going only part of the way.I urge the Senate to get on with passing the legislation to sell the next 16 per cent of Telstra. The benefits to the nation and to regional Australia will be very significant. It is clear that by doing this there will be a way of funding these programs which otherwise will not receive funding in the near future. Whether it be for Natural Heritage Trust funding or extending SBS and other television coverage or setting up the rural transaction centre or extending Internet local points of presence or expanding the regional telecommunications infrastructure all are extremely valuable programs. (Time expired)555817:07:005558Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—The opportunity to take part in the grievance debate is always welcomed by members as it gives us the opportunity to raise issues that are of concern in the electorate. My grievance, which came to light last week, seemed to the people who raised it with me to be one that could be easily remedied. The grievance seemed worthy of being addressed quickly. It stemmed from a request for assistance from Metro-Claremont Soccer Club to enable three Kosovo refugees to play competition soccer in Tasmania. One would have thought this was a simple matter easily solved. These refugees were not wanting to play for any of the top soccer clubs in Australia. Anyone who had any interest in soccer would know that the National Soccer League final ended successfully for South Melbourne on Sunday. All these refugees wanted to do was to break up the monotony of life in the refugee camp by playing a sport they love in the local competition for Metro-Claremont. This club, led superbly by Jimmy McKinnon, has done a fantastic job in ensuring that the Kosovo refugees have their own sports gear and can train with Metro-Claremont as regular team members.So I had a problem. My first port of call was to phone the office of Jackie Kelly, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, to seek her assistance. The minister's office handballed it away by suggesting that I call the Australian Sports Commission. They were at least a little bit helpful by giving me a name and a phone number in Soccer Australia. It was obvious that the minister and her office did not see this issue as one that could be used to put out a press release, perhaps get a photo in the national dailies or appear on the network TV channels. Foolish woman; shallow woman. This minister is obviously blinkered. She is interested only in the front row seat she will be sitting in at the Sydney Olympics. She is known out in the electorate as the minister for handing out cheques. It is obvious that she has no understanding of, or interest in, grassroots sports people.What happened when I spoke to Soccer Australia? Their interest was as shallow and as uncaring as the minister's. After numerous phone calls, they finally got back to me with the news that they had been in contact with FIFA. FIFA's response showed that their concern for their grassroots soccer clubs and players was about as relevant as the IOC's for its athletes. Amazingly, FIFA said that Yugoslavia was operating normally and that the Kosovars did not fit within FIFA's nomadic definition of refugees. FIFA must only watch Foxtel sports channel 24 hours a day. They said that the applications by the Kosovars had to be addressed by the Yugoslav Soccer Federation. If no response was received in 60 days, FIFA said that Soccer Australia could issue the Kosovars with an interim clearance to play in Tasmania. Big deal. Tasmania's soccer season would be finished by then. What a farce.This smouldering issue suddenly burst into flames nationally and internationally as a consequence of FIFA's response. Jackie Kelly, the minister, suddenly woke up when she realised that this issue was of real concern out in the electorate to heaps of people and that, if she did not become involved, she would lose control of the situation. Too late! Jackie Kelly went into damage control when she announced at a hastily called media conference at Bellerive Oval last Friday that the refugees would be allowed to play in Tasmania after all. They would play as a Kosovo celebrity team. She said:If they do stay here long enough, I've been assured by Soccer Australia it will take steps to enable them to join clubs of their choice.My response to this is that by playing as a celebrity team it does not allow any of the refugees to realise their full potential and is a token gesture to take the pressure off the minister and Soccer Australia. They are stateless people, unaware of when they are going to be able to return to their homes, and both the minister and Soccer Australia must act immediately to break through this ridiculous red tape.There was a wonderful cartoon in the Tasmanian Mercury, which most mainlanders would not have seen, last Friday. A FIFA delegate, identified by his bag, had a question to the three Kosovo refugees: `Have you been cleared?' The response: `Only from our homes!' On the following day there was a wonderful editorial from the Mercury entitled `Breaking the rules'. It read:Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and three of his closest allies have just been indicted by the world tribunal which prosecutes war crimes.They are crimes which focus on the barbarous ethnic cleansing some Serbian troops have con ducted against ethnic Albanians—and others—in Kosovo.As a consequence of this ethnic cleansing, hundreds of thousands of Kosovos have fled their homeland to neighbouring countries to try to stay alive.Many members of the international community have offered temporary safe haven to thousands of these refugees. Among them is Australia, which has been forthright in its criticism of Milosevic.At the same time, Yugoslavia is prosecuting two Australian aid workers, alleging that they were spies. Milosevic has refused meetings with Australians acting for the aid workers.All in all, Milosevic has no reason to feel friendly towards Australia. Going on his history and behaviour, it seems he has very little reason to feel friendly towards anybody.Imagine then the depth of stupidity required by a soccer official—living under such a dictator—to act independently and in the spirit of sportsmanship and to agree to give a clearance to play to three Kosovos who have sought refuge in Australia. Imagine this official's fear of the consequences.Imagine also the depth of stupidity required by international soccer officialdom for insisting that such a clearance is necessary if the three refugees are to be allowed to play club soccer in Hobart.Imagine, even if Milosevic was not a brutal tyrant, trying to contact a sporting body in a country which is in a state of war asking for a clearance for players who are regarded as the enemy.None of the refugees are household names in soccer. Manchester United is not knocking down their doors at the Brighton Safe Haven camp to grab their signatures.In fact, according to Hobart's Metro-Claremont soccer team, the players will probably only make the reserve side. Yet they have been prevented by red tape from even doing this.The intervention yesterday by Federal Sports Minister Jackie Kelly did nothing more than provide Milosevic with a win and soccer officialdom with an attempted face-saver. It did not work. Soccer's face should still be red. As should Ms Kelly's.After all, she pointed out that should the refugees be in Australia long enough, then the way is clear for the controlling bodies to grant them permits to play. Why can't that be done now? Who determines what constitutes `long enough'.Tasmanian Labor MHR Harry Quick—who has been trying to break through the bureaucratic barrier—summed up the pre-Kelly situation with good Australian succinctness: `It's bloody ridiculous.' Most people would think that Mr Quick was being unduly generous—Ms Kelly's `solution' notwithstanding.This is an issue that has worldwide attention. I have done a couple of interviews on the BBC World Service. Minister, get out of your seat and talk to Soccer Australia about a real resolution to this issue. To do anything less is a real abrogation of your duty to sportspeople throughout Australia and throughout the world.556017:15:005560Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—In this grievance debate tonight, I would like to make the House aware of the good work being done in Gladstone—the engine room of my electorate and, indeed, of Queensland. The week before last, it was my honour to introduce the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, the Hon. Nick Minchin, to the energetic city of Gladstone. I note that the minister at the table, Mr Vaile, is smiling. He has also been on one of these high-powered visits to Gladstone. Mayor Peter Corones was sadder than I was to see Minister Minchin leave. He talked about introducing an adopt-a-minister program, and he was about to adopt Senator Minchin.Jokes aside, 10 per cent of Australia's commodity exports travels through the Port of Gladstone. It is the fastest growing port in Australia. Like many other parts of regional Australia, it stands to gain tremendously from tax reform. Gladstone has its own distinctive character of youth, drive and enthusiasm. It is the envy of many cities. Not only that, but it has the ability to balance the environment with industrial progress, which is a unique mix. It is marked to become an industrial leader in the new millennium.That statement is not empty rhetoric. Gladstone, the adjoining shire of Calliope and, to a lesser extent, the next shire down the line, Miriam Vale, are hosts to the emerging giants of Australian manufacturing—Queensland Alumina, Boyne Smelters, Orica, Ticor and QCL, to name a few. Each value adds to the products it treats and, in some cases, this is as high as a 10 to one factor. It is an enviable performance by any standard. The importance of Queensland Alumina and Boyne Smelters and the aluminium industry in particular is highlighted by Comalco's proposal to erect a $1.4 billion refinery. Linked with that is the Chevron gas pipeline and still further down the track—although not directly linked with this—is the satellite launching facility at Hummock Island. That makes the resolution of the Wik debacle all the more relevant.Senator Minchin, a representative of the state Department of State Development and I went by helicopter to look at the whole profile of Gladstone—as I did with the minister at the table, but the visit was even more comprehensive on this occasion. We looked at the proposed rocket base, Boyne Smelter, QAL, the port facilities, QCL, the site for Comalco, the oil shale site, Orica, and Ticor. In the space of an hour, the minister had a thumbnail sketch of the whole industrial profile of the area. One of the members from the Hunter Valley region is looking enviously at me and thinking, `Why aren't some of these things happening in Newcastle?' I am sure that Newcastle will return to better days—and I was there only last week.I have a particularly soft spot for Gladstone, not only because it is in my electorate but because it is a get-up-and-do town—a very positive community. While we were in Gladstone I took the opportunity of taking the minister to see Premron Engineering. That was an eye-opener. It is a family business which is competing with overseas manufacturers as an alternative source of mining and heavy industrial parts. It is having plenty of success. In the days when the big coalfields went in in central Queensland, a lot of equipment was sourced from overseas. In the boom times of those early resource days, cost was not a problem. But the time has now come to replace some huge gears and things like that which cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Premron Engineering has demonstrated that it can do this in Australia to a better standard of quality for about 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the cost of the overseas product.While in Gladstone, we also met with representatives of Comalco. The meeting was refreshing because, with the government's $100 million incentive program on the table, Comalco outlined its preference for Gladstone over Malaysia—providing the sums add up with the provision of energy from the pipeline. Another exciting project we visited is one that is very important to my electorate and to Australia in terms of future job creation—the Stuart shale oil operation at Gladstone. It is a very exciting project which could make Australia self-sufficient for its oil requirements into the next century. Just think of the good that that would do our current account deficit!This project—which is based on a resource estimated at three billion barrels of oil—is I am proud to say being given a helping hand by the government. It was the second Gladstone project after Comalco to receive major project facilitation status. The minister and I toured a $250 million demonstration plant which will extract oil from shale and produce 4,500 barrels a day. Full commercial production by the year 2007-08 will require an investment of $2.5 billion and will create 2,000 jobs. The first oil is expected to be produced in the fourth quarter of this year and, if successful, stage 2 will produce 1,500 barrels a day, increasing to 85,000 barrels a day in stage 3, at which time it would be considered a full-scale commercial operation.The oil is stored in the shale in the form of kerogen. The process of extracting the oil from shale, which involves heating the rock to 500 degrees Celsius, has been known for centuries. The first major commercial application started in Scotland in 1850 and ran until 1960. Deposits were discovered in Australia in 1802 in New South Wales, with commercial production growing to 16 mines between 1865 and 1952, when the last mine at Glen Davis was closed. These mines became uneconomical in the face of conventional oil discovery throughout the world.The shale deposits discovered in Queensland and owned by Southern Pacific Petroleum and Central Pacific Minerals are vaster than any found before, are easier to mine, are closer to infrastructure and are expected to produce a cleaner and better product using cutting edge technology. There are 10 deposits totalling 28 billion barrels of oil. This will go a long way towards Australia's energy self-sufficiency, which is vital when current production will run out in about 15 to 20 years time if we do not find alternative fields. That is a very sobering thought.It is interesting to note that oil from the Middle East is dirtier than the SP/CPM. Their Canadian partner, Suncor Energy, say that they will be able to produce, from the Stuart shale oil deposit, a much cleaner fuel. Their tests have shown that emissions of carbon dioxide sulfur and particulates will be reduced with the use of this shale oil in Australia. The actual process itself involves open-cut mining and clean, dry, non-toxic shale from which the oil is removed. The waste can be returned to the mine void to allow the land to return to its natural state.The process of shale involves no chemicals. It is energy self-sufficient, does not create tailing ponds or toxic waste and produces a clean oil, free from impurities such as nitrogen and sulfur. This is a very exciting project which I intend to speak on in future in the parliament. I welcome the visit of the minister to my electorate, as indeed I would welcome the visit of all ministers, including the minister at the table, Mr Vaile, in his new manifestation. I commend the community of Gladstone for its reception of industry and its support of clean and continuing industry.556217:25:005562Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I want to talk tonight about manufacturing in Australia. Before I do that, I would like to express my appreciation both to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, and to the member for Hinkler, as members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform, on your visit to Newcastle last week to look at the national infrastructure and capacity. I am appreciative that fellow parliamentarians go to the trouble of actually finding out what is on the ground and what is happening in our regional centres. Too few people in this House know enough about those issues. So, on behalf of my community, I express my appreciation to those of you who went to that trouble—and there were quite a lot of you.We still see the debate in Australia about manufacturing as being caught up, if you like, in a bit of a time warp. People still think of manufacturing as involving factories with blue-collar workers, lots of dirt and smoke, and low skills. That has not been the case for quite some time. Modern manufacturing is essentially an assembly process, where companies draw components from all over the region, all over the country and even all over the world. They assemble those components into products which they then dispatch to regions and to the world. It is no longer done in one factory; it is done by a number of manufacturers and comes together eventually in assembling.Looking at where world manufacturing is going in terms of development, and looking at what we do as a nation in terms of our policies to check our compatibility, it is quite obvious that we are not adequately in step with trends. Attempts to bring us in step have not been that successful. I want to refer particularly to events in the last 18 months in a moment.The other part that is really quite critical to manufacturing has been the development and the role of quality processes. Until the last 10 or 15 years, companies throughout the world marketed on their brand name. If it was a Siemens product or a Philips product, then one could be assured it was probably of pretty decent quality. That made it very difficult for smaller manufacturers and smaller countries to take part in global distribution. However, with the development and expansion of quality assurance and quality codes, we have international standards. If met by a company, whether it employs 20 people or 2,000 people, the standards are the same. The quality assurance system has allowed Australian manufacturers to compete with the world's best because they can be amongst the world's best, and measurably so.You no longer have to spend a fortune on advertising to establish a brand name, so long as you can establish that your quality assurance meets international standards. Our companies have done that in a massive way. In the Hunter Valley, for example, if you check with Quality Australia you will find that 15 or 20 years ago we had probably half a dozen companies with quality assurance. The last time I checked it, more than a year ago, we had over 540—in other words, 100 times more in the last 15 or 20 years. That is a major shift, not just in capacity but in attitude and understanding.I wanted to get back to the process of how we design our systems to facilitate and encourage modern manufacturing. Back in 1996 the Newcastle community, particularly in conjunction with BHP as part of their Steel River development, put forward a proposal for a scheme for a foreign trade zone. The initial reaction around Canberra was shock, horror: `That sounds like a duty-free zone and that does not work, therefore we will say no.' That was the Prime Minister's response at the time.It took a lot of time and a lot of effort to explain to people that what was being talked about was a deferred duty zone, where the duty on products coming into the country that were to be used in a manufacturing process should be deferred until the products were actually finalised. So, rather than having to pay up-front duties on components and then hold those in store for long periods while they were being used, the duty would be deferred until a product was completed and then paid when it entered the domestic marketplace.There was a lot of discussion and argument. Members may well recall the steel committee chaired by the member for Wannon that looked at the future of steel. It picked up that recommendation and in a bipartisan way supported it to government and to the minister. The government then in, I think, December 1997 announced in the `Investing in growth' statement a proposal for what was called `manufacturing in bond' where the duty on components and imports could be deferred. This would allow manufacturing in bond, which was effectively a manufacturing bond store. What we had been arguing for was, effectively, a virtual bond store, not a physical boundary.One can recall the old bond stores in the customs system. When people brought things to the docks, as soon as they crossed the barrier onto the wharf the importer had to pay the duty, whatever that might be. They had the option of putting it into a bond store, and whilst it was in that bond store the duty was not paid. The duty was not paid until it left the bond store, which effectively extended the physical boundary. Customs' function for hundreds of years has been to collect the duty—whether it was on rum, on imported cars or whatever. So the barrier approach and mentality was quite critical to Customs' functioning and their role.What we have been trying to put forward, effectively, is to see the barrier not as at the aircraft or at the aerodrome or the wharf but, rather, as a computer stock control system. Products coming into the country to be used in the manufacturing process could then be tracked via a computer stock control system, and when they left the factory door the government could then charge duty as if they were being freshly imported, and at same rate.We did not achieve that. What we achieved in manufacturing in bond went part of the way, but there were a couple of quite serious flaws in what the government adopted. The worst flaw was the fact that Customs was still charging a processing charge. So you had to pay to tell Customs that you had imported something and then exported it again. That in many cases would, in fact, be more than the tariffs that would be chargeable. It makes us a very unattractive place in which to invest in regional manufacturing if, in fact, you are going to pay a charge to advise that you are bringing things into the country and then pay again when you advise you are sending them out of the country—a pretty fruitless gesture in a modern manufacturing context.The government a year later—in fact, in about March—accepted that this was a weakness. So we have had 16 months of argument between December 1997 and March to April 1999. The government has now announced is going to amend its charges so that the processing charge does not apply to goods which are exported again. However, in that process there is a series of other matters—for example, consumables. A duty will be charged on the material that is actually used in the manufacturing process. For example, a manufacturer of, say, computers will import components from around the world and particularly around the region. At the moment, having got parts into the country, the duty on those can be deferred with manufacturing in bond—but only in a physical location, not in a virtual bond store as we would desire. Having done that, they then pay duty on the solder and on the other parts that they use which are consumed in the process. On the other hand, their competitor who imports a fully made up computer that is completed does not.So the cost of our manufacturing is still higher. It is obvious that what is happening here is that the government still sees the importing process as a revenue process not as a manufacturing process. The system has changed. The world has moved on. We were trying to move with it. We started, and there have been some very serious hiccups. In recent weeks I was fortunate enough to visit Ireland and to speak to a number of people from the Irish customs department, for which I am very grateful. I also visited the Shannon foreign trade zone, in which 20,000 people now work. Their system is based largely on a less refined model of the kind we are talking about now. (Time expired)556417:35:005564Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—In the aftermath of the New South Wales drugs summit—which the Premier, Mr Carr, ought to be commended for conducting—I rise to stimulate the parliament to think about some of the issues in relation to the drug epidemic that is sweeping the country. The question needs to turn to why young people increasingly prefer the excitement that they believe drugs offer them to an unclouded consciousness. I recently read a book entitled Saving Jessie by Imogen Clark. It was sent to me by Doubleday, its publishers. It tells the story of a mother's battle to understand and cope with her daughter's heroin addiction. In reflecting on the ordeal, her own reaction to it and the impact on her family, Clark says what so few seem to understand:Jessie experimented with drugs because it was exciting, different and daring to do so. She persisted because it felt so good.Clark rhetorically asks after Jessie finally kicks her habit:Is she better? Not yet. She will never be cured. She will always be an addict. She will always be taking it a day at a time. And so will we.Plans from some of my constituents to round up drug addicts and—if not shoot them—ship them off to the desert ignore the fact that, until a person is emotionally ready to deal with their addiction, society's good intentions are at best futile. Having listened over the years to numerous parents tell the story of their child's drug use, what stands out is the ignorance of what was happening in the child's life when the drug use started. I wonder whether, in this climate of mutual obligation, some thought could be given to making the $50 back to school payment in New South Wales conditional on the discharge of some kind of parental responsibility. At the moment you do not even have to be poor to get it; you just have to be a parent.Some parents seem to park their kids in primary school and then pick them up in year 12 when they come out the other end, having had absolutely no understanding of and, worse still, no interest in what was happening to their child as they went through their most important formative years. I thought that the $50 back to school payment could be increased to perhaps $100 and that, in order to get that $100, at least one parent be required to register for, and participate in, a school based or perhaps community based orientation program with very much a life skills content to teach parents what their children would be taught about drug education in the coming year, what drugs are available, where they can get help and what they need to know about the development of their child.Those families who did not register or express an interest in such a program could be identified as being `at risk' families. Alternatively, a minimum commitment could be required of parents to participate in the life of the school. Sure, we are all busy, but at the Nar-Anon meetings that I have attended over the years—not that I have had a problem—I have been struck by the fact that, all too often, the first time parents knew their child had a problem was when they got a call from the police to advise them that their daughter or son was in trouble or, worse still, that they were dead.If people think that in some way this is a little bit extreme, I direct you to research done by the Victorian Centre for Adolescent Health last year. They surveyed year 8 students 13 to 14 years of age. Forty per cent said that they did not know a single person who knew them well, and a quarter said that there was not a single person—friend, teacher or parent—whom they felt that they could trust. So the challenge to most parents that lies behind this idea is: do you know the deepest fear that is harboured by your son or your daughter? What is their favourite music, leisure activity or sport? What is their favourite place? Whom do they most admire and why?I would also like to say that amongst the many real issues that seemed to elude the major political combatants during the recent New South Wales state election is one that goes to the heart of the problem. The problem is the kind of society we have become and, perhaps more importantly, the aspirations we hold for the world that we leave our children. In its 16 March edition, the Daily Telegraph featured a photograph of two ageing grim-faced men. Each wore medals of war service as they stood defiantly before an empty swimming pool complex. The site houses not only swimming pools from which once came the laughter of children but also a monument erected in memory of a local soldier—A.E. Smith—who was killed while serving in the Boer War. The pools were built to honour men and women who served this nation in the Second World War. Liverpool Council is in the process of selling the site to Canterbury-Bankstown Leagues Club for the erection of a $100 million hotel complex into which will be installed 1,000 poker machines. Council has been held up not by the protest from the Premier of New South Wales under pressure from the opposition, but by problems with vehicle access.New South Wales has just held a drug summit. Its focus was on how to deal with the problem, but much less on why young people are taking drugs at an unprecedented level in the first place. Some participants spoke during the summit of the signals we send young people. There are few more powerful than this one. Late last year at the Penrith Leagues Club I addressed an audience of 400 decent, concerned people on the issue of drugs. The aching question from the audience was: why are our kids taking drugs? I suggested that they did not have to go too far for clues. In order to get to the auditorium I had to walk through rows and rows of poker machines into which frequently heavily smoking individuals were pushing their pension cheques and low income dollars with a cold beer standing by the side of the machine. Then we gather in anguish to ask: why are our kids taking drugs?The future of the Memorial Swimming Complex is critical because subtle yet powerful forces mould young people's resilience. In elevating gambling to the status of religion, we reinforce the growing view amongst the next generation that, whatever we may say, value is indeed more important than values. Liverpool does not need another poker machine any more than it needs another young person to abandon an idealistic hope that we care about their welfare more than we do about money. At Killarney Swim Centre they have a sign that says: `Our aim is not to produce a champion, but to provide an atmosphere where champions are inevitable.' However, swimming is a means to an end: to build self-confidence, self-discipline, integrity and courage for life. I have yet to see such a sign displayed in a gambling complex.The Prime Minister recently weighed into the private school drug issue in response to things that had occurred at Pymble Ladies College within my electorate. His involvement in this issue is, in my view, more necessary as it gets closer to the disease of which drug use is the symptom. If we are going to have a war on drugs, the real war is yet to begin. The real war begins by seeking to answer the question: what is it that is building a despondent disillusionment in the present generation and a forlorn sense of hopelessness about the future in the next generation?In this parliament every day we have a debate about progress, about economic growth. We celebrate the fact that at the moment our country is growing at a sustained and unprecedentedly high level. But the question which is not posed and that young people require us to answer is: toward what do we strive to make progress? What sort of country is it that we are actually trying to build? Is it one that is both idealistic and achievable? Is it based on values and principles that give young people the power to feel that the future is very much theirs to shape? This country is four times wealthier per head of population than it was a century ago, yet confidence in the future is a minority position amongst young people in every survey taken of their attitudes over the last five years. If we want to get to the bottom of the drug issue, this is part of it.What is proposed for the Liverpool swimming centre, the way we spend our back to school parenting allowance and a whole range of issues like these send very strong yet powerful messages to young people about how we value them and the importance we place upon them. It is easy to become a parent. It is very difficult to be a good one—you do not have the skills until you finish the job. But if we are going to give people money for doing nothing and for being a parent, let us at least require them to discharge some degree of parental responsibility and, in doing so, we might be able to give young people the hope and the belief that their parents actually do care about them and have a concern for their future.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The question is that grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5566Messages received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 Customs (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1999 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1999 National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1999 Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1999 Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1999 Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 Bills5566The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 Income Tax Rates Amendment (RSAs Provided by Registered Organizations) Bill 1999 Bills5566s2015566Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills5566s2135566Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills5566r7425566Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills5567r7415567Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Committees55675567556710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:Mr SpeakerThe Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:(1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, be appointed to inquire into and report on the provisions of bills introduced by the Government to give effect to a referendum on a republic.(2) That the committee consist of 18 members, 6 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 6 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 3 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats.(3) That every nomination of a member be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report.(5) That the committee report no later than 9 August 1999.(6) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(7) That the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair to act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee.(8) That at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, a casting vote.(10) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(12) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph 11, the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed.(13) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote but no casting vote, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(14) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(15) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(16) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(17) That the committee or subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(18) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.PresidentThe Senate26 May 1999 Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith.17:50:005568Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the House concurs in the resolution transmitted to the House in message No. 90 of the Senate.The motion before the House is to establish a joint select committee to consider the legislation proposed as the basis for a referendum on whether Australia should become a republic. As all members know, the government has committed to hold a referendum this year on the Constitutional Convention's preferred republic model. We have announced 6 November as our proposed date. The legislation would consist of two bills: the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999, which contains the necessary constitutional changes to establish Australia as a republic, and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999, which sets out additional provisions for the operation of a committee to consider public nominations for president. The government expects to introduce those bills by the end of next week.The proposed terms of reference for the committee cover the republic legislation only. A decision on the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999 and any committee consideration of it will be made in the near future. The resolution provides for the committee to report by 9 August, the first sitting day in the spring sittings. This imposes a very tight timetable on the committee, but a necessary one for the referendum to be held on 6 November. For a referendum on 6 November, the legislation needs to be finalised by 20 August 1999 at the very latest. In practical terms this means it will need to be passed by both houses by 12 August, the last scheduled sitting day before 20 August. The deadline for the passage of the republic bill arises because the Australian Electoral Commission needs at least 11 weeks to carry out its obligations in relation to distribution of the official yes and no cases.The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 allows parliamentarians four weeks, following passage of the bill, to prepare the written yes and no cases. The AEC then needs at least five weeks to incorporate the yes and no cases with other information and to have over 12 million copies printed, individually addressed to each voter and delivered. The act requires that the material be delivered to every household at least two weeks prior to the referendum. A total of 11 weeks is therefore needed between the passage of the legislation and the referendum date. In these circumstances, it is necessary to see 9 August as a firm deadline for reporting. There can be no expectation of an extension.The committee is being established in advance of introduction of the bills to give it a head start, so that it can establish a secretariat and start planning the task. The government is moving quickly to nominate its members to the committee and I hope the opposition and Democrats do the same so that the committee can meet as soon as possible. The make-up of the 18 member committee is based on representation in parliament after 1 July this year and is evenly balanced between government and non-government members. Based on parliamentary representation, the final non-government place on the committee would need to be chosen from the minor parties and Independents. This place has been allocated to the Australian Democrats on the basis of their numbers and in the knowledge that they want to participate on this committee.A draft of the motion establishing the committee was provided to the Labor Party and the Democrats in advance. I thank them for the support they indicated for the motion. The draft legislation which the committee will consider has been prepared to be faithful to the republic model developed by the Constitutional Convention. The government has sought to provide, as far as is at all possible, for a safe and effective expression of the model which, if approved by the voters, would preserve our record of stable parliamentary democracy. We have resisted calls to go beyond giving effect to the convention model.The release of the bills as exposure draft for public consultation has proved valuable in testing the drafts and produced some helpful suggestions for improving the provisions, but some submissions argued more broadly against the convention model itself and in favour of other models such as direct election or the so-called McGarvie model. Some of the submissions also pressed for other constitutional changes, including a general updating of the Constitution. We can expect that the committee will receive those sorts of submissions too.The government sees the committee's terms of reference as focusing on the provisions of the bills and the question of whether they are effective and appropriate in the context of implementing the convention model. We will welcome the committee's contribution as to whether the proposed bills are the best legislative expression of the convention model. The committee may need to be careful not to get sidetracked into arguments about other models or broader constitutional changes. This is all the more important given the tight time frame in which the committee has to do its work. I commend the motion to the House.17:55:005569McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—We support the motion moved by the Attorney-General and express our appreciation for the consultative way in which he has progressed this matter. We note that its purpose is to establish a joint select committee to consider the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 and also the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill. We fully support that process. We have mentioned publicly our concern that the government is not also referring the Constitutional Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999 to the committee, although I note in the Attorney-General's speech that there is perhaps some prospect of that matter being reconsidered. We would certainly encourage that. I will have a few words to say on that topic in a few moments.The opposition fully acknowledges the tight timetable for the committee to report and agrees that the committee must complete its work so that a report can be printed and tabled by 9 August. I assure the Attorney that he will have the cooperation of opposition members in that respect. I can also confirm that the opposition is in the process of selecting committee members, all of whom, I have no doubt, will acknowledge the importance of the role which they will be undertaking in examining the two bills to which I have referred.While I do not wish to prejudice or pre-empt the outcome of the committee process, I think that it will be extremely valuable in dispelling any doubts that some Australians may have and in particular it will establish a bipartisan account of the actual effect that these bills will have in altering our Constitution if the referendum is supported by the Australian people in November this year.As the Attorney-General has previously indicated, while it will create a symbolic change in so far as we will have an Australian head of state if the referendum is supported, it will not result in any significant changes to our system of government, nor the history of stable democracy that we have had to date in Australia. It will not change the balance between the parliament, the executive and the judiciary, which is the crux of our Westminster system, which will still continue if the referendum is passed. It will not give the Commonwealth any new powers. It will not alter the balance between the Commonwealth's and the states' powers. It will not give the president any additional powers to those currently possessed by the Governor-General.Indeed, one would not envisage the role of a president being significantly different or indeed different in any respect as our head of state from the role undertaken so well by our current Governor-General, Sir William Deane, who is indeed a great Australian—in my view, one of the great Australians of this century. It will, however, give the person who occupies the role as our head of state in actuality, as the Governor-General does, official and legal confirmation of that fact in our Constitution. As the Attorney-General has pointed out previously, in many ways the changes that will be taking place are far fewer than were in the Australia Act 1986 which terminated the power of the British legislature to legislate with respect to Australia and Australian states and also to terminate the appeal rights to the Privy Council.The inconsistencies and the dilemma of our present system, where we have a Governor- General performing the tasks of a head of state but not being recognised officially and legally as our head of state, are demonstrated most starkly by the question of who will open the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. We have a silly situation where the person who acts as our head of state, the Governor-General, will not be opening those Olympics. I understand the Prime Minister has taken that role upon himself. We also have a situation where our Governor-General, when he travels overseas, is not recognised as our head of state. The Queen of England is recognised—or should formally be recognised—as our head of state and, if the referendum is successfully passed, that will be addressed. Then we can be proud, just as the people of Ireland, the United States and France are when their presidents travel overseas and are recognised in all countries. It will give Australians recognition of what the actual position is, and it will bring our Constitution to what modern-day Australia perceives as being the reality.It is interesting that two-thirds of Australians are recorded as regarding the monarchy as an anachronism and, if the referendum is passed this year, that situation will be corrected. Indeed, if the referendum is passed, any child born in Australia—or any living Australian—can aspire to become our head of state, which is something that no Australian can aspire to currently. Any child born in the United States is entitled to have that aspiration, as is any child born in France, in Ireland or in any other country where the system of government recognises one of their own as the head of state. All of these things will be significant issues for the Australian people to consider.The bills that are going to be the subject of consideration by the joint select committee will be focusing, as the Attorney-General indicated, on the process of reform, and in particular the committee will be considering the extent to which the bills accurately reflect the sort of system envisaged in the February 1998 Constitutional Convention. The opposition is on record as saying that, on our initial consideration of the bills, they are heading in the right direction, and we think that the committee process is a useful and worthwhile process because it introduces—with respect to what is crucially important for Australia's future—a system of participatory democracy; that is, Australian people can come before a committee and express their points of view, and the parliamentary committee will receive that input and give recommendations based on that evidence. So, rather than just the representative democracy which our parliamentary system is, this committee process will take it to the people. It is a process which we welcome; we just express our concerns that the preamble bill has not been made the subject of that process.We have given the government notice that, while we do not wish to impede in any way this committee process with respect to referendum and presidential nomination bills—indeed, we encourage it—we think that a similar committee process should take place in respect of the preamble bill. We think it is vital, and it is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say, `Look, I have had a poet in to assist me with my draft, and the Australian people must cop my draft.' That is arrogant in the extreme in respect of a crucial document which will be there for generations and generations to come. We say it is fundamentally important that the Australian people participate in the process.There have been a number of excellent contributions as to alternative preambles. I am not entirely sure that any of them have got it exactly right at the moment. Most of the preambles that I have seen have neglected to describe the main features of our Constitution or to properly describe the values and principles contained in our Constitution. All these things could be considered in a committee process, and we have given the government notice that, if it does not refer the preamble bill to this committee or to another appropriate committee, the Labor Party will be moving in the Senate that the preamble bill be referred to, at least, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee. We think it is vitally important for all Australians to feel ownership of the entire process of the referendum which will take place in November, including the constitution amendment bills, the presidential nomination bill and the bill to insert a preamble in the Constitution.In summary, while we entirely endorse the establishment of this joint select committee, we say there is a stark omission in the government not also referring the preamble bill to this committee process. However, I note that there is perhaps a door open and that the government may reconsider the issue. We would certainly encourage and welcome such a reconsideration.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5571r8015571Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 7, page 3 (after line 9), after the definition of ASIC , insert: authorised trustee corporation means each of the bodies corporate listed in Schedule 9 to the Corporations Regulations in force from time to time.(2) Clause 9, page 6 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add: (4) TrusteeCo must ensure that there is in force at all times between the conversion time and the finalisation time a deed under which: (a) TrusteeCo authorises an authorised trustee corporation to exercise all rights, privileges and benefits vested in TrusteeCo by or under this Act or the Wool International Act; and (b) TrusteeCo undertakes not to exercise those rights, privileges and benefits; and (c) the authorised trustee corporation undertakes to perform all duties, liabilities and obligations (other than the obligation imposed by this subsection) vested in TrusteeCo by or under this Act or the Wool International Act. (5) A deed under subsection (4) may relieve the authorised trustee corporation from liability except in the case of fraud, wilful default or neglect. (6) All acts done by the authorised trustee corporation under the deed are taken to have been exercised or performed by TrusteeCo for the purposes of this Act (other than this section) and the Wool International Act.18:07:005571Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.I am pleased to inform the House that the bill to privatise Wool International has received strong support. Some constructive amendments have been proposed which allow for an added level of independence in the management of the trust company to hold certain shares which cannot be issued in the short term by WoolStock Australia. These amendments are supported by the government. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee has recommended these amendments following its examination of the bill and after receiving submissions from a number of wool industry organisations, many of whom did express some concern at the possibility of linkage between the WoolStock Australia Board and TrusteeCo. TrusteeCo will now be required to delegate its powers, authorities and discretions as trustee to an authorised trustee corporation. This will ensure not only that the independence of the board of TrusteeCo is there in reality but that the board will be seen to be operating independently on behalf of only its beneficiaries.I take this opportunity to acknowledge the constructive approach of the Senate committee, in particular the Democrat representatives on that committee, in contributing to the consultation process that has taken place over the last few months on this important piece of legislation for the wool industry. I am pleased agreement has been reached and that this legislation meets the expectations and has the support of virtually all wool industry interest groups across Australia. As I said, the government supports these amendments and I commend the amendments to the House.18:09:005571O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 before the House today gives legislative effect to the decision of the government to privatise the wool stockpile, following its announce ment to suspend sales from the stockpile in August 1998. The opposition at that time was very critical of the decision of the government to suspend sales from the wool stockpile, a view that was echoed within the industry by producers and processors in the value adding chain at the time. Like the Prime Minister's about-face on the never, ever Liberal GST, this major decision was made in response to a political imperative, namely the coalition's survival in regional Australia in light of the One Nation challenge.Freezing the stockpile was certainly not the first option that was taken to the cabinet table by the National Party minister of the day. But the National Party ministers got rolled, once again, by city-based Liberal lawyers, in the PM and the Treasurer, and the stockpile freeze occurred. Here we are eight months on from the announced decision to freeze and to privatise this wool stockpile and wool producers still face the disposal problem. As the parliament considers this legislation in the House today, there are several certainties that are still being faced by wool producers. The wool stockpile faced by the industry eight months ago is still there; the problem has not gone away. The price received by producers for their wool has not increased significantly, the private stocks held on-farm and in the brokers stores have not significantly decreased and the credibility of government decision making still lies in tatters within an industry which has historically been suspicious of government interference.The income of all producers is projected to decline and the debt of wool producers with equity in the stockpile will have increased to the tune of $30 million by the time we close the books on this financial year. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might recall the old song that has in it the line, `Another day older an' deeper in debt.' Wool producers are certainly many days on since the decision was made by the government to suspend sales from the stockpile and to privatise it, and they are deeper in debt. It was always Labor's intention to privatise the assets of Wool International, but our timetable was certainly much different from that of the coalition. We envis aged engaging that process when the stockpile problem had been largely beaten.Notwithstanding the incompetence of the government in managing the stockpile, and the damage done to the industry's credibility by the stockpile freeze, I gave a commitment to the industry that, in the interests of producers, we would do what was prudently necessary and what we could prudently do to expedite this legislation through the parliament. We initiated a Senate inquiry, within the constraints of the desired timetable given to us by the government, to allow all sectors of the industry to fully air any concerns they might have about this bill. That process unearthed a concern about the independence of the trustee arrangements structured by the legislation to handle and represent the interests of those equity holders not able to be identified. The Senate committee was unanimous in the recommendation it made on this matter. In recommendation 5.6, it said:The committee considers that TrusteeCo should be an independent and experienced trustee registered under relevant applicable Trustee legislation and independent of the board of WoolStock Australia. Accordingly, the committee recommends that appropriate amendments be made to the bill and/or to the constitution of WoolStock Australia to ensure such an appointment.The opposition thought we had bedded down an agreement on this matter, so it came as some surprise that the government allowed into the bill a death knock amendment in the Senate that seemed to compromise the intent of the Senate recommendation and the agreement reached. I was in South Australia at the time this occurred holding talks with wine producers who were concerned at the adverse impacts of the wine equalisation tax legislation—GST legislation—on their industry. (Extension of time granted) It came as some surprise when I was hauled out of that particular meeting to discuss with Labor senators, who were handling this legislation in the Senate, that an amendment had been proposed to the bill which seemed to contravene the agreement that had been reached by all parties on this legislation to expedite it through the Senate.One tends to be naturally suspicious of death knock amendments, but it became obvious as time passed by that the amendment that was causing concern was not the product of any malevolent intent by the minister or the government but merely the product of further incompetence by the government in relation to this important rural industry. From the opposition's point of view, we are satisfied that we have fulfilled our responsibility to wool growers in this matter. We have undertaken extensive consultations with the industry on this whole question of privatisation. We have initiated the appropriate review of this legislation in the Senate. We have cooperated fully with the government at all stages of the presentation of this legislation to ensure that we got the appropriate agreement and that the timetable that the minister and the government had set for its passage through the House and its ratification—before the end of this financial year—could occur. The pieces are now in place for the privatisation of the wool stockpile.As I mentioned earlier, the problem that is faced by the industry as far as this stockpile is concerned still remains. We have a mountain of wool, and if the original timetable that Labor proposed—or even the modified timetable that Labor had proposed—had been adhered to by the government we would be dealing very much with less of a problem than we have in this industry. The minister has brought this legislation back into the House after the consultative processes and review processes have been undertaken by the Senate. The outstanding issues have been resolved and the opposition will now support the passage of this legislation through the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5573r7965573Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.18:17:005573Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I will make some observations with respect to the details of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 and subsequently I will be moving a second reading amendment which deals with some broader questions associated with taxation. This bill proposes a number of fairly technical changes to the tax legislation which I will deal with in order. Firstly, it allows for a deduction for the cost to taxpayers of spectrum licences, which will be allowed over the spectrum licence period. In other words, spectrum licences will be capable of being treated in the same manner as other wasting non-physical assets such as patents, which can be amortised over their useful life. This is essentially addressing an anomaly in the income tax law not granting a concession. Physical assets such as factories can be depreciated over their useful life. These proposals simply treat spectrum licences in the same manner as other assets.Under current law the taxpayer would not be entitled to any taxation relief for the substantial costs of acquiring a spectrum licence until it expired or was disposed of. At this time a capital loss would have been realised reflecting the original cost and other associated expenses less any proceeds of disposal. This loss would be available only to be offset against other capital gains, not against ordinary income; therefore the taxpayer may not receive taxation relief for this business cost until further into the future.The definition of royalty is being amended to include payments made for the use or the right to use spectrums specified in the spectrum licence. This will ensure that the royalty withholding tax is collected from payments made in relation to the use of the spectrum specified in the spectrum licence to a resident of a country with which Australia does not have a double tax agreement. The law governing Australia's double tax agreements, the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act 1953, is also being amended to ensure that income, profits or gains derived from payments made to spectrum licensees resident in countries where Australia does have a DTA are taxable in Australia.This taxing right is achieved by making it a condition of the spectrum licence, through the Radiocommunications Act 1992, that the non-resident operate through a permanent establishment in Australia. In addition, an amendment in this bill deems the activity to be through a permanent establishment even if the licence conditions are breached. These amendments are necessary to enable Australia to tax this income, with the government announcing that they will renegotiate existing DTAs to include a right to impose RWT. These provisions and other consequential amendments will ensure that proper tax is paid by non-residents on spectrum related royalty payments. These measures provide a fair regime to taxpayers and protect Australia's tax base, and should be supported. The amendments to the RCA have been examined in the relevant Senate legislation committee. These provisions should also be referred to that committee for consideration in the context of that previous reference.Secondly, there is a variety of technical amendments in this legislation, contained in schedules 2 to 5 of the bill, which may be described as catch-up amendments. They cover—in schedule 2—technical amendments to the rewritten legislation, the 1997 act; schedule 3, technical amendments to the original 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act; schedule 4, technical amendments to other acts; and schedule 5, so-called catch-up amendments to both the 1936 and 1997 acts. The technical amendments generally deal with errors in the existing legislation, such as the misnumbering of provisions especially when cross-referencing to another provision. There are also provisions dealing with potential tax avoidance—for example, item 5 of schedule 2—which should nip in the bud a potential double deduction windfall which would otherwise be available to taxpayers. Labor strongly supports such anomalies being removed.In addition there are various catch-up amendments which amend the 1997 act to bring it into alignment with earlier amendments to the 1936 act which deal with the same areas. These amendments mostly involve the ongoing rewrite of the income tax legislation begun by Labor, known as the Tax Law Improvement Project. These do not involve policy questions but merely technical corrections that clarify the law, and are supported by Labor. This is routine mainte nance for the tax system. This is what is necessary to continually improve the tax system, not the introduction of an unfair 10 per cent tax on virtually everything. Labor support the Tax Law Improvement Project. We acknowledge that there will be drafting problems from time to time; that is to be expected. We do not criticise this nor should the coalition have criticised the same circumstances when we were in government. The rewrite is a worthwhile long-term initiative. Unlike the coalition, we are after long-term tax improvement, not long-term transfers of wealth up the income scale.The third element of this particular piece of tax legislation is the specific amendment regarding the provisional tax uplift factor, which is essentially a housekeeping matter. Currently the uplift factor, which adjusts the previous year's income in order to estimate what current year income will be, is set according to the movement in the income based measure of GDP, known as GDPI. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has ceased calculating the separate measures of GDP and now publishes only the average measure, which of course is known as GDP. The bill amends the current reference of GDPI to reflect the new ABS practice. The explanatory memorandum states that under either measure the provisional tax uplift factor will be six per cent for 1998-99. This means that taxpayers are unaffected by this change, at least for the current financial year. The amendment is essentially technical and is supported by Labor.Finally, there is an amendment with respect to the youth allowance and Austudy payment provisions. This last matter is dealt with in this non-controversial bill and is a reflection of a major political embarrassment for the government. Minister Kemp and Minister Newman have made a substantial error, which this legislation now has to fix. Honourable members may recall that the Austudy and youth training allowances were replaced with the youth allowance and Austudy payment from 1 July 1998. Payments of the former amounts to full-time students were fully assessable for income tax purposes but subject to the beneficiary rebate, as are other benefi ciary payments such as Newstart. However, when legislating the new payment regime, the government made the new payments exempt from tax. This has more generous consequences for affected taxpayers, as you could imagine. The government claims that this was a mistake, and that it intended to continue the former taxation treatment.This bill proposes to replace the legislated exemption and instead to make the payments subject to the beneficiary rebate, in line with equivalent payments, so the new and allegedly improved regime that the Prime Minister had to mislead Senator Harradine about has essentially been completely messed up from a tax view point. We know that the Prime Minister reneged on his commitment to Senator Harradine on these issues, not once but twice. He promised in his first term, when Senator Harradine passed the youth allowance, that he would look after families hurt by the new change. He completely reneged on that commitment. I guess it was not considered a core promise.Then Senator Harradine made it perfectly clear that the commitment had to be met, not for him to support any other legislation but, rather, simply to honour an earlier commitment. What then occurred? In the recent budget, we saw the Prime Minister and the Treasurer conspire to link delivering on that issue with the passage of the GST. Not only did it link the extra compensation to the GST—entirely inappropriately, given the nature of the issues—but the government delivered only half of its promise. So the bad faith of the Prime Minister on this issue has been demonstrated over several years and over different angles.In spite of this piece of legislation's rather seamy record, Labor does judge legislation on its merits. On that basis, this particular piece of legislation should be supported as it simply redresses an anomaly that was created by this government. However, it should be realised that it technically involves a penalty on the current arrangements for affected recipients.I will now make some comments with respect to the second reading amendment which I will move. The key background to this issue is that the government has reached an agreement with the Australian Democrats to put a grossly unfair and inefficient tax system into Australian society. What we are now going to see is the introduction of a new sport, just in time for the Olympics, called `Spot the GST on food'. Which food has GST and which doesn't? Is it the whole chook or is it part of the chook that has the GST on it? Which particular kind of dog food will have the GST on it—the fresh bones from the butcher or the Pal in the supermarket? Will the crumbed fish fingers attract a GST, or will it be the crumbed calamari? Already the examples, the anomalies and the contradictions are emerging.We are also seeing the prospect of a compliance nightmare on the issue of diesel. The prospect of using global positioning system technology to track where individual truck drivers are to see whether or not they are eligible for the rebate was not ruled out today. We have already discovered that the cost of this package to urban buses will be in the vicinity of nine per cent. So, rather than the five per cent additional cost in bus prices that was in the original package, it will now be nine per cent because most urban buses are below 20 tonnes. Therefore, there will be a substantial negative effect on the environment as a result of this package, contrary to the protestations of the Democrats that they are looking after the environment.The government is backing away from the removal of the state taxes it said were so bad—I use the term `bad' advisedly because they are the key ones it is now backing away from—and the surplus has been hacked into to the tune of $1.4 billion per year more. The surplus has already been used to fund $5 billion to $7 billion worth of income tax cuts for high income earners. All this is courtesy of those great negotiators, the Democrats—the people who you certainly would not want to send in to plead for your life because you would come out being hung, drawn and quartered.The Democrats are the people who went to the election saying that their bottom lines, their non-negotiable points were: no tax on food—there is going to be an increase in tax on food as a result of this package, and a substantial proportion of food is going to still be taxed; no tax on books—they have abandoned that one; do not cut into the surplus—they have abandoned that one; and, help the environment—look at the mess that they have made on that front. All of these things were non-negotiable positions that they went to the election with.This is a party that has been split asunder by the extraordinary performance of its leadership—rolling over when they were in an incredibly strong position. John Howard was desperate for a deal. He was caught in an appalling position—he was desperate. The great vision of his life was disappearing before his eyes. Senator Harradine had taken a principled position on these issues. The Democrats' leadership went into negotiations and essentially said, `Forget about what we went to the electorate with, forget about the promises that we made with respect to budget surpluses, taxes on food and taxes on books and the like, we will roll over. We want to get you out of the problem that you are in.' These are the people who say they are not horse-traders—and you can see why they are not horse-traders: they are amateurs, they are naive and they let the government get away with absolute murder on this issue.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just had the opportunity to look at the amendment, which bears no relevance to the bill itself. In my view the amendment is therefore out of order. It bears no relevance at all, and I ask you to rule on it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I have not heard the amendment at this stage, and it is 6.30 p.m. Has the honourable member finished his speech?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Yes, I have.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—In continuation and in conclusion, I formally move the second reading amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) that stands in my name:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:(1) the government has not achieved real tax reform in Australia, it has merely agreed to introduce an unfair GST;(2) the new Howard/Lee GST will involve a massive tax mix switch which will hurt ordinary families, which is directly contrary to the balloted policy of the Australian Democrats;(3) that the Howard/Lees deal will actually increase the tax on food in Australia;(4) that ordinary people will now face a GST on top of state indirect taxes on bank accounts; and(5) that the amended tax package is still unfair and will also damage the environment".That concludes my remarks.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Is the amendment seconded?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I second the amendment.20:01:005576Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Tonight's bill is the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 , to which the honourable member for Melbourne has moved an amendment standing in his name which is so entirely bereft of relevance—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—What's new?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Exactly. What is new, as my friend the member for Fisher has commented. It is so entirely irrelevant to this legislation that it is not even worth commenting on. This bill is a technical bill about certain aspects of taxation that requires perhaps a little bit more study than the member for Melbourne was prepared to put into the legislation, and the amendment has got no bearing whatsoever on this legislation. In fact, it is a sad day in the history of this House when a pious amendment to a technical taxation bill can be moved that is so bereft of relevance to the actual bill. I believe that the member for Melbourne would be better served in moving a pious amendment to the ANTS bills when they come back to this House for debate after they have been in the Senate rather than wasting the time of this House.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—He wants them through.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—He wants them through. He wants them passed as quickly as possible because the Labor Party are desperate for the government to get its agenda passed so that they do not have to face the people next time having stopped taxation reform.Turning to the bill itself, the bill presently before the House provides for important technical amendments and adjustments to Australia's taxation framework and demonstrates the coalition government's commitment to finetuning the detailed mechanics of the national tax system. As Australia races towards a new century with technologies undreamt of only a decade ago, it is essential that government anticipates the legislative changes that these challenges will bring.One technology that is certain to have an enormous impact for most Australians in the first decade of the next century will be the introduction of domestic spectrum licences. This development is sure to improve the quality of life for many Australians, but there will also be many challenges for government following its introduction. This bill anticipates some of these challenges. Expenditure incurred in the acquisition of a spectrum licence is generally viewed as being capital. However, a spectrum licence is not considered to be depreciable plant. There are also no capital allowance write-off provisions which cover these licences. Therefore, the only relief available to spectrum licence holders is a capital loss at the time of expiration or disposal of the licence which would be offset against capital gains of that or subsequent years. I am sure the member for Batman has been studying this in the past and would be delighted with the government's attention to this particularly important matter. This bill addresses these shortcomings and provides for the amortisation of the acquisition cost of domestic spectrum licences over their effective life. Further provisions of this bill secure the Commonwealth's capacity to assert its taxing rights over income from the use of spectrum where a spectrum licence is owned by a non-resident. Amendments included in this bill also allow for a broader definition of royalty to include payments for use of spectrum licences.The provisions of this bill are not confined to the taxation treatment of domestic spectrum licences. This bill also provides for the cor rection of a technical error which exists under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Under this act, the definition of Commonwealth education or training payment can allow a recipient of this payment to have the unintended benefit of two tax-free thresholds. This bill will address this technical error and would allow the act to operate as intended by the parliament.The bill before the House also provides for an amendment to enable the provisional tax uplift factor to be calculated for the 1999-2000 financial year. It is expected that the 1999-2000 financial year will see the final calculation of the provisional tax uplift factor. As part of its tax reform plan, the government has proposed to scrap the complicated provisional tax system on 1 July and replace it with a simple pay-as-you-go system. The abolition of provisional tax is a necessary step in achieving comprehensive tax reform. I must say it is one of the most popular measures of the government's ANTS legislation, and I am sure my colleagues would agree with me. Certainly in my electorate those people who have had the burden of provisional tax in the past are delighted by this change.Comprehensive tax reform will generate economic growth and secure Australia's future. The Labor opposition has chosen, for reasons of political expedience alone, to persevere with an outdated, irrelevant, economic growth stunting wholesale sales tax system that is a throwback to the Scullin government of the 1930s.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—They are troglodytes.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—They are troglodytes and reactionaries, as the Treasurer called them today in question time.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—That is what he says about you.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—It is fitting that the member for Batman is at the dispatch box because he is one of the greatest reactionaries of the Labor movement and one of the greatest troglodytes. The Labor Party consciously chooses to preserve the outmoded and outdated wholesale sales tax regime, which is not relevant to 21st century Australia. The Labor Party stands alongside the wholesale sales tax systems of countries such as Ghana, Swaziland and the Solomon Islands. The coalition government recognises that if Australia is to have a dynamic and rapidly growing economy we need to remove regulatory and other barriers which reduce incentives to work, save and invest. With a narrowing and diminishing tax base, a responsible tax strategy is to move towards broadening the tax base to include a wider representation of the economy, including Australia's lucrative and expanding service industries.The coalition government's plan for comprehensive tax reform includes modernising Australia's business tax system. Australia needs a more competitive business tax system if it is to reach its economic potential in the next century. The Ralph committee is presently exploring possible options for the government to implement. One option is to slash the company tax rate from 36 per cent to 30 per cent. This could be made possible by removing accelerated depreciation, thereby making the initiative largely revenue neutral. Removing accelerated depreciation will also reduce economic distortions on consumer and producer behaviour. A reduction in company tax rates would encourage the expansion of less capital intensive industries, particularly industries which are exporting services.Reforms to the corporate tax rate would foster a broader range of foreign investment which would extend beyond mining and manufacturing and make many of our domestic industries more internationally competitive. The bill before the House, in particular its provisions for the taxation treatment of domestic spectrum licences, reflects the government's commitment to a contemporary and comprehensive tax system. I commend the bill to the House.20:08:005578Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 deals with the taxation treatment of spectrum licences for mobile operations in two principal respects: firstly, changes in the income tax treatment of the acquisition cost of these licences for Australians; and, secondly, changes in the taxation treatment of foreigners for income derived from the use of these licences. The bill appears specifically relevant to the auction of wireless spectrums by the Australian Communications Authority in the 800 megahertz to 1.8 gigahertz band range for both existing players and new entrants into the market. The Financial Review reports that nine applicants have registered an interest with the ACA and it seems that part of the objective of this bill is to seek to equalise taxation treatment of domestic and prospective foreign buyers.The first major change relates to the acquisition cost of a licence holder. At present, this is treated as a capital expense under the income tax law, meaning that capital losses may only be deducted from capital gains under the capital gains tax. The proposed change enables the licence holder to amortise the acquisition cost over the life of a licence as a series of annual income tax deductions. This would enable Australian bidders for licences to be treated in a similar taxation manner to foreign bidders who enjoy similar amortisation entitlements.The second major change is to establish a tax regime through the royalty withholding tax, the RWT, over payments made to foreign licensees for the use of or the right to use those spectrum licences—in particular, where there are no double taxation agreements in force and, where such double taxation agreements are in force, it provides for the renegotiation of those double taxation agreements in a parallel fashion.The third element of this bill has an interesting connection to the amendment which Labor has put. This third element goes to schedules 2 and 3 of the bill—that is, part of the so-called rewrite project called the Tax Law Improvement Project, or TLIP. Its object is to simplify and rewrite in plain language Australia's tax law—an objective which stands diametrically opposed to the absolutely unreconstructed dog's breakfast that this government now presents us with in the form of the latest version of ANTS.If this package is simplicity, then I hate to contemplate what they mean by complexity. If this package is supposed to be reform, I would hate to see what they mean by regression. If this package is supposed to be fair, I would hate to see what they mean by unfair. If this package is supposed to enhance efficiency, then what is the definition of inefficiency when we are contemplating a new tax regime with hundreds and thousands of new definitions in the food sector in particular? How can this government pretend that their deal with the Democrats last Friday represents anything other than an incoherent mishmash of compromises?This package is a dog. The hardheads among government backbenchers know it is a dog. The retail industry knows it is a dog. The community sector knows it is a dog. It seems that the only person who does not know it is a dog is the person for whom the Premier of Victoria reserves that particular term of affection—the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. This package is not only a dog but a dog with amnesia. It is a dog that has forgotten what its master actually said about this tax package—prior to last Friday, that is. Let us reflect briefly on `His Master's Voice'. Let us reflect on what the Treasurer had to say, for example, on 21 April 1999. The Treasurer said:. . . the Democrat position which really is a recipe for, well, a nightmare. A small business nightmare.How is it possible for a nightmare to become the basis for rational economic policy in the space of a week? The Treasurer went on to say:This is a bird with no feathers that won't fly, this idea. In fact under the Democrat package if it's an uncooked, feathered bird it won't be taxable, but if you cook it it will be.It appears that it is contact time for this featherless chook—it takes off and we have this new extraordinary concoction of compromises, which is now described by the government as a rational tax package. Further, we have the Treasurer of the Commonwealth speaking with John Laws. In that discussion, the Treasurer of the Commonwealth says:In relation to exempting basic food, well, you know we've been through this argument a thousand times, but let me just give you one example. The Democrats say oh well you can tax takeaway food, but not basic food. So you say what's Kentucky Fried Chicken? Well they say well that's obviously takeaway food. Well what's a cooked chicken in a supermarket, is that takeaway or basic? . . . . . . . . .You've got, then you've got the argument about what is a snack and what is food. Is a donut a snack or is it food?LAWS: Well it's a snack.TREASURER: Well in Canada they said if you were buying less than six it would be a snack but if you buy more than six it's a meal and it's food.LAWS: But we have a brighter Treasurer than the Canadians, don't we?TREASURER: Yes. And a brighter Treasurer says in accordance with international practice the better thing is just to apply the tax regime across the board. You don't have armies of inspectors, you don't have these stupid demarcation and classification disputes and you get on with cutting people's income taxes and giving them higher pensions. Which all the international experience says is the way to go.So much for the efforts of our `brighter' Treasurer. Those comments, it seems, were applicable before last Friday but, magically, since last Friday have no relevance at all to the debate which is before the nation this evening. In relation to the Democrats' proposal, The Treasurer goes on to say:. . . if you exclude food, and I think that costs 5 billion dollars. They're talking about another five billion dollars of compensation I think. Let me make this clear, to do that would be to put the budget in deficit, would be to risk Australia's prospects; it could put pressure on interest rates and the economic consequences of that for Australia would be very bad.So what before last Friday was a risk incapable of contemplation in terms of the economic interests of the nation has, since last Friday, become a pathway of rational economic policy. A lot changes in a weekend.Let us reflect also on the impact of this whole package on the national economy. This dog's breakfast of a package does nothing to enhance national economic growth. We are left with the same arguments with which we have been confronted through the findings of the Senate inquiry over the last six months, namely that even the most optimistic analyses of this package cannot generate a decent and positive number by which this economy would grow other than the number by which it would normally grow in the absence of this tax package.When we turn to jobs, the projections on employment are as devastating as those on growth itself. When we look at employment, the projections of many of those who presented evidence to the Senate inquiry were that the nation, in the short to medium term, extending out to some five or six years, could well suffer an overall loss of 120,000 jobs. Tourism has received no special treatment in this deal concocted with the Democrats last Friday. The tourism sector in states like Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia will be as hard hit under this new deal with the Democrats as it was going to be under the deal that existed prior to last Friday.Let us look at national savings policy. This package further raids the budget sector surplus. ANTS Mark 1 was the equivalent, in my opinion, of the great train robbery in terms of its call on public savings—$17 billion over three years. ANTS Mark 2 is not just the great train robbery anymore, it is the smash and grab on Fort Knox itself. It is not $17 billion anymore—we are up to $20 billion over three years. That is $20 billion down the national plughole, for what purpose? Simply to grease the wheels to bring into force in this nation a tax package which all the expert advice before the Senate committee concluded would not add to growth, would not add to employment and would only add to inflation.This $20 billion does nothing to address the widening crisis we have on the current account, a current account which now stands at in excess of 5.5 per cent of GDP. We have before us the prospect, as the business cycle turns, of pressure on the Australian dollar, of interest rates going up, of economic activity collapsing and of jobs going south with it. Yet when it comes time to actually call upon the reserve of national savings to respond to that natural turn in the business cycle, which we know through the economic history of post-war Australia will inevitably come, those resources will not be there. Why? Because they will have been flushed down the national plughole, part of a deal done to grease through a tax package which advantages only the rich in our community in any substantial way and does very little for anybody else.This package also does nothing in terms of lifting total factor productivity in the economy. In fact, it is likely to have a negative impact on efficiency. Why? Because of the sheer magnitude of the waste which we are likely to confront with the new compliance costs. We are now faced with the finest, almost theological and certainly Jesuitical definitions of what constitutes fresh food and what does not constitute fresh food. We are going to turn the shopkeepers of this nation into minor theologians as they deliberate and decide on what individual items before them constitute fresh food, which is GST exempt, and what do not.It is an impossible compliance burden, which hitherto did not exist, that is now being thrust on the 1.5 million small businesses in this country. The only ones celebrating last Friday's deal are the big five—the accounting firms of the nation. Why is that? Because the greater the complexity of the package, the greater the complexity of the advice which corporate Australia down to small business will require in order to wade their way through the mire before them.We see a further compliance problem, and therefore a further impact on the efficiency of business operations, when we look at the quixotic regime which now pertains to diesel fuel. What means will this regional definition have to arbitrate what constitutes one region or another? I see my colleague the member for Rankin in the chamber at the moment. When we think of south-east Queensland, to assume that the definition given in the act constitutes greater metropolitan Brisbane says strange things to the communities that live in and around Caboolture, and that live in and around Beaudesert. It is a geographical nonsense, dreamed up by the boffins in Treasury here in a mad panic set of advices to the Treasurer for his negotiations with the Democrats last week. It makes no geographical sense on the ground and it is discriminatory. I think the member for Fisher would have a particular view on that as well.When it comes to the definition of food, we are not looking at a new and simple tax act; we are looking at a new edition of the book of Leviticus in the Bible—a definition of categories of food, clean and unclean, that will actually go on for chapters and chapters and chapters. And we expect the small business community of this nation to make sense of it and to turn that into a workable business formula in the management of their businesses each day.I have spoken about the impact of this package on the national economy as a whole. But what about the impact of the continuing package, that negotiated between the Democrats and the government last Friday, on basic precepts of social justice? Let us look at the question of pensions. Senator Harradine rejected a proposal as being inadequate in the extreme of a five per cent increase in pensions. What we have with the Democrats is a proposal which is a four per cent increase in pensions. We have accepted now and wrapped up as part of this deal an overall compact on pensions which, in Senator Harradine's judgment, was totally inadequate in compensating older Australians in particular from handling the price impact of this package once it washes through. Furthermore, this four per cent rise in pensions is in no way linked to future movements in wages.When we look further at the impact of this package on social justice, this package dreamed up during last week between the government and the Democrats, we see we still have a 10 per cent tax on uniforms, we have a 10 per cent tax on books, we have a 10 per cent tax on private tuition, we have a 10 per cent tax on a number of school excursions and we still have the impost of this tax in all its glory on charities in our community.The sheer administrative complexity of managing this tax, as a charitable, not-for-profit organisation in the community, will be horrendous. The day will soon pass when any of our community sector organisations, the ones on whom most of the fabric of our local communities depend, will be able to rely still on the services of the good old honorary treasurer. It will no longer be possible, for the simple reason that the complexity of the package is such and the compliance requirements are such that it will be beyond their capacity. And if you go beyond an honorary treasurer and you start seeking, obtaining and paying for professional advice, the overall function for which your community organisation and your charity is established is itself undermined.I have not yet addressed the impact of this package on the environment. If we think that this package is somehow going to make this nation more capable of realising its undertakings agreed in Kyoto a couple of years ago, then this government has another think coming. This package takes this nation in precisely the reverse direction to Kyoto. How we are going to obtain the targets which this government agreed to lies beyond my imagination, given the precise contents of the package before us.We look also at Commonwealth-state financial relations. We had the trumpeting of the abolition of nine taxes by this government when this package was first introduced. We had peace in our time, a total reform to the tax system of the nation. What do we have now instead? What has happened to those nine taxes? Only two will be introduced on time—the bed tax on 1 July 2000 and the stamp duty on marketable securities on 1 July 2000 as well. But what of the other seven? Two of the other seven are deferred. Financial institutions duty will be deferred to 1 July 2001, but the BAD tax, the bank account debits tax, will be deferred to the great never-never in the sky, to 1 July 2005. That is four of the nine taxes. What happened to the other five? The other five taxes seem to have escaped detailed treatment in the documents released by the government last Friday. We can only assume that they have fallen off the side of the table and will not be introduced as planned.It is all such a mess, yet today we had the Prime Minister in this chamber arguing that this was the best deal in the history of Federation for the states and the territories. On the very same day we had the Premier of Victoria, who on last report was a member of the Prime Minister's own political party, describing the very same deal as `dead in the water'. We had similar comments from the Victorian Treasurer. We have also had expressions of fundamental scepticism and pessimism from Mr Court, the Premier of Western Australia. How can all these individuals—all of them representing the coalition, I think—be talking about the same document? We must be talking about different realities altogether.If we look at the document itself and the great watertight, waterproof undertaking given to the states and territories on page 3 of the Munich agreement between the Prime Minister and Senator Meg Lees dated 28 May, it reads:In the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations , the Commonwealth agreed to provide financial assistance to the States to cover any temporary shortfall in their budgets resulting from the implementation of tax reform. As a result of the proposed changes to the tax reform package, the Commonwealth will provide increased assistance to—wait for it—balance State and Territory budgets in the transitional years.A careful and forensic reading of this paragraph, given that I presume it was drafted by Treasury officers, reveals that in fact there is a clear distinction between the first formulation and the second. The new formulation, which talks about extra assistance to balance state and territory budgets, is quite a different one from the earlier one, which was based on making up the shortfall in revenues of the states, revenues which would otherwise have been delivered in the absence of this package.In conclusion, we have before us a tax proposal for the nation which has such fundamental failings as being incapable of being supported by the parliament. It is a proposal which has a dishonesty to it because the undertakings by the government before last Friday no longer apply. This package still has negative economic impacts for the Australian economy at large. Its social injustice is still writ large. It does nothing for the Australian environment, it takes it in the reverse direction, and on Commonwealth-state relations it is no advance at all. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Slipper) adjourned. Bills5582r7445582Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.20:29:005582Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 comprises four categories of amendments, which I will go to briefly: gift provisions, a rewrite of capital gains tax provisions and an extension of rollover relief, an extension of the beneficiary rebate to include Community Development Employment Program participants, and provision of certain taxation information to state law enforcement agencies. The opposition is supporting these provisions, but I move a second reading 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 notes that:(1) the government has not achieved real tax reform in Australia, it has merely agreed to introduce an unfair GST;(2) the new Howard/Lees GST will involve a massive tax mix switch which will hurt ordinary families, which is directly contrary to the balloted policy of the Australian Democrats;(3) that the Howard/Lees deal will actually increase the tax on food in Australia;(4) that ordinary people will now face a GST on top of state indirect taxes on bank accounts; and(5) that the amended tax package is still unfair and will also damage the environment".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Is the amendment seconded?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I second the amendment.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I now turn to the specific proposals in the legislation before dealing with the second reading amendment. Firstly, with respect to tax deductions for gifts and related matters, the bill proposes to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow deductions for gifts of $2 or more to the Katherine District Business Re-establishment Fund; to enable grants paid to eligible businesses from that fund to be treated as exempt income; to change the name of two organisations currently listed to reflect their current names; to extend the period within which donations to the Australian National Korean War Memorial Trust Fund will be tax deductible; to remove an inconsistency between the terms used in division 30 of the ITAA and those used in the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act 1975; and to make two minor technical corrections with respect to the National Nurses Memorial Trust.These proposals will help taxpayers and beneficiaries of the relevant gift listed organisations and are supported by the opposition. The gift list provides an excellent mechanism for the government to assist the community to assist itself. Granting tax deductibility for donations means that the Commonwealth pays some of the cost, but only in proportion to the donating public. So the Commonwealth is genuinely in partnership with donors when a tax deduction is granted.But, of course, granting deductibility is not enough of a response to many of the issues facing community and charitable organisations. One thing which governments should never do is to actually impede the abilities of charitable and community organisations to conduct their business. Yet this is exactly what the government, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, are planning to do. They are proposing a massive increase in paperwork on charities and a new tax on many of their fundraising activities and commercial activities.The moneys from these activities are put towards charitable purposes, so taxing them will simply reduce the resources available to help the needy and to provide the community services currently provided. Instead, what the Democrats have agreed to is simply a joke. On page 2 of the attachment to the Prime Minister's letter to Senator Lees we see the fruits of the Democrats supposedly tough negotiating stand. Under the heading of `GST—additional assistance for charities', it says:The Government will assist charitable and not for profit organisations to adjust to the introduction of the GST in several ways, including: . establish a Charities/Not for Profit consultative committee immediately within the ATO to develop rulings well in advance of the introduction of the GST, to better inform these organisations as to how they will be impacted;. establishing ATO teams to assist the sector to implement the GST; and. in the light of developments with the above, and before 1 July 2000, there will be further consultations as necessary between the Government and the Australian Democrats on the GST impact on charities or any problems arising in the application of rulings to charities.So that renowned hard-nosed bargainer Senator Lees has obtained no concessions for charities at all; all she has obtained is a bureaucratic process. By definition, there must be problems or the Prime Minister would not have even referred to them. So charities will face higher costs and will be able to deliver fewer services. The Democrats, in spite of their protestations, have won them absolutely nothing. Senator Lees has deliberately and knowingly increased the bureaucratic load on charities, which is entirely inconsistent with the amendments that were distributed in the Senate by the Democrats and is inconsistent with their stated stance on these issues. It is a total failure of negotiating responsibility. Senator Lees, it would appear, was more interested in doing a press conference with the Prime Minister than in looking after the interests of the charitable and community sector.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—She did everything but hold his hand.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—We will not go into that. She will have to live with that, and so will the increasingly fractured party room that she purports to lead. I turn to the second category of provisions in the legislation, the capital gains tax provisions. The bill proposes to extend rollover relief to land and buildings held by a taxpayer where the land and buildings are used by another entity connected with that taxpayer. The current legislation restricts rollover relief to so-called active assets. Real estate is not generally an active asset. However, a business's headquarters is clearly integral to the business. There is significant small business support for this amendment, and Labor supports it.The bill proposes to alter the majority underlying interest test in pre-capital gains tax assets held by public entities. The new rules will assume that underlying interests have changed by more than 50 per cent unless the taxpayer can convince the Commissioner of Taxation that this has not happened. This is an attempt after approximately two years of negotiations to bring in workable rules around what is a difficult issue. It is an anti-avoidance mechanism designed to raise between $7 million and $10 million per year by the year 2002.The bill seeks to rewrite the small business retirement exemption rules that exempt a capital gain and the small business rollover rules that defer a capital gain made by an individual, a private company or a trust other than a publicly traded unit trust from a capital gains tax event happening to an asset used in a business. It seeks to rewrite the value shifting rules that adjust the cost bases and reduced cost bases of shares and in some cases loans or underlying interest in them where there has been a value shift between companies under common ownership. The rules are an anti-avoidance measure that addresses tax deferral.The bill seeks to rewrite the assets register rules to allow a taxpayer to transfer some or all of the information contained in records held for capital gains tax purposes into an asset register. The measure will give taxpayers more flexibility in how they keep their records for determining their capital gains tax liability.Finally in this category, the bill seeks to rewrite the M4/M5 Cashback Scheme administered by the New South Wales government. The scheme provides a reimbursement of tolls paid on the M4 and M5 toll roads. The reimbursement is limited to motorists driving motor vehicles and motorcycles privately registered in New South Wales. This amendment will replace the rules that currently exist in Income Tax Regulation 14E into the proper legislation. All of these provisions are supported by the opposition.Thirdly, there is the extension of the beneficiary rebate to CDEP wages. CDEP, as members will know, is administered by ATSIC and TSRA to enable indigenous Australian communities and organisations to manage their own economic and social development and to provide employment for people in their communities. To participate in the scheme, unemployed members of the indigenous communities choose to give up their entitlements to social security payments—for example, Newstart allowance—and in place of those payments the community organisations pay wages to participants to undertake community managed activities.Currently, the income support components of grants provided by ATSIC for programs such as Green Corps and the New Enterprise Incentives Scheme are entitled to the beneficiary rebate on the assessable income they receive from these programs. However, the income support component of CDEP wages technically falls outside the scope of the payments that are rebateable because of the nature and calculation of the funding of the scheme. The proposed amendment is in response to a recommendation by the Independent Review of the Community Development Employment Projects scheme, known as the Spicer review. The extension of the beneficiary rebate to CDEP participants will remove the taxation disincentive for joining and remaining a participant in the CDEP scheme, and Labor strongly supports the measure.Finally, on the specific provisions, currently the Commissioner of Taxation has the discretion to disclose information acquired under a taxation law to an authorised law enforcement agency officer. The law enforcement agencies to which information may be disclosed are specified in the definition of `law enforcement agency' in section 2 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. The New South Wales Police Integrity Commission and the Queensland Crime Commission are not listed in the definition. The bill seeks to amend section 2 of the act to include both of these bodies in the definition of law enforcement agency. It also seeks to amend the same section to include the Commissioner for the PIC and the Crime Commissioner for the QCC in the definition of `head' of a law enforcement agency. The amendments will allow the Commissioner of Taxation to provide the PIC and the QCC with taxation information under section 3E of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 from the date of royal assent. Again, Labor supports this proposal to allow further cooperation between Commonwealth and state agencies, and I understand the relevant state governments also support this proposal.I now continue the broad theme that I raised before in the debate on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) which is also the subject of a second reading amendment to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), which is the subject of this debate. In the recent agreement that has been reached between the government and the Democrats we have seen the trading away of a considerable degree of simplicity and efficiency, such as there was in the government's tax package, in return for a totally ephemeral increase in fairness—an apparent increase in fairness, admittedly starting from a very low base, which when appropriate scrutiny is applied turns out to be no increase in fairness at all. In the case of the exemption of food, we will see a situation where there will be more food items taxed under the tax scheme as amended than there currently are under the old arrangements. We will see a wide array of ridiculous anomalies. Already they are being raised, and we have seen only the start of the process. We are going to see endless litigation, endless dramas and endless confusion by consumers, small businesses and people in the bureaucracy as they try to work out precisely what this tax will and will not apply to.There is a supposed improvement in the impact of the tax package on the environment. It is interesting to note that the government does not cast any reference to the blatant deficiencies in the tax package prior to the deal being done with the Democrats. It simply says, `Oh, well, we've actually done these things. Isn't it going to be wonderful for the environment?' But what it does not acknowledge is that the changes, as they impact on the environment, will be of minor impact relative to the total negative impact of the package, in particular the substantial shift in incentives for people to use fossil fuels, particularly diesel.I note that in addition to this, as I referred to previously, a serious and unintended consequence of the changed tax package, courtesy of the supposedly pro-environment Democrats, is that companies running buses, public transport, in cities like Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, the vast bulk of which are below 20 tonnes and therefore will not qualify for the diesel rebate, will now be in a situation where their costs will increase by up to nine per cent rather than the expected five per cent increase from the original A New Tax Package. Given that the government is effectively reducing the price of cars, that means that the balance of attractiveness between using public transport and driving will adversely shift significantly to the use of private transport. That will inevitably have an impact. It will make it harder for bus companies, both public and private, to attract sufficient customers. It will create further pressure on their budgets, on their routes, on their patronage, which in turn will have something of a spiral effect and make it more likely that they will have to put up their ticket prices, therefore creating an additional level of discouragement to people to use the services.So clearly this is not a pro-environment change to the package by any means. What has occurred is a substantial reduction in the environmental strengths—such as they may be—of this package. In particular, the situation is already seriously impinging upon the level of air quality that we are able to enjoy. The irony of all this is that a critical part of the deal that the Democrats have done will bring in new emission controls which were going to be brought in anyway. In other words, they have traded away their integrity and the environmental rights of all Australians, particularly people living in electorates like mine that are right in the centre of big cities that already suffer substantial health problems as a result of air pollution and particulate pollution—including premature deaths, which is a well-established scientific fact. Their rights have been traded away by the Democrats, and in return for what? In return for new rules being introduced that were going to be introduced anyway.We have also seen the government back away from its deal with respect to the states. The government says it is all fine and that the states are in the car. The states are, of course, saying something different. We have seen the government dip further into the surplus—$1.4 billion extra out of the surplus. Never forget where that surplus came from. What we have got is a nice little triangle here. It is not nice from a policy perspective and it is not nice from any reasonable public policy position. It is a triangle where you start out with big cuts to things like education, research and development, labour market programs, child care and health. There are massive cuts in those programs. That gives you the next corner of the triangle—a big surplus after a year or two. The final corner of the triangle is that you give that surplus away to high income earners through big tax cuts.Effectively what we have got through this tax package is a mechanism for cutting back on health, education, child care—all of those things which help ordinary Australians, make a critical contribution to people's living standards and ensure that people on lower incomes in particular have some decent opportunity and protection for their living standards. Those things are being taken away and they are being given in high income tax cuts. The net effect of this is that the $5 billion in reduction in the surplus in the first full year of the tax package is now up to $6½ billion as a result of this package, going up to $8½ billion. That is where the money is going.Let us again scrutinise the role of the Democrats in all of this—those tough negotiators; Clint Eastwood saying, `Make my day.' I read from the Democrats' policy response to the tax proposals of the government issued on 18 September 1998:The Democrats believe that the coalition's tax package can and must be significantly amended to be made fairer. The following amendments will be non-negotiable: taking the GST off food—well, they negotiated that one—taking the GST off books—they totally caved in on that one.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I'd hate to see it if they lost.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—That's right. They would be really good fighting for us, wouldn't they? It goes on:restructuring the tax cuts to reduce the benefits to high income earners—they got a little bit of that one, but not much—recalculating the compensation needed for different cameos of households to ensure that compensation is genuinely fully adequate with a generous cushion as a margin for error—they didn't get very far on that one—restructuring the new tax concessions on diesel and petrol—They got a few changes but, as I have indicated before, they managed to introduce a few unintended consequences as a result of that. They didn't exactly get that right, either. And finally:reducing the drain on the budget surplus by broadening the attack on tax loopholes.They didn't get too far on that one either. These, I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are non-negotiable. Yet they negotiated. These are supposedly non-negotiable items: they would not support the tax package unless these things were dealt with. What they got was a marginal set of changes which reflect, at best, one or two of their six supposedly non-negotiable items. That is not to mention the nine additional items that they sought to place on the table for negotiation.I will not read out the other items, but there are things like the full 150 per cent research and development tax concession, reduced clawback on unemployment benefits for employees who take on casual and part-time work and reducing the high effective marginal tax rates faced by graduates on low incomes. There is quite a list there. Most of them are things that appear, on the face of it, to be entirely laudable. But the Democrats came into a negotiation and they held all the aces. The Prime Minister was desperate. He faced the choice of either abandoning his tax package and losing all credibility—what he has left—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—And his leadership.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—And his leadership with it, as the member for Batman points out—or going to a double dissolution and losing government. But the Democrats were desperate to save the day for him. They started with six non-negotiable items and nine negotiable items. They ended up with a little bit of what they said was non-negotiable and virtually nothing of what they said was negotiable. A great outcome, when you hold all the aces! I hope to get in a poker game with these people one day because, although I am not much of a gambler, I am sure that I could do well. It is not surprising that the Democrats are now split asunder and some of the people they have spent years cultivating and to whom they have spent years pretending that they are really the true party for them are outraged. The Australian Society of Authors, for example, has responded by describing their feeling as a `deep sense of betrayal', according to the chair of the society, Libby Gleeson. She noted that Senator Lees said in her National Press Club speech prior to the election:A tax on books is a tax on literacy, learning and literature. We will not vote for a tax on books.Welcome to real world politics, Senator Lees, because that is precisely what you are going to be doing. You are going to be voting in favour of a tax on books, precisely what you said you would not be doing. Let us have a look at what Senator Lees said with respect to the surplus. In a press release on 10 May, only three weeks ago, she said:Budget surplus should not be used to buy a GST.If you have used $1.4 billion of it, that strikes me as being something of a purchase. I quote further:. . . but any further digging into the surplus to buy a GST would be irresponsible. It would defeat the entire objective of tax reform. In contrast, the Democrats proposals for excluding food from the GST are fully funded by a reduction in income tax cuts for the top 30 per cent of income earners. Our proposals would leave the surplus fully in place to fund necessary social expenditure.On the question of the environment, on 27 May, only a few days ago, Senator Lees received a letter from Dr David Suzuki, a world renowned environmentalist who has visited Australia on a number of occasions, urging her to resist the government's initia tives to cut the prices of motor vehicle fuels, stating:I am delighted to learn that you and your party are now positioned to play a critical role in tempering the regressive environmental policies of the Howard administration. I urge you to use your credibility and the strategic importance of your present position in order to help protect air quality and our atmosphere.I do not think Senator Lees will be looking forward to the next letter from Dr David Suzuki. We have seen Dr Clive Hamilton advising them on these issues. He got off the cart before the deal was done. He saw what was coming. He knew what the Democrats were going to do. As reported in the West Australian on 29 May in an article by Karen Middleton and Alan Thornhill:Some among the seven Democrat senators and their advisers were surprised to be confronted with a decision so quickly. They had expected the government to let them stew for a while hoping they might lose their nerve. But they concluded that the government was frightened of them walking away altogether.In other words, what has happened is the Democrats have caved in from a very strong position when they could have negotiated for a whole range of things which they said they were committed to ensuring, and they have just abandoned them. At the first sign of gunfire and the first sign that things get hard, they have given up. Senator Lees's press release of 17 May says:Senator Meg Lees . . . today reiterated her party's support for tax reform but will only back a tax system that is fairer than the existing one.That is not fairer than the existing tax package that the government has put to the parliament; that is fairer than the existing tax system.It is abundantly clear that the amended tax package is still much less fair than the existing taxation system because it puts a 10 per cent tax on virtually everything—it still has clothes, books, tickets to the football, haircuts and a big proportion of food—and it gives away the proceeds and a big slab of the surplus—which has been built on the back of cuts to social wage expenditures like health and education—in income tax cuts, the bulk of which go to high income earners. So the Democrats have not passed their own test on that front at all. I quote the press release again:A GST that taxes food and indiscriminately encourages more environmental pollution would be a backward step from where we are and we won't support it.Guess what they have done? It continues:Our proposals are fully funded, do not affect the Budget bottom line, have been fully tested by the Senate Tax Inquiry process and have been found to have widespread support.We propose to fund the food exemption by paring back the unfair tax cuts for high income earners. . . . We will not be backing down on our position.Where did $1.4 billion come from? It did not come from tax cuts for high income earners; it came from the surplus. So overall, what we have seen is an extraordinary performance on the part of the Democrats who, prior to the election, portrayed themselves to the Australian people as the people who could defend them from a GST and from some of its harsher implications.The Democrats specifically sought the votes of people who were wavering about whether or not they wanted to re-elect the Howard government and, in effect, said to them, `Don't worry, it's okay to re-elect John Howard because we will be there in the Senate to protect you. We will be there to look after you. We will be there to protect you from the nasty edges of the GST, the things that you do not like, the unfair aspects of the tax package. You do not need to vote in a Labor government, you do not need to vote for the only major party that is absolutely opposed to the GST, because we are going to protect you in the Senate.' At the first hint of pressure, at the first opportunity when they were able to do something about this, they caved in. John Howard must not be able to believe his luck.Senator Harradine, from a position of genuine independence, has pronounced on this package and said in effect the same thing said all along by the Labor Party: it cannot be made fair. The GST is inherently unfair and the proposed system cannot be made fair. The Democrats went to the election with an anti- GST position. They said they had six non-negotiable items. `We will vote for the GST only if these six conditions are met.' As soon as the heat went on, as soon as they were put under some pressure, they caved in.The people of Australia will not forget. They will punish not only the government but also the Democrats in the ballot box as a result of this betrayal because, much as the opinion making business elite—which is obsessed with the GST, amusingly enough to their own cost, because, for example, it is precluding the government from enacting genuine business tax reform—are applauding the deal, what they do not seem to realise is that the shambles that will be created will engender a huge backlash in the Australian community. It is already causing serious anger in people who believed that they had supported the Democrats to protect them in the Senate, not simply to go along with the government and make very marginal changes to the government's package under some misapprehension that they had to ensure that the government got an outcome.The Democrats were there to keep their promises. The Democrats were there to abide by the commitments they made to the electorate, in the same way that we said prior to the election, `We will be voting against the GST. Win, lose or draw, we don't think it is a good thing. We think it is bad for Australia. We think it is unfair and we will be voting against it.' People who say that there is something wrong with that should perhaps consider their views on the bicameral system because we in the Labor Party have had a bit of experience at being in government and not getting things through the Senate. We had a fair bit of experience, for example, in the mid-1970s when there were 21 pieces of major legislation, part of Labor's platform which was put to elections twice in 1972 and 1974, all blocked by a coalition dominated Senate. So we know something about living with a Senate that is not necessarily going to support the government's legislative program.When you have a situation where, on the major issue of an election, parties such as the Labor Party go to an election saying, `We will vote against this tax,' and the Democrats go to an election saying `We will vote against this tax package unless these six changes are made,' then the Australian people, particularly those who voted for those parties, are entitled to have those undertakings honoured. In this instance, that is what has not happened. The undertakings by the Democrats to ensure that food is not taxed, to ensure that the surplus is not further eroded and to ensure that books are not taxed have been dishonoured. No longer can the Democrats claim to be the honest brokers. No longer can they be the people who supposedly keep the bastards honest. They have dishonoured their faith with the Australian electorate and they will suffer in future as a result.20:58:005589Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I came into this chamber this evening to give a short speech on a particular aspect of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 , but it would be remiss of me not to respond to the comments of the previous speaker. The first thing I would say is that, if we cast our minds back to 1993, it is very hard to accept that what the previous gentleman said has any credibility.Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—The gentleman from Batman sits at the table looking very comfortable and smirking and all the rest of it, but I can remember sitting on that side of the chamber when his former leader, the then Prime Minister Keating, stood up and talked about l-a-w tax cuts. We went to an election under the l-a-w tax cuts promise, the election was won by the Labor Party and, of course, the tax cuts did not occur. It seems to me that, if you are looking at who is genuine, who is serious and who keeps their promises, the Labor Party have absolutely no credibility at all on this issue.I would also remind those opposite, when they talk about what the Democrats have done in the last few days, that there was a very telling statement from the Leader of the Democrats. The Leader of the Democrats said, `We have achieved more in 13 hours of negotiation with this government than we achieved in 13 years of dealing with the Labor Party.' That is all about responsible government; that is all about delivering better outcomes for the Australian people. I frankly found the hypocrisy of the previous speaker quite breathtaking when he talked about the surplus and what we might or might not be doing with the surplus—bearing in mind, of course, that his government delivered us a huge deficit. It is this government that has got the budget back in surplus, and it is this government that has demonstrated to Australia that we can actually indulge in sensible accounting and bookkeeping, and get the balance of accounts for this country into good shape at the federal level in the same way as we had to do so often at the state level.I come from Victoria, as does the gentleman seated at the table opposite—Mr Martin Ferguson. He will well remember—and, if he has got any shame at all, he will be quiet when he thinks about it—the Kirner and Cain years and the disgraceful economic performance that they gave in the Victorian state parliament and the huge debt that they ran up, causing untold grief to generations of Victorians. In exactly the same way that Jeff Kennett and the Liberal government in Victoria have had to sort out the problems that they inherited from the Labor Party, the coalition government in this parliament has had to sort out the problems that we inherited from the Labor Party. So the other side comes to this debate with absolutely no clean hands at all. To stand up here and pontificate is, frankly, the epitome of arrogance and breathtaking gall, the like of which I have not seen in nine years in this place.The particular aspect of this legislation that I want to talk about is an aspect which delivers another of the government's promises. I think most members of this chamber will recall that there were some very emotional scenes here when HREOC delivered the report on the stolen children. I was not here on the day that that report was tabled and debated in this place; I was in Melbourne attending the conference on reconciliation organised by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. I had the honour, for the first six years of the council's life, to be the coalition's representative on that council. Nevertheless, whether you were here or whether you were somewhere else, I think most Australians understand the significance of that report. Whilst obviously not everybody sympathises with the recommendations and the outcome of that report, I think we all recognise it as significant.One of the things that happened as a result of the tabling of that report was that many thousands of Australians felt moved, spontaneously, to ask, `What can we do to help that situation?' Many Australians said, `We must donate some money to help the stolen generation.' And they sent donations in the thousands of dollars to HREOC, which had produced the report. Quite clearly, it was impossible for HREOC, as a government body, to accept donations in its own right and to administer those funds, so it was decided that it would be appropriate to set up a trust fund to administer those donations and any others that came forward in subsequent years.Therefore, a trust document and a board of trustees was set up with Marcia Langton as the chair. Because this was quite clearly a bipartisan approach, three other trustees were appointed from the different shades of political opinion. Senator Vicki Bourne from the Democrats and Senator Margaret Reynolds from the Labor Party became trustees, and I had the privilege of being the coalition's trustee. Over time, some changes of membership of that trustee body have occurred. I have recently moved over to allow Danna Vale, the member for Hughes, to become the coalition's trustee; and as Margaret Reynolds is to leave the Senate fairly shortly, she is going to be replaced by, I think, the member for Banks.The trust fund having been set up, clearly one of the important issues to be dealt with—mechanical in some ways, but nevertheless important—was the question of whether donations would be tax free. The government went to the last election saying that it would pass legislation to make donations to that fund tax free, and this legislation enables that to occur. Whilst it may be a relatively small part of this bill in the total scheme of things, nevertheless I think it is a noble aim and an important thing to do.While I am talking about that fund, I would like to pay tribute to Susan Roberts from HREOC, who was instrumental in helping to set up the trust fund; to Judy Sullivan from Gilbert and Tobin, a firm of solicitors in Sydney, who was also heavily involved; and to William Buck, the chartered accountants based in Sydney who have looked after the money so far. There are a number of public servants seated here in the officials' box—I am not sure whether they are all here—and I think they have had some trying times getting us to comply with all the requisite paperwork. So, to those who have been so tolerant, I express our appreciation.We have got to the stage now where this legislation is before the House. I think it is important that this fund be supported by all Australians. There is money in the fund. Some of it has been disbursed and some of is still to be disbursed. The trust fund is still looking for donations and anybody who wishes to send those in should send them to William Buck in Sydney. I take this opportunity to encourage everybody to do so, if they are so minded. I commend this legislation to the House for this very noble cause.21:08:005590Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Labor opposition do of course support this legislation but we also support an amendment to the legislation that has been proposed by the member for Melbourne. I want to take the opportunity to recite that amendment which says:whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:(1) the government has not achieved a real tax reform in Australia, it has merely agreed to introduce an unfair GST;(2) the new Howard/Lees GST will involve a massive tax mix switch which will hurt ordinary families, which is directly contrary to the balloted policy of the Australian Democrats;(3) that the Howard/Lees deal will actually increase the tax on food in Australia;(4) that ordinary people will now face the GST on top of state indirect taxes on bank accounts; and(5) that the amended tax package is still unfair and will also damage the environment.It is to the question of fairness that I now turn. All reasonable Australians would aspire to a nation that is fair and that provides equality of opportunity. Therefore, we should look at this tax proposal in that context. Does it pass the test of fairness? This is not tax reform. It is just an increased reliance on regressive indirect taxes, an increased reliance to the tune of $17 billion. Here we have exposed, already, one of the myths of the Democrats' position on this.The Democrats have released documentation claiming that there is only a small tax mix switch—that is, that there is extra reliance on regressive indirect taxes to the tune of only $2.7 billion. Well, they must have got that figure from the government, and the government is basically saying to them something that is totally untrue. The true switch away from the income tax system to an unfair regressive indirect tax system is $17 billion. We will be making the point loud and clear to everyone who is prepared to listen that the Democrats, on this, as on a range of matters that they went into negotiations with the government on, have been completely duped. They have been completely naive and have sold out their principles to push this unfair GST through and to impose it on ordinary Australians, on low income earners, on pensioners and on the unemployed.Let us ask this rhetorical question: why would a conservative government want a $29 billion new tax? The Democrats have fallen for the argument that the conservative government wants this $29 billion new tax so that it can extend social services all through Australia. This is not the form of a conservative government; it is not the form of this government which has spent the last four years cutting basic services in Australia. But the Democrats believe that there is some sort of noble intention behind this, that the government wants this new $29 billion regressive indirect tax so that it can extend all its social services—health, education, community services, services for homeless people—but nothing could be further from the truth. The reason that the government wants to implement this tax is so that it can reduce income tax, particularly on high income earners where more than half of the tax cuts are directed. That is the agenda of the government. The Democrats know that, and they should be opposing this tax but they are not, they are going along with it. This is a tax package that is supported by the elite.I have to pay tribute to Mr Gerry Harvey, who said a couple of weeks ago that in all honesty—at least he was honest about it—there will be a lynching mob out for Senator Harradine because any corporate executive who is around the age of 50 to 60 believes he or she is paying too much tax and they want to get that tax off. That is what most of this tax reform debate is all about: it is about burden shifting—shifting the burden of tax off the shoulders of high income earners, off the shoulders of the affluent and on to the shoulders of poor people, of unemployed people, of low income households and of pensioners. So at least Mr Gerry Harvey of Harvey Norman had the honesty and integrity to say that is what he thought and what corporate executives believe tax reform is about. These people will be queuing up for their tax cuts.We even have a broad cross-section of the media saying that we have to have this GST. We had one television journalist on Friday night saying, `From 1 July 2000 Australia gets its new GST,' as if it is going to get a new car or it has won the Olympics again. It is going to get a $29 billion unfair tax and we have some media commentators saying, `Isn't this terrific.' The thing that concerns me is where we are going in Australia on the score of fairness. I want to draw the attention of the House to something that I have been doing a bit of work on. Over the last 30 years, Australia has become a much less fair society. The gap between rich and poor has widened, and that is borne out by the statistics. I want to alert the House to the situation where Australia is now, before the introduction of the GST.Australia is now a less fair society than France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. That surprises me and disappoints me. But what surprises me even more is that, on the basis of international statistics, Australia now is a less fair society than the following countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Nigeria and the Philippines. This is a disgrace, and that is where we are heading to—a much less fair society—and from 1 July next year there will be a quantum leap in unfairness in this country caused by the deal that was struck last Friday between the government and Senator Lees on behalf of the Australian Democrats.I worry that people do not seem to care about this anymore. The elite in the media do not seem to care about the fact that we are becoming a more unequal society. The elite in the business community do not seem to care that we are becoming a more unequal society. The whole thing is supposed to be: `Look, it doesn't matter so much about fairness. We are going to have a more efficient tax system.' Let us look at the food kit fiasco. Senator Meg Lees on Sunday morning: fish fingers were subject to GST; Sunday afternoon: fish fingers were not subject to GST. Why? Because the de facto tax commissioner of Australia, Senator Lees, once she got up in the morning and saw that fish fingers were on the front page of the Age and that they, but not lobsters, would be subject to GST, decreed, `No. They will not be subject to GST anymore because I'm the tax commissioner and I've made the decision and Mr Costello will have to cop it.' Just on the 7.30 Report tonight, when Mr Costello was asked about this, he said, `Well, whatever they say goes because we have to have this passed.'Where is the tax commissioner in all this? He is just observing as Senator Lees makes up the rules as she goes along. Senator Lees said, `If there is any doubt, exempt it,' so when we get into this fiasco, this Nightmare on Main Street, Senator Lees, the de facto tax commissioner, will be there saying to the tax commissioner, `Just exempt it.' That will not solve the problem because these things will go to the courts and it will be protracted, completely messy and massively increase the compliance costs on small business. It is instructive to see how tough our Treasurer, this tough as nails Treasurer, has been. Just on 2 February this year he was asked on the Neil Mitchell program, `Is food non-negotiable?' He said, `Well, no, it can't be done. It is not negotiable.' The Treasurer also said on food, and this was at a doorstop on 15 February: Now, you've seen in relation to the inquiry, what's obviously giving some Senators problems is that the case for excluding food from the GST has obviously collapsed. There is no credible economic support for it.He went on to say:Well, let me go through that because I saw a press release that they have put out today from Peter Dixon, right, showing that the welfare gains go negative if you take food out, right. Three times worse result on welfare gains. That's what Dixon said.. . . . . . . . .So Professor Harding, Professor Warren, Professor Dixon, Professor Murphy. How long have we got to go through? There is not one of the persons that the Senate has called, and don't forget I don't run the Senate committee, the Labor Party runs the Senate committee there's not one of the economic modellers that the Senate has called, that has called for food to be excluded. . . I'm, I'm, no I'm, look, let me make this clear what I'm saying, I'm saying this—the case for excluding food from the GST base has collapsed—right.Wrong. On Friday night there is the Treasurer saying, `Oh no, it's okay. We're quite happy with the exclusion of food.' Well done, Treasurer! On 7 March in an interview he said:. . . and there are quite a deal of embedded taxes in food at the moment as well. And all those taxes are going to be abolished.Well, I have news for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and members of the government: only four of those nine taxes are going to be abolished and some of them were never going to be abolished; for example, payroll tax and excises. So the Treasurer has a lot of difficulty telling the truth on these matters. He goes on and on about the case for exempting food and how watertight it is. He invokes the food manufacturers and the retailers. He says the existing system is a dog's breakfast and it has to be improved. On 14 April the Treasurer said:And one of the great questions is how do you define food? It's easy to say. I mean when you say to people what's food, you say, well, let's say for example is Kentucky Fried Chicken food? They say no that's takeaway. So well what about a chicken which is cooked in Safeway? Is that food or is that takeaway? They say Well it's takeaway. You know, if you buy it you take it away. What about it's been cooked in Safeway and cooled down? Is that takeaway or is that food? And then they say some of these European jurisdictions say Oh well it must be food if it's cooled down. So you know what happens then? You have tax collectors going around with thermometers sticking them into chickens, trying to work out what their temperature is because if it's a high temperature it's takeaway and taxable and if it's a low temperature, it's food and not taxable. So if you want an army of tax collectors in your supermarkets sticking thermometers in chickens, let's try and sort of exclude food from the GST.Well, I happen to have here two thermometers. One of them actually indicates that it is `oral use only' so I do not suppose that would be too helpful in this particular endeavour. But I do offer these, and I propose to seek leave to table these thermometers for the benefit of the Treasurer because he is going to need to issue about 40,000 thermometers—by his own rhetoric, by his own statements—to the tax collectors of Australia. He has a choice here. Each of them is less than $5—it is a real bargain. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table these thermometers.Leave not granted.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—Predictable, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will put them in the mail to the Treasurer.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He knows all about the mail and letters.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—That is right; he just sends the mail and the letters off to the Democrats. I draw attention to an interview involving Laurie Oakes and the Prime Minister:LAURIE OAKES: Will you exempt food from the GST?JOHN HOWARD: No, we won't.LAURIE OAKES: That is not negotiable?JOHN HOWARD: No, it's not.I also follow on with a statement from the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Chris Murphy. He says:What the Democrats are proposing is to take some things out of the GST base to make it a more narrowly based tax again. So you start to defeat the whole purpose of tax reform. And that's a problem for two reasons: firstly, it erodes the economic benefits from the package and; secondly, it makes it more difficult for businesses to comply with the package because they're having to apply the GST to some things, but not others. Just a month ago, on 29 April, Mr Murphy said:I think that if the package has to be compromised too much, we're better off putting it on the shelf for a while and having another go at it some time in the future when we can get a good package up.That is the evidence from the Prime Minister's preferred modeller. The history of this debacle is the Prime Minister and the Treasurer saying it is not negotiable, and then they negotiate; they create nightmare on Main Street. All for what? For so-called efficiency gains. What efficiency gains? They retain five of the nine taxes that they told all Australians that they were going to remove. They retain them indefinitely—1 July 2005 is off in the never-never. There is no date for the removal of several stamp duties whatsoever. So five of the nine taxes are retained.The information that went into every letterbox in Australia saying, `We're getting rid of nine taxes' was not true. They are not getting rid of nine taxes at all. At best, they are getting rid of four taxes. So where are the efficiency gains from this? Professor Dixon, from Monash University, modelled the situation for the exclusion of food, and it happened to be an amount that turns out to be very close to the amount that is going to be excluded. The result of that modelling is that in the long term the economic efficiency losses—not gains, but losses—will be greater and in the short term we could face job losses of up to 68,000. That is what we are getting in exchange for this tax mix switch, for this `new tax for the new century'.I want to point out something that the Democrats have said. I take personal exception to this, as should anyone with any interest in the environment. The member for Aston boasted a little while ago, and the government has been boasting, that in her media release last Friday night Senator Lees said:The Democrats have won more for Australia in 13 hours of talks with this government than we did in 13 years with the ALP government.I was around in the mid to late 1980s under the Labor government. During that period, the Labor government put onto the World Heritage List the Wet Tropics of North Queensland, the Tasmanian forests, Kakadu National Park and Shark Bay. It also saved Antarctica from mining, released the National Greenhouse Response Strategy, implemented a decade of landcare and issued a major environment statement with major funding implications.When the Leader of the Democrats said, `We got more in 13 hours than Labor has delivered in 13 years,' what did they get? There is a dispute about this which I should draw to the attention of the Democrats. The Democrats said, `We got $937 million worth of environmental benefits over three years.' On the same night, the government's documentation on the environmental outcomes of the negotiations added up to $719 million—that is, the Democrats have already been short-changed on these calculations by $218 million. But what is $218 million amongst friends?For $719 million over three years—which is less than $250 million a year—Senator Lees is saying that the world heritage listing of Kakadu is worth less than $250 million a year, that the world heritage listing of the rainforests is worth less than $250 million a year and that the world heritage listing of the Tasmanian forests is worth less than $250 million a year. She was not around at that time; she would not know. This package is a complete sell-out of the environment, as revealed by Senator Lees' own environmental adviser, Clive Hamilton, when he walked away from the negotiations because they were being completely dudded by the government.What we saw on Friday night was an absolute debacle. We have seen a quantum leap in unfairness to the Australian society. We have seen an agreement to implement a GST which not only fails to be good for the economy but will damage the economy and will reduce Australian living standards. Finally, there is the great boast that it is going to be good for the states. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me draw your attention to this. In today's Financial Review, it says:But government sources said there was no guarantee that states would ever drop the taxes.So we have a complete mess with the states. The states do not know what is going on. This has been a disaster from start to finish, and I call upon the government and the Democrats now to put aside this GST, which is going to destroy fairness in this society. Put it aside and move on. Let us have genuine tax reform. Let us repair the income tax base. Let us have fairness and decency in our society instead of this ridiculous, hopeless deal that they sought to negotiate in the middle of the night and to release before it ever got any media scrutiny. Now that it is getting the media scrutiny, it is unravelling, and I predict that it will completely unravel within the next three weeks. I call on the Democrats to change their position and vote against the GST.21:28:005594Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We are going to play a mind game here. We are going to ask ourselves how the comments of the member for Rankin fit within the context of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 , which I am advised amends the income tax law to allow deductions for gifts to certain funds and organisations and also to ensure that grants paid to the Katherine and District Business Re-establishment Trust Fund are exempt from income tax. That is a tough one for anyone listening to this debate.How about this? The bill also includes some changes to the capital gains tax provisions—technical amendments, due to the rewrite, and extensions to the provisions, which are of benefit to taxpayers. I do not want the member for Rankin to leave because I want to draw to his attention how irrelevant his comments were in the context of the debate. What about this one? The bill also includes an extension of the beneficiary rebate to participants in the Community Development Employment Project scheme, the CDEP scheme, and some minor amendments which allow the provision of information to the New South Wales Police Integrity Commission and the Queensland Crime Commission.Given the words of the member for Rankin and the previous words of the member for Melbourne, I can only hypothesise that the only two words that are of relevance to those two members are `integrity' and `crime'. I believe it is a crime that members of the Labor Party should come in here and compromise the integrity of the bill before the House by putting forward a stupid amendment that adds nothing to the debate on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 . However, I am going to indulge myself and seek to participate in this frivolous debate about the proposed changes to the new taxation system.As I said a little earlier, there needs to be a certain amount of policy integrity in government. It is important that there be consistency and integrity in the policies you espouse. A little earlier today I was having a look at the Labor Party's policy statement in relation to taxation for the last election. I was flicking through each page—the member for Corangamite would identify with this—looking for the provisions that include the abolition of debits tax. Do you think I could find it? No. The abolition of FID: any provision there? No. The abolition of stamp duty on the transfer of marketable securities. Hello? No, not there. What about significant income tax cuts so that 80 per cent of Australians will pay only 30 cents in the dollar in tax? Was that in the Labor Party policy? No. What about significant changes to Commonwealth-state relations so that the states are actually provided with a growth tax and growth revenue as the expenditure items such as hospitals, schools, roads and police are continuing to place greater and greater demands on their budget? Where were those options in the Labor Party's tax policy at the 1998 election? Nowhere.The net result of all this is that the Labor Party come into this House and then go into the Senate and say, `No. We are opposing tax reform. We are opposing the GST package. We are opposing income tax cuts for middle Australia. We are opposing a restructuring of family allowances. We are opposing the abolition of nine taxes.' Then, as soon as we strike a deal with the Democrats, the Labor Party have the gall to come into the House today and to pretend to be outraged at a compromise being reached between the Democrats and the Australian government. So outraged are they that they got all the members of Young Labor to ring up the Democrat offices and say how outraged they were, as Democrat members and Democrat voters, at the deal between the government and the Democrats.I can only speculate that in the policy vacuum represented by the buzz that went through the House during the course of question time today there are some minds that might care to consider the implications of the current stand of the Labor Party on tax reform. Somewhere across the benches of the opposition there must be one person who is thinking seriously about the implications of the Labor Party's stand in relation to the tax reform proposals of the government. In the first place, the Labor Party has raised the high jump bar in relation to the process of parliamentary democracy in Australia such that any time in the future the Labor Party takes to the people of Australia a clearly detailed policy and receives a mandate in the lower house, the upper house can seek to overturn that mandate. As far as I can remember, that has not occurred before in recent memory in Australia. Certainly the 1975 budget of the Whitlam government was not detailed, mandated policy. 83VEMERSONMr Emerson—Come on!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It was not. It was interesting that we went to the Australian people in October 1998 seeking their support for the details of our policy proposal and the Labor Party have sought to overturn it in the house of review. At every moment they have sought to obstruct it.What is worse is that during the course of the days and days of debate on the tax system legislation that I put into the House with the Treasurer last year the Labor Party did not have the courage to call a division on the income tax bills that provide cuts or on any of the other bills that abolish taxes but they called divisions on the bills they did not like. That is just abject hypocrisy. So, when you hear the drivel that comes out of the mouths of the member for Rankin and the member for Melbourne during the course of this debate, you can only think that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy that is not only going through the old guard of the Labor Party but is also going through the young guard, such as the member for Rankin and the member for Melbourne. That infectious disease known as policy incompetence which pervades the old guard of the Labor Party is starting to infect the minds of the young guard, the new players. That is tragic when it comes to the development of detailed policy in the national interest, particularly in relation to taxation reform.How it rankles the opposition that the government has been able to negotiate a sensible outcome with the Democrats. It sticks in their craw because, for the first time, they have been sidelined in a major policy debate in Australia. I do not say that lightly—it is a significant issue. Her Majesty's opposition has been sidelined by a minority party in the house of review over the most significant policy change that has occurred in Australia in the last 30 years. The Labor Party has dealt itself out of the intellectual game in this parliament. It has dealt itself out of the game relating to the most important issue facing Australia over the next few years—the ongoing structural reform of the economy in light of the major second industrial revolution in Australia in the last 130 years. I am alluding to the Internet and its impact on Australia and on the way Australians behave, live, spend and save.On that basis, I am astounded that the opposition has chosen today to start running a debate about hot chicken pieces versus cold chicken pieces bought at Red Rooster or Woolworths. That has been the most serious, substantial contribution of the Labor Party to the debate about structural tax reform in Australia. It is no surprise that today, for the first time, the spectators in the debate have invaded the pitch. Steve Waugh would have been appalled. He would have been swinging his bat—an SS bat, or I think he has got a Gunn and Moore—trying to ward off the Labor Party members who chose to invade the pitch today. He would have been appalled at the way they have behaved. They have been spectators in this debate and all of a sudden they are putting up their hands and saying, `What about me? What about me? I want to be involved in the debate.' Of course, they go for the lowest common denominator in the debate because that is the height, the peak, the Everest of their intellectual capabilities—the lowest common denominator, cheap politics.The government is not going to accept this ridiculous amendment to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 . We do not buy into words such as the `ordinary people'. Part (4) of the suggested amendment talks about `ordinary people'. That sums up the attitude of the Australian Labor Party at the moment—describing hard-working Australians as ordinary people. Each Australian is exceptional, and yet the Labor Party still uses derisive class terms to describe the bulk of Australians.We can only speculate about where the members of the Labor Party will go. They are always going to be dancing around the edges of the debate. They are like the small dog bouncing around the large dog that is walking down the back alley. The little dog is bouncing around saying, `What about me? What about me? I want to be your friend. I want to be part of the pack.' The problem for the Labor Party is that it is not part of the pack now. It is right out of the game. It has no substantive contribution to make. Pot shots are coming from all angles at the Labor Party. They are coming from within its own ranks from intellectuals like the member for Werriwa and from state premiers like Bob Carr and Peter Beattie. Shots are coming from all sides.There are only three deadset opponents of tax reform in the Australian parliament—the Australian Labor Party, the Greens and Senator Harradine. The most significant thing is that the Labor Party does not understand the ramifications of its opposition. It does not understand how significant its opposition has been in affecting the framework for future decisions in this parliament about issues that have received the mandated support of the Australian people. As long as I am a member of this House I will not forget the decision taken by the Labor Party to oppose a mandated policy in the house of review. I will not forget it, I do not think the Australian people will forget it, and we will certainly make sure that the Labor Party does not forget it.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5597Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:43:005597Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I want to take this opportunity to respond to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Such was his interest in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 that he walked into the House part of the way through the debate, obviously without even taking the time to look at the amendment. Therefore, he was perplexed as to how members on this side of the House could be speaking about the GST. For his edification, I will read the amendment again. It says:"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:(1) the government has not achieved real tax reform in Australia, it has merely agreed to introduce an unfair GST;(2) the new Howard/Lees GST will involve a massive tax mix switch which will hurt ordinary families—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are dealing with the bill in detail. As I understand it, the amendment has already been discussed. Therefore, I ask you to draw the member's attention to the details of the proposal before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—If it has been discussed in detail, then the debate that is taking place at the present time is superfluous.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am responding to the comments of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who was wondering why I was dealing with the issue of the GST. I will not take up the time of the House very much longer other than to ask this rhetorical question: what is the rate of tax on cooked chicken under the so-called ramshackle, 1930s, Botswana style wholesale sales tax system and what is the rate of tax on cooked chicken under the so-called streamlined, efficient new tax for a new century system? The answer is that the rate of tax on cooked chicken under the wholesale sales tax system is zero; the rate of tax under the new GST, as proposed by the Democrats and the government, is indeterminate. It depends on whether it is cut up; whether it is takeaway; whether it is taken home; whether it is cut up before it is cooked or cut up after it is cooked; whether it is not cut up at all; and whether it is hot, cold, tepid, medium or warm. This is the debacle that we have on our hands.The other point that I want to make relates to a report in the Canberra Times today saying that the Democrats think it is a good idea that the GST be shown on the dockets so that people will know whether they are paying GST or not. We will be putting that amendment to the Senate and we trust that the government and the Democrats will—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, further to my point of order, I ask you to draw the member back to the details of the bill, which are about the Katherine redevelopment program and the CDEP program. There are no references at all to the GST debate which is occurring in the Senate at the moment. We are meant to be dealing with the bill in detail. I ask you to bring the member for Rankin back to the bill before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I take it that it is the wish of the House to take the bill as a whole. It does not seem that the member for Rankin is dealing with the bill as it stands before the parliament.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, I had completed my remarks and I will close on that note. I would ask the minister for financial services, when he does come into this chamber querying why we are talking on a particular piece of legislation, to actually look at the amendments.Amendment negatived.Bill agreed to.5597Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5598r8075598Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.21:48:005598McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—In the context of the budget and the tax reform debate, I would like to make some remarks on this appropriation bill. I note the vigorous defence by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation of the government's tax reform proposals within the context of the taxation laws amendment bill. I would remind the House that Mr Keating, the former Prime Minister and former Treasurer, vigorously advocated the GST in 1985. He proposed that the Australian people get onto the tax cart as soon as possible. As members of this place would be aware, that was overturned by the then Prime Minister Mr Hawke and the trade union movement.Prime Minister Howard has been courageous in putting forward a tax reform at the election. The Democrats have now acknowledged that taxation needs reform and have accepted the government's broad proposition. However, Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, is lacking in any ideas on changes to the taxation system and the economy generally. The Labor Party's position is to be totally opposed to any tax reform and to have no positive proposals.If we look at the budget as it was presented by Treasurer Peter Costello, we see that the Australian economy has experienced growth over the last two years in excess of four per cent. That is a remarkably good figure given the last 10 years in Australia, with a forecast of three per cent growth in the financial year 1999-2000 and a forecast improvement in the June quarter of 2000. This compares very favourably with world growth forecast to be 1.75 per cent in 1999 and 2½ per cent in the year 2000. These figures seem unremarkable, but the budget is always based on the ability of the Australian economy to grow.Within that context, inflation is very low, with a 1.25 per cent average for 1998-99 and an estimated two per cent for 1999-2000. We have a growing economy, yet we have contained inflation. That is a remarkable position, as members opposite would fully understand. We have the lowest interest rates for 30 years, which is again a remarkable achievement given the situation with the Australian economy over the last 10 to 15 years. Added to that we have a surplus of $5.4 billion.However, I do concede that there is a dark cloud on the horizon in relation to the current account deficit. In 1996 it was $10 billion, moving in the current year to $32 billion, or 5.5 per cent of GDP. It is estimated to be in the range of 5.75 per cent of GDP in the year 1999-2000. Some forecasts are suggesting that it will come back after the year 2000, but I think it is of concern to all members of this House that Australia is not trading profitably internationally.The budget has brought about a reduction in the Labor Party's $96 billion debt. Most people around Australia did not fully understand the way in which the Keating government and the former Prime Minister in particular racked up this debt. There was a $10 billion black hole, which the then finance minister Mr Beazley claimed during the election campaign was not there. We need to see why we are pursuing these budgetary goals and why we are trying to reduce debt, which will reduce the amount of money we will have to pay interest on.This government will not borrow any money for the fourth consecutive year, a remarkable achievement if you look at the 13 years of the Labor government which continued to borrow money year in year out. We can see the parallel in Victoria. The honourable member for Melbourne would fully understand these figures. In 1982 the Victorian government changed hands and the Labor Party won office after a long while in opposition. At that stage there was $12 billion worth of debt. When the Kirner Labor government was defeated in 1992, some 10 years later, it had incurred $32 billion worth of debt. By the time the Kennett government brings down its budget for this year and next year, it will have reduced the debt to $6 billion. So we see the situation in the Victorian context where a Labor government could not pay its bills on a day-to-day basis. In fact, when the Kirner government left office, the interest bill was about $2 billion per year. It is now about $600 million. That puts the whole argument of debt in a clear context.As the Treasurer said here today in the House, the Standard and Poor's upgrade of Australian foreign currency debt from AA to AA plus has been a major step in the right direction, reducing the interest bill of the Australian budget arrangements. This has meant that the surplus and assets sales will reduce the debt and, hopefully, by the year 2001, the debt will be reduced by $50 to $60 billion. However, I do concede we will be in the hands of the senators as to whether that position will come about.Freedom and economic freedom are fundamental values as members opposite would fully understand. Members opposite are always seeking a free society. However, a free society is very dependent upon economic freedom. Freedom generally and economic freedom in particular develop society, creativity, progress and the individual human personality. In the budget context we need to ask the questions: does the budget provide for the common good of all Australians? Does the budget protect the economic liberty which leads to new ideas, innovation, growth, progress and wealth?Fundamental questions were recently raised in Australia by Lord Robert Skidelsky, the opposition Treasury spokesman in the British House of Lords, Professor of Political Economy at Warwick University in the UK and an expert on John Maynard Keynes and his theories surrounding government induced demand. My own views and those of members opposite do not always agree with those of John Maynard Keynes. However, Lord Skidelsky raised some very interesting views and I would like to expand on them in this speech on the budget.Lord Skidelsky's underlying theme is that economic freedom is fragile and needs to be protected. I strongly agree with that thesis. The issue is: how can we protect economic freedom? Firstly, he makes the point that we must guard against war. That is interesting in the current context in Europe. He maintains that war is bad for freedom, war is only good for the state and war leads to the state control of lives which lasts and lasts. Take, for example, here in Australia the centralisation of social security power to Canberra. After World War II there were controls over wages and prices and wartime rationing. In 1942 income tax in Australia began to be collected by the federal government. The states could still be collecting it but, having decided as a wartime measure during the war years that taxes would be collected by the Commonwealth, the practicality was that that position should continue and it remains in place today.In the current context we observe the Balkans war and the NATO efforts to protect the Kosovar ethnic Albanians. With the Balkans on Europe's doorstep we must guard against destroying economic freedom throughout Europe. The collectivist approach arising from war should not remain the norm in peacetime.The second way to protect freedom is to guard against instability. Financial systems in the world and in Australia need certainty. The global financial systems need international rules in an era of globalisation. The chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, plays a vital role in the world economy. Commentators here in Australia and our own parliament are always very keen to learn what Chairman Greenspan says on a week-by-week and a month-by-month basis. We have the position where the Wall Street Stock Exchange Dow Jones is sitting near the 11,000 mark, having made huge gains over the last 10 years. The question facing the world economy is: what will be the future? Will there be a bear market, will there be a bull market, and what will happen if that particular stock market falls in value?The great English novelist William Hazlitt wrote that there is nothing so low as the stock-speculating public `for it is afraid of itself'. Similarly, currency markets can become afraid of themselves and then collapse. Lord Skidelsky acknowledged the risk of a floating exchange rate. A floating exchange rate equals overseas net asset demand covering temporary shortfalls in the current account. Currency rates are unpredictable, as people will observe. Farmers and exporters in Australia are very concerned that the currency rates do not move too much one way or the other.Speculators, as members of this House would be aware, have worsened the problem. Unfortunately, today's currency value is often the best predictor of tomorrow's currency value. For instance, in Indonesia the rupiah displayed great volatility and was quite unpredictable in recent times, and that crisis brought great distress to the Indonesian currency and associated Asian economies.The US financial expansion increased the US dollar value from 1984 onwards and, following the German reunification, the deutschmark became overvalued against the US dollar. Reunification was difficult because of East German poverty and the stagnant communist economy—which was outdated and inefficient, having very low levels of productivity. The UK pound was heavily linked to the deutschmark and the US dollar, so the UK currency came under pressure because of outside factors, something we should guard against here in Australia.The Asian currency crisis, so close to us here in Australia, has been blamed on the Asians pegging themselves against the US dollar, which was overvalued compared with the Japanese yen. Most Asian trade was with Japan, so this led to a lack of competition with the East Asian economies. External imbalances grew which led to the Asian crisis which this parliament is very aware of. Before World War I the gold standard worked reasonably well, but we have moved on from that time. The problem is: where do you peg your currency and which particular currency is it—the Japanese currency, the euro or the US dollar?Even free market economist Adam Smith suggested we needed banking regulation. Prudential controls are essential. We saw the situation in Japan where the Japanese banks lacked prudential controls and were lending money for which they did not have the asset backing. Leading figures other than Lord Skidelsky have acknowledged the need for vigilance regarding currency flows. Joseph Yam, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, writing in the CEDA Bulletin of March 1999, identifies one of the key contributors to the Asian meltdown as being:Extreme volatility in markets created by the rapid flows of highly leveraged funds around the world.Mr Yam goes on to conclude:Free market principles cannot mean markets that are left defenceless against manipulation.Plainly, something needs to be done to protect economies against predatory capital flows and hedge fund attacks. We must be on guard, as Hong Kong was, in keeping the currency stable. Hedging tactics include buying up big on a currency, then dumping it en masse to precipitate a stock market decline and a resultant gain on earlier futures contracts. Hong Kong's response was for authorities to buy into the share market to prevent it dipping. This prevented the futures gain and stabilised their currency.How can we protect our economic freedom here in Australia? We must guard the moral basis of society. Lord Skidelsky says that governments must gear policies that do not discourage marriage. Marriage should be `privileged' over other lifestyles in our tax and legal arrangements. Again, I commend the Howard government for their support of family values and their tax thrust support for the family unit here in Australia. We should improve incentives for philanthropy. Lord Skidelsky suggested that this was a good way for governments and nations to go. The Howard government in a recent policy statement has acted to make it more attractive for business to contribute to the public good.Welfare entitlements must be linked to accompanying welfare duties. We see that the Howard government has introduced the concept of mutual obligation. British Prime Minister Tony Blair says that the ideological battleground between Left and Right is over. Lord Skidelsky points out that there is no consensus about the welfare state any more. There is a realisation that an egalitarian, redistributive, equalising model can produce welfare dependency. Such attitudes can have a very bad effect on people's characters and on nation building, people preferring to receive a benefit rather than work or being resigned to such a life of receiving benefits from the public purse. Entire generations within a family have been in this situation in certain cases.What is this budget doing for economic freedom and social progress? It is a `good housekeeping' budget. An article by Cait Murphy in Fortune magazine on 26 April 1999 was both amusing and penetrating in its comments. It extolled the virtues of the `mother knows best' approach. The concept of treating the economy in the same way as a homemaker treats household finances was strongly criticised by the critics of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. It is easy to scorn these concepts, as some members opposite in their recent speeches have done, but they are timeless.They are simple concepts such as `saving for a rainy day', the Howard government planning that there be no government debt by the year 2002-2003; `don't borrow too much', unlike Paul Keating's $96 billion government debt, escalated during their time in office; `honesty is the best policy', the Howard government having introduced a charter of budget honesty to prevent the $10 billion black hole re-emerging as a political bargaining point by members of a particular government; `plan for the future', the Howard-Costello government having made sure that there are fundamentally sound plans for the next 10 years and for the next millennium; `treat people well', the budget providing essential social services for family carers to be expanded, for example; and `do not lend money to bad risks', again, a very simple concept. Compare this with what happened in Western Australia Labor's WA Inc. and, of course, the big banks' bad lending policies in the 1980s.Put simply, the Howard government is following these precepts. The government is reducing borrowing and Labor's debt. There is a $5.4 billion surplus. We are planning for the future. We have reduced the tariff walls. We are making industries like the car industry more efficient and ensuring that such industries can export quality around the world.We have incorporated in the budget an accurate and honest accrual accounting sys tem. Again, it seems a fairly boring type of argument, but at long last we have an honest way of accounting for the nation's finances where revenue and expenditure will be recognised when it is earned rather than when it is received or when it is spent. It replaces a cash based system, and it now brings the government into line with normal business practice. It makes sure that governments do not boost their figures artificially when citing assets like the potential sale of Qantas or the Commonwealth Bank, which the Labor Party did when they were in charge of the nation's finances.Letting people save by reducing their level of income tax helps to bring about important savings improvements in the national financial cake. Flexibility in the work force is incorporated in the government's outlook, so much so that Patrick Stevedores reported an increase in productivity at the East Swanston Dock by 20 per cent, despite cutting its work force by 50 per cent.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—They haven't dropped their prices.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—They had to make up for the lurks and perks that had been going on over the last 40 years. There is Minister Kemp's national literacy standards program, which ensures that people can read and write in Australia. The responsibility for the elimination of long-term debt has been a goal that helps to protect us against the global crises that are just around the corner. Obviously, people in this parliament and people in Australia are not very concerned about the issues of public debt or how much the government is paying.Freedom and economic freedom are critical if we are going to survive as a nation. Skidelsky has identified the threats to economic freedom. The government has a duty to manage the economy to protect against unforseen events—for example, the Wall Street share market correction, the Asian crises, the European slump and the Russian crisis, whichever way it way it might go. We had former Soviet President Gorbachev, a world leader, in this very building today indicating the crisis that is possible because of the centralisation of power and the economic volatility in Russia. He made those points in his comments to members just this day.Debt reduction is fundamental. A free society improves its chances of economic freedom if it has a low level of debt. This government is bringing in a new tax system for the 21st century, protecting the revenue base for future responsible economic management in health, education, aged care, policies that benefit young people and incentives for wage and salary earners. This budget delivers the election commitments made last October. It protects families with low home interest rates, it improves services to rural and regional Australia and it builds on Australia's educational strengths. It keeps the budget in surplus, and it will bring a better economy for future generations of Australians.22:07:005602Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—This is a budget of deceit; a budget of deceit both in form and in substance. It is a complacent budget and, most important of all, it is an unfair budget. I will deal first with the issues of form—the question of how the budget is formatted and the information that is provided to the general public about the government's spending and revenue plans. It is well known—certainly in the parliament and to some extent in the general community—that this was the budget in which the accrual accounting method was introduced. This is a plan that was initiated by Labor back in 1992. It is something that has occurred in almost all of the states and it is something that we support now. However, we do not support the way that the government has introduced accrual accounting. In particular, there are a number of specific flaws in the budget papers that I intend to highlight this evening.The first and most obvious flaw, which has been described by well-known columnist Ken Davidson as taking public accounting back to the 1950s, is the abolition of forward estimates. Forward estimates, for those who may be listening and who are not well versed in budget practice, are statements which outline the government's anticipated expenditure for the years after the year being budgeted for. The budget this year deals with the financial year 1999-2000, and the forward estimates would give the budget spending plans for the various categories of expenditure for the ensuing three years as well. That has been the standard practice for many years. It provides a very important source of information to members of parliament, the media, the general community and business, particularly those businesses engaged in supplying goods and services to government and who rely on the information provided in the forward estimates as some sort of indication of the likely government expenditure in particular areas in future years.The effect of removing the forward estimates for all but the most broad aggregates in the government figures in the budget means that the government spending plans can no longer be scrutinised. The opposition and the media can no longer see where the cuts are going to be made. I draw to your attention, for example, the cuts that were made in the 1996 budget where it was actually possible to see the overall cuts being made over a period of four years in areas such as health, education, research and development and the like. It is particularly significant for businesses that may be providing goods and services to government—for example, in the case of the national highway. Any business that is engaged in providing road building or road maintenance services to government will have an interest in knowing what the likely funding will be in the next few years as a basis for anticipating its investment and its staffing needs. It is a similar situation with schools and a variety of other areas of government expenditure. Providers of goods and services to those organisations need to know what the government expects to be spending in those areas in forthcoming years.It is important to emphasise that these changes—the withdrawal of this critical information from public scrutiny—is not because of the introduction of accrual accounting. The Transport portfolio budget statements in the 1998-1999 financial year—in other words, last year's budget—were presented in accrual format. The covering letter from the then minister, the member for Lyne, Mr Vaile, who is now the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said:These statements have been prepared for the first time on an outcomes and outputs basis using an accruals presentation of financial information.The same portfolio budget statements contained forward estimates. So last year it was fine to have forward estimates in accrual accounting format in the budget of that particular portfolio which was presented in an accrual format.This year on budget night accrual accounting based forward estimates were circulated for the Aged Care portfolio. In Budget Paper No. 2, the `new measures' document, forward estimates were provided. Finally, today in Senate estimates hearings a statement was tabled by the Secretary to the Department of Health and Aged Care which contains forward estimates for the department on an accrual basis. I seek leave to table that document.Leave granted.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I thank the House. On that basis, we can see that there is absolutely no justification in the introduction of accrual accounting for the reduction in information that is involved.On 26 April, 15 days before the budget, I received a visit as part of an ongoing consultation process with the Department of Finance and Administration. I was presented with mock documents for the forthcoming budget—without any figures in them of course—to give the opposition a basis for understanding the new system. As had been promised by the department prior to those discussions, these documents contained forward estimates provisions. So the opposition went into the budget process, having been told, `You will still get forward estimates as has been the case previously,' yet within hours of the budget being delivered the cracks started appearing. We started to get little suggestions: `Maybe it won't quite be like it was before.' When we got the portfolio budget statements—which we were told would now contain the forward estimates—on the night we found that, with that one exception that I have mentioned, which was external to the PBSs anyway in the case of Aged Care, we did not have any forward estimates other than for the new measures and for the most broad aggregates of government expenditure.What happened? It is almost certain that the Treasurer overruled the Minister for Finance and Administration, that he intervened and said, `This is a great opportunity to reduce the amount of information we provide in the budget. This is a great opportunity to hide the prospective cuts in expenditure that we expect to impose.' So much for the Charter of Budget Honesty. So much for transparency. So much for accountability to the parliament. So much for accountability to the Australian public.But it does not end there. On the sale of Telstra we have the amusing scenario where in the balance sheet that rightly is now included in the budget—the statement of assets and liabilities—the existing holding in Telstra is valued at $20 billion at book value, courtesy of a peculiar accounting convention. But the market value of Telstra and the sale proceeds that it is expected to produce if sold in full are factored into the reduction in government debt which is specified in the budget. In other words, on one side the value of the assets is grossly undervalued but, when it comes to portraying the prospective reduction in debt if it is fully sold, it is valued at full market value.It is also interesting to note that there is no reference whatsoever in the budget papers to the independent inquiry that is provided for in the legislation the government has put to this parliament with respect to the prospective sale of the final 51 per cent of Telstra. The budget does mention the risk that this legislation may not get through the Senate, but it does not mention that the legislation itself is contingent upon an independent inquiry being conducted before the final 51 per cent can be sold. This amounts to an outrageous betrayal of the National Party in particular and the Leader of the National Party, the Minister for Trade, who during the course of the election campaign actually campaigned on the basis that Telstra will not be sold and the majority will remain in public ownership, unless an independent inquiry finds that it will not be any problem for the bush. In the budget, this was all ignored. This was all forgotten. The budget was presented on the basis that Telstra is going to be sold, 100 per cent, and that is the end of the story.The budget is also based on the assumption that the tax package is going to get through. That assumption lasted three days before Senator Harradine made his announcement. We are now seeing a further $1.4 billion taken off the surplus in addition to the $5 billion to $7 billion which was already being taken out of the surplus to finance the big tax cuts for high income earners and to ensure that the GST gets through. Remember where those tax cuts have come from. Remember where that surplus has come from. It has come from cuts in higher education, cuts in our health system, cuts to aged care funding, cuts to child care, cuts to research and development, cuts to labour market programs and giving unemployed people a chance to get back into the work force. That is where that surplus has come from, and it is being given away.It is also disturbing to see that, in the process of putting together the new framework, the budget fails to deal with questions of de facto Commonwealth assets like the national highway, which nominally remain as assets of state governments but where nonetheless, because the ownership risk lies with the Commonwealth, there is clearly a de facto ownership involvement by the Commonwealth. There is no mention of these assets. There is no reference to the Auditor-General's finding that a substantial degree of improvement could occur in the performance and monitoring of specific purpose payments to the states. In fact the Auditor-General found in a recent report that millions of dollars could be saved by better management of the passage of money from the Commonwealth to the states in these specific purpose payments. They account for $17 billion or 11 per cent of the budget. The Auditor-General said:The challenge for agencies in the period 1999-2000 and beyond is to demonstrate a disciplined commitment to improving departmental performance measurement, of which SPP is a part, commensurate with Parliament's expectations, in a new accrual accounting based environment.The national highway was one of the Auditor-General's main concerns.Let us have a look at the performance standards that have been adopted and contrast this government's pathetic performance in determining accountability and ensuring that proper performance does apply with respect to the expenditure of public money. Let us look at the standards of performance that have been adopted under this new accounting system and contrast those with the statements of the Auditor-General. I quote from the performance standards in the transport and regional services section of the budget:Quality—to minister's satisfaction.Cash flow—managed to ensure best value for Commonwealth funds.Timeliness—advice to minister to allow time for consideration. Process payments for approved projects within seven working days or receipt of a claim where claims are received by the 13th of each month.Nothing about benefits to road users; nothing about better environmental outcomes; nothing about contract arrangements; nothing about better maintenance; nothing about achieving better project outcomes. All we have got is performance indicators about bureaucracy. All we have got is a statement that the quality must be to the minister's satisfaction, something right out of Yes, Minister —in effect, no change from the old cash accounting arrangements.As I indicated before, the opposition supports accrual accounting but this budget gives us the abolition of the forward estimates, a substantial reduction in the volume of very important information that previously was provided to the community, a balance sheet that has been perverted by ideological bias to grossly undervalue Telstra as an asset and value it at its true level on the basis of its being sold, meaningless performance indicators and a failure to address the very serious concerns raised by the Auditor-General with respect to the management of payments to the states. Under the guise of the introduction of accrual accounting, this government has reduced the information in the budget, reduced the level of transparency in the public accounting arena and reduced public accountability generally.This leaves the question of the substance of the budget, which is equally deficient. This is essentially a complacent budget and, because of its reliance on the tax package, an inherently unfair budget. It assumes no improvement in employment. It assumes unemployment stuck at 7½ per cent. It forecasts lower business investment, lower household savings and lower government investment in research and development. In spite of the fact that the government has increased the funding to the National Health and Medical Research Council, since this government took office the amount of public funded research and development in overall terms has dropped from 0.78 per cent to 0.61 per cent of GDP.In other words there has been a substantial reduction in overall government funding to the core driver of innovation, creativity and economic growth that is widely recognised now as a critical component of economic prosperity in countries such as ours. Instead we have consumption driven growth. The foundations for sustainable growth which could be being built through improvements in quality in education, increasing access to higher education and greater investment in research and development and in scientific and technological research are not being laid. Since 1996 this government has laid waste to the things that provide the foundations for sustainable growth and now the fiscal consolidation that has been built on cuts to these investments is being thrown away in generous tax cuts to high income earners and in sweetening a tax package that imposes a 10 per cent tax on virtually everything we buy.We are told by the Treasurer that the economy has been fireproofed. Unfortunately, this is something of a mirage. We are told, for example, that our export profile has diversified and—isn't it wonderful—just as Asia is going down the tube, we have managed to increase our exports to Europe to balance it. This is more superficial than real because, for example, a substantial proportion of this trend is explained by the fact that large quantities of gold from Korea were imported into Western Australia to be reprocessed and then sold mostly in Amsterdam but overwhelmingly in Europe. That gets recorded as an import and then as an export. That is a highly unusual circumstance. It is unlikely to be repeated but that shows up in the accounts as a diversification of our exports. We cannot rely on these things as the basis for future assumptions.As the honourable member for Corangamite mentioned, the current account deficit is now at record levels. We are told by some conservative economic commentators that this does not matter any more because the budget is in surplus. It used to matter when the budget was in deficit and we were told that putting the budget in surplus would cure the current account deficit—the twin deficits theory. We now have a surplus, as we had in the late 1980s in the wake of the high current account deficits then. It seems yet again that the infamous twin deficits theory has failed us.As I pointed out, we have seen a substantial cut in investment in education, in research and development and in all of the foundations which provide long-term growth and sustainability; once again, not a fireproofed economy but a fragile economy. We face the prospect of interest rate increases in the United States, the threat of collapse in overvalued securities on Wall Street, ongoing stagnation and reform problems in Japan and a range of other factors which are very likely to negatively influence Australia's economic prospects in the next few years, and we are told that this is a fireproofed economy.This is a typical Liberal government budget. There is no investing for the future, there are big tax cuts for the rich and there are no constructive tax changes, for example in the business tax area, that would generate employment and increase investment. There is a new tax on everything that is regressive, that hits ordinary low income earning Australians worst and, to top it all off, there is a substantial reduction in the amount of information that is provided in the budget to both the parliament and the Australian community.And now to superimpose on this complacent, this unfair, this regressive budget, we have the modified tax package where an awful lot of simplicity and efficiency, such as there was, has been traded away for the appearance of a marginal increase in fairness. We now have the new national sport, just in time for the Olympics, to find out which food is GST free and which food is not. Which part of the chook is in and which part is out? If the sausage has breadcrumbs on it, does it have a GST? Stayed tuned for the next exciting episode.We are seeing unintended consequences of a well-meaning but ultimately misguided attempt to modify the appalling environmental consequences of the reduction in tax on fuel, particularly diesel. In fact, it will create a situation where the costs for buses, for public transport in urban Australia, will go up nine per cent rather than five per cent, as they would have under the previous tax package, therefore exacerbating the already strong drift away from public transport.We are seeing the government renege on its promises to the states about funding the abolition of various state taxes and, of course, we are seeing the surplus dipped into by $1.4 billion, on top of the $5 to $7 billion that has already been taken out of the surplus to finance the tax cuts. And still, in spite of the protestations of the Democrats, we have a 10 per cent tax on virtually everything and income tax cuts which give the vast bulk of the proceeds to high income earners. The Democrats claim to have saved the tax package, to have saved the Howard government from itself, when in fact what they have done is renege on their principles and their promises.They have betrayed their supporters, people such as the Australian Society of Authors who believed the Democrats' commitment that they would not vote for a new tax on books. They betrayed their party membership who believed their commitment that they would not vote for a GST on food, when that is precisely what they are now going to vote for. They have betrayed the Australian electorate, particularly those voters who believed that the Democrats would stick to what they said was non-negotiable in their pre-election statements about the tax package. The Democrats had six points of non-negotiability, they have run away from virtually all of them. They have delivered a little proportion of a couple of them and none of the rest. The end result is a tax package that is regressive and unfair to go with a budget that is complacent and unfair. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Entsch) adjourned.Adjournment5606Motion (by Mr Entsch) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.560622:28:005606Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to speak tonight in this adjournment debate and I want to begin by asking this question: who made the following statement, `The government wants a totalitarian regime'? I will give you a clue. It was in the Bulletin in an article called `The world according to Meg Lees', written by John Lyons, in the very recent edition of 1 June 1999 which came out this week. Today we saw the real world according to Senator Lees, not the world of fairness and equity, not the world of tolerance, not the world of democratic rights. Why should we be surprised? We should not be surprised because, as that great Labor Premier Neville Wran said, `If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.' The Democrats have lain down with the dog and tonight we have seen the fleas, but no number of dog collars can get these fleas off because ordinary Australians will not only shut them out of their houses, their residences; they will also shut them out of their houses of parliament.Today we saw the National Union of Students organise peaceful demonstrations against the GST in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide. In Adelaide, the demonstration was at the office of Senator Lees. Not surprisingly, they were not home. The Democrats were missing. No-one was there. In Melbourne, Senator Allison was there, and the students occupied—peacefully—the office of Senator Allison for about an hour and a half, and she came out and had a discussion with them. In Sydney, we saw a very different story. We have seen on television tonight quite horrific scenes which occurred at the Democrats' New South Wales state office in Crows Nest, Sydney. We have seen scenes of 29 students arrested for peacefully demonstrating in the democratic country of Australia. Once the students went into those offices today, they were given a 50-second warning: they could either walk peacefully or they could be sprayed with capsicum. What those students chose to do was, of course, to walk peacefully. We saw it tonight: no resisting arrest, no violence—nothing except peaceful students chanting, `Tax the greedy, not the needy. No GST'- something that will echo around Australia in the coming months. It was a peaceful demonstration and yet these students have been charged with trespass and they have to appear before the court on 29 June this year.I think that the Democrats' rhetoric about being a political party who care about democracy and who care about the right to peaceful demonstration is in tatters tonight, just as their credibility as being a party which is committed to their own democratic processes is in tatters. It is no wonder that it occurred in New South Wales, because today we saw reports that the party's New South Wales council has condemned the tax package deal, one day after this sleazy deal was done. On Saturday it said, `It does not reflect the views of this council.' The New South Wales resolution was moved not by a rank and file member, not by some Johnny-come-lately, but by the state secretary, Mr Manny Poularas, who predicted that Senator Lees would be `done like a dinner' by the Prime Minister. She would want to be careful, because whether things are cooked or not is very relevant in terms of the GST. But the fact is that the state secretary of the Democrats' New South Wales branch—the biggest branch—has said, `The Democrats won't do as well out of this deal as they think.'I raise a question—just a question—to Senator Stott Despoja, the darling of the student movement before today. What is her stance on this issue? What is her stance when students are marched out of a peaceful demonstration, in handcuffs, charged with trespass? I was an ALP assistant secretary for seven years, and we had demonstrations in the ALP office constantly because we respected people's democratic rights to participate and to protest. (Time expired).560722:33:005607Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to draw the attention of the House to a matter of enormous importance to not only the people of Redcliffe but all Queenslanders. As many members here would no doubt be aware, tonight's edition of A Current Affair ran a story about the backflow problems in some of Queensland's public buildings. Some of these buildings are hospitals and primary schools. There are, as the story on A Current Affair pointed out, serious concerns over the safety of the water supply in over 1,000 of these buildings. This is particularly the case at two hospitals—the Gympie and Redcliffe hospitals, the latter being in my electorate.The backflow problem basically occurs when there is a reverse in the flow of contaminated water back into the main water supply. A report commissioned by the state government in August last year found that this problem exists in buildings such as the Redcliffe Hospital, and it has reached the point where lives are at risk. The report concluded that fluids such as formaldehyde, disinfectants, chemicals used in X-ray development and even bodily fluids could flow back into the water supply with deadly consequences. One would have thought that, with such advice, the minister responsible for this, Mr Schwarten, would have hastened any attempts to fix the problem. One would have even thought that the Labor member whose constituents are at risk would have ensured that this was the case. But this has not happened. Instead, Mr Schwarten has referred the matter to a committee and cancelled the original firm's contract. In doing so, he has effectively doubled the amount of time it will take to fix the problem. And not a word has been said by the state member for Redcliffe.We now have on the Redcliffe peninsula a hospital that has a potentially deadly water supply, thanks to the administrative incompetence of the state Labor government and the inaction of the member for Redcliffe. What concerns me, though, is not only the immediate risk to the people on the peninsula but the risk to all Queenslanders. This is just another example of Labor's mismanagement at a state level.Over the past few months, there have been a number of glaringly stupid and ideologically blinkered decisions taken by the Beattie government which have jeopardised the quality of life of many peninsula residents. Take, for example, the rather bizarre situation that occurred very recently of undermanning the Redcliffe police force on weekends. The state member for Redcliffe, Ray Hollis, made much hue and cry two to three weeks about his efforts in getting the state police minister, Tom Barton, to address the recent crime spree. There were, judging by comments in the local press, a number of options that would be looked at. One of the options that was not mentioned was the option of user-pays policing.The local Redcliffe business community recently banded together in an effort to address what is seen by many as Redcliffe's poor public image. In conjunction with the Redcliffe City Council, a number of businesses helped to fund a $125,000 advertising campaign to promote Redcliffe. Imagine the indignation felt by these people—the hardworking small business people of Redcliffe—when the news emerged that, if they wanted just one extra policeman to patrol the Redcliffe CBD on Friday and Saturday, they would have to pay for it. The state government would not pay for it. The small business community would have to foot the bill, at the rate of $50 an hour, just to get an off-duty policeman to patrol the CBD. One would have thought that the state taxes that businesses pay would entitle them to have their premises protected by a police presence. But apparently not. This, the Labor Party's ability to continually botch up the operation and the quality of services at Redcliffe hospital are just further examples of Mr Beattie's and Mr Hollis's disregard for the whole of the Redcliffe peninsula.560822:37:005608Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—Earlier this month I spent a couple of days in Macedonia. This country is one of very few successful multi-ethnic democracies in the Balkans region. Of course, it is a region that is presently attracting considerable focus because of the crisis focused on its immediate neighbour to the north, Kosovo. I visited the Macedonia-Kosovo border and witnessed thousands of Kosovo refugees at the border in the process of crossing. I also had the opportunity to see and visit thousands of additional refugees in the largest camp in Macedonia at a place called Stenkovec. I certainly heard the NATO planes overhead.In Australia, the plight of the refugees has quite naturally attracted the greatest deal of attention and, indeed, their plight is horrific. But the world very much needs to fully understand that the crisis is threatening the economic and social future of Macedonia and other countries in the region. It is not just the impact of a quarter of a million additional people in a country of only two million people—on a pro rata equivalent that would be 2.7 million refugees in Australia—but it is the massive social and economic costs of the crisis that are feeding into other aspects of Macedonia's life.Yugoslavia is a major trading partner of Macedonia and a huge percentage of Macedonia's trade with other countries passes through Yugoslavia. Even if the crisis were to cease tomorrow, the damage to the infrastructure of the region means that it will be a substantial amount of time before opportunities for economic activity return to any normalcy. Certainly, it is worth noting that a substantial part of Macedonia's agricultural produce used to go to Kosovo, but no longer. Foreign direct investment has largely dried up as a result of the crisis. According to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, GDP in Macedonia is now expected to contract by four per cent in this year compared to an estimated five per cent growth prior to the conflict.The current account balance is likely to deteriorate, compared to last year, by $US220 million rather than the $US40 million improvement that had been expected before the crisis. The government budget is now facing massive pressures from declining revenues and additional expenditures associated with the crisis. For example, costs of providing services to refugees, in addition to humanitarian aid projects, is estimated at some $US50 million this year as a direct cost to the Macedonian budget, and this against the background of a country which up until the crisis had the highest rate of unemployment in Europe. The terrible social consequences of higher unemployment will continue to impact.World Bank documents indicate that the financing gap for 1999 is likely to be around $US440 million. Earlier this month in Paris, Western governments met and promised about $250 million in grants and loans. Earlier, the US had pledged $44 million. This is quite inadequate in terms of the crucial demands that are being placed on the economy of that country and of its neighbours. They are countries that are absolutely crucial to regional stability and stability through the world. I think it is worth noting that the $250 million that has been pledged is only a very small percentage of the cost of the war itself. I understand the `cheques are still in the mail', as it were, and that, at this stage, in terms of direct support to the Macedonian budget sector, only $2 million has been received and that from Taiwan.Australia, quite rightly, is doing its bit on the refugee question but we need to vigorously press with the rest of the West, broadly defined, the need to recognise the disastrous implications of allowing Macedonia's economy and society to continue to decline. A development and reconstruction strategy akin, I would suggest, to the Marshall Plan after the Second World War is required for the Balkans region, including Macedonia. Western Europe, which was the beneficiary of that post Second World War reconstruction strategy, ought to be focusing a great deal more on the long-term development strategies required to seriously address the fundamental problems of the Balkans and not simply focus on the war.This is a part of the world that is a long way from Australia but I think many of us have substantial numbers of Macedonian constituents in our electorates and this is the area Australia ought to focus on. (Time expired)560922:42:005609Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to congratulate the government on measures it has taken to reduce the likelihood of residents being caught unprepared for natural disasters. These are particularly welcome following the hailstorm which occurred on 14 April this year in Sydney. Nearly 800 homes in my electorate of Cook were damaged in that storm, with the suburb of Lilli Pilli suffering the most damage. I doorknocked homes of many residents there shortly afterwards to see if there was anything I could do. In some streets in that area, like Swan and Koala roads, every house was damaged by hailstones, some the size of cricket balls. One couple had moved a few years ago to Lilli Pilli after bushfires had destroyed their home. Another resident finished mopping up the mess caused by their spare bedroom ceiling caving in when their kitchen ceiling also gave way. The message I got from local residents was that, overall, people were very happy with the work done by the state's emergency workers, and the various insurance companies, in terms of their quick response.Sutherland shire had crews working non-stop after the hailstorm. The 66 paid and volunteer workers were out in the rain trying to help people secure their homes from the elements. They were doing a terrific job, and I believe that we would all want to congratulate them for being out there for the community. It is a great shame that the media tried to paint a negative picture of the SES response. In my own electorate, early in the week following the storm, only four houses were yet to be attended out of a total of 1,379 calls for help that were logged, and three of those calls had been placed that day. To me, that is an excellent response rate.The government has delivered on its 1998 election commitment to continue support for the implementation of key recommendations of the 1996 review of the operation of the Bureau of Meteorology. The government has, amongst other things, provided an additional $4.6 million a year for three years in response to the review; established with the CSIRO a joint high performance computing and communications centre to provide Australia with world-class weather computing systems; and funded improvements to the Bureau of Meteorology's vital cyclone, flood, severe storms and fire public warning services.I also congratulate the Assistant Treasurer on his announcement that donations to the Natural Disaster (Sydney Hail Storm Assistance) Fund will be tax deductible. The federal government will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow deductions for donations to the fund for a period of two years, subject to the fund satisfying the usual public fund requirements. The severe hailstorm that caused immense damage to property has created an urgent need for assistance. The government considers the disaster serious enough to specifically list the fund by name in the Income Tax Assessment Act rather than the fund being approved under the general category of `a necessitous circumstances fund'. This approach will allow a speedier payment of moneys to those determined to be eligible for assistance. By specifically listing the fund, benefits can be provided to businesses and community groups, which would not be possible under normal disaster relief circumstances.A new Doppler radar system has been constructed at Kurnell in my electorate which will help the Bureau of Meteorology pinpoint oncoming southerly winds before they hit the city. This will give accurate information about their strength and structure so emergency crews can alert residents in time for them to take precautionary measures to avoid damage. It was unfortunate that, shortly after the storm hit Sydney, some people chose to point the finger at some of my constituents for holding up the installation of the new radar. In 1997, 144 residents petitioned the Sutherland Shire Council not to accept the new installation, based on unfounded fears raised previously in other electorates about radiation emissions. Once the concerns of my local residents were addressed, the council approved construction of the site.People are perfectly within their rights to ask their local council to respond to public safety concerns before allowing construction plans to proceed. The leader of the lobby group opposing the construction of the tower, Mark Kenny, was merely responding to opposition from people near sites, including Macquarie University, that had previously been considered. I rather think that Kurnell residents should be congratulated for accepting their council's assessment and ceasing their opposition so quickly. I am delighted with the responses that were given by the SES workers throughout the hail affected area, and certainly I know that the people of Cook would want to join me in widespread congratulations to the team involved.561022:47:005610Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The recent drug summit in New South Wales gave a degree of endorsement for trials of safe injecting rooms for injecting drug users. While these initiatives have been supported by local community leaders in inner city areas of Sydney, in the Cabramatta area where drug use is very high community leaders have expressed their opposition to trials of a safe injecting room going ahead. Opposition to safe injecting rooms in Cabramatta is based on the idea that they would attract drug users to the area. It ignores the fact that Cabramatta is the centre of drug distribution in Sydney and heroin is more readily available and less expensive there than elsewhere in Sydney. These factors are the main attraction of Cabramatta and will remain so, regardless of the presence of safe injecting rooms. Safe injecting rooms save lives. That is the clear message from overseas trials. That is the clear message from local health authorities. That is why the New South Wales drug summit was left with the conclusion that trials of safe injecting rooms should go ahead.Each year in the Cabramatta area dozens of young lives are lost through drug overdose. Many of these deaths are preventable if immediate medical attention can be given to victims of drug overdose. Safe injecting rooms, at the very least, allow injecting drug users to be observed for signs of overdose. Early treatment can then be sought, leading to a much greater chance of successful recovery for overdose victims. The risk of overdose is also reduced when drug users can properly measure and prepare their dose. If these deaths were the result of anything other than drug overdose, there would be a public outcry for action to be taken. But our society has adopted a double standard for human life—one for drug addicts and one for the rest of us. No civilised society can stand back and do nothing when human lives are being needlessly lost. No community can claim to have civic pride when it stands in the way of measures which save human lives. No parent should allow the life of another's child to be put at risk for the unlikely reason that it sends the wrong message to their own child.The need for a safe injecting room in the Cabramatta area was brought home to me recently in a discussion I had with the mother of a drug user. She recently found out that her son was using heroin when she received a call from a hospital to say that her son was being treated for an overdose. Prior to that she had no idea that her son was using drugs. The shock of that discovery and the thought that she may have lost her son have had a dramatic effect upon her. She now has no alternative but to stand by while her son injects himself in his bedroom at home. As much as the thought of that occurring horrifies her, the alternative of her son injecting himself in an alleyway horrifies her even more. She prays for the chance for her son to enter a rehabilitation program and lives in constant fear of a call from a hospital with tragic news of her son.A safe injecting room will save lives. It will result in fewer cases requiring intensive care treatment in our hospitals, freeing up much needed beds for other medical needs. It will reduce the risk of disease from needle sharing. It will reduce the number of discarded needles and the risk to the wider community of disease from them. Safe injecting rooms can also play a part in the rehabilitation of drug users. Through maintaining contact with drug users, the first steps towards rehabilitation may be taken. Rehabilitation depends on the desire of the user to quit. In a safe injecting room the choice and opportunity are always present: continue to use drugs or seek help. No other treatment alternative offers this stark choice. It is time for our local community leaders to take their heads out of the sand, to see what is happening around them and to have the courage to act to save young lives.561122:52:005611Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I was among the many in the chamber who noted the spontaneous applause which came from the galleries on the introduction of Mikhail Gorbachev today during question time. I also had the opportunity to listen briefly to some of his remarks upstairs earlier in the day. Mikhail Gorbachev is a symbol of the fact that history moves on, situations change and the sorts of settled certainties of life may not be as settled as they may appear. As a person who grew up during the Cold War, the idea of the Soviet Union was a permanent feature on the world's geopolitical horizon. Yet here was one man who had a different vision and a different view and who saw ultimately a free and democratic Russia. Clearly, there is a long way to go in that part of the world. There is a great deal of uncertainty, anxiety and difficulty in the former Soviet Union. But this one man, through his idea of glasnost, lit the spark—with the support of many of the independent peoples in the other countries of the region and with pressure from the West—which eventually saw the collapse of the Soviet Union. We gather today in this place after the recent elections in Israel at which we have seen Ehud Barak from the Labour Party elected as Prime Minister of Israel. I grew up in a family which saw the Middle East largely through the Western media, through our close relationship with the United States, and so I grew up with a kind of instinctive preference for the Israeli position. Mr Speaker, I stand before you today as someone who still feels a deep loyalty to Israel and as a member of the Australia-Israel Friendship Group.A couple of weeks ago I was approached by three of my colleagues from both sides of the House on the idea of creating an Australian Parliamentary Friends of Palestine Group, which was subsequently inaugurated. Tomorrow evening we meet together for the first time. As chairman of that group I want to reflect on the importance of the election result in Israel. It was, I think, an expression by the Israeli people of dissatisfaction with the pace of the peace process and with its lack of momentum, and to some extent it represents a rejection of the elements of intransigence in the former government. While I am reluctant to celebrate the election of a Labour government anywhere in the world, I certainly accept that this may signal the beginning of renewed momentum for peace in the Middle East.We have heard during this adjournment debate about the problems of the refugees in Macedonia. We also ought to reflect on the fact that there are several million Palestinian refugees around the Middle East who tonight will be sleeping in barely covered shacks—mothers who are struggling to clothe, feed and adequately house their children. They are in that stateless and destitute position because of the inability to achieve peace in the Middle East. So as a friend of Israel but nonetheless as a human being with, I hope, a sense of feeling for those in distress, for those who have suffered injustice anywhere in the world, I want to register my deep empathy with the Palestinian people. I know the concern of many in this chamber to see a just and lasting resolution to that Middle East problem. I want to congratulate Ehud Barak on his election as Prime Minister of Israel. This House stands solidly behind the peace process and wants to see a renewed momentum in that process. We want to see resolution of the question of the Palestinian refugees, the question of settlements in East Jerusalem, the question of the West Bank and the question of the capital, Jerusalem—all of those things are soluble. Mikhail Gorbachev stands as an example of one man who tested and challenged the status quo and who brought about a new era of freedom, of autonomy, of self-determination. I really hope that the election of Ehud Barak signals the beginning of a similar process for the Palestinian people. (Time expired)561222:57:005612Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—There are times in the history of this place when it is important to set aside the differences which normally exist between the respective political parties represented in this parliament. One of those issues is when we confront the reality of human suffering around the world, and most recently in that context the suffering that I have witnessed personally in North Korea.I spoke in the grievance debate here about two months ago about the famine in North Korea and said that estimates from the United Nations at that stage were that up to three million people had died out of a total national population of 22 million. That famine has been going on for some years now. Since first raising the issue in this chamber, I have had the opportunity to visit Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, with my friend and colleague the member for Holt, the Hon. Gareth Evans. As a result of that visit, I have to report to the House that the situation in North Korea is as serious and as grave as anything that I have seen or previously considered to be possible.North Korea is a strange place. It is a strange country; it has a repressive political system; it is probably the last vestige of Stalinism to be seen anywhere in the world. In North Korea today you see George Orwell alive and well in terms of what remains of the political structure. On the economic front, there is precious little prospect of change. You see very little evidence of economic reform. On the humanitarian front, however, North Korea is confronting a major crisis. The World Food Program, with whom we spoke in North Korea and whose representatives cover the entire country, say that as we speak today there are some five million children in North Korea who are substantially dependent on UN delivered food aid in order to survive. In the period between April and July of this year they are almost exclusively dependent on UN delivered food aid. To put this in context, this is probably the largest humanitarian crisis we have seen in this region since the Great Leap Forward in China in 1958. This is a massive humanitarian crisis. Upon our return to Australia we reported on these matters to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer. I would like to place on record my appreciation for the fact that, not long after that discussion, Mr Downer issued a statement saying he had allocated a further $4 million to humanitarian relief in North Korea. I also place on record that, as the crisis continues, I will be making a similar request of the minister again.10000Rudd, Kevin, MPMr SPEAKER—Order! The House is reluctant to interrupt the member for Griffith on that note but, it being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:005613House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices5613The following notices were given:Mr Laurie Ferguson to move:That this House:(1) notes that a series of entitlement anomalies arising from the Vietnam War remain unresolved despite the Coalition's 1996 election undertakings;(2) expresses disappointment that these anomalies were not properly addressed during the Government's secretive and unsatisfactory 1997 and 1998 overseas service reviews;(3) welcomes the announcement on 30 March 1999 that an independent panel will review the outcome of the Vietnam End of War List in relation to the six veterans whose awards were downgraded to a Commendation;(4) welcomes the announcement on 5 May 1999 that medals and repatriation entitlements for defence service in South East Asia from 1955 to 1975 will be the subject of an independent review;(5) requires that this review properly consider all outstanding issues regarding Australian service in Vietnam, including (a) merchant navy service on MV/HMAS Boonaroo and Jeparit, (b) Qantas military charter flights, (c) the provision of medical care by civilian nurses and other health workers and (d) civilians involved in the hazardous transport of vehicle parts to Cambodia, via Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City), as part of American aid projects; and(6) seeks an assurance that the review panel will have full access to relevant official records and will provide adequate opportunity for public input by interested organisations.Mr Hardgrave to move:That this House acknowledges the strong and vital contribution made to the values which underpin Australian society by Irish immigrants and their descendants.Mr Neville to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the necessity of preserving the sustainability of the Australian fishing stocks;(2) recognises the economic potential of quality seafood exports;(3) commends the industry for its work on by-catch reduction devices (BRDs) and turtle exclusion devices (TEDs) and the protection of nursery grounds;(4) acknowledges the value of the vessel monitoring system (VMS) as a cost-efficient method of vessel location and crew safety and especially of regulating closures by strategic area locations rather than by time; and(5) calls for sanity and equity in balancing the protection of the marine environment and the legitimate expectations of fishermen, their families and those communities reliant on them.Mr Hardgrave to move:That this House acknowledges the value to all Australians of their country's growing trade and friendship with the People's Republic of China.Answers to Questions in Writing5614The following answers to questions were circulated:5614(Question No. 85)855614Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 November 1998;(1) What was the total cost to the (a) Commonwealth and (b) Australian Taxation Office (ATO) of implementing the superannuation contributions surcharge including salaries, systems, advertising, liaison, outrider agency costs, legal and accounting.(2) What is the estimated cost to the superannuation industry of implementing the surcharge provisions.(3) What sum was collected from surchargeable contributions in 1997-98.(4) What sum is estimated to be collected from surchargeable contributions in (a) 1998-99, (b) 1999-2000. and (c) 2000-2001.(5) How many dead persons (a) have been levied with the surcharge and (b) will be required to pay the advance instalment.(6) What special arrangements have been made to allow dead persons to recover the advance surcharge instalment.(7) What are the details of the test cases the ATO is running on the surcharge and what will the test cases cost.(8) How many due surcharge assessments had not been issued by the ATO as at 12 November 1998.(9) How many surcharge assessments were issued to persons who did not provide their tax file number to their superannuation fund or the ATO.(10) What is the estimated number of persons who have been issued with a surcharge assessment but who earn less than the threshold income.5614Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) The Department of Finance and ComSuper have estimated the cost at $3.4m for the Superannuation schemes administered by them.(1) (b) The ATO calculates it has expended the following amounts to develop, implement and administer the superannuation contributions surcharge (including policy development and communication, system build and IT operation costs, interpretation and client services, accounting, debt collection and enforcement activities): 1996-97—$2.127m; 1997-98—$12.467m; July 1998- to date—$8.691m.(2) The cost to industry of implementing the surcharge provisions is unknown, although there are likely to be costs associated with introducing any new measure. Additional costs incurred in order to set up a fund to comply with legislated requirements can be regarded as start up costs and amortised over a number of years.(3) The value of 1996/97 assessments issued was $454m of which $347m was collected by 30 June 1998. Amended and original 1996/97 assessments were issued in February 1999 to the value of $86m.The amount collected since 1 July 1998 in respect of both the outstanding balance from the original assessments and from the assessments issued in February 1999 is $100m. The amount still outstanding includes $37m subject to objection, $16m subject to amendment/variation and $23m not yet due for payment.(4) The estimates of the amounts to be collected from the surcharge measure as stated in the 1996/97 Budget papers were: 1997-98—$480m; 1998-99—$470m; 1999-00—$530m; 2000-01—no figures projected.(5) (a) Surcharge assessments are based on information reported to the ATO by superannuation providers. If a provider has ceased to be the holder of contributions by the time an assessment is received then the assessment is taken not to have been made.A provider ceases to be the holder of contributions if:- a lump sum has been paid or a pension or annuity has begun to be paid before an assessment is received; or- a member dies before an assessment is received by the provider.A provider continues to be the holder of contributions and is liable to pay an assessed surcharge liability if it receives an assessment before:-- a lump sum is paid;- a pension or annuity has begun to be paid; or - death benefits are paid.(5) (b) There are no circumstances where an individual, as a holder of contributions, will be required to pay an advance instalment, irrespective of whether they are alive or dead (The Government has announced its intention to remove the requirement for the Commissioner of Taxation to determine an advance instalment. As a consequence no advance instalment will be determined in relation to surcharge assessed on or after 23 March 1999).(6) There are no special arrangements in place. An advance instalment is not required to be paid if a member exits the superannuation system. If a person dies before a determination of advance instalment falls due for payment, then there is no need for the provider to pay the instalment.If a person dies after an advance instalment has been paid, then the advance instalment will be credited in the next assessment to issue to the provider. If the provider notifies the ATO that the representative of the estate is now the holder of the contributions, then the advance will be refunded to that holder.(7) As a result of the Assistant Treasurer announcing initiatives designed to simplify the operation of the surcharge legislation the ATO does not intend to proceed with any Test Cases in relation to the superannuation surcharge.(8) Some 119,000 members have been impacted by original and amended 1996/97 surcharge assessments that issued in February 1999.(9) In May 1999, the ATO expects to issue in the order of 66,500 assessments relating to contributions of members for whom a TFN has not been obtained; the ATO is confident these members will be high income earners, irrespective of whether they subsequently quote their TFN.(10) None.5615(Question No. 379)3795615Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) What are Australia's obligations under its APEC individual action plan for (a) tariff and (b) non-tariff measures.(2) What progress has been made in fulfilling the obligations.(3) How does Australia's obligations and progress, measured by unweighted average tariff rates, compare to (a) Hong Kong, (b) New Zealand, (c) Singapore, (d) Taiwan and (e) the United States of America. 5615Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia's APEC individual action plan does not impose any legally binding obligations on Australia. APEC is not a treaty-based organisation; it is a grouping of regional economies which share the common goal of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific no later than the year 2020 (with the industrialised economies to achieve the goal no later than the year 2010). This goal has the force of a commitment by APEC Leaders which has been reaffirmed every year since 1995. Individual Action Plans record the steps that APEC economies have taken (and intend to take) to reach this goal of free and open trade and investment.The specific commitments that Australia has made in relation to (a) tariffs and (b) non-tariff measures are recorded in Australia's 1998 APEC Individual Action Plan which I tabled in Parliament on 11 November 1998.(2) Australia's progress in implementing its Individual Action Plan commitments on tariffs and non-tariff measures is set out below:. tariffs on passenger motor vehicles and component parts have been reduced from 25 per cent in 1996 to 17.5 per cent in 1999. They will be further reduced to 15 per cent on 1 January 2000 and 10 per cent on 1 January 2005;. tariffs on textile, clothing and footwear products have been reduced from between 5 and 37 per cent in 1996-97 to between 5 and 31 per cent in 1998-99. Further reductions will occur on 1 July 1999, 1 July 2000 and (subject to the passage of legislation by Parliament) 1 January 2005;. the out-of-quota tariff on certain cheeses has been reduced from $1.366 per kilogram in 1996 to $1.257 per kilogram in 1999. The out-of-quota tariff will be further reduced to $1.22 per kilogram on 1 January 2000;. Australia has removed tariffs on all but six of the products covered by the Information Technology Agreement. Tariffs on the remaining six products will be removed on 1 January 2000 in accordance with Australia's obligations under the Agreement;. a review of nuisance tariffs has concluded and the Government is examining the outcomes of the review;. export controls have been removed on woodchips and other unprocessed wood derived from native forests in regions where Regional Forest Agreements are in place (Tasmania and the East Gippsland and Central Highlands regions of Victoria); . export controls have been removed on plantation-sourced material grown in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.(3) Australia's obligations and progress, measured by unweighted average tariff rates, compared to Hong Kong, China, New Zealand, Singapore, Chinese Taipei and the United States of America is shown in the following table:APEC MemberUnweighted average tariff rate in 1996 (the year in which APEC members first prepared Individual Action Plans)Current unweighted average tariff rateUnweighted average tariff rate if existing Individual Action Plan commitments are implementedAustralia6.1%5.0% (1999)3.8% (2005)Hong Kong, China0.0%0.0% (1999)0.0%New Zealand5.7%4.22% (1998)0.0% (2006)Singapore0.0%10.0% (1998)0.0%Chinese Taipei8.64%8.25% (1998)Approx. 6% (2006-2010)United States6.4%4.9% (1999)13.1% (2004)Sources:1. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (note: figure only includes calculation of ad valorem tariffs—ie specific/mixed/compound tariffs are not included)All other data taken from the Individual Action Plans of APEC Member Economies.5616(Question No. 380)3805616Griffin, Alan, MPMr GriffinVU5BruceALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a discussion paper on the role of authorised marriage celebrants published in 1997; if so, what steps have been taken to encourage inactive and uninterested marriage celebrants to resign.(2) What measures will be taken to ensure that only the best candidates are selected to be authorised marriage celebrants.(3) Will an interview by a skilled personnel practitioner be included in the selection process.(4) Will the provision of evidence that the applicant has studied and understands the celebrant's role be a criterion.(5) What advice for prospective applicants is available to ensure that they are adequately prepared for the selection procedure.5616Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Attorney-General is aware of the discussion paper in question. Civil marriage celebrants are required to report on a six monthly basis and, from November 1997, the form used for these reports has included the question: "Do you wish to continue as a Celebrant?"Since the question was included on the form, 27 civil marriage celebrants have indicated that they did not wish to continue and their authorisations have been revoked. Four others have resigned because of illness and four have been revoked because my Department has been unable to locate them despite extensive inquiries.(2) Civil marriage celebrants are now appointed only to meet identified community need. When an area is identified as needing more civil marriage celebrants, my Department advertises in the local media inviting applicants and the applicants to be appointed are selected on merit.(3) The current selection process is being reviewed in light of responses to the discussion paper and the suggestion that applicants be interviewed is one of the matters being assessed in this review.(4) The current selection criteria include proven interpersonal skills, the ability to conduct wedding ceremonies with the appropriate dignity in a manner which enhances the occasion for all present, an understanding of the celebrant's role, ability to speak in public and the ability to understand, implement and to explain to clients the requirements of the Marriage Act and Regulations. Applicants who can provide evidence that they have successfully studied the celebrant's role would have an advantage in demonstrating these skills.Training for existing and prospective celebrants, including the question of whether it should be compulsory, are key issues in the current review.(5) Applications for authorisation as civil marriage celebrants are accepted only to meet identified community needs. Prospective applicants in areas where there is such a need are given an application package which includes the selection criteria and detailed instructions on the type of evidence required to demonstrate that the applicants meet those criteria.5617(Question No. 382)3825617Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:Did his Department assess applications for funding (a) for major projects from the Federation Fund and (b) from the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program; if so, in each case, (i) how many applications were made in each State and Territory (A) in total and (B) by or on behalf of indigenous organisations, (ii) will he provide a list of all applications made by or on behalf of indigenous organisations in each State and Territory, (iii) how many applications made by or on behalf of indigenous organisations were successful and (iv) will he provide a list of all successful applications made by or on behalf of indigenous organisations.5617Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Federation Fund Major ProjectsThe 1997-98 Budget announced the establishment of the Federation Fund and also announced that the Federation Fund would finance the cost of constructing the National Museum of Australia and the associated building for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS).The Commonwealth has allocated $147 million from the Federation Fund towards the National Museum and the AIATSIS building. This includes $42 million on an indigenous component: the Museum will feature a permanent gallery dedicated to displaying and interpreting Australia's indigenous cultures, the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, which is estimated to cost $24.7 million; and the cost of the AIATSIS building is expected to be $17.3 million.After these announcements, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet:(a) Assisted in preparing assessments of applications for major projects under the Federation Fund. Proposals received were registered by the Federation Fund Task Force established in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Task Force acknowledged receipt of the proposal and submitted the application, together with an assessment of the degree to which it met the Federation Fund criteria and any other information requested by the Government, to a committee of ministers.The Task Force provided advice on each proposal received for Federation Fund funding, but was not asked to make recommendations in relation to proposals.I am advised that:(i) 410 applications were received.(A) The applications represent the following spread of projects (although a number of these applications covered more than one project):New South Wales147Victoria48Queensland104South Australia4Northern Territory3Western Australia18Tasmania33ACT13National/multi-State40Total410(B) The Task Force received a total of 8 applications made by and on behalf of indigenous organisations. (ii) The following applications by or on behalf of indigenous organisations were received by the Task Force:STATEAPPLICANTPROJECTNationalMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander AffairsConstruction of hostels in NSW and WANationalATSICRoad construction, water and health hardware, airstrip upgradesNationalTourism Task ForceDevelopment of a network of displays of indigenous cultureQueenslandTorres Strait Regional AuthorityConstruction of a museum/cultural centre on Thursday IslandQueenslandMember for HinklerConstruction of a museum and theatre on Paddy's Island, BundabergNSWDr M ValadianEstablishment of an International College for Indigenous Development and EducationWAPremierEstablishment of a Kimberley Culture and Natural History CentreNTMr O ColeEstablishment of an Aboriginal Entertainment and Cultural Centre of Australia(iii) The applications listed above were not successful for assistance under the major projects component of the Federation Fund.Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects (FCHP) ProgramThe Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet:(b) Did not assess applications for assistance under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects (FCHP) program. This program is the joint responsibility of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.I am advised that:(i) 741 applications were received(A) The total number of applications made in each State and Territory under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects program were;ACTNSWNTQLDSATASVICWATotal143002097434913583741(B) For the purpose of this question, those organisations which clearly identified the inclusion of a predominantly indigenous cultural heritage element in their exhibition, site interpretation, education or other materials related to the project and directly referred to a process of consultation or partnership with indigenous communities in their region were counted. On that basis, the total number of applications made in each State or Territory by or on behalf of indigenous organisations is listed as follows:ACTNSWNTQLDSATASVICWATotal0179107141260(ii) Those organisations identified under (i)B are listed at Table 1.(iii) There were 7 successful applications made by or on behalf of indigenous organisations.(iii) The successful applications are listed below:ORGANISATIONPROJECTSTATEGilgandra Shire CouncilGilgandra Centennial Celebration of FederationNSWCity of MarionThe Warriparinga Interpretive Centre Inc.SAWarlyirti ArtistsNew Art/Cultural centre WAShire of KojonupKojonup Federation Park ComplexWAThe Friends of AraluenCommunity Gallery at Alice Springs Cultural PrecinctNTNational Trust of QueenslandJames Cook Museum—Cook Gallery DevelopmentQLDCity of Holdfast BayCelebrating Federation and First Settlement LinksSATABLE 1: APPLICATIONS FOR FCHP ASSISTANCE MADE BY OR ON BEHALF OF INDIGENOUS ORGANISATIONS.ORGANISATIONPROJECTSTATEBlacktown City CouncilAboriginal Cultural CentreNSWWutuma Keeping Place Aboriginal CorporationWutuma Keeping Place Gallery and MuseumNSWMimaga WajaarCultural Awareness Complex and Educational ComplexNSWEden Local Aboriginal Land CouncilCultural and Heritage Keeping PlaceNSWGilgandra Shire CouncilGilgandra Centennial Celebration of FederationNSWMoree Plains Shire CouncilMoree Aboriginal Cultural CentreNSWOCTEC IncAboriginal Cultural Centre/Keeping PlaceNSWWestern Institute of TAFEAboriginal Arts and Cultural Development CentreNSWGandangara Local Aboriginal Land CouncilGandangara Cultural Centre and Keeping PlaceNSWNSW National Parks and Wildlife ServiceKurnell Meeting and Keeping PlaceNSWArmidale and Region Aboriginal Cultural Centre and Keeping Place IncStage 3 Development of Aboriginal Cultural Centre and Keeping PlaceNSWMarrickville CouncilOld Marrickville Town Hall ProjectNSWMetropolitan Local Aboriginal Land CouncilAn Aboriginal History and Cultural CentreNSWThe National Aboriginal and Islander Skills Development AssociationNAISDA Indigenous Performing Arts ComplexNSWTullagulla LtdContemporary Aboriginal Cultural CentreNSWWellington Local Aboriginal Lands CouncilWirathuri Floral, Fauna and Aboriginal Culture ParkNSWNSW National Parks and Wildlife ServiceConservation and Interpretation of Sydney Basin Aboriginal HeritageNSWThe Friends of Araluen IncCommunity Gallery at Alice Springs Cultural PrecinctNT Barkly Regional Economic Development Committee IncNyinka Nyunyu Interpretive CentreNTBorroloola Community Government SchoolBorroloola Cultural CentreNTBula'Bula Arts Aboriginal CorporationMapping and Documenting Arafura WetlandsNTYilli Reling Regional CouncilConstruct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural CentreNTArrernte Council of Central Australia Aboriginal CorpCentenary of Federation Working TogetherNTYothu Yindi Foundation Aboriginal CorporationGarma Cultural Studies InstituteNTElliott District Community Government SchoolElliott Conservation and Heritage ProjectsNTPirlangimpi Community Government CouncilFort Dundas Accommodation and Archaeological ProjectNTNational Trust of QueenslandJames Cook Museum—Cook Gallery DevelopmentQLDKombumerri Aboriginal Corporation for CultureYugambeh Museum, Language, Heritage, Research CentreQLDTownsville City CouncilAboriginal and Islander Cultural CentreQLDFoundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action Aboriginal CorpKey Centre for Indigenous Cultural EstatesQLDMareeba Shire CouncilKuranda Cultural CentreQLDTorres Strait Regional AuthorityTorres Strait Museum Cultural Centre—Thursday IslandQLDCairns and District Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation for WomenFederation 100 House Technology for Youth QLDAng-Gnarra Aboriginal CorporationThe Split Rock Interpretive CentreQLDDouglas Shire CouncilKuku Yalanji Cultural Interpretive CentreQLDMackay South Sea Islanders CommunityMandarra Cemetery Restoration and Museum ComplexQLDCity of Holdfast BayCelebrating Federation and First Settlement LinksSACity of SalisburyNorthern Region Aboriginal Community CentreSAKoonibba Aboriginal Community CouncilScrubcutter FestivalSAMannum Aboriginal Community AssociationNgaut Ngaut Rockshelter Culture Tourism ProjectSAIga WartaIga Warta Cultural CentreSACity of MarionThe Warriparinga Interpretive Centre IncSADept of Human ServicesAboriginal Records Access CentreSA Tasmanian Aboriginal CentreRisdon Cove Cultural Sharing PlaceTASAborigines Advancement LeagueKeeping Place Fit-out at the Aborigines Advancement LeagueVICSonglines Dreaming IncSonglines Dreaming IncorporatedVICKoorie Heritage Trust IncAdditional Construction for Koorie Cultural CentreVICWestern Murray Development IncUniversity of Stars, Indigenous Astronomy ProjectVICWarlyirti ArtistsNew Art/Cultural Centre—Balgo HillsWAUniversity of Western AustraliaBerndt Museum of AnthropologyWAGascoyne Development CommissionCarnarvon Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural CentreWAShire of Kojonup Kojonup Federation Park ComplexWAWarburton Community IncNgaanyatjarra Cultural and Civic CentreWASwan Aboriginal CorporationAboriginal Cultural Centre and Heritage TrailWATown of NarroginGnarojin Cultural Heritage CentreWAAboriginal Advancement Council of Western Australia Aboriginal CorpAboriginal Cultural PrecinctWAAboriginal Affairs DeptCultural Centre, capital infrastructureWAThe Bennett Brook Catchment GroupBennett Brook Cultural and Environment CentreWANoongar Language and Cultural CentreNoongar Language and Cultural CentreWAAboriginal and Islander College of Music (ABMUSIC)ABMUSIC's Cultural AuditoriumWA[Attachments referred to in the answer to question No. 412 (Hansard, 11 May 1999, page 4183) were not supplied to be published with the answer. The complete answer is as follows:]5621(Question No. 412)4125621Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 11 February 1999:(1) What sum did the Australia Council grant to organisations for the employment of multicultural arts officers in each year from 1991-92.(2) Will he provide details of the operation of the Australia Council's Community Development Program since its inception including the (a) total sum granted to organisations under the program, (b) names of organisations granted funds, (c) sum granted to each organisation, (d) period covered by each grant, (e) manner of selection of organisations, (f) individual, group or body specifically responsible for the selection of recipients and (g) criteria, guidelines or policies used in making selections.(3) Has the Australia Council decided not to renew triennial funding for 6 multicultural arts officer positions at two organisations under the Community Cultural Development program; if so, what involvement did the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts or his office have in the decision.5621McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 1991-92—$ 161,743; 1992-93—$ 217,606; 1993-94—$ 293,397; 1994-95—$ 364,172; 1995- 96—$204,903; 1996-97—$ 220,044; 1997-98—$ 193,086; 1998-99—$40,000.(2) The Community Arts Board which began in the 1970s first funded Multicultural Arts Officers (MAOs) under the Ethnic Arts Officers program in 1987. In 1988 the Community Cultural Development Committee funded those positions under the Multicultural Arts Officers Program. In 1991 the Community Cultural Development Board was set up, which continued the program. In 1994-1995 the program ceased, and the MAOs were able to apply to, and were funded under, the "Creative Development: Organisers" program. When the Council restructured all its grant programs in 1996, this program was replaced by the Program Grants Category and is now known as the Triennial Grants Category.Peer assessment at arm's length from government is the fundamental tenet of the Australia Council's structure and decision-making process.(a) Total sum granted to organisations under the programs1987 Ethnic Arts Officer program to 1999 Triennial Grants Program: $2,272,099(b) Names of organisations granted funds are listed in the Australia Council Annual Reports (see summary table 1 attached)(c) Sum granted to each organisation is listed in the Australia Council Annual Reports (see summary table attached)(d) Period covered by each grant as listed is annual, but grants made to these organisations after 1996 were Triennial, ie. an annual grant for three years (see summary table attached).(e) Manner of selection of organisation for each grant is as per the grants handbook current in the year in which the decision was made. Organisations which wished to be considered for funding completed an application form and lodged it with the Australia Council by the advertised closing date. Applications were then assessed in competition with each other, and the highest ranked applications funded. The Australia Council Support for the Arts Handbook, 1999 describes the assessment process as follows;Assessment of your applicationIn making grant decisions the Funds and the Board will assess your application with regard only to the published selection criteria for the grant category to which you are applying, as set out in section 4 of this handbook.Assessment of applications and final grant decisions are made by the relevant Fund or the Board primarily on the basis of the information supplied by you in your application. Fund and Board members may also take into account information from other sources such as:. their attendance at performances and other events;. assessment reports from members of the Register of Peers who may be asked to provide formal assessments of designated works;. reviews, videos and recordings, referee reports and other material; and. any previous Australia Council grant acquittal reports and performance agreements you may have had.While your application may meet the stated selection criteria, this does not guarantee you a grant. The Australia Council receives many more applications than it can support. The success of your application must rest ultimately on the merits of your proposal against published criteria and in competition with all the other applications considered for funding.(f) The body specifically responsible for the selection of grants recipients to the programs listed above was: 1987—Community Arts Board; 1988—1990—Community Cultural Development Committee; 1991-1995—Community Cultural Development Board; 1996-1999—Community Cultural Development Fund.(g) Criteria used in the making of selections has varied from program to program and year to year, and can be found in the Grants Handbook for each year. The Australia Council Support for the Arts Handbook, 1999 lists the following information in the Triennial Grants Category;The purpose of this category is to further understanding of, and support innovation in, community cultural development practice by providing triennial funding to a limited number of outstanding organisations. By supporting these organisations the Fund aims to increase opportunities for communities to control and participate in their own cultural development.Applicants must have a substantial record of achievement in community cultural development and be able to demonstrate that they have contributed to community cultural development through the artistic work they have produced and/or through the role they have played in fostering and developing work in the field.Applicants may be community cultural development organisations, or organisations which have a community cultural development program or worker as a component of their broader activities.EligibilityThis category is open to organisations.Applicants must be able to demonstrate that at least 50% of their income is derived from sources other than the Funds or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board of the Australia Council.Applicants will be expected to have had a record of funding through the Australia Council and should have been awarded at least three grants from the Council within the last five years.Selection CriteriaApplications will be selected that best demonstrate:. a high level of achievement in the advancement and development of community cultural development practice;. that the organisation is best placed to deliver services to a regional, State or national constituency;. a capacity to stimulate critical debate about community cultural development practice;. a strategy for increasing opportunities for communities to control and participate in their own cultural development;. that the operations and services proposed are community-based and culturally inclusive; and. effective management of finances and administration including a well developed three-year plan which includes strategies for accessing new resources and new sources of income.P63 of the Handbook also advises that "It is unlikely the Fund will provide funding for community cultural development arts workers positions for more than two triennial periods."(3) From the seven applications received by the Community Cultural Development Fund from previously funded MAO applicants to the Triennial Grants Category in 1998-1999, the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre, was successful.The six unsuccessful applications did not receive funding in that grant round because like other unsuccessful applicants, they did not compete against the selection criteria as strongly as those who did receive funding. In no instance is triennial funding `renewed' as each application is considered on its own merit, in competition with other applications received by the same closing date.All unsuccessful triennial applicants have been encouraged to apply for project funding under other grants category programs.There was no involvement of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts or the Minister's office in the assessment of applications to the Community Cultural Development Fund's Triennial grants category. As listed in the 1999 Australia Council Support for the Arts Handbook; While the Australia Council Act 1975 enables the Minister to give directions to the Council regarding performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers, these directions must not be in regard to particular grants, scholarships or other benefits.A copy of the Australia Council's Arts for a Multicultural Australia policy is available on request.Multicultural Arts Officer positions Funded by Community Cultural Development Fund and its predecessors since 19871987-1988Program: Multicultural Arts OfficersEthnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$14,000.00Ethnic Communities Council of QLDQLD$16,090.00Ethnic Communities Council of WAWA$13,400.00Footscray Community Arts Centre LtdVIC$18,874.00Migrant Resource and Settlement CentreNT$13,500.00Multicultural Artworkers CommitteeSA$17,614.00Red WeatherNSW$7,500.00United Ethnic Communities of SA IncSA$12,250.00Total$113,228.001988-1989Program: Multicultural Arts OrganisersEthnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$13,300.00Ethnic Communities Council of WAWA$13,400.00Fairfield Community Arts Centre LtdNSW$9,222.00Footscray Community Arts Centre LtdVIC$19,000.00Kids Activities NewtownNSW$23,775.00Migrant Resource and Settlement CentreNT$18,211.00Total$96,908.001989-1990Program: Multicultural Arts OrganisersEthnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$18,450.00Ethnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$9,850.00Ethnic Communities Council of WAWA$16,936.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$22,951.00Footscray Community Arts Centre LtdVIC$20,500.00Kids Activities NewtownNSW$30,429.00Migrant Resource and Settlement CentreNT$10,000.00Multicultural Arts VictoriaVIC$13,000.00United Ethnic Communities of SASA$13,000.00Total$155,116.00Multicultural Arts Officer positions Funded by Community Cultural Development Fund and its predecessors since 19871990-91Program: Multicultural Arts OfficersAdelaide Folkloric SocietySA$12,610.00Blacktown Migrant Resource CentreNSW$19,724.00Ethnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$20,736.00Ethnic Communities Council of WAWA$19,827.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$11,661.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$25,000.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$12,154.00Footscray Community Arts Centre LtdVIC$21,578.00Illawarra Ethnic Council NSWNSW$18,000.00Kentro Technis IncVIC$14,000.00Kentro Technis IncVIC$14,736.00Liverpool Migrant Resource CentreNSW$19,510.00Migrant Resource Centre of the NT Assoc IncNSW$10,000.00United Ethnic Communities of SA IncSA$7,270.00Total$226,806.001991-92Program: Multicultural Arts OrganisersPhilipee Australia Cultural Interaction NetworkNSW$20,785.00Blacktown Migrant Resource CentreNSW$20,173.00Ethnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$21,209.00Ethnic Communities Council of QLDQLD$20,500.00Ethnic Communities Council of WAWA$21,500.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$25,570.00Footscray Community Arts Centre LtdVIC$22,070.00Illawarra Ethnic Council NSWNSW$18,410.00Kentro Technis IncVIC$15,072.00Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre NSW$20,016.00United Ethnic Communities of SA IncSA$14,540.00$14,871.00Total$234,716.001992-93Program: Multicultural Arts OrganisersBlacktown Migrant Resource CentreNSW$20,879.00Ethnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$21,951.00 Ethnic Communities Council of QLDQLD$25,000.00Ethnic Communities Council of WAWA$24,240.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$12,431.00$26,465.00$14,869.00Footscray Community Arts Centre LtdVIC$24,000.00Illawarra Ethnic Council NSWNSW$19,054.00Liverpool Migrant Resource CentreNSW$20,717.00United Ethnic Communities of SA IncSA$19,000.00Total$228,606.00Multicultural Arts Officer positions Funded by Community Cultural Development Fund and its predecessors since 19871993-94Program: Multicultural Arts OrganisersBlacktown Migrant Resource CentreNSW$21,200.00Broadmeadow/District Migrant Resource CentreVIC$20,122.00Ethnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$26,000.00Ethnic Communities Council of QLDQLD$25,385.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$41,959.00Footscray Community Arts Centre LtdVIC$29,000.00Geelong Ethnic Communities CouncilVIC$22,603.00Illawarra Ethnic Communities CouncilNSW$19,740.00Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre NSW$21,000.00Migrant Resource Centre of South Central IncVIC$46,788.00United Ethnic Communities of SA IncSA$19,582.00Total$293,379.001994-95Program: Multicultural Arts OrganisersBlacktown Migrant Resource CentreNSW$21,380.00Ethnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$26,221.00Ethnic Communities Council of QLDQLD$29,200.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$42,260.00Footscray Community Arts Centre LtdVIC$108,322.00Geelong Ethnic Communities CouncilVIC$45,590.00Illawarra Ethnic Communities CouncilNSW$20,451.00Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre NSW$25,000.00Migrant Resource Centre of South Central IncVIC$26,000.00United Ethnic Communities of SA IncSA$19,748.00Total$234,716.001995-96Program: Multicultural Arts OrganisersBlacktown Migrant Resource CentreNSW$21,594.00Ethnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$26,483.00Ethnic Communities Council of QLDQLD$29,492.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$26,200.00Geelong Ethnic Communities CouncilVIC*228Illawarra Ethnic Communities CouncilNSW$20,656.00Liverpool Migrant Resource CentreNSW$25,250.00Migrant Resource Centre of South Central IncVIC$26,000.00Illawarra Ethnic Council NSWNSW$19,054.00 Multicultural Arts Centre of WAWA$31,000.00Total$225,729.00Multicultural Arts Officer positions Funded by Community Cultural Development Fund and its predecessors since 19871996-97Program: Multicultural Arts OrganisersProgram GrantBlacktown Migrant Resource CentreNSW$16,100.00Ethnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$25,953.00Ethnic Communities Council of QLDQLD$28,903.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$25,676.00Geelong Ethnic Communities CouncilVIC$22,563.00Illawarra Ethnic Communities CouncilNSW$20,243.00Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre NSW$24,746.00Migrant Resource Centre of South Central IncVIC$25,480.00Multicultural Arts Centre of WAWA$30,380.00Nexus Multicultural Arts Centre IncSA$60,000.00TOTAL$280,044.001997-98Program: Multicultural Arts OrganisersBlacktown Migrant Resource CentreNSW$23,000.00Ethnic Communities Council of NSWNSW$18,167.00Ethnic Communities Council of QLDQLD$28,901.00Fairfield Community Resource CentreNSW$17,973.00Illawarra Ethnic Communities CouncilNSW$20,243.00Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre NSW$17,322.00Migrant Resource Centre of South Central IncVIC$25,480.00Nexus Multicultural Arts Centre IncSA$42,000.00Total$193,086.005626(Question No. 484)4845626Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:On most recent data, what sum in child care assistance per child per annum was allocated to (a) family (b) private long and (c) community long day care in the postcode areas of (i) 3039, (ii) 3041, (iii) 3055, (iv) 3056, (v) 3057, (vi) 3058, (vii) 3059, (viii) 3040, (ix) 3044 and, (x) 3046.5626Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Childcare Assistance is not allocated on a per child per annum basis but is paid to services on behalf of eligible families in accordance with families' income assessments. The estimated amount of Childcare Assistance per child paid on behalf of eligible families in 1997-98 for the postcode areas of (i) 3039, (ii) 3041, (iii) 3055, (iv) 3056, (v) 3057, (vi) 3058, (vii) 3059, (viii) 3040, (ix) 3044, (x) 3046 was as follows:Postcode Areas:(i) 3039(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$3,898(c) Community Long Day Care$2,534(ii) 3041(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Caren/a(c) Community Long Day Caren/a(iii) 3055(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$3,165(c) Community Long Day Care$2,089(iv) 3056(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$3,152 (c) Community Long Day Care$2,744(v) 3057(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$1,187(c) Community Long Day Caren/a(vi) 3058(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$3,110(c) Community Long Day Care$2,755(vii) 3059(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$2,813(c) Community Long Day Caren/a(viii) 3040(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$2,573(c) Community Long Day Caren/a(ix) 3044(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$3,211(c) Community Long Day Care$2,862(x) 3046(a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$2,512(c) Community Long Day Caren/aNote:n/a - no services of this type in the postcode area.(2) Figures for Family Day Care cannot be calculated per child. Childcare Assistance is paid to family day care schemes located in specified postcodes on behalf of all of its carers. Each scheme may however have some carers who live, and therefore care for children, in a different postcode(s). None of the specified postcodes had a family day care scheme operating in them, although there were individual carers living and working in each of them.5628(Question No. 511)5115628Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:Did the organisers of the 1998 Sydney to Hobart yacht race consult an agency or authority for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility before the race started; if so, (a) what information was provided and (b) did the agency or authority suggest then or subsequently that the timing of the race was dangerous or inappropriate in the circumstances.5628Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Yes. The Cruising Yacht Club of Australia (CYCA) contacted the Bureau of Meteorology, an agency for which I have responsibility.(a) The organisers requested the Bureau to provide a pre-race briefing and a special race forecast service to all competitors in the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. This special service has been provided for several years. The specific services for the CYCA were provided on a cost-recoverable basis (i.e. the incremental cost to the Bureau of providing the service was recovered from the CYCA) and included pre-race briefings by Bureau staff for the competitors and organisers and special access arrangements for race officials to contact the Bureau's Senior Forecaster at any time.These specific services for the CYCA were in addition to the Bureau's normal provision of marine weather services, including coastal waters and high seas forecasts and warnings, and coastal weather reports, in the period leading up to and encompassing the yacht race.(b) No. The Bureau of Meteorology has responsibility for providing guidance about meteorological conditions that individuals, groups or organisations use to make decisions most appropriate to these conditions. The Bureau issued a gale warning for part of the race area about four hours before the race start. This was upgraded to the first of a series of storm warnings about an hour after the start of the race. In addition to the storm warnings being disseminated through normal channels (eg radio, facsimile and Internet), Bureau staff telephoned the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Eden Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol and the Sydney to Hobart Race media centre to ensure that search and rescue personnel, race officials and competitors had received the storm warning. This warning advised of wind increasing to 45/55 knots offshore south of Merimbula late Sunday afternoon. Wind speeds identified in Bureau forecasts and warnings refer to average wind speeds over a ten minute period. A storm warning is the most severe warning issued by the Bureau outside tropical latitudes.5628(Question No. 514)5145628Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:Does the Government propose to exempt the Sydney Olympics from a goods and services tax; if so, (a) why, (b) how would the exemption be administered, (c) who would determine what was and was not exempt, (d) would the exemption effectively result in Australian consumers subsidising the Sydney Olympics, (e) will she provide a list of exempt items and (f) would similar exemptions be available to other areas of sport and recreation and industry in general; if not, why not.5628Kelly, 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:The Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG), Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee (SPOC), overseas tourists and Olympic visitors such as athletes will pay the GST on the same basis as all other businesses and consumers.The only exception will be the GST liability on Olympic and Paralympic ticket sales, which the Commonwealth will pay on SOCOG's and SPOC's behalf. The Commonwealth's offer to offset SOCOG's and SPOC's GST liabilities on tickets goes beyond the Prime Minister's commitment during the election campaign that tickets to the Games purchased before the introduction of A New Tax System would be GST-free. Under the Commonwealth offer, tickets sold before and after July 2000 will be treated in the same way.Other areas of sport and recreation will be subject to the GST on the same basis as all other businesses and consumers. 5629(Question No. 527)5275629Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional 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.5629Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:From the information available, the Department has not entered into any contracts with Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd, related companies or organisations or Mr. Mark Textor since 2 March 1996.The Department has confirmed that none of the portfolio agencies have entered into any contract with those parties since 2 March 1996.However, a Departmental contract was awarded to ACIL in 1997. ACIL subcontracted work under this contract to Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd. Mr Mark Textor was a signatory to that subcontract. The report of that subconsultancy was released by Dr Peter Shergold to Mr. Lindsay Tanner under FOI in the recent past.5629(Question No. 529)5295629Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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 predecessor 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 it's 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.5629McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:A search of records held by the Minister's Office, the Department and portfolio agencies has found no records relating to the engagement of Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996.5629(Question No. 542)5425629Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:What percentage of unlisted companies paid the full rate of company tax in 1997-98.5629Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The prescribed rate of company tax for the 1997-98 year is 36 cents in the dollar. This rate applies whether companies are listed or unlisted. The exceptions to this rate are Life Companies, Registered Organisations, Pooled Development Funds and Credit Unions which pay at varying rates on different components of their incomes. For example, Life Companies pay at the rate of 15 cents in the dollar on the complying superannuation component of their income. For entities which fall into these categories the exact mix of their incomes will determine their average rate of tax.The taxable income of a company and the prescribed company tax rate that will determine the amount of tax that a company will pay.Concessions provided under the income tax legislation will affect a company's taxable income and the amount of tax it pays. These include accelerated depreciation deductions, research and development expenditure, inter-corporate dividend rebates and franking credits.There are different methods of calculating a "tax rate" and each may provide different results, eg, calculation of tax on accounting profits rather than taxable income or using tax expense provision as against using actual tax paid. The Australian Taxation Office does not collect all of this type of statistical information. 5630(Question No. 569)5695630Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:Further to the answer to question 117 (Hansard , 25 March 1999, page 3774) in respect of Mr M. E. Baume, Australian Consul-General, New York; the Hon A. S. Peacock, Australian Ambassador, Washington D.C.; and Mr J. M. Spender, Australian Ambassador, Paris; (a) in addition to their salaries, what are the overseas allowances and other entitlements payable to them, (b) do any of them receive all or part of their parliamentary pension at the same time as receiving their salaries and (c) what was the purpose of each trip they made between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998.5630Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:For Mr M.E. Baume, Australian Consul-General, New York(a) Overseas Living Allowance of $58,925 per annum; Representation Allowance of $46,024 per annum.(b) The Department of Finance and Administration, which is responsible for parliamentary pensions, advises that where a former Senator or member who is entitled to a pension (or a spouse who is in receipt of a pension) holds an office of profit under the Crown, the pension may be reduced depending on the amount of the remuneration received for the holding of such office(s).There is no reduction in the pension unless the remuneration from the office of profit exceeds 20 percent of the rate of salary payable to a backbencher (for example 20 percent of the current backbench fortnightly salary of $3,139.68 is $627.93). For every dollar in excess of the $627.93 threshold the pension is reduced by 50 cents. The maximum amount by which the pension can be reduced is 50 percent of the pension entitlement disregarding any commutation of that pension to a lump sum benefit by the former member.(c) For the purpose of the reason for each period of official travel, see attachment.For the Hon. A. S. Peacock, Australian Ambassador, Washington(a) Overseas Living Allowance of $51,733 per annum; Representation Allowance of $83,237 per annum.(b) The Department of Finance and Administration, which is responsible for parliamentary pensions, advises that where a former Senator or member who is entitled to a pension (or a spouse who is in receipt of a pension) holds an office of profit under the Crown, the pension may be reduced depending on the amount of the remuneration received for the holding of such office(s).There is no reduction in the pension unless the remuneration from the office of profit exceeds 20 percent of the rate of salary payable to a backbencher (for example 20 percent of the current backbench fortnightly salary of $3,139.68 is $627.93). For every dollar in excess of the $627.93 threshold the pension is reduced by 50 cents. The maximum amount by which the pension can be reduced is 50 percent of the pension entitlement disregarding any commutation of that pension to a lump sum benefit by the former member.(c) For the purpose of the reason for each period of official travel, see attachment.For Mr J. M. Spender, Australian Ambassador, Paris(a) Overseas Living Allowance of $63,808 per annum; Representation Allowance of $36,280; Language Proficiency Allowance for French at S4R4 level 100% at $2,587 per annum.(b) The Department of Finance and Administration, which is responsible for parliamentary pensions, advises that where a former Senator or member who is entitled to a pension (or a spouse who is in receipt of a pension) holds an office of profit under the Crown, the pension may be reduced depending on the amount of the remuneration received for the holding of such office(s).There is no reduction in the pension unless the remuneration from the office of profit exceeds 20 percent of the rate of salary payable to a backbencher (for example 20 percent of the current backbench fortnightly salary of $3,139.68 is $627.93). For every dollar in excess of the $627.93 threshold the pension is reduced by 50 cents. The maximum amount by which the pension can be reduced is 50 percent of the pension entitlement disregarding any commutation of that pension to a lump sum benefit by the former member.(c) For the purpose of the reason for each period of official travel, see attachment.Michael Baume—Consul-General New York—Reason for Official TravelTravel PeriodDestinationReason for Travel09/09/96-03/10/96Canberra: payments relating to duty when Mr Baume was away from home base in SydneyPre-posting briefings, pre-posting training programs08/10/1996CanberraPre-posting briefings25/09/96-27/09/96MelbournePre-posting briefings30/09/96-04/10/96CanberraPre-posting briefings13/10/96-16/10/96Canberra Pre-posting briefings16/10/96-18/10/96Los Angeles Official rest period en route to Post07/11/1996Washington D.C.Official visit to Washington Embassy25/1/97-26/01/97BostonAustralia Day Dinner12/02/97-13/02/97Columbus, OhioAddress Governor's Trade Mission to Australia01/04/97-02/04/97BostonLead Austrade-sponsored delegation to Boston regarding investment proposals02/05/97-04/05/97Washington, D.C.AFANG Meeting and Dinner09/05/97-10/05/97Boston Harvard Australia Chair Meeting and Dinner11/05/1997Princeton NJUniversity Meeting11/05/97-13/05/97DetroitToledo Trade Fair—Speech and Rotary Dinner06/06/97-07/06/97PhiladelphiaAustralia Society Dinner20/08/97-22/08/97Providence (Rhode Island) and Augusta (Maine)Visit State Governors03/09/97-07/09/97Washington D.C.Consul-General's Annual Meeting09/10/97-10/10/97Montpelier, VermontVisit State Governor07/11/97-12/11/97San Juan, Puerto RicoVisit State Governor30/01/98-01/02/98State College, Pennsylvania and BostonAustralia Chair Dinner—Australia Day Dinner07/05-29/05/98Canberra/Sydney/MelbourneConsultations and Leave09/09/98-13/09/98Washington D.C.Consul-General's Annual Meeting12/11/98-15/11/98Worcester and BostonSydney Symphony Orchestra Promotions21/11/98-23/11/98Orlando, FloridaSydney Symphony Orchestra PromotionsAndrew Peacock—Ambassador Washington—Reason for Official TravelTravel PeriodDestinationReason for Travel28/01-30/01/97Melbourne/Los AngelesOfficial calls at Consulate-General and with Consul-General en route to post03/02-04/02/97New YorkTo attend official dinner13/02-14/02/97New YorkTo attend official dinner27/02-03/03/97San Francisco/Los AngelesVisit to Consul-General & swearing in of US Ambassador to Australia24/03-26/03/97Los AngelesOfficially open Qantas multimillion dollar freight terminal/Attend David Helfgott Concert03/04-04/04/97St LouisOfficial visit to St Louis; calls on Governor and other officials09/05-10/05/97BostonSpeech at dinner in celebration of 20th anniversary of Australia Chair at Harvard University13/05-14/05/97Phoenix/HoustonOfficial visits to Phoenix/Houston28/05-29/05/97New YorkTo address Australian-American Association and meet with New York-based Australian journalists05/06/06/06/97New YorkAttend reception for Board of 795 Fifth Avenue Corp (Fairfax)12/06-16/06/97New YorkOfficial meetings/dinners; Meetings with Mayor's Office officials29/06-01/07/97New YorkPrime Minister's visit to New York01/08-03/08/97New YorkMeetings with Ronald Perelman and New York State Comptroller16/08/97New YorkOfficial dinner at East Hampton on 16 August and overnight New York City prior to departure to Australia18/08-29/08/97AustraliaAttend Australia-US Leadership Dialogue Forum `97; consultations in Canberra31/08-01/09/97New YorkOfficial dinner at East Hampton in honour of Senator John Breaux11/09-14/09/97Aspen/DenverAttend Forstmann Little & Co Conference24/09-28/09/97Denver/San Diego/New YorkOfficial travel to Denver (AACC); San Diego (AACC); Orange County (World Affairs Council) & New York City 11/10-13/10/97New YorkDinner with Manhattan Borough President and attend Spanish National Day functions16/10-18/10/97Lexington/ChicagoOfficial visit to Chicago; meeting with former President George Bush, Lexington04/11-07/11/97Atlanta/HoustonOpening of George Bush Presidential Library Centre09/11-10/11/97Cincinatti/LexingtonLunch with Governor Brereton Jones17/11-20/11/97New YorkVarious official functions and meetings in New York City, including dinner with former US Ambassador to the UN26/11-30/11/97New YorkMeetings with Ambassador Van Den Heuvel and Ronald Perelman23/01-24/01/98New YorkAustralian-American Association Australia Day Ball30/01/98Palm BeachGuest of International Red Cross Celebration weekend06/02-07/02/98New YorkDinner with Newsweek/Washington Post journalists20/02-21/02/98AtlantaAustralian-American Chamber of Commerce Annual Ball06/03-07/03/98HoustonAttend American Premiere of Australian production of "Hot Shoe Shuffle" and meet with former President Bush16/03/98PennsylvaniaOfficial visit to Australian-New Zealand Studies Center at Penn State University20/03-24/03/98Anchorage/HomerFunctions in association with the Hon. Bernard Nussbaum, the Hon Stephen Solarz, the Honourable Richard Solomon and others01/04-03/04/98New YorkTo attend the funeral of former Congresswoman The Hon Bella Abzug04/04-05/04/98New YorkDinner with columnist Jack Newfield09/04-13/04/98Cincinatti/AlbuquerqueOfficial meetings in Albuquerque and Santa Fe, including Easter Services01/05/03/05/98Cincinatti/LexingtonGuest of Chairman of Churchill Downs at lunch. Attend Kentucky Derby23/05-25/05/98Wilmington/CharlotteOfficial meetings in Wilmington & Raleigh30/06-01/07/98New YorkAustralian-American Association's 50th Anniversary dinner02/07-05/07/98North CarolinaAttend 4th July Celebrations. In the answer to Question Number 117 ( Hansard , 25 March 1999, page 3778), the destination was incorrectly listed as New York22/07-06/08/98AustraliaAUSMIN, Sydney and official calls in Melbourne and Sydney15/08-16/08/98New YorkDinner with Governor of New York28/08-30/08/98HoustonMeetings with the Mayor's office and discussions regarding Honorary Consulate09/12-14/12/98MelbourneMid-term consultations14/12-16/12/98CanberraMid-term consultations16/12-18/12/98SydneyMid-term consultations18/12-21/12/98MelbourneMid-term consultations21/12-22/12/98AdelaideMid-term consultationsJohn Spender—Ambassador Paris—Reason for Official TravelTravel PeriodDestinationReason for Travel19/6/96-7/8/96Canberra: payments relating to duty when Mr Spender was away from home base in SydneyPre-posting briefings, pre-posting training programs.7/9/96-9/9/96ParisRest period; preliminary briefings.10/9/96-4/10/96VichyLanguage training in Vichy. In the answer to Question Number 117 ( Hansard , 25 March 1999, page 3779), this entry was not included.5/10/96-7/10/96LondonFrench protocol requirement to enter France formally as Ambassador-Designate from foreign country soil.28/11/96-29/11/96France—EpernayRegional visit; Meeting at Chamber of Commerce, Reims; media contacts; promotion of Australia.29/01/97-30/01/97BelgiumMeeting with Foreign Minister Downer in Brussels.04/03/97-06/03/97Portugal—LisbonPresentation of credentials; introductory calls and familiarisation; meetings with representatives of Australia's business community, and Austrade representative. 13/03/97-14/03/97France—Lyon Regional visit with Senior Trade Commissioner; meeting with French regional political and business figures including former Prime Minister Barre; Business Roundtable; media contacts; promotion of Australia.17/03/97-19/03/97LebanonAttend Heads of Mission meeting in Beirut.20/03/97-26/03/97MoroccoPresentation of Credentials; introductory calls and familiarisation; calls on Ministers and senior Government officials, Embassies/Ambassadors of Japan, United States, United Kingdom, Canada; business leaders; National Assembly; International Chamber of Commerce.09/05/97-12/05/97France—NiceAttendance dinner Friday 9 May hosted by French Foreign Minister; promotion of Australian film industry—luncheon Sunday 11 May with Australian Film Commission; co-hosting evening reception for film industry. 01/11/97-07/11/97London/BordeauxHeads of Missions meeting London, then regional visit to Bordeaux; meetings with regional political figures including former Prime Minister Juppe; Editor, regional newspaper; attendance at crimes against humanity (Papon) trial; promotion of Australia.15/12/97-16/12/97France—MontpellierRegional visit with First Secretary; meetings with regional political and business figures, the media; promotion of Australia; call on CSIRO establishment.05/02/98-06/02/98Portugal—LisbonVisit with Counsellor for talks with Portuguese Foreign Minister and Foreign Ministry officials to make arrangements for Portuguese Foreign Minister's visit to Australia, and generally.11/03/98-12/03/98France—StrassburgRegional visit with First Secretary; meetings with European Parliamentary figures/officials, and Editor regional newspaper; meetings with regional political figures; attending session at European Parliament; promotion of Australia.22/04/1998SydneyMid-term consultations3-5/5/98Sydney/Noumea/SydneyOfficial visit to Noumea on the occasion of a visit by French Prime Minister Jospin and the signing by him of Agreement on New Caledonia status/issues. In the answer to Question Number 117 ( Hansard , 25 March 1999, page 3779), this entry was not included.5/5/98-6/5/98MelbourneMid-term consultations6/5/98-13/5/98CanberraMid-term consultations14/5/98-19/5/98SydneyMid-term consultations07/07/1998LondonAs Australia's Special Envoy to Cyprus, wide-ranging talks with political leaders, officials from governments and UN academics, analysts, media commentators, diplomats, interest groups and others.26/07/98-29/07/98Lisbon & London01/08/98-17/08/98Australia09/09/98-16/09/98Canada USA23/09/98-09/10/98Cyprus Greece Turkey19/10/1998-21/10/98France—ToulouseRegional visit with Trade and Investment Adviser; meetings with regional political and business figures (pharmaceutical and wool industries), and at School of Mines; attendance Chamber of Commerce, and at opening International Market for Advanced Technologies; meetings with local Press; promotion of Australia. In the Answer to Question Number 117 ( Hansard , 25 March 1999, page 3779), listed 19/10/98 only.