1999-06-023913REPS574901999-06-02Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Committees5749574957495749Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum.Motion (by Mr Vaile)—by leave—agreed to.That Mr Charles, Ms Julie Bishop, Mr Pyne, Mr Hawker, Mr Baird and Mr Causley be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum.Bills5749r8245749Bill presented by Mr Anderson, and read a first time.574909:32:005749Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Waterfront reform is an essential element of the government's efforts to improve the competitiveness of the Australian economy for the benefit of all Australians.In 1998 the government introduced a series of administrative arrangements designed to facilitate waterfront reform. Those arrangements included the provision of funds to assist stevedores to meet the cost of redundancies that resulted from the implementation of reform and restructuring in the stevedoring industry. I am pleased to say that the program announced in 1998 has been an overwhelming success and the government has succeeded in encouraging real and effective reform on the waterfront.Since April 1998 over 800 people have taken redundancy packages from the stevedoring industry and there are more to come. The take-up rate of redundancies has been even greater than we could have predicted when the program was announced.Stevedoring companies across the country, both large and small, are all reporting the benefits of the government's reform initiatives. The reforms that have been introduced have assisted stevedoring employers to address many of the key industrial relations issues within their workplaces, which have long stifled productivity. The resultant gains in terms of productivity and operational effectiveness will be consolidated as the restructuring spreads throughout the industry and is bedded down.However, much still remains to be done and the government remains strongly committed to assisting stevedores to introduce further reform. The government remains equally committed to ensuring that the industry bears any costs associated with the introduction of the changes required, not the Australian taxpayer.Let me now turn to the bill. Today I introduce the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999, which delivers on both of these commitments. This bill underpins the government's commitment that the waterfront reform program would be funded by industry and not the Australian taxpayer. The bill increases the appropriation within the existing legislation from $250 million to $350 million. The additional funds will be used to meet the greater than anticipated cost of redundancies.The increased appropriation will also ensure that there are sufficient funds available for stevedoring companies seeking to implement worthwhile non-redundancy related reforms aimed at improving their operations. These reforms could include the introduction of new technology such as electronic commerce; new wharf facilities; occupational health and safety training programs aimed at reducing the rate of injury; or training programs aimed at improving the employee's ability to use new equipment.The government will be assessing each proposal carefully, and will only agree to fund those reform initiatives which have objectives or outcomes that are consistent with the government's seven waterfront reform bench marks as the basis for continuing improvement. This bill will allow this work to continue by ensuring that the government has the funds available to assist stevedores to complete their redundancy programs and implement other worthwhile projects aimed at improving productivity and efficiency.The government has set the rate for the stevedoring levy by regulation at $6.00 per vehicle and $12.00 per container and it is not intended that this be changed. The period for collection of the levy will therefore be extended to raise the necessary funds. The government believes that this approach provides the best outcome for the industry.ConclusionThe Australian stevedoring industry has entered a new era in which employers are restructuring their operations with the aim of achieving world's best practice in productivity and reliability and offering a service that is internationally competitive.The government identified the reforms that needed to be addressed and provided the legal framework to facilitate these changes. This legislation underpins the administrative arrangements already in place and ensures that the vital reforms and restructuring which have commenced will continue.I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills5750r8165750Bill presented by Mr Anderson, and read a first time.575009:37:005750Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Act 1988 to give effect to the Treasurer's announcement in his budget speech that there will be a small increase in excise and customs duty on aviation gasoline, avgas, and aviation kerosene, commonly referred to as aviation turbine fuel or avtur, from midnight 11 May 1999. The additional duty raised will address a shortfall in industry's contribution to aviation safety programs and will help maintain air traffic control services at regional and general aviation airports.The bill is one of a package of three bills which give effect to the government's decision. The other bills are the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999. Customs and excise duties on avgas and avtur are levied under the Customs Tariff Act 1995 and the Excise Tariff Act 1921. The money raised by these duties is then appropriated under the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Act 1988.The Excise and Customs Tariff Amendment Bills increase the rates of duty on avgas and avtur to 2.71c per litre. The duty on aviation gasoline will still be 15.8c per litre lower than it was when the government took office in 1996. The increase comprises an increase of 0.467c per litre for the duty on avgas and 0.391c per litre for the duty on avtur, which brings both rates of duty to 2.2c per litre for appropriation to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA.The new rate also includes a temporary surcharge on avgas and avtur of 0.51c per litre to offset the Airservices (Location Specific Pricing) Subsidy. The surcharge is limited to two years and will be reviewed before the two-year period ends. CASA has produced a negative operating result for the past two years. The increase in duty will address this by raising an additional $8.6 million per annum. The rates of duty on avtur and avgas were identical until November 1995 when avgas reverted to the July 1995 rate due to a technicality. The rates will now be brought back in line.The government has provided a subsidy to Airservices Australia to enable it to maintain reasonably priced tower services at regional and general aviation airports. The current subsidy of $13 million, comprising $11 million for 1998-99 and $2 million 1999- 2000, will be boosted by an additional $9 million for 1999-00 and $7 million for 2000-01. This will bring the total subsidy to $29 million. The subsidy will be administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services to ensure that the payments to Airservices are sensibly managed and to achieve the government's objectives.The bill expands the definition of `eligible aviation fuel' to include aviation kerosene from 12 May 1999 in addition to aviation gasoline. This will enable avtur to be treated the same way as avgas under the principal act. The bill also repeals requirements for mandatory consultation with the boards of CASA and Airservices in relation to setting the `statutory rate' and on setting the respective shares of revenue between CASA and Airservices. Determining these matters is ultimately a government responsibility and legislated consultation is not appropriate. However, I will continue to consult with the boards of CASA and Airservices as appropriate.To enable the new arrangements to take effect from 12 May 1999, the bill provides for an adjustment to the amounts payable to CASA in relation to overpayments collected during the interim period, between 12 May and the commencement date, once the bill receives the royal assent. The increase will make an important contribution to ensuring Australia's skies remain safe and the industry can afford to pay for control towers at regional and general aviation airports. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned. Bills5751r8205751Bill presented by Mr Anderson, and read a first time.575109:42:005751Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999, which is now before the House, contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. It implements increases in customs duty on aviation kerosene, avtur, and aviation gasoline, avgas, that were announced by the Treasurer in his budget speech on 11 May this year. These increases will be operative from 12 May 1999.The new rate of duty on both avtur and avgas will be 0.0271c per litre. A portion of the increase will be directed to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, to fund its role of fostering air safety regulation in Australia. The remainder of the increase will defray the government's subsidisation of Airservices Australia operations at a number of control towers at regional and general aviation airports.An increase in the customs duty of 0.391c per litre on avtur and 0.467c per litre for avgas will be assigned to CASA. It is estimated that the increases on aviation fuels attributable to CASA will raise $8.6 million per annum in combined excise and customs duties. An additional increase of 0.51c per litre on both avtur and avgas will offset the government's subsidisation of airservices. It is expected to raise $11.1 million per annum in combined excise and customs duties. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned. Bills5751r8215751Bill presented by Mr Anderson, and read a first time.575109:44:005751Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999, which is now before the House, contains amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. It implements increases in excise duty on aviation kerosene, avtur, and aviation gasoline, avgas, that were announced by the Treasurer in his budget speech. These increases are operative from 12 May 1999.The new rate of duty on both avtur and avgas will be $0.0271 per litre. A portion of the increase will be directed to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, to fund its role of fostering air safety regulation in Australia. The remainder of the increase will defray the government's subsidisation of Airservices Australia operations at a number of control towers at regional and general aviation airports.An increase in the excise duty of 0.391c per litre on avtur and 0.467c per litre for avgas will be assigned to CASA. It is estimated that the increases on aviation fuels attributable to CASA will raise $8.6 million per annum in combined excise and customs duties.An additional increase of 0.51c per litre on both avtur and avgas will offset the government's subsidisation of Airservices. It is expected to raise $11.1 million per annum in combined excise and customs duties. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills5752r8345752Bill presented by Miss Jackie Kelly, and read a first time.575209:47:005752Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Purpose of the billThis bill amends the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989. The proposed amendments provide for an exchange of information between the Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Customs Service in relation to the importation, or attempted importation, into Australia of substances that enhance sporting performance, or substances that can be used to conceal the use of performance enhancing drugs.This information will be used by these agencies, within stringent safeguards, to contribute to the pursuit of a sporting environment free from the unsanctioned use of performance enhancing drugs or doping methods.BackgroundThe Australian Sports Commission Act was enacted in 1989. Since that time, the incidence of the use of drugs to improve sporting achievement has increased significantly. So too has the use of substances which will conceal their presence in samples taken as part of a drug testing regime.Australia owes it to its athletes to take every possible step to make it clear that we intend to pursue the principles of `fair play' which are so firmly entrenched in the Australian culture. We must make clear our intention that Australia will take action against any athlete who does not play by the rules, who relies on drugs to improve their sporting performance—in other words, who cheats. Our athletes have the right to expect that of us.The commission has an obvious role to play in this respect. It is important that the commission be provided with the ability to maintain vigilance on our athletes' behalf. The commission must have the ability to keep in step with the contemporary environment. It must be empowered to take action where it is clear that breaches of anti-doping policies are likely to have occurred.Major features of the billThe bill puts in place a mechanism to enable Customs to inform the commission about the importation, or the attempted importation, by a competitor, or for the use of one or more competitors, of performance enhancing drugs, and substances which can conceal the use of those drugs. However, the information cannot be passed on by Customs unless the chief executive officer is satisfied that a number of requirements set down in the bill have been met.The bill also contains a provision for the executive director of the commission to inform the relevant national or international sporting organisation about a likely breach of an anti-doping policy. It will allow the commission to pass information on to those sporting organisations which have an anti-doping policy and which are involved in the organisation of national or international competitions, or the preparation of competitors for those competitions. This provision will cover organisations such as the state and territory sports agencies and academies. Again, the bill sets down the strict circumstances under which the information can be passed on, and the purposes for which it can be used.The bill also contains provision for the commission to pass limited information to Customs to assist in identifying persons who may be importing sports substances for use by one or more competitors, but again sets down the purposes for which the information can be used, and the circumstances under which it can be passed on.To ensure that information is not improperly disclosed, there is provision in the bill for all commission officials to be subject to section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 which imposes secrecy obligations on Commonwealth officers. In providing for the exchange of information between Customs and the commission, these amendments take care to also provide for the security of that information, and the rights of competitors in relation to its use.Financial impact statementThe commission's budget will absorb any costs associated with the additional administrative action involved in this initiative.ConclusionI am confident that most Australians will want to ensure that the Australian sporting ethos based on honesty, fair play, excellence, and opportunity for all, is preserved for future generations of Australian sports people. This bill will enable the commission to contribute towards the realisation of those values. It will also clearly signal to the international sporting community that Australia will not tolerate or condone the use of performance enhancing drugs. This is particularly important as we approach the Sydney 2000 Games.I must also take this opportunity to stress that this bill is only one expression of the government's commitment to drug free sport. I recently announced Australia's Anti-Drugs in Sport Strategy 1999-2000 and Beyond—Tough on Drugs in Sport. This strategy pulls together a suite of anti-doping measures which together form a comprehensive and coordinated anti-doping regime. I commend the bill to this House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills5753r8325753Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.575309:52:005753Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This government is committed to ensuring a balance between public and private health sectors. This balance will ensure Australians have a level of choice as well as universal access to excellent health care. We have demonstrated this commitment through recent reforms to private health insurance, including the introduction of the 30 per cent rebate, loyalty bonuses, promotion of simplified billing and reforms to make the private health insurance industry more responsive and flexible. These reforms are based on a 1997 inquiry into private health insurance conducted by the Industry Commission and extensive consultation with consumer and industry groups. Lifetime Health Cover is another major and important reform arising from this process.This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to introduce Lifetime Health Cover into private health insurance. Under Lifetime Health Cover, health funds will be required to set different premiums depending on the age at which a member first takes out hospital cover with a registered health fund. Lifetime Health Cover encourages people to join a fund early in life and to maintain their membership and discourages hit-and-run behaviour. All of this increases the stability of the industry and helps contain the rising cost of health insurance premiums.Under Lifetime Health Cover, people who take out hospital cover with a registered organisation before the age of 30 and maintain their membership pay lower premiums throughout their lifetime relative to people who delay joining. People who join after the age of 30 will pay a two per cent premium loading for each year they delay joining. This loading is capped at a maximum of 70 per cent above the premium payable by a person who joins at the age of 30. To ensure a fair and equitable transition to Lifetime Health Cover, existing members of private health insurance funds who have hospital cover no matter what their age will be treated as if they had joined a fund at the age of 30. People currently without private health insurance will be given the chance to join and pay the 30-year-old rate irrespective of their age in a 12-month period of grace from 1 July this year to 30 June next year. Special provisions also apply to older Australians. People born before 1 July 1934 can take out hospital cover at any time in the future without paying a loading for joining late in life. If people in this age category choose to join a health fund at any time they will pay the same premium as a 30-year-old new member.This government recognises that people may need to discontinue their private health insurance membership for a period of time due to, for example, a change in income or an overseas posting. Lifetime Health Cover therefore allows people a 24-month absence from private health insurance without a loading being applied to the premium when they return. An individual who is absent for more than 24 months and then returns to a private health insurance fund will incur a loading of two per cent on top of the premium for every additional 12 months that they were absent from private health insurance.This bill allows for regulations to be drafted to allow health funds to extend the allowed period of absence for individuals in special circumstances. It also allows for me, as the Minister for Health and Aged Care, to determine that people in exceptional circumstances who were unable to lock into the lower premium rate on 1 July 2000 due to proven hardship are to be given the base rate premium. Determinations of this kind will be made on an individual basis and regulations will specify the circumstances under which such a determination is able to be made.Lifetime Health Cover complements the major reforms to private health insurance already undertaken by the government. It delivers another important part of the government's commitment to reform the private health insurance industry and to maintain the balance between public and private health sectors. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills5754r8335754Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.575409:57:005754Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999 gives effect to a number of changes to the Professional Services Review Scheme. Professional services review is the government's primary means of investigating allegations of inappropriate practice under Medicare or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The PSR commenced in July 1994 and has always enjoyed the support of all parties in this parliament. I thank the opposition and the other parties for their continued support of this legislation.The changes contained in this bill have come in the wake of criticism of some aspects from the Federal Court. A review was undertaken by a committee chaired by the Australian Medical Association. The review confirmed the profession's and the government's continued support for a peer review based scheme. The amendments to the act will enhance the administration of the scheme to ensure that the process is fairer and more transparent. The investigation and negotiation powers of the director of the professional services review will be increased. There will be greater legal support to the peer review committees and for the person under review. The determining officer, currently from the Department of Health and Aged Care, will be replaced with a determining authority. The determining authority will comprise a medical practitioner as the permanent chair, a permanent lay person and a third member who is a representative of the profession of the person under review. The PSR tribunals will be removed from that process while retaining the right of review on points of law.There will be a range of different methods contained in the substance of the bill to investigate inappropriate practice. For example, deeming provisions will apply to all consultation services on all days where the services exceed the number set out in the regulation. There will be provision for exceptional circumstances. A finding of inappropriate practice can only be made under the deeming provisions under the committee's peer review structure. These deeming provisions have been agreed to with the profession. The changes will greatly enhance the profession's ability to decide what constitutes inappropriate practice. I wish to particularly commend the medical profession for its contribution to the development of this framework. This bill will strengthen the scheme and address the deficiencies identified by the courts.Medicare is one of the largest programs administered by the federal government, costing around $7 billion this year. We need to protect that investment. The review committee found that both suspension from Medicare and repayment of Medicare benefits should be applied in circumstances where there has been consistently inappropriate practice. The government endorses this view. With the improvement in natural justice principles in the bill, it is proposed that avenues of appeal to the Professional Services Review Tribunal be abolished. This recognises that peer review is the basis of the scheme. A person under review will have full rights to seek judicial review at any stage of the process. The bill also addresses the question of adequacy of practice records maintained by practitioners under review. From 1 November 1999, a practitioner appearing before a committee will need to demonstrate that his or her medical records are adequate and accessible.The new arrangements will be introduced in such a way as to not disadvantage any practitioner whose conduct has already been referred to the Professional Services Review Tribunal. Where a review referral has been made by the Health Insurance Commission to the director under the existing legislation, an inquiry will be conducted, and conducted under the rules that currently apply.This legislation strengthens the scheme that has always enjoyed the full support of the parliament. With such an investment in Medicare, all governments over the last five years have agreed that a Professional Services Review Scheme is necessary. I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill. I ask leave of the House to present a report of the review committee on professional services review.Leave granted.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—I present the report.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills5755r8075755Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.10:02:005755Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I am pleased to continue my remarks on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 , which were interrupted by the adjournment debate last evening. We ought to pause for a moment and reflect on the wonderful achievements of the Howard government since it was elected in 1996. Unemployment, while always too high, is now at 7.4 per cent, the lowest it has been in almost 10 years. Inflation is the lowest since the 1960s. Economic growth has exceeded all expectations in the face of the Asian economic crisis to average out at three per cent, and we now find that we are a strong economy in a weak region whereas in the past we were a weak economy in a strong region. We have repaid debt: $20.5 billion of Labor debt has been wiped out in this year 1999-2000 alone, lessening the burden on Australians and making sure that our children and grandchildren enjoy a much better future. There has been significant workplace reform and we have placed a much greater emphasis on the importance of education and genuine training. We are widely recognised throughout the world as being a government which has sound economic credentials. We have firewalled the Australian economy and we have ensured that as we approach the next millennium Australia will do so in a similar state to the state we were in when we approached this century. Australia has not been debt free since the turn of the century, and as the next century draws near we are paying off the debt which has accumulated during the 20th century.Labor in office absolutely lacked the courage to take the necessary steps to reform the tax system, and we now find that in opposition they still refuse to admit that the system is broken and that much needs to be done. This government has provided excellent direction to the Australian people since it was elected in 1996, and we were honoured with a continued mandate at the election held in October last year.When one listens to the contributions made by some of those opposite, I believe one is quite disillusioned, because the Australian people expect honesty in politics. The Australian people expect their elected representatives to stand up and say it as it is. Yet, when we listen to speeches such as the one made by the honourable member for Melbourne, he claimed wrongly that in the budget the government had abolished forward estimates and that the government's plans could no longer be scrutinised. Anyone who looks at the budget documents would know that this statement by the honourable member for Melbourne is quite misleading. The government still publishes forward estimates. All primary financial statements are published with the forward estimates. In Budget Paper No.1 we find a statement with revenue and expenses, the balance sheet for the Commonwealth, statement of cash flows, taxation revenue and expenses by portfolio and capital expenditure by portfolio.As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the government has implemented a full communication strategy to major stakeholders in the lead-up to the federal budget to make sure that everyone understood the importance and the significance of the move to accrual budgeting. The honourable member for Melbourne has already conceded in this place that the government has had an effective communication strategy with respect to this important move, which brings about increased transparency and honesty as far as the national accounts are concerned. The honourable member also suggested that the Treasurer overruled the Minister for Finance and Administration to capitalise on the opportunity to move to an accrual budget by reducing the flow of information. Look, there is more information contained in this budget than ever before. The government has clearly articulated its policy objectives and the means by which these are going to be achieved.The member for Melbourne also claimed that the budget was based on the assumption that the tax package was going to get through. His speech was made only a day or so ago, well after the historic arrangement was announced between the Prime Minister and the government and the Australian Democrats. It is very clear that this government's mandate given to it by the Australian people in October last year will be delivered, that the promised tax cuts will indeed be substantially delivered and that we will have a new tax system. It is also interesting to note, and I want to reiterate, that Labor's budgetary black hole has indeed been repaired.The member for Melbourne also suggested that there was no reference to the Auditor-General's reports. The truth is that the budget is one mechanism by which the government is delivering sound economic policy management. It is an important mechanism but it is not the only mechanism. The government values the advice of the Auditor-General's reports in providing better public policy. The member for Melbourne also wrongly claimed that this was a complacent budget. This is a very good budget. It builds on three effective coalition budgets which have put the Australian economy on the path to sustainable economic growth.The budget before the chamber at the moment was widely recognised in the Australian community as being excellent when it was delivered by the Treasurer a couple of weeks ago. Headlines right across the nation reinforced that this was a responsible budget and that this government was building on its outstanding performance since its election in 1996.However, the member for Melbourne was not the only Labor speaker who sought to mislead the Australian people when making contributions to this budget debate. In her wide-ranging attack on the Attorney-General, the honourable member for Gellibrand, Ms Roxon—a new member—accused the government of neglecting its obligations and that there was a clear agenda on the part of this government to silence its critics. She also claimed that, since the Howard government was elected, cuts to legal aid had been devastating and that there was a crisis in legal aid. Those allegations cast unfair and offensive aspersions on the Attorney-General. I believe they indicate the ignorance of the honourable member for Gellibrand. It is widely recognised in the Australian community that the Attorney-General is committed to improving accountability, better access and transparency in the way that justice is administered in this country.This government is committed to achieving equitable and improved access to legal services for all Australians. Even a cursory look at the budget papers would reveal that there is additional spending of some $245 million over four years to meet election commitments in the portfolio of the Attorney-General, including $3.6 million to extend justice to disadvantaged people in rural and regional Australia and $27.9 million to establish a federal magistracy to deal with less complex matters in an inexpensive and timely manner. Contrary to the assertions made by the honourable member for Gellibrand, the government has also expanded legal services, with new legal service centres in five high need rural and regional areas. These centres will service the local communities and provide legal assistance to people with low income and special needs. The increase in funding allocated to community legal services in this budget came on top of the 19 per cent increase in the last coalition budget. The allegations of the honourable member for Gellibrand are very thin allegations indeed.The honourable member for Brisbane, Mr Bevis, suggested that this was a budget which sank without trace virtually hours after its delivery in the parliament. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from sinking without trace, this budget will provide enduring benefits for all Australians. It will continue to secure our economic and social future. The real failure in the Australian public arena was Labor's 13 years of neglect and record unemployment.That brings me to the honourable member for Batman—the former president of the ACTU. He had the gall and the audacity to stand up here and claim that this was a job destroying budget based on a job destroying tax. The honourable member for Batman is not a bad sort of individual personally, but he should be ashamed of his hypocrisy. Labor's 13 years left a record of high unemployment—a blight which this government was left to fix. We did not create the problem but we accept the responsibility to correct it. Remember Labor's dole queues of one million people. Recall the way that Paul Keating in government had mickey mouse schemes designed to hide people who were unemployed. As a government, we have done much more than Labor. Labor was the great job destroyer and the party of high unemployment. While it was in office, the average unemployment rate was 8.7 per cent. The long-term unemployed were betrayed. Members of the Labor Party have no credentials and they ought not be hypocritical and stand up in the parliament and criticise this government for fixing yet another problem which it inherited upon election to office.The honourable member for Dickson and former leader of the Australian Democrats, Ms Kernot, must, like other Labor luminaries, be suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome—particularly given the publicity for her successor Senator Meg Lees. The honourable member for Dickson had the gall to suggest that this government does not have a long-term strategy for rural and regional Australia. We have a covenant with rural and regional Australia. We are supported strongly by that part of the Australian community. We have done more for rural and regional Australia than the Labor Party did in 13 years.The honourable member for Prospect, Mrs Crosio, said that this government's commitment to education is a facade. That is an absolute and complete sick joke. We are allocating $131 million extra for literacy and numeracy programs. The Prime Minister was right to declare this to be an education budget. We are spending a lot more on training and apprenticeships, with an extra $90 million for Asian languages, $78 million for teacher training and development and an extra $561 million in extra funding for non-government schools. With the passing of the GST revenue to the states, the states will have more dollars to spend on state schools, education, health and on their other constitutional responsibilities.Members of the Labor Party who have come into the chamber have taken no notice of what is really in the budget. They have not considered that they are in the party which reduced Australia to a situation where our future was actually endangered. Unemployment was high, the economy was shot and the budget deficit was $10.3 billion—even though they lied to the Australian people by telling them that the budget was in surplus. Members of the Labor Party do not come in here and say, `You guys have been elected. You've twice been given a mandate by the Australian people and we respect you for fixing up the problems that the Labor Party created during its 13 years in office.' Instead, Labor speaker after Labor speaker has the temerity to attack this government for the sound and responsible economic and social policies which it has introduced during each of the budgets it has delivered since the Australian people entrusted us with government in 1996.The Australian people have differing political views, but I believe it is important to be honest in politics. It is vital to at least call it as it is. People will respect you when you are wrong, and they would have respected the Labor Party members had they said that the Labor Party made mistakes over those 13 dark years of government. Instead, they whitewash their record. They stand up here condemning us for fixing up the problems which they left to us when we were elected in 1996. I am proud to be part of a government which does have a vision for Australia as we approach the next millennium. I am proud to be part of a government which has brought down three sound budgets and which has repaid Labor's debt. (Time expired)10:15:005758Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—When the Treasurer rose in this parliament to deliver the budget address for this year, he claimed that it was the final budget of this millennium. As my friend and colleague, and predecessor in the science portfolio area, would often reflect to this House, that is not strictly correct. The next budget will be the last budget of this millennium. I am willing to forgive the Treasurer his lack of scientific training perhaps or his misunderstanding of the way our calendar system works. That is perhaps a little less dangerous to this country than his lack of understanding of people's real economic needs.He was right, however, when he said this was a time to reflect on the transition to the next millennium. Fortunately for the Treasurer, we have 18 months to do that—a little longer than he at first suggested. I think he is right to say that, in that period of time, it is important to look at where Australia wants to be as we enter the next millennium, although technically it will be 18 months from now, not six months from now. However, I will support the popular celebrations which will certainly occur at the end of this year, when we see the odometer effect of the year clicking over from 1999 to 2000. Everyone likes to look at their car odometer when it clicks from 99,999 to 100,000. I am well aware that no-one pays very much attention when the next kilometre ticks by and it goes to 100,001. So, while the technical aspect is there, the reality is that we will all be paying considerable attention to New Year's Eve in six months time.At that time of celebration, we should look very closely at what this budget has done to science, education and the resources industry in this country, because those are the kinds of things which the Treasurer would have us reflect on at this time of millennial change. The reality is, unfortunately, that science and innovation have fared very badly in this budget. They have never done well under this government, but in this budget we have seen a continuation of that trend, and a particularly serious example of it at that. Government investment in science and innovation as a proportion of our gross domestic product, GDP, has declined from 0.78 per cent in 1995-96, when this government came to office, to around 0.63 per cent in 1999-2000. That is one of the lowest figures since records have been kept.That is a very broad-brush summary. I am aware that it conceals quite a number of individual changes within the budget areas, some of which will be up and some of which will be down. But the reality is that that summary is a very powerful one. Every year until now, we have been able to look at that GDP proportion for science and innovation and see that, as a share of our total economy, science and innovation have been growing. Unfortunately, under this government, they are falling, and they are projected to fall even further.The forward estimates are quite hard to find in this budget, contrary to what the member for Fisher would assert. The reality is that the government has done a very good job of hiding information in these budget documents. They are voluminous. With the change to accrual accounting, it is not easy to make comparisons with previous years, and it is not easy to find the government's projections for future years and to relate the two to follow the trend. But those kinds of summary statistics are very damning of this government's attitude towards science and innovation. They tell us that the government's commitment to science and innovation is weak and is getting weaker.This budget deals with a wide range of science and technology issues, and I think there are a few that we should look at more closely. Innovation is very important to this country's economy. Innovation and science and technology have probably delivered something like half of all the economic growth in countries like the United States, Australia and Canada, and in Great Britain and western Europe since World War II. Something like half the economic growth we have enjoyed has come from innovation in technology and new ways of doing new things, as well as new things to do. They have been very important to our economy. They have generated a great deal of wealth and they have generated many of the jobs which our people now enjoy the salaries and wages of.It is very important to our economy that that trend should continue. It is also very important that innovation should continue in our economy, because otherwise we will not enjoy the job opportunities in the next century which we should. The high skill, high wage jobs will be denied to young Australians. They will instead be formed in countries like the United States and in Great Britain, which are making very substantial investments in science and technology, education and innovation.We have already seen in past budgets the way in which this government treats the incentives that are provided within the taxation system for science and innovation. One of their first acts was to cut the R&D tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent. That has had a very significant impact on business expenditure on R&D. It fell by 7.4 per cent in the 1996-97 financial year, which was the first year after the cut to the tax incentive. It was the first fall since 1976—well over 20 years. The first fall in business expenditure on research and development was in the year immediately following this government's decision to cut the income tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent.The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that for the 1997-98 year business expenditure on R&D will have fallen a further eight per cent. So we are looking at something like a 15 or 16 per cent fall in business R&D expenditure in the last couple of years since the government slashed the R&D tax concession.Business will ways tend to underspend on R&D. R&D is a long-term investment in the future of the business and in the future of the country. In most cases it does not have immediate pay-offs to business. Therefore, it is the kind of thing which economists refer to as a public good, something which the government need to encourage investment in. If we do not, business will tend to underspend on something which does not pay them immediate dividends. If we do not encourage them to spend on that, there will not be those job opportunities, there will not be the economic activity, there will not be the wealth creation and there will not be the job creation for Australians in the next decade which we know we will obviously need.That is the first aspect of this government's treatment of science and technology, which of course we have been focusing on in past budget debates but which is now really starting to come home to this government with a 15 per cent cut in that very important statistic of business R&D investment. So not only do we see a decline in government investment in R&D but we are now seeing an equally dramatic, if not more dramatic, decline in the funds that business provides for research and development.If we look at some of the more detailed figures for the budget, we can see that in fact the government has cut science funding across the board. I think there was a very good summary of that in the Age of Monday, 31 May: For example, funding for the Department of Industry, Science and Resources has been cut by 6 per cent overall, along with general operating grants for universities (1 per cent), "targeted" university research (5.5 per cent), "other" university research (2.3 per cent), the Australian Geological Survey Organisation (21 per cent)—and I will have more to say about that later—the Australian Research Council (3.9 per cent), CSIRO (0.5 per cent) and the Cooperative Research Centres (5.5 per cent).The national space program has lost its entire funding of $1.5 million . . . And business R&D, as I have said, is also down again. Australia has dropped to 19th out of 24 OECD nations on its expenditure on science and innovation. The fact that we are now 19th among OECD nations for expenditure in this area is a very worrying statistic because, clearly, comparison with other OECD countries is very relevant to Australia.What this government has done to the Australian Geological Survey Organisation highlights two very important things that I would like to see this parliament take much greater notice of in both the science and the resources areas—the two portfolio areas which I cover for the opposition. AGSO, of course, is a very important part of our exploration effort in this country. Exploration is already declining in Australia. It has declined over the last 18 months from expenditure of some $300 million per quarter by companies on minerals and resources exploration in this country to just $225 million a quarter in the most recent quarter for which statistics are available. That is a very worrying trend in private sector resource expenditure, and it obviously has had significant consequences for those who work in this area. Indeed, it is estimated that there are now some 3,000 highly qualified geoscientists unemployed in this country, a statistic which is of great concern to those who have a concern for the long-term viability of the resources industry in this country. Where will we be if those people with their qualifications and experience move overseas to our competitor nations in the resources industry? Their skills are very translatable, as are they, and they can just as easily pick up better paying jobs overseas. I am sure there are many there who will want to capitalise on their experience and qualifications, and they will be forever lost to the Australian industry.Of course, combined with that private sector fall in exploration expenditure, we have had two very substantial cuts by this government in AGSO's funding. Very soon after they took office there was a significant cut to AGSO funding. They reduced AGSO funding significantly. AGSO at the time had a staffing level of some 612 staff members, and it now has only 490 positions. The 15 per cent cut in this budget will mean up to 100 more jobs will go at the Australian Geological Survey Organisation, on top of the significant cuts which occurred in that organisation in the first round of Howard budget cutting.These figures were buried in the budget statistics. They were certainly not highlighted by the minister. They represent a very substantial diminution in the ability of AGSO to add value to exploration dollars. In order to make Australia a more attractive place for investment in the mining and petroleum exploration business, obviously it is very important to have the base statistics to put before those companies. That is a very significant public good. It allows those companies to look at Australia and to know that there are really prospective areas where they might then spend additional funds—scarce funds—on looking for minerals and petroleum resources.That, of course, adds value to Australia's mineral base, creates jobs in Australia and has a significant multiplier effect throughout our economy. By slashing the budget of AGSO, by reducing the number of their professional staff, you create a long-term impact on Australia's ability to sustain its resources base. We know from research undertaken by the organisations that represent mineral explorers in this country that there is probably a five-year plus lag between exploration expenditure and production output by those companies. So the cuts the government is making now will have a serious impact on our sustainability of the production value of the resources industry in five, six or seven years time. That is when it will count in jobs, that is when it will count in revenue to government and that is when it will count in the multiplier effects throughout the economy—when the resources industry suffers from these cutbacks in five years time.They are already feeling the burden of long-term price cuts for the base metals and even for west Texas crude, although it has recovered a bit lately. If you look at all of the minerals and petroleum exports of this country, you find that the long-term base has declined, which means there is much more pressure on companies to produce more efficiently and to find those resources more cheaply. If Australia is to be part of that wealth creation process, we certainly do not need to reduce the resources available to AGSO, one of the world's best practice geological survey organisations.The other part of the budget which I would like to comment on is the resources that are made available to the health and biotechnology sectors. Innovation, as I have said, is very important in providing the next generation of high wage, high skill jobs for young Australians. Once or twice in a generation, enabling technologies come along which ensure that through their multiplier effects you are able to generate wages and wealth for this country in a way which other technologies do not offer. In our generation those two technologies have been the IT industry and biotechnology.IT has already to some extent passed Australia by. We lost some of those opportunities to Silicon Valley and to the United Kingdom. In terms of manufacturing, we have lost some of them to places like Taiwan, Japan and Korea. We still have a very important IT industry, certainly in the software aspect of it, but the reality is a lot of that wealth creation potential and high wage, high skill job creation potential has passed Australia by in the IT sector. We want to make certain that does not happen in the biotechnology sector.IT is an enabling technology because it allows people to leverage their IT investment into other aspects of their business enterprise and throughout the whole economy to make all of it more productive, to make all of it return a higher rate of return, to allow them to create more wages, more jobs and more wealth for Australia as a whole. That IT investment is not important, then, just for the number of software packages or computer and hardware packages which you buy; it is important because it allows you to make your business enterprise much more productive.Biotechnology is very much the same. This government has chosen to highlight its investment in biotechnology in this budget. Indeed, they leaked some of that information in advance of the budget to build up expectation in the community about the good job they said they were going to do for biotechnology. What a horrible shock the actual budget itself was, I am afraid. The reality was very different. Mostly, they are about setting up mechanisms to regulate the industry. So it is not about actual investment in the biotechnology industry itself; it is about establishing a gene technology office to provide a national regulatory system and about funding some of the government departments to advise ministers on how best to work in this area.I am not opposed in any way—indeed, I would encourage the government to set up a proper regulatory mechanism for biotechnology. Obviously, if you are going to release genetically modified organisms into the environment you need to make sure that that is safe and that it will enhance our productive potential, not harm it. So a regulatory mechanism—and a national mechanism, at that—is an important addition. But the terrible part of this is that the government claims that is their great initiative in biotechnology. I thought that would be a minor part of the initiative and that the substantial investment this government would make would be in the industry itself or at least in the research which underpins the industry. The reality is that without a massive investment in the biotechnology industry we will not be able to compete in that industry in the next century and there will be nothing for this government to regulate—or for its successor to regulate when we take office at the next election. The reality is that without that investment in research and in education of the next generation of scientists there will be no biotechnology sector to look at.What was the much vaunted increase in NHMRC spending? It will be five years before NHMRC spending doubles under this government. The first year increase of $16.7 million will barely fill the hole left in the previous budget. So while they made a lot of their investment in NHMRC and in gene technology, the reality is very different. I am afraid this chicken—cooked or uncooked, diced or undiced—laid a very small egg. The reality, like the cuts in AGSO, will come back to haunt this government in future years.Australia has some 0.3 per cent of the world's population but produces 2.5 per cent of the world's research. That has a very significant multiplier effect in this country on research and innovation in the health sector. We have got a very important health research industry—and, indeed, this is Medical Research Week, for those members who were not aware of it—and the importance of medical research goes well beyond the health effects for Australians; it goes to the actual creation of jobs and future industries for Australians and young Australians in the next millennium. If we do not make those investments now, those things will not be there in the future to pick up.This government has simply presided over an ongoing fall in the investment in all of those areas, whether it is basic science, whether it is the science agencies who deliver the innovation on the ground—like CSIRO, AGSO or the CRC program—or whether it is the NHMRC funding. They certainly seem to have realised the NHMRC funding is important, but they do not seem to be actually delivering the dollars. This government has failed all of those organisations because it has failed to understand the importance of innovation, it has failed to understand the importance of underpinning our education system so that young people can get the education in this country that they need to ensure that they have the training which these new enabling technologies like biotechnology and IT demand, and so that they can be part of those ongoing industries.Finally, the ultimate litmus test of this government's commitment to science and innovation can be judged by its attitude to the position of Chief Scientist. One of the first things this government did when it came to office was to contemplate the abolition of the position of Chief Scientist in the Australian government. It then found a few dollars to retain a part-time position. When the then Chief Scientist, John Stocker, retired earlier this year he was replaced after a substantial gap by a very eminent person in the field—and I have every respect for them—but again the reality is that the position is part-time. The fact that this government, in the `last budget of this millennium', to quote the Treasurer—or in the second last budget of this millennium in reality—has allocated only enough funds to have a part-time Chief Scientist is, to me, the ultimate indication of its commitment to science. (Time expired)10:35:005763Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The Treasurer said that this year's budget was right for the times. Indeed, it was right for the times and it was right on time. At the time of the budget itself, the government forecast a budget surplus of $5.4 billion for 1999-2000. That surplus will be used to repay Commonwealth debt. In the last five Labor budgets the Commonwealth debt rose $80 billion. To pay that off without the sale of assets we would have had to run budget surpluses of $80 billion to get back to where we were before those five Labor budgets. The budget deficit in the year before the government was elected was $10.3 billion, and the then Minister for Finance is now the Leader of the Opposition. In two budgets while he was finance minister the now Leader of the Opposition produced deficits of $23 billion—25 per cent of Commonwealth debt.The accumulated Commonwealth debt that Labor left us was costing us $9 billion in interest when we came to office. It is interesting that in those years Labor was running up $80 billion of debt, they reduced capital funding to the aged by 75 per cent and left 10,000 potential clients for residential care out in the cold. They fell 10,000 short of their own target, and they have the gall to talk about financial rectitude and initiatives for the aged.It is even more important that we do pay down Labor's debt and continue to run surplus budgets at a time when Australia has a worrying current account deficit. That is why I say that this budget is right for its time and right on time. If, in our earlier budgets, we had waited to make the hard cuts, we would not be in the position we are in now. It is utterly hypocritical for any member opposite to try to claim credit for this surplus because, at every step and at every turn, they have opposed measures designed to achieve it.It is high time that we paid off our debt and it would be very satisfying if we were debt free by the Treasurer's target of 2003. And while 2003 is the target, it will require careful budgeting and surpluses for the next four years, conjointly with tax reform and the further sell-down of Telstra. Without this, economists are divided over how long it will take to eliminate Commonwealth debt, but the most optimistic view is 16 years. To the opposition I say, `That's some legacy you have left us.'The $9 billion that we save in interest payments can be put to good use to revitalise Australia from the inside out. The money would pay for a lot of schools, hospitals, aged care facilities, roads and other regional infrastructure. But even beyond these obvious improvements, there is the chance for real generational change in regional Australia.Let me preface my remarks by saying that one of the flabbiest and most unsubstantial contributions I have heard in this debate was that of the member for Dickson, the shadow Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in which she failed last night to lay so much as a hand on the government. She spoke in sweeping generalities of vision, leadership, partnership, strategy and action. But not once did I hear her come up with a proposal for a program that would match the government's Invest Australia program. Nowhere did she suggest a new structure for regional development bureaus, which have been grossly underfunded by successive state and federal Labor governments.It is not as if the ALP does not know the value of strategic funding, because coalition and Labor governments have proven that they are willing to ensure that regional tourism boards funding is clearly defined and systematic. But there is no vision on Labor's side to extend this to industry development—the other arm of regional development. What would the Member for Dickson have us do? Reinvent regional economic development organisations—the dreaded REDOs?—which were one of the most wasteful, unsuccessful and unfocused attempts at imposing regional development on rural Australia from the top down.Labor had no understanding then that regional development depends on recognising areas of commonality and community of interest. They did not, and they plainly still do not, understand that regional development has to be driven from the ground up and that it requires the commitment of local business and industry, local government and state government before the federal government can put that layer of cream on the cake. Labor does not understand the concept of ownership, which is paramount in regional development. The ALP had numerous forays which amounted to little more than throwing money at problems, and it is an absolute joke to hear the shadow minister and member for Dickson call for new infrastructure when her party did more than any other since Federation to denude the bush of infrastructure and services.I am not pretending that the Howard government does not have a long way to go in this field, but it has at least shown a willingness to look at new forms of infrastructure, such as funding for rail, and I am confident that many areas of my committee's report, Tracking Australia, will be adopted as policy. I am sure that the other report, Planning Not Patching, of the committee which I co-chaired with the Hon. Mark Vaile, will continue to deliver greater facilitation to regional Australia. I applaud the increased funding provided for bridge upgrades to facilitate the introduction of increased mass limits for heavy vehicles, and also the Federation Fund bridge rebuilding program which, as you know, is a reality.As a government, we have already been heading in the right direction in the field of regional development. Invest Australia facilitates sustainable and productive investment in Australia, including regional areas. To date, Invest Australia has been involved with 150 projects worth $1.9 billion in regional communities, and these have created up to 3,000 jobs. Currently, Invest Australia is facilitating 30 projects through government approval processes, with capital expenditure in the order of $43 billion. All these projects, should they proceed, will be a boon to regional Australia.Invest Australia assists corporations and individuals at all stages of the investment stream. The major projects facilitation, MPF, service assists companies through government approvals at all levels. I am pleased that two projects in my electorate of Hinkler have MPF status. Invest Australia, through assistance for regional headquarters, RHQ, gives specific incentives to assist companies to make Australia their servicing base for the Asia-Pacific region. This RHQ facet is one which is particularly sound and one that we could perhaps be pursuing with more vigour.While Australia is now the strongman of Asia financially and is providing a stable social and political environment and a skilled work force, we should be out there aggressively chasing Asian headquarters to come to this country. Let us not stop at the headquarters—we should also pursue other things, such as call centres and hi-tech factories. Now that we look like finally moving out of the financial dark ages and into a new tax system, exports from Australia to Asia will be relatively unhindered by the hurdles thrown up by the ALP's preferred tax system. Sadly, it is still their preferred tax system.The program also provides financial assistance, in conjunction with state or territory governments, to eligible companies to undertake pre feasibility studies or feasibility studies into major investments. Under the investment incentives component, the government announced $40 million for a Visy Industries project to establish the world's first unbleached mini kraft pulp and paper mill in Tumut, New South Wales. This project will create around 1,000 jobs in regional Australia.The government has also made an offer of $100 million as an incentive for Comalco to establish a $1.4 billion alumina refinery in my electorate at Gladstone. The competitors for that project are Malaysia and the state of Sarawak. Should that project move offshore, that will cost many thousands of jobs directly and indirectly to Queensland. So I applaud the help the government has given on that project and I recognise the work it is doing to try to facilitate the gas pipeline from Papua New Guinea. I am also pleased that the Stuart Shale Oil project in my electorate has been given MPF status under the Invest Australia program.All these projects have a strong regional development feel to them. They are all in regional areas. They all deliver a high level of exports or import replacement and they all have a high jobs component. What I would like to see is another program, perhaps called the intermediate projects facilitation program, which could deliver facilitation to a range of industries on a lower level funding base. For example, a $5 million industry in a small town can make a big difference to employment and the economy of that town.I return to the budget. In putting together the budget, the government has delivered on its election promises which I echoed in my electorate of Hinkler. I find that very satisfying. But I found it amusing to read comments my colleague the member for Capricornia made on Central Queensland ABC following the budget. She claimed the budget was based on the 100 per cent sell-off of Telstra. That is quite an extraordinary claim. It is absolutely incorrect and a conclusion she could not have come to logically if she had listened to the budget speech or given the documents so much as a cursory glance.I believe that as members of parliament we have the responsibility to make sure that our electorates are well informed—whether we agree with the policy of the government of the day or not. If your policies are good enough, then they will win public support, but you should not try to gain support by making false and erroneous claims. The danger in not informing the electorate properly is that the electors will always hold a slanted view on major issues. That might be acceptable politically but it treats the electorate with contempt. But, worse than that, constituents who receive these skewed views may not have the appropriate information from which to access entitlements.In that regard and given the demographics of Central Queensland, I find it difficult to understand how Capricornia, of the five federal electorates encroaching on Central Queensland, could have had the lowest uptake by part-pensioners and self-funded retirees with respect to eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health card when it was widened recently. Capricornia had an uptake of 124 per cent, whereas the other electorates were: Hinkler 131 per cent, Wide Bay 137 per cent, Maranoa 157 per cent, and Dawson 194 per cent. And if you want to go a little further afield, Kennedy's figure was 218 per cent. That makes me wonder whether the people of Capricornia have really been well informed of their entitlements. I repeat this important point. Members of parliament, whether we agree with policy or not, have to give our constituents access to appropriate information so that they can access entitlements.I return to the erroneous suggestion that the budget depended on the full sale of Telstra. It is actually the case that the only commitments still to be honoured from the election are those that make up the social bonus from the further 16 per cent tranche of the Telstra sale which, we understand, is in the course of implementation. Those social bonus initiatives are very important measures for the people of my electorate—particularly the television black spots program, which covers both SBS and commercial television. The Boyne-Tannum area of my electorate—if you like, an outer suburb of Gladstone with 7,000 or 8,000 people—has no SBS television.I welcome the promise of the minister—the acting minister is here, and I am sure he will pursue this—that this will be turned on in the coming month. It is hard to believe that the people of Mount Morgan and Miriam Vale—with Mount Morgan only 30 kilometres from Rockhampton and Miriam Vale between the two provincial cities of Gladstone and Bundaberg—still do not have access to quality free-to-air commercial television, 40 years after the introduction of television. The Labor Party is winning itself no friends in the bush with its spoiling tactics in preventing us from getting on and solving this problem.The other important thing the budget delivers is help for families by keeping their home loan repayments low. Families on average weekly earnings paying off the average family home are $320 a month better off than they were in the last year of Labor. Of course, families also stand to benefit from the $12 billion in tax cuts and the $2.5 billion extra family assistance contained in the budget package. It is important for regional families that we continue the black spot road funding program, which was discontinued by Labor. We are spending a record amount on roads in general. I say it is important for families because these black spots are not necessarily out on state highways; they are often even in towns around schools and on arteries of provincial cities. Regional transaction centres have been funded in the budget and they should provide a significant increase in the level of service in regional Australia.I was pleased on budget night that the Treasurer acknowledged the many challenges that people face in regional and rural Australia. I was pleased to note that the member for Corio, at the NFF conference in Longreach on 19 May, acknowledged the devastating effects of the previous government's policies on the bush. He was referring of course to the Hawke and Keating governments.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—And the Beazley administration.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes. According to the ABC, the member for Corio told the NFF that his party was responsible for at times `overzealous use of competition policy in the late 1980s and early 1990s'. The member for Capricornia would do well to note that apology along with Paul Keating's recent apology for the recession that we did not have to have. The recession lacerated the Wide Bay and Capricornia regions of Central Queensland and was responsible for amongst the highest unemployment levels on record. At one stage the Wide Bay statistical region had a higher level of unemployment than Western Sydney. lf the current shadow minister for transport and regional services was interested in any thing other than feigning concern for the bush, she would apologise for the role she played as leader of the Democrats in passing the devastating policies—without compensation, I might add—which tore into the very fabric of regional Australia. So in this budget there are a number of initiatives to strengthen the social and economic fabric of rural and regional Australia and repair Labor's ongoing legacy of lacerating policies that were left by Paul Keating and are supported by the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry.There are a number of other excellent initiatives that the government has been pursuing. One is the ongoing Supermarket to Asia strategy to develop Australia as the predominant food supplier to the region. It is of direct benefit to producers in the Bundaberg, Miriam Vale and Gladstone regions of my electorate, some of whom are part of the Burnett Food Alliance, which arose out of a roundtable chaired by Senator Brownhill when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade. This is a very focused group that has been making substantial inroads into the Middle East and Asia with a number of agricultural based products.I applaud resources being provided for the Northern Australian Quarantine Strategy and I commend the fact that the fruit fly problem has been solved a year ahead of time. I also commend the government for regional flood mitigation programs, which are becoming more important as we see the El Nino effect reversed. All these initiatives are meaningful for producers in my electorate. The government has put a very good budget together. It is part of an ongoing debt reduction program. It focuses on rural and regional Australia. I commend the government.10:55:005766Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—If there is one thing that 13 years of Hawke and Keating left as a legacy in this place it is a government now in place on the other side that does not know how to govern. If ever there was an opposition speech attacking a government, the speech we just heard was it! People on the other side should realise they are in government. They have the right to make decisions. I guess that is what this budget and its associated tax package is all about. That is what makes this speech difficult to make. No-one can come in here with any definitive speech and speak to the GST legislation because we do not know what its final form will be. We do not know how it is going to come back from the Senate and how it is going to have to be amended. It is going to be amended: the government itself has something like 128 amendments, I understand, as a result of the `historic agreement' last week that is going to `favour all Australians'. Goodness knows when that will see the light of day and how the Senate will deal with that.I am sure that most Australians, in their youth, played a favourite party game where at some stage the host or hostess sat everyone down in a circle, started playing some music and then introduced a package that passed around from person to person and, as the music stopped, a layer was ripped off. In the place I lived it was always newspaper. That was all we could afford, but I understand that in other places it was brightly coloured paper. Every child that received the parcel hoped that, when they took the package and stripped away the outer layer, whatever was inside was theirs. It never seemed to work out that way because, as the successive layers got peeled away and no-one was a beneficiary and we finished up with the tiniest of packages that usually contained a trinket, a Mintie, a Jaffa or something, in the end we came to realise that it had been a lot of fun and we were all equal.Essentially, that is what the Australian people have been handed by this government. They have been handed the tax package and the wrapping is very expensive. There was $18 million worth of advertising before the last election to sell it, but there was no detail and no knowledge of what the prize was inside—just a number of very fancy packages. Let us have a look at what some of these layers may have been to package this final prize that the Prime Minister and his Treasurer have given us. Compensation for the GST was one of the most expensive parts of the package—the compensation that was going to be given to all Australians because a new tax was to be introduced. We all know now that that compensation is in jeopardy. It has been pruned back because of the historic deal that has been done with the Democrats. Then there was the money to the states. The Prime Minister announced victoriously after his session with all the premiers, `We have a new agreement. The states will be self-funded by this tax package.' What do we find has happened? `I'm sorry, boys, but of all those taxes that you were going to remove, some of them have got to stay in place.' Some of them will be removed, others will be there for a short period and others perhaps for ever.We know what the greatest supporter of the GST in Australia, the Victorian Premier, Mr Kennett, has said about this. He is not at all happy. I see in the Daily Telegraph today that the New South Wales Premier has said that the new agreement with the Democrats is going to cost New South Wales $850 million over the next five years. Of course, $850 million does not mean much to anyone who only gets paid a few hundred dollars a week. The Premier converts it into wages and says that the cost is equivalent to annual wages of 14,000 nurses, teachers and police, or 36,000 coronary by-pass operations, or 60 new high schools for 800 children each, or 141 new primary schools. They are the sorts of things that will be denied to the states—a mere blow, just the Prime Minister saying, `I've achieved 85 per cent of what I set out to achieve.' And to now find out that that sort of funding has been cut and that the Prime Minister does not regard it as a failure is a disgrace.Then we come to education. As a former teacher, I am a champion of education and know that education was always regarded by workers as the opportunity for their children to break free, to better themselves in the community. In Australia today the public education system educates in excess of 70 per cent of our students. I have no argument with the systemic Catholic system being given increased funding, because I know how hard they struggle and I know how sincere the parents and teachers are. I have no complaint about that.I have no complaint about poorer private schools where people demand the right to send their kids to a private school and are prepared to pay the fees for it. But I do find it offensive when the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs comes into this place and tells us how the majority of kids are not going to be worse off. Yesterday he said, `We're going to take the tax off computers,' but he does not tell us, `We're going put a tax on clothes, we're going to put a tax on piano lessons, we're going to put a tax on the gym fee, we're going to put a tax on fees for sporting events, we're going to tax snack foods and we're going to tax books.'Mr Pyne interjecting—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—No, well you would look only at a picture book. These are the things that every family in Australia is going to be confronted with and these are the things that the government is simply not saying anything about.Let us move on to the next layer which we could say is transport because we heard the Deputy Prime Minister only yesterday gloating about the cost to diesel excise. Let us have a look at the cost to diesel excise. I come from the Hunter Valley where unemployment is nearly twice the national average, where the mining industry has laid off 2,000 workers in the last two years and where the mining industry is, surprisingly, not owned by Australians but mainly owned by multinational corporations. They are going to reap the benefit of something like $2 a tonne in excise, according to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is that going to re-employ the miners that they have sacked? Is that going to cut the price of Australian coal? The answer is no. The only thing it will do is reap a one-off profit for the multinational corporations. It will be taken out of this country and not be reinvested here. It will not create a single job. It will not improve the lot of the people of the Hunter Valley.Let us have a look at what the trucking industry is going to do because I hear of all of these benefits that are going to flow on to consumers in the city and producers in the country. I happen to be a primary producer. I own a farm and I have done a few sums. I have phoned a few truckers whom I use from time to time to cart my cattle. I said, `Okay, how much diesel does a truck with a 20- to 25-tonne payload use per kilometre?' They say, `We get about 1.8 kilometres per litre.' Extrapolate that out and the saving in excise alone is about 25c per kilometre. If it is a 25-tonne payload, that is one cent per tonne per kilometre.Let us go further and talk about 25 tonne of chilled beef coming from the mid-Hunter Valley into Sydney where the consumers are. That is about 200 kilometres. You are going to save 200c per tonne of chilled beef. Work that out. I do not know a single householder who goes along and buys a tonne of beef. They might go along and buy half a kilogram. What they are saving, if it is all passed on, would be .2 of a cent per kilogram. That is a magnificent saving! And the government comes in here day in and day out and boasts about it.I suggest that money would have been better put into infrastructure because we know how many people lose their lives on Australian roads per year. There are statistics out to show how much this cost is borne by all of us. Yet what we find is a government saying, `We have victory. We are going to cut the excise on diesel, but at the same time we are not going to spend money on road infrastructure.'I heard the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hinkler, talk about black spot funding. Sure, it is a great thing. It was introduced by the Labor Party, by the Hon. Bob Brown.Mr Truss interjecting—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I will tell you why we cut it, and you can ask the Minister for Finance and Administration why we cut it. The Hon. Bob Collins cut it. As you know, the federal government funds road funding in a number of ways. When black spot funding was last being handed out by the Keating government to New South Wales, where was New South Wales spending its road funding? Not on roads. So Bob Collins called the Premiers in and he said, `You have a choice: either you spend your road funding on roads or I am going to take away the black spot funding.' That is exactly why black spot funding was stopped. Great opportunities are being missed in the transport area. This was an opportunity for a government with a pocketful of money—a $5 billion surplus—to encourage new technology, new fuels and new industry, but it has failed. The only thing this will do is encourage the greater use of diesel, and we know that every drop of diesel that is used in this country is imported. What about something like the ethanol bounty that was cut by this government in its first year? Why not reintroduce that? We have an Australian scientist who is a world expert in the use of ethanol. He sells technology to forward looking countries like Sweden and Brazil, places that use vast quantities of ethanol. But what do we find here? A government that has moved against an Australian and diminished the potential to develop our own industry and reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. That is a great opportunity gone missing.After we have removed that layer, we find we are left with a smaller package. But there is still more to come. How about health—something that is basic to all our needs, something dear to the hearts of all Australian families? We all saw the farce last year of the government giving away $1.7 billion to private health insurance companies to encourage people to take out private health insurance, and reduce the dependence on the public health scheme, and how the private health insurance companies responded to that by increasing their premiums—by 4.9 per cent this year already. So the people who jumped in to get the 30 per cent rebate are finding already that that is being whittled away; profits are more important to private health insurance companies than service to the sick.We have a ridiculous situation with the new Democrat and government agreement where things like aromatherapy and acupuncture are going to be tax free. I have no problem with people using acupuncture or aromatherapy but I do have a problem when people keep coming into my office telling me that they cannot get their teeth repaired, that they cannot eat a meal simply because they have had bad teeth for years and there is no Commonwealth dental health program. To reinstate that program would have cost a measly $90 million for a government that has a surplus of $5 billion. Where are the priorities of this government? They are obviously not with the sick or the elderly. How therapeutic is it for an elderly pensioner to go to the hairdresser where she will be pampered for a couple of hours having her hair shampooed and permed, be given a cup of tea and have some conversation? Yet that will be taxed. But if she wants to go along and get acupuncture, that is not going to be taxed. So we peel away the layer for health and we find we are left with an ever diminishing package.Let us talk about aged care. I think there is an allowance for 100 beds to be created in nursing homes over the next four years—that is, 100 beds Australia wide over four years, which is 25 beds a year. I could use all of those tomorrow in my electorate because we are an ageing community. The minister comes in here and talks about the great system of keeping people in their own homes. I have no argument with keeping aged people in their own homes, providing they have a support system, providing they have family and people to care for them, and providing they are fit and healthy. I had a call from a family only a couple of weeks ago. Both of them are age pensioners and the wife had ulcers on both legs. They got a visit from the community nurse twice a week. They got Meals on Wheels. The wife could not walk because she had an ulcer on the bottom of her foot. She was being kept at home because she was not considered suitable to be in a nursing home getting constant nursing attention. Where is she today? She is in hospital facing the trauma of having both legs surgically removed. That is where the priorities of this government lie—not in expenditure, but in the Treasurer coming in here and boasting about a $5 billion surplus.The Treasurer said on Monday of this week that a surplus is not the government's money, a surplus is the money of the Australian people that the government has saved or not spent. I say that the people of Australia would rather have service than surplus. So we peel away the aged care layer and we look at regional development. Whenever we talk about regional development, everyone on the other side waxes lyrical about how they are the champions of regional development. Here was an opportunity for a government with $5 billion in its kitty to spend some money creating real jobs through infrastructure. I suggest the government have a look at what is happening with the Pacific Highway, where over the next decade $2 billion will be spent. That is to create a four-lane highway from Sydney to Brisbane. That has already created jobs, as it gradually worms its way up the coast, in and around major regional areas—because it is not all happening in one place. The development of that infrastructure has created jobs and it has allowed industry to expand.In the Hunter, where unemployment, as I said, is almost twice the national average, there was an opportunity to kick-start the economy. For people who do not know the Hunter, we generate 85 per cent of the state's electricity. There are a buffer zones around the major power stations—large tracts of industrial land. There is heat energy going to waste, there is water there, there is the infrastructure of road and rail. What an opportunity to develop those areas. (Time expired)11:15:005770Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I am sure the good burghers of the member for Paterson's electorate will be delighted to know that if they take a trip to the hairdresser it will be better for them than going to have acupuncture for the serious difficulties that they might actually face in their health area. Obviously he needs to do a little bit more research about the benefits of acupuncture and certain medical difficulties, as opposed to a good cup of tea and a shampoo at the hairdresser—but his speech is not worth wasting time on. Too often economic and social policies are considered in isolation. But good economic policy determines a nation's capacity to meet its social objectives. This budget reflects the coalition government's blueprint for Australia for the next century. It is a blueprint for good economic management that delivers high economic growth. It is a blueprint that harnesses high economic growth to improve our standard of living, to fund important community infrastructure and to provide better services for the needy.The starting point for the government's blueprint was to repair the economy from the fiscal vandalism of the Keating-Beazley years. Labor's consecutive budget deficits—their last a $10½ billion blow-out—produced a debt of more than $70 billion. Labor's irresponsible financial management, coupled with soft policies, produced high inflation and crippling interest rates. Small businesses, which account for almost half of our nation's employees, lost confidence in the economy. Concerned by Paul Keating's threat of a banana republic and stifled by an ill-conceived workplace relations regime, small businesses—the engine room of the Australian economy—drastically reduced their employment rosters, pushing unemployment to a record high 11.2 per cent. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, who was minister for employment at the time, will remember the policies of the Labor government that produced this result.The coalition's 1998-99 surplus budget was the turning point for Australia. The 1999-2000 budget secures Australia's future. After two years of economic growth in excess of four per cent, growth of around three per cent is expected in 1999-2000. Growth over the year to the June quarter 2000 is anticipated to be around 3½ per cent. Economic growth in Australia will remain stronger than that of all the G7 economies and the average of the OECD countries. Inflation is as low as we have seen it in 30 years. Home mortgage interest rates are the lowest they have been in 30 years. Unemployment has reached its lowest level this decade. In the past year the coalition government has created 180,000 jobs.But, if Australia's unemployment rate is to break through the five per cent barrier, we have to do the hard yards. As a government we cannot allow ourselves to fall into Labor's habit of pretending that cosmetic adjustments to policy will deliver real jobs. The hard yards are a combination of targeted micro- and macroeconomic reforms. Despite the government's productive and ambitious reform agenda to date, there remains more reform challenges ahead. Specifically, there is the micro-economic reform of extending the range of products which can be parallel imported, which I want to comment on today, and there is the macro-economic reform of restructuring Australia's business tax system. If Australia is to remain internationally competitive, we need to lower the company tax rate to 30 per cent and reduce distortionary measures in the tax system. Globalisation has altered the traditional direction of economic policy. Capital has become more diffuse and economic borders more porous. This has reduced the power and capacity of governments to control economies free from outside influence. Unable to directly control economies, public policy must develop in two distinct but interrelated areas. Firstly, governments need to invest heavily in developing the knowledge and skills base of our work force through superior education and training programs. The increasingly mobile nature of capital means that governments cannot continue to invest in industry and expect that capital will remain within our national borders. A far better strategy is for governments to invest in the education and training of our work force, which is not as internationally mobile. These investments cannot be readily relocated to another country. Governments which underinvest in developing the skills of their work force run the risk of losing future potential investment to countries which have a more skilled work force.Secondly, the government needs to embrace a taxation framework and workplace relations policy which encourages investment, is incentive based, is transparent and reduces economic distortions that are the result of artificial influences in the marketplace. The last peg in the government's tax reform strategy is to improve the business taxation system by moving towards a lower, more uniform and efficient company tax rate with less distortionary measures. Slashing the company tax rate from 36 per cent to 30 per cent would earn Australia a reputation as an attractive and efficient place in which to invest and do business. The benefits of increased investment would be shared by all Australians through an inevitable boost in economic growth and job creation. But reducing the company tax rate to 30 per cent is only half the challenge. The invisibility of economic distortions and the costs of compliance for businesses and government through the Australian Taxation Office are compelling arguments for reforming the company tax system beyond a reduction in the rate.Some distortions are caused by the concessional treatment of company tax liabilities. One concession is accelerated depreciation of an asset, which allows companies to depreciate an asset for tax purposes faster than it depreciates commercially. Australia's mining, manufacturing and agricultural industries have all been heavy beneficiaries of the concessional treatment of accelerated depreciation. The capital intensive nature of mining, particularly in the early stages of a project, means that accelerated depreciation reduces the cost burden in the embryonic stages of a development. This has the effect of substantially improving returns from the investment over the longer term. It is effectively an industry subsidy.A reduction of company tax rates will encourage the expansion of less-capital-intensive industries, particularly industries which are exporting services. Reforms to the company tax system will foster a broader range of foreign investment extending beyond mining and manufacturing and make many of our domestic industries more internationally competitive.International competitiveness and economic efficiency are best achieved if consumption patterns are determined by the true cost of production and not by taxation considerations. The concessional treatment of accelerated depreciation has worked against that principle. The current tax system is inefficient because producer behaviour is distorted as production favours low taxed goods and services. The consequent price distortions affect consumption patterns, investment decisions, innovation and product development. A superior taxation policy should minimise the impact of taxes on production and consumption decisions. To continue with a company tax system which does not take sufficient account of international factors would be to risk a declining revenue base, expiring levels of foreign investment and a poorer competitive position for Australian based multinationals and enterprises.As this government turns its attention to the recommendations of the Ralph report, we should be mindful of avoiding the pitfall of borrowing a corporate tax regime from another country and grafting it onto our own tax and legislative frameworks. Australia should be looking to learn from the experiences of other countries rather than looking for an off-the-shelf panacea. There is little doubt that responsible macroeconomic policies, surplus budgets, a broad based indirect tax system and a competitive business tax system are the bedrock of our national economy. But if we are to build on this solid economic foundation and maintain our competitive edge, we need good microeconomic policies to complete the economic framework. One such microeconomic policy is removing the provision on parallel importing. This prohibition is manifestly uncompetitive in any economy. The monopolistic characteristics of this prohibition affect consumption patterns through higher prices, producer behaviour and investment decisions. Copyright laws are designed to protect international property, not to act as a non-tariff barrier. For almost a decade, the former Labor government aided and abetted multinational sound recording companies to manipulate the provisions of the Copyright Act for these purposes—indeed to act as a non-tariff barrier. This had the effect of extending monopolistic powers to exclusive distributors despite the fact that in most circumstances the distributor had made no investment or contribution to product development.Despite a damning report by the Prices Surveillance Authority led by Professor Allan Fels almost half-way through the former Labor government's 13 years in office, Labor failed to break the multinationals' vice-like grip on their lucrative monopoly market. The coalition government resolved to address this situation and in July 1998 the Copyright Amendment Bill was passed. In the nearly 12 months since the commencement of its operation there is reason to believe that the measures have produced the desired result— cheaper CDs and a sound recording industry reinvigorated by competition.A survey recently conducted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission indicates that CDs are about six per cent—or nearly $2—cheaper since the introduction of the amendments to the Copyright Act. Even more encouraging for Australian music lovers is that in the six-week period between 23 February and 8 April 1999, the price of Top 40 CDs fell by 2.9 per cent or nearly $1 to an average cost of $27. These are encouraging reasons to believe that the price of CDs will continue to fall. I am certain that Senator Harradine, who supported the government's reforms to the Copyright Act, will be delighted to learn that his constituents in Hobart are now enjoying the latest CDs for about $25. This is an incredible achievement given that I recall paying up to $31 for CDs only 12 months ago. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the price has fallen even further. There were reports in the newspapers last year and early this year that large supermarket chains like Woolworths have dropped their CD prices by $10.The opposition's facetious claims for nearly a decade that parallel imports would not result in cheaper CDs has failed to materialise. Nor is there any evidence that the industry has suffered any adverse effects. Indeed, cheaper CDs are likely to result in more demand and a greater volume of sales which will require the industry to expand and create more local jobs.However, it has recently been brought to my attention that a major producer of CDs has been including secondary film clip material on CDs which are primarily intended to be sound recordings. Indeed, I am aware that secondary film clips can be found on the latest release CDs from silverchair and Offspring. This CD producer has then contacted importers and retailers to inform them that they would be constituting an illegal act if they continued to import or sell these CDs with film clip material. The argument advanced by the producer is that the CDs are no longer sound recordings but are film clips and are therefore excluded from the provisions of the Copyright Act. Concerned by the threat of legal action, importers and retailers of these products have ceased selling legitimately imported sound recordings which contain secondary film clips because of their fear of paybacks from the sound recording industry. As a consequence these retailers and importers are suffering a commercial disadvantage.As someone who was closely involved in the debate on removing the prohibition on the parallel importation of CDs, it is quite clear to me that this practice is outside the intentions and the spirit of the 1998 amendments to the Copyright Act. By making an amendment to the Copyright Act to address this technical error, this parliament can ensure that consumers continue to benefit from lower prices and greater variety.Multinationals are fighting the government's reforms for cheaper CDs on another front. Determined to protect their monopoly market, multinationals have commenced mischievous and vexatious legal proceedings against importers such as Woolworths. The multinationals have based the litigation on a manipulation of the onus of proof requirements of the Copyright Act—reforms that we made in order to help the sound recording industry, not in order to allow them to hinder the intention of our government's act. They are claiming that it cannot be proven that royalties have been paid.The exploitation of these loopholes should not discourage the coalition government from removing barriers to the parallel importation of other products. The coin operated amusement machine industry, for example, is withering due to a lack of market competition brought about by the prohibition on the parallel importation of that industry's products. In December 1991 the Federal Court decision in Avel v. Wells opened the domestic market to parallel imported video games. In the following five years the industry thrived. Consumers enjoyed the latest range of amusement machines at a competitive price-per-play charge. Consumer demand resulted in an expanding industry which generated new employment opportunities.But in 1996 the coin operated amusement machine industry and their customers suffered a tremendous blow when the Federal Court overturned the 1991 decision in Avel v. Wells in what is colloquially known as the Galaxy case. At the time of the Federal Court's decision, a National Amusement Machine Operators Association survey estimated that the industry was employing more than 7,500 people in 1,200 small firms and produced an aggregate annual turnover of approximately $650 million. Within two years of the court's decision, only 850 to 900 small firms were operating—over 300 small businesses had closed their doors. Industry estimates indicate that overall video game income slumped by 21 per cent over the three-year period to July 1998. For example, a Newcastle based games manufacturing company with an annual turnover of $17 million and a staff of approximately 170 people suffered up to a 25 per cent reduction in monthly sales revenue. This loss of sales revenue represents a 30 to 40 per cent drop in annual net operating profit.It is difficult to accept that the slump which this industry is experiencing is not due to the 1996 Federal Court decision to prohibit parallel importation of coin operated amusement machines. The prohibition on parallel importing has created a monopoly market with unfettered control over charges and supply arrangements by a few key players. Control over product supply has resulted in acute market distortions which are being passed onto consumers and are crippling the smaller operators. Coin operated amusement machines that sell for $A20,000 in markets like Japan and America cost $A40,000 in Australia. Product distributors in the Japanese and American markets operate on a 10 to 15 per cent mark-up. It has been suggested that in Australia exclusive distributors work on a product mark-up of between 30 and 40 per cent, representing, I put to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, an extortionary activity by those key market players with that monopoly control.The domestic market has been carved up by two major players: Avel, who operate under the commercial name Timezone, and Village, who operate under the commercial name Intencity. Intencity do have an entertainment centre recently opened in my electorate. In fact, it is only a few hundred metres up the road from my office. It is an excellent facility and I am pleased that they have invested in my electorate and created new jobs. However, it does not detract from the fact that these two companies are operating in a competition vacuum and consumers are the losers. These two companies should welcome competition because of the benefits it will bring to consumers in the long term.In May 1998 the New Zealand government decision to allow the parallel importation of coin operated amusement machines produced immediate results for consumers and the industry. In New Zealand the experience has been that allowing the parallel importing of coin operated amusement machines has created a more responsive industry. More entertainment sites have opened throughout the country, creating new jobs. Consumers have also benefited through cheaper price per play and a greater variety of games to choose from. Prohibiting the parallel importation of computer software, books, overseas fashion labels, designer sunglasses or coin operated amusement machines is a second-rate microeconomic policy. The challenge for the coalition government is to continue its combination of micro- and macroeconomic reforms which has made Australia the economic strongman of the Asian region.If the Australian Labor Party are to ever move beyond the politics of rhetoric and opportunism, they need to abandon their blanket opposition to policies which will make Australia more internationally competitive. A lower company tax rate and a lifting of the prohibition on parallel imports deserve bipartisan support in this House because these policies are economy builders and are policies that are a part of the coalition government's blueprint for Australia in the next century. In the previous Labor government there was a strong debate about parallel importation of compact discs, with the cabinet making a decision to lift the ban on parallel imports, which they later rescinded under pressure from the music industry. The comments made by Labor ministers at the time reflected our own comments in last year's debate. However, in the last parliament the opportunism of the Labor Party came to the fore in this particular area and, rather than go with their strength of conviction on the rightness of this policy, they sought to make hay while the sun shone and work against the government's policy.This budget has secured our future, and these policies will build on these foundations and help sustain our aspirations and social objectives for the first decade of the new century. I commend the bill to the House.11:35:005774Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—This is the Howard government's fourth budget, so by now we could say that we have a clear idea of this government's priorities. We should be able to see where the government is taking Australia. From looking back over where we have been over the last four years, we should by now see exactly where we are headed in the future. From these four budgets and the recently concluded GST deal with the Democrats, we can see we are headed for a land of milk and honey for some Australians but certainly not for most Australians. We can clearly see the government's priorities, and they are not favourable to the great bulk of Australian wage earners and families. We can see this government's agenda in the amended income tax scales proposed in the deal with the Democrats. We see tax cuts skewed in favour of upper middle income earners. We can see from the erosion of services, particularly those provided to the most needy in the community, that this is a government which cares more for the welfare of the richest Australians than it does for those less fortunate. This is the direction in which the government is taking Australia.This approach to economic policy may sound familiar. It is little different from the failed trickle-down approach of the Reagan era in the United States or the Thatcher era in the United Kingdom. That should not be surprising when we recall that the Prime Minister was the failed Treasurer of Australia until 1983. It should not surprise us that the Prime Minister and the government are locked in a time warp somewhere in the 1980s. It should not surprise us that the government still salutes Thatcherite slogans of incentivation. Having lost the opportunity to apply those policies in the 1980s, the government pretends that they are still relevant today. They were not relevant then and they are even less relevant now.While the Prime Minister spent the 1980s in adoration of Margaret Thatcher, the Treasurer took the worst of the Reagan and Thatcher excesses to new heights. Now, with great relish, he is applying his Dollar Sweets strategy to the whole of Australia. For this Treasurer, budgets are little more than the bottom line. They do not represent the centrepiece of the government's program. They do not provide the basis for fulfilling a government's duty of ensuring a fair and decent society. In the best traditions of Baroness Thatcher's edict that `there is no such thing as society', the Treasurer gloats over a bottom line budget surplus without the least concern for how that surplus was achieved.The size of that surplus—$5.4 billion—is interesting in terms of its scale. If an $8 billion deficit is a black hole, what is a $5.4 billion surplus? On what galactic scale do you measure surpluses? The image of the Treasurer gloating over the surplus reminded me of the comic strip character Scrooge McDuck. I am sure the students in the gallery today would understand. Uncle Scrooge was often shown wallowing in money inside his vault. His whole purpose in life was to build his fortune so that he could take pleasure in counting it—not in putting it to use to send his great-nephews Huey, Dewey and Louie to child care or to obtain counselling for his nephew Donald's temper problems. He just wanted to count it.Like Scrooge McDuck, the Treasurer takes great glee in boasting of the budget surplus without acknowledging the origin of the surplus or considering the cost in human terms of achieving the surplus. Like the original Scrooge, Ebenezer Scrooge, the Treasurer's budget is haunted by the ghosts of budgets past and, in particular, the 1996 budget.MG4LEEMr Lee—And there will be a 10 per cent tax on A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—That is correct. The cuts made to vital human services, education, training and child care were not one-off cuts which had an impact in their first year and then faded away. The cuts made in the 1996 budget continue to have an impact. They are the ghosts of budgets past and they will continue to haunt this government and this Treasurer until they are driven from office. I say that because, when it comes to any reasonable setting of budget priorities, this government has shown over four budgets that it is incapable of meeting the priorities of the Australian people. The electorate has not forgotten the $800 million stripped from child care, the $2.7 billion slashed from the education budget or the $400 million chopped from dental assistance.This government cares nothing for the plight of families with young children. It has no vision for the future of Australia's education system and callous disregard for the health needs of older Australians. `Let them eat soup' is the response of this Treasurer to the growing list of pensioners awaiting dental treatment. Even when the government acknowledges the level of need for some services, its response is a case of too little too late; or, worse, it represents a distortion of priorities which reflect the ideological agenda of this government. Why would this government pour money into private health insurance other than to further its agenda of replacing our public hospital system with a for-profit private system? Why else would the government allocate an extra $210 per year to children in private schools in this budget and less than $10 to children in public schools? Why else would this government continue to starve the TAFE sector of funds and encourage mickey mouse apprenticeship training in private companies?I turn now to local projects which have pressing priorities but have been ignored by the government in this budget. In the last month of the Keating Labor government a commitment was given to provide federal funding for the Western Sydney orbital road. This was to be part of a $620 million program over four years for improvements to the National Highway. This commitment has not been taken up by the Howard government, despite its obvious need in reducing traffic congestion in Western Sydney and improving the economic efficiency of road transport.The Western Sydney orbital road has been designed to take traffic from the M5 Motorway, which forms the upgraded Hume Highway, and to divert traffic, including heavy vehicles which are travelling from the southern states and continuing on to northern New South Wales and Queensland. This is one of the heaviest traffic routes in the country. The present route takes vehicles along the Cumberland Highway, where local traffic mixes with through traffic to produce a gridlock at peak times. The Western Sydney orbital would take heavy vehicles to the west of the present road network, providing speedier through-traffic and reducing delays and accident risk for local traffic. The commitment to assist with funding for the Western Sydney orbital was made over four years ago and construction of this vital link is long overdue. While the Treasurer ponders the size of the surplus, he might spare a thought for the inefficiencies in our transport system which are caused by inadequate road funding.I have raised the issue of drug abuse on a number of recent occasions in this House. As yet, I have not received satisfactory answers to the concerns I have raised. Not the least of those concerns is the issue of funding for treatment and rehabilitation of illicit drug users. Firstly, in the broader sense, I have advocated the inclusion of naltrexone on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme list. Early results from trials of the use of naltrexone in detoxification and as part of ongoing rehabilitation and treatment suggest that it can be effective in many cases.Demand for naltrexone treatment is far greater than the number of places provided in public health facilities. As the cost of treatment in private health clinics is of the order of $7,000, it is out of the reach of most of drug users. By making naltrexone available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the cost of private treatment could be substantially reduced. In addition, the demand for this treatment warrants consideration of extending Medicare coverage for naltrexone treatment in private clinics. The cost of illicit drug use to the community far exceeds the cost of treatment. Eventual savings to the health and justice systems could repay the cost of the treatment many times over. We cannot overlook the benefits in human terms: in reduced crime, in improved community health and in the saving of lives from adequately funded drug treatment and rehabilitation.At the local level, the Cabramatta area, which lies within the Fowler electorate, is recognised as the drug capital of Australia. It is therefore amazing that last year, in the two rounds of funding totalling $50 million in the government's Tough on Drugs policy, Cabramatta—indeed the whole of south-western Sydney—received only $76,000. That is less than the national per capita funding level. The area with the worst drug problem received less than the average funding for the whole of Australia. I note that additional funding is provided in this year's budget. It is essential that the additional funds be redirected to the areas of greatest need. Few would argue that Cabramatta deserves additional funding for drug referral, treatment and rehabilitation services.The Fowler electorate has one of the highest urban rates of long-term unemployment. The government's answer to this has been to increase the number of places in its Work for the Dole scheme by 50,000 and to extend the age of the participants in the scheme to 34. Having gutted Labor's Working Nation program to build its budget surplus, the government now forces long-term job seekers into work which offers little in the way of marketable job skills. Make-work programs, by their nature, cannot offer future job prospects for participants. When we add the stigma of calling the scheme Work for the Dole, we do little to enhance the esteem of participants.It may go over well with talk-back radio hosts, but Work for the Dole is a poor substitute for real skills training. We risk doing a great injustice to participants when we deny them opportunities to learn skills demanded by real jobs. But training in real skills costs money—money that this government is not prepared to spend. It would rather take the easy option of Work for the Dole.This government's idea of mutual obligation does not go as far as fulfilling its side of the bargain by providing training which can set long-term job seekers on the path to a worthwhile career. Instead, this government is intent on reducing the level of wages and conditions in the Australian work force, and Work for the Dole is its means of making sure people take lower paid jobs. The recent remarks of the Minister for Employment Services when he referred to people as `job snobs' reflects this policy.This race to the bottom of the global economy would benefit few and disadvantage the great majority of Australians. This then is the real test of this budget. Does it provide a springboard for Australia to maintain its place in the global economy while at the same time preserving the social unity that has been a feature of Australian society? If we are to prevent further widening of the growing gap in our society between the skilled and the unskilled, between the haves and the have nots, we need to give closer consideration to the social impacts of budgets. We need to tally up the social deficits and surpluses and project those measures into the future if we are to effectively evaluate budgets. But that is all too hard for Uncle Scrooge, if the only one thing that matters is money.This will, mercifully, be one of the government's last budgets. One thing we do know about the direction of the government is that it is headed towards an electoral cliff. It is too blind to see the disastrous impact of its policies on the people of Australia, so I doubt it can see the drop ahead. It will be interesting to see how many government members follow the Prime Minister and the Treasurer down that fateful path.11:50:005777Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—According to the Leader of the Opposition at a recent doorstop interview, Labor's tax system is not broke. If that is the case, I presume he will be taking that back to the next election. I do not think it will be next year—I think it will be little while off yet—so there will be a few more budgets, I would say to the member who has just spoken.I can see the Leader of the Opposition up there on policy night, with the party faithful, saying, `We have a plan. We are going to remove the goods and services tax, and we are going to replace it with a whole new system. We are going back to the future. We are going back to the good old wholesale sales tax. No longer will you pay the 10 per cent GST on household cleaners, washing powders and liquid bleaches; you will now pay a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax. No longer will the pensioners who look to their pets for company pay a 10 per cent GST on pet food; they will now pay a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax. Nobody who is looking to buy a car need worry about a 10 per cent GST; they can now pay a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax. You will be able to pay 22 per cent on your lawnmower instead of the 10 per cent GST.'Maybe the kids will appreciate Kim Beazley's proposition of a 22 per cent tax on their boogie boards, on their footballs and on their cricket sets instead of a 10 per cent GST. Or perhaps the playdough and the crayons for the little ones will not have a 10 per cent GST; they will go back to having a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax. The rich and the wealthy among us who own televisions will not have a 10 per cent GST either; they will have a 32 per cent wholesale sales tax on televisions, along with any jewellery they might want to buy for a spouse or a loved one.Of course, there will be a few measures other than taking away the GST and imposing a wholesale sales tax. Kim Beazley will tell us and tell the faithful as they cheer wildly, `We will take away the seniors health care card. We will increase the cost of diesel. We will increase the cost of all of our exports. We will increase the tax rates for every Australian currently paying tax. We will reintroduce provisional taxation. And, of course, for pensioners—the ones that we cry so loudly about in Labor ranks—we will decrease the pension by four per cent. We will decrease their telephone allowance, and we will decrease their medical benefits fund allowance by four per cent also.'That, in a nutshell, is the ludicrous position being put by the Leader of the Opposition and by those opposite about the position they would take to the Australian people. They are saying all of the things I have just mentioned. They wish to retain Labor's system, a system that according to the Leader of the Opposition `isn't broke'. If that is not the proposition they will take to the next poll, maybe they will take the same one they took last time—that is, they will increase the capital gains tax and bring just about everything that anybody could possibly own into the capital gains tax net. Or perhaps they will increase the wholesale sales tax on caviar, which is what they proposed last time. I am sure you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, these are ludicrous proposals, but they are the only proposals before the public at the moment from those who sit opposite and would like to be in government.It seems that the Leader of the Opposition also has a fixation on chooks at the moment. Maybe he identifies with Hugo. Perhaps you would remember Hugo, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hugo was that rather rotund character from the Kentucky Fried Chicken ads who used to grab a bucket of chicken and whack it under his arm and ride off happily into the sunset. This debate is about a lot more than fried chicken, whole chickens or quarter chickens.The Leader of the Opposition would have us believe—and you only have to look at question time yesterday to see this—that there is only one issue about taxation. At the last election it was about capital gains tax for them. This time it is about food. Question 1 to the Treasurer yesterday was on food. We responded with a question on the current account deficit. Question 2 was on food by the shadow Treasurer. Question 3 from the opposition was on food. The government's question was on families. Question 5 from the opposition was on food. Ours was on the impact of tax reform on exports. Question 6: food. Question 7: food. We responded with things such as education costs, the transport industry, the exporting of Australian goods, families—issues that are important to Australia. This opposition concentrates on minute issues around the fringes rather than on what the public really wants to know—that is, how can we improve Australia's tax system; how can we improve the Australian economy?Let us look at some other groups within the community who will be affected by the new tax system. First of all, let us turn to pensioners. Today a couple receives $603.20 between them in the double pension. With what the government is proposing, forgetting about any increases in the cost of living, you would today receive an additional two per cent over and above whatever might happen. Whatever cost fluctuations there may be, every pensioner couple will be $12 a fortnight better off. Each single pensioner would be some $7 a fortnight better off. That is before you take into account any price rises. Let us presume that the taxation system when it is in place does have some form of inflationary effect, which is now presented to be less than 1½ per cent. That pensioner couple on $603.20 today will see their pensions increase by four per cent—that is, an extra $24 per couple per fortnight.So what do they have to pay for that? They do not get any increases in the cost of their food because there is no GST on their grocery bills for food. There is, however, a wholesale sales tax on some of those items, such as their biscuits and their ice-creams, et cetera. They will not have to pay any GST on the rent of the house that they live in. One of my constituents spoke to my office yesterday and said, `I am concerned that I am going to have to pay $100 GST on the rates on the house that I live in.' They were so relieved to find that that was just another piece of rubbish peddled by those opposite, because there is no GST on rates or local government charges. There is no GST on car registration. There is no GST on health care costs, doctors or medicines—or now, with the changes, even alternative medicines.Fuel in Queensland will actually be cheaper. Today on Bribie Island and in Caboolture, Narangba and Maleney you can buy a litre of fuel for about 62c a litre. By the time you take your 7c a litre off and then put your 10 per cent GST on, those opposite that can do maths could work out that that would make the fuel about 1½c a litre cheaper. So they even win there. The cost of their local calls remain the same, as does posting a simple envelope. Of course, when they post that envelope currently it has 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on it, and that will be removed. So the pensioner who, on today's pension, was going to have $24 more in their pocket will find that there is actually a decrease in things such as their pet food and perhaps their ice creams, their biscuits and their toiletries. Anything from the cleaning area, whether it be your hair, your teeth or your kitchen sink, will all be reduced in price. So many of the items that they currently purchase and put into that shopping trolley will be cheaper, yet they are going to have $24 a fortnight extra to spend.On top of this, I have not taken into account that all pensioners who have any form of savings will also be eligible for the aged person's savings bonus. Keep it in perspective: no GST on food, removing the wholesale sales tax on so many of the items that are in their shopping trolley, no GST on their rent, their rates, their rego or their health, and reduced fuel costs mean that pensioners, for the first time in my living memory, will in fact have an increase in their standard of living. This will be an increase in the standard of living for pensioners, those who have contributed to our tax system for the best part of their lives, and those opposite stand condemned for wanting to remove that from them.Let us turn to another group of older Australians—self-funded retirees. During the Labor years they were basically the poor cousins of this system. They were told that they were not worthy of the same tax relief as were pensioners, even though they were funding their own retirement. We introduced a provision in a previous budget so that pensioner couples would be eligible for a tax-free income of $20,100—up from the $10,800 combined income the couple could have in the past. An individual in this current tax year can have $11,905 of their taxable income tax free. Under Labor, the amount was $5,400. Our provision put real money into the pockets of self-funded retirees.The health care card that we introduced on 1 January this year would, I presume, have been taken back by those opposite when they found that they would not be able to fund such a measure. This provision has been a great asset to the many self-funded retirees, as has the 30 per cent health care rebate. It has effectively put money into the pockets of self-funded retirees to ensure that their standard of living is not only maintained but also improved. The bonus for self-funded retirees has, in the revised package, been extended to those aged 55. I congratulate the government and the Democrats for that measure because I believe it is an excellent one. It ensures that these people will have more disposable income up-front as the bonus will be paid on 1 July 2000.Now let us look at the transport industry and let us get something into perspective here. We all shop at Woolworths, Coles or Myers—whichever is our local store. Twenty cents in every dollar that is spent by any one of us on our groceries is actually transport costs. That is one of the penalties we pay for being such a large nation and having such a widespread population. Think about that. Next time you put the Weet-Bix in the trolley, remember that 20 per cent of the cost can be directly attributed to transport costs.Let us look at how at a truckie living in Parramatta, who owns his own prime mover and currently pays about 72c per litre for his diesel, is affected by the new system. I am told by the industry he averages three round trips to Brisbane each week, and each trip takes about 1,000 litres of fuel. A quick calculation of the 3,000 litres of fuel used per week at a saving of 23c per litre—because the government is going to rebate diesel fuel in this measure—shows that he will save $690 per week on the cost of his diesel or some $29,800 a year. That saving could employ another person. I am sure it will be passed down through the chain to ensure that we consumers pay less for the items that we purchase at the supermarket or anywhere else in Australia. That will also have a major impact on regional and rural Australia because the vehicles obviously have to travel further, the impact of the cost of diesel becomes greater and reducing the cost of diesel reduces overall costs to the consumer.Those opposite made the point yesterday that this could be complicated, that it might be difficult for people to apply for the rebate. The diesel fuel rebate system that applies to regional and rural Australia and the farming community works well. They take it up. The mining industry takes it up. I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, that if you were a businessman and had the option of picking up just on $30,000 worth of savings a year, you would ensure that you complied with the necessary safeguards to ensure that this measure was not rorted. Will the savings result in lower transport costs? I think even those opposite would have to acknowledge that they certainly will. What is the Labor opposition offering? Absolutely zero—not one cent of relief to the transport industry.Now let us look at the environment. The Democrats have worked closely with the Prime Minister and with the Treasurer—and with Senator Robert Hill, I might add—on this issue and have come up with a wonderful group of environmental measures which will go a long way to ensuring that Australia leads the world in this most important area. Part of this package will commit a further $100 million per year to support greenhouse abatement programs, and this will further assist Australia in meeting our Kyoto commitments. We have introduced incentives to switch to lower sulfite diesels. If someone is not quite sure what that means, currently our diesel has about 1,300 parts per million sulfite which floats around, gets into our lungs and creates health issues, particularly in our cities. This incentive will help us to reduce this amount to some 500 parts per million and will have a major impact—particularly in our cities—on the quality of our air.Negotiation with the oil majors on the early voluntary introduction of diesel in urban areas will be a major component of this incentive. Diesel standards for road transport fuel of 500 parts per million have been set for the end of the year 2000, and an increase in the diesel excise for higher sulfate fuel above 50 parts per million. So the relevant effect of diesel excise payable increases by 1c and 2c, giving people an incentive to move to the lower sulfur diesels, hence increasing our air quality.We will be bringing forward the introduction of new petrol vehicle fuel standards. A subsidy will be in place for the conversion of CNG vehicles and LPG vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, so that once again we can use cleaner and more efficient fuels. There will be a 100 per cent excise credit for rail transport. Long haul transport that goes into regional and rural Australia will no longer pay diesel fuel excise. Rail transport is significantly less energy intensive than road transport and hence is far better for our environment.There will be a grant program to meet half the cost of household photovoltaic systems, to a maximum of $5,500 per household. Cash rebates will be offered to householders who install rooftop hot water systems and the like, for building integrated photovoltaic systems, to a maximum of half of the system's capital cost. An investment program for renewable energy will offset the impact of GST on the purchase of green power, and there will be a grant system for remote off-grid electricity users to convert to renewable energy systems. These are amongst the measures which will go a long way towards ensuring that Australia does remain at the forefront with environmental measures and the safeguarding of Australia's pristine environment.Finally, one of the issues which has come up in this debate time and time again in my electorate is that of tax scales, and so I would like to make a couple of points in that area. It has been pointed out in phone calls to my office, `Gee, I only pay 27c at the moment, and you are going to put me up into the 37c in the dollar bracket.' It seems that there is a misunderstanding among the public. Every taxpayer, regardless of whether they are paying $1 million in tax, $20,000 or even $5,000 or $10,000 in tax, will in fact get a tax cut. That is because the tax free threshold at the moment stands at $5,400.Anything that any of us earns in this place or anywhere else up to $5,400 incurs no tax. We are increasing that threshold to $6,000. Instead of paying 20c in the dollar and losing $120 out of the $600 extra, you get it. So, at the very minimum, people will be that amount better off. We have then lowered the tax scales all the way through. So it does not matter whether you were paying 34c in the dollar in the past; you will now be paying either 20c or 30c in the dollar. It means that mums and dads throughout the suburbs of Australia will have more money in their pockets.We complain long and hard, on both sides of this parliament, that Australia has insufficient savings. By putting money back into people's pockets and not ripping it off them—which meant we were deciding where they would spend it and not giving those people who had earned it in the first place the choice to decide where they would spend it—and giving them an incentive to work, they can now choose to save some of that money. They can choose to put it in a bank account and not pay any tax on it at all. This can go some way to redressing our very low levels of national savings.I am sure that today we will see another tirade from those opposite on food. They are small-minded. They are addressing one simple issue. They do not have Australia's best interest at heart. They cannot see the big picture. That was shown in the last election, it is shown in their response today, and it will be shown in their responses in the weeks to come. I feel confident that the Australian public and the Australian economy will be the winner with Australia's new taxation system.12:10:005781Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This is a deceitful budget, a budget that is dependent upon the introduction of a GST and the 100 per cent sale of Telstra. It is a budget that ignores the needs of the people I represent. It ignores the needs of regional Australia—regions like the Hunter and the Central Coast, areas in the electorate of Shortland that I represent. It ignores the needs of the Australian families and the pensioners who are struggling under this harsh, mean-spirited government. It is a government that has brought down a budget that reflects its sectional interest and narrow philosophy. This Howard-Costello budget ignores those Australians that are battling to find jobs and battling to put food on the table and educate their children. Instead of offering hope and vision for the future, this government is offering the Australian people a new tax—a highly inefficient tax; an inequitable, regressive tax; an old-fashioned tax; a tax of the 1950s—which has led to massive growth in the black market wherever it has been introduced. It is a tax that other countries are seeking to dismantle. It is a failed, old-fashioned tax, a tax that our old-fashioned, fifties style Prime Minister is seeking to impose on the Australian people: the chesterfield man, sitting comfortably, looking back to the 1950s.One of the worst aspects of this GST is the 10 per cent tax on books. I am really pleased that the shadow minister for education, Mr Lee, is here in the chamber today. He more than anyone else would recognise the very negative impact that this regressive 10 per cent tax has on education and on our Australian community.MG4LEEMr Lee—A 10 per cent tax on books.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Yes, a 10 per cent tax on books. This government has given lip-service to improving literacy and numeracy. It has allocated $112 million in the budget for literacy and numeracy, yet on the other hand it is taxing books, the tools that students need to be able to learn to read, the tools that students need to improve their numeracy as well as their literacy. This is a really low act, an act of a very regressive, small-minded government; a government that really only ever gives lip-service to improving the education standards in this country. It hits low and middle income families, and the compensation that has been offered by this government is inadequate.The GST will impact in every way on the lives of Australians. The model that has been put to us today is really the worst possible GST that we in Australia could have. It is very inequitable and very confusing, and it is going to be very hard to police and to introduce into our society. This Costello-Howard tax supported by the Democrats is a confused tax. We are not sure what it will tax in the line of food.As was brought out yesterday in question time, if a pensioner goes along to the supermarket and buys a chicken, they are going to be forced into a situation where they have to buy a whole chicken. This is just one tiny example. A pensioner would in all probability go along and ask, `Can I have one-quarter of a chicken?' and would have it cut for them. Because the pensioner (a) lives by themselves, (b) does not enjoy a high income, and (c) may suffer from severe arthritis in the hands and need to have that chicken cut for them, they will be penalised and will have to pay a 10 per cent tax on their chicken. This GST will be very unfair in the way it is administered. If a wealthy businessman or woman rushes into the supermarket and picks up a whole chicken and then goes home, they will not have to pay a GST when they go through at the cash register.One thing we must remember about the GST as opposed to the wholesale sales tax is that a GST is paid on the total price of everything you purchase. Wholesale sales tax is not paid at the cash register; it is paid at the point of wholesale. So the GST will have a greater impact on the goods that we buy.Another interesting aspect of this proposed GST, this modified GST that we in Australia will be having served to us, is the question of who is going to determine what will or will not have the GST tax. Will we have to have a whole new range of public servants who are going to rush around and police what is being sold, police whether the GST is being imposed properly, police whether or not one item is GST free and another item is not? This is going to be a very interesting exercise.One of the most disappointing aspects of this whole process is the role played by the Democrats. The Democrats were elected at the last election and at previous elections to keep governments honest. But instead of keeping governments honest, they have hopped into bed with this government. They have broken many promises. They promised that the GST would not apply to food—they have not delivered that; the GST would not apply to books—they have certainly not delivered that, because they are in there with the government taxing learning; they would reduce tax cuts for the wealthy—they have not delivered that; there would be no increase in the reliance on indirect taxes—they have not delivered that; they would fund food exclusion with the reduction of tax cuts—they have not delivered that; there would be adequate compensation—they certainly have not delivered that; reduce taxes on diesel and petrol—they have not delivered that.The role that the Democrats have played is very questionable. They also promised to replace fuel tax cuts with cuts to payroll tax—not delivered; address tax loopholes—not delivered; there would be no erosion of the surplus—not delivered; no GST on inbound tourist packages—not delivered; no GST on complementary medicines—not delivered; no GST on education activities—not delivered. It goes on and on. All the promises the Democrats made have been broken as they hopped into bed with this mean-spirited government.This legacy of the Howard government will leave the Australian people in a state of confusion and inequity. It is a budget that benefits the sectional interests of its wealthy friends. It is a budget that is undermining Medicare and feeding the government's obsession with forcing all Australians to pay for private health insurance. This budget is the first step to end community rating on private health insurance. This budget is the first step to force people of different ages to pay different rates for their health insurance. This is pushing us down the line of the US system. I certainly hope that this is not the first indication that this government intends to means-test people accessing public hospitals.This government has always been intent on undermining Medicare. It has had no commitment whatsoever to a universal public health system. The government introduced into the parliament its legislation that it had promised us would solve all the problems with health in this country by paying $1.7 billion to the private health insurance industry, but now the government tells us that it was only trying to hold the line. If it had spent half of that money, there would be no waiting time to get into public hospitals, public health would have been improved in our community enormously, there would be no unmet health needs and Australians would have been able to get the health care that they deserve. But no; this government sought to give money to the private health insurance industry.This budget did not see the restoration of the Commonwealth Dental Health Care Program, a program that ensured all Australians had access to dental health care. Dental health is just as important as any other aspect of health. If you do not have sound teeth, you are not able to eat. If you have infection in your mouth, it causes enormous health problems and pain. Even with all the initiatives this government has taken in the area of private health insurance, it has not addressed the real problem in private health insurance: the gap. Still we have a gap between what the health insurance companies will pay and what the patient pays. So people are out of pocket when they go into a private health hospital. The budget allocated $50 million for a new privatised hearing service. That replaced a publicly operated hearing service that cost $30 million to provide the same service. So where are the savings and benefits to our Australian community? This budget delivers to the private health insurance industry. It is not a budget that delivers quality health care services to the Australian people.Just as this budget fails in the area of health, it fails in the area of education. Australia's future lies in being a knowledge based society and having a well educated, highly skilled work force. John Howard promised the Australian people an education budget that would deliver and meet Australia's educational needs. Instead, we have been served a budget that cuts funding to universities for the fourth year in a row. There is no indication that there has been any move to restore the growth funding that was cut for TAFE colleges in 1996, a cut that has impacted on the most basic level of education in this country. There has been no additional funding to restore the money in the area of research. To top things off, they have axed scholarships for needy Australians in rural and regional areas—for needy, clever, young Australians that benefited from these scholarships.Australia has some distance to go if it is to become a knowledge based society and be competitive with the rest of the world. This government is not helping us go that distance. Instead of encouraging and promoting education, this government is cutting education and making it harder for students to access it. Retention rates in Australia are fairly low. Thirty-five per cent of all students do not finish school. In the US, only 11 per cent do not. University education is only accessed by 15 per cent of Australians, compared with 26 per cent of students in the United States, and the budget does nothing whatsoever to address this. The government's one big education initiative was to increase funding to $210 per student in private schools but only $10 per student in public schools. Seventy per cent of all Australian students go to public schools and this government is discriminating against those students. This government has an ideological commitment to the private sector, be it education or health. Unfortunately, the majority of Australians depend on the public sector for both health and education.Just as the government has a philosophical commitment to the private sector, it is philosophically opposed to unions. That is why this government has waged the war on student unions in universities—organisations that benefit students and the communities they serve. In the Hunter, the Newcastle University Student Union has been shunned by the Liberal based senator, Senator Tierney. He has had secret meetings at the university. He does not discuss with the students as a whole but, rather, seeks to sneak into the university and meet with the Newcastle University Liberal Club so that he gets a `really broad picture' of the issues that are affecting the mainstream students at university.MG4LEEMr Lee—Are there public meetings?83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—No public meetings. When 100 plus students picketed his office, he claimed that it was an abject failure, yet he hailed it as a great success when the three supporters for voluntary student unionism stood outside his office. There was a petition from 4,000 students that Senator Tierney chose to ignore. He also chooses to ignore the opposition of the vice-chancellors to this voluntary student unionism.MG4LEEMr Lee—And the Liberal backbenchers.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Yes. This government's approach to education spells disaster for average Australians, in the same way its policies spelled disaster for unemployed Australians. Its answer to unemployment is to extend the Work for the Dole scheme. What we really need are job subsidies and programs like those that were previously in place like LEAP and JobSkills—programs where people go away not just having filled in their time by turning up for work but with some skills and some formal qualification. Peter Reith is starting to recognise this in the area of Aboriginal employment. He has reintroduced wage subsidy schemes, increased the CDEP and is also discussing and consulting with the groups concerned, unlike what is happening in other areas. Mutual responsibility, to this government, means that you have to work to get the money. I say that the government has a mutual responsibility to those people that are unemployed. It needs to get in there and offer unemployed people hope for the future and training that will lead to permanent, full-time jobs.The other aspect of this budget is the selling of Telstra. This budget really relies on a 100 per cent sale of Telstra. It is like selling the house to pay the mortgage. The government has written down the book value of Telstra, yet when it comes to the sale of Telstra it is expecting to receive much more money. It has misled the Australian people by saying that it would only sell 16 per cent before there was an independent inquiry, but this budget shows that the government is counting on a 100 per cent sale of Telstra. With the one-third sale of Telstra we have had a decrease in service—people waiting long periods to have their service restored or even to have a basic service connected. There is an increase in costs. The costs are hidden costs—the charges at the end of your account. There is a massive increase in profit. What will the 100 per cent sale of Telstra do? Will it do anything to improve that service? No. It will make sure Australians get more of what we are getting at the moment.In the Hunter, there was $8.5 million in the Hunter Advantage Fund. There are no initiatives whatsoever in this budget for the Hunter. There is no money to upgrade the Newcastle airport. As for expenditure on roads, this government has made a massive commitment to the F3 freeway, not to improving the conditions on the F3 freeway but, rather, to putting signs on the freeway to tell people, `We're very sorry. You are going to have to wait. We're not going to fix the problem. We are going to tell you to wait.'MG4LEEMr Lee—We want our freeway.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Yes, we want the freeway fixed. It is a budget that has the foundation set by a Prime Minister who has been obsessed for 25 years with a GST and a government that is philosophically committed to the 100 per cent sale of Telstra. The projections of this budget are based on two factors. We have seen in the last week how the GST has unravelled into chaos. The chaos will prevail and expand if Telstra is not sold or if the negotiations collapse. This budget is doomed to failure. It is a mean, miserable government that has failed and it is presenting us with a failed budget. It is a budget that will fail the children, the unemployed, the sick people and the families of the Hunter and the Central Coast. (Time expired)12:30:005784Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—There are many aspects of the 1999-2000 budget about which I wish to speak. As a new member, my first budget experience was indeed a satisfactory one, for this budget was framed in the context of a strong economy and in the second term of the Howard government when there has been the opportunity for the fiscal and monetary policies of this government to have had a significant impact. I have selected one area of the government's budget commitment to speak about. There are many, but there is one which could signify one of the most dramatic advances this country will witness in the coming century. This government has made an outstanding and inspirational commitment in the area of health and medical research, with an emphasis on genomics and bioinformatics, with a view to developing a competitive biotechnology industry for the future.This historic commitment to a long-term vision on the part of the government is possible because the economy is now in a strong and solid state. As we have fixed the budget, we are now able to be visionary, optimistic and excited about a future where Australia plays a leading part in the global advances in the research and technology that have the capacity to revolutionise our health care and in doing so revolutionise our lives.What this government has achieved in the economic stakes will enable us to focus on the 21st century—with confidence, with hope. The Howard government has moved Commonwealth budgets back into surplus. There is no doubt that the macroeconomic policy framework of this government and the return of the budgets to surplus have been fundamental to our economy's resilience in the face of the Asian downturn. Together with the range of microeconomic reforms that the government has been pursuing, directed at raising the economy's growth potential and lowering structural unemployment—including in the areas of the labour market, the financial sector, corporate law and competition policy—the government's economic policy framework has resulted in a more dynamic, efficient and competitive economy.The budget surplus is of significance for Australia in a number of ways, and will be of long-term significance, not the least being that it will put us in a stronger position to cope with emerging fiscal pressures, including the spending pressures associated with our ageing population. In passing, I note that in fact the overall health budget contains many innovative proposals to produce long-term health care benefits. The allocation of in excess of $1 billion dollars over the next four years on health initiatives is testament to the government's commitment to improving primary health care.Australia finds itself in company with all other industrialised nations with respect to our ageing population. It is appropriate that during this International Year of Older Persons the budget demonstrated and reinforced the government's commitment to older Australians. There is a particular focus on aged care services with the establishment of Carelink, a network of single regional contact points across Australia for community care services to support carers in their vital role in our communities and reinforce the government's commitment to its Staying at Home policy. The vital role of carers is acknowledged and supported by the government and increased funding of over $82 million will ensure better quality and increased respite care, support and services.All these measures are aimed at giving older Australians a better quality of life. The ageing of Australia is something to be celebrated. It is partly a triumph of a better standard of living, as well as major advances in medical research and technology. That brings me to what I consider to be one of the most important initiatives contained in this budget: the support that the government is committing to health and medical research.With the dramatic doubling of spending in research, with an increase of funding of $614 million over the next six years, we will look back at this budget and see this funding initiative as a critical factor in our country's future social and economic prosperity. In fact, a number of members on the opposition benches have referred to this budget initiative in guarded but almost complimentary terms—there is just a glimmer of that. Then they all scurry back to the darkness of their comfort zone—a comfort zone of denial, negativity, pessimism, just pure opposition—in case someone understands them to be saying something positive about anything the government had proposed. That was so amply demonstrated just now by the member for Shortland.Let us lift our sights for a moment and visualise what this initiative can mean for Australia and its future. The central focus of health and medical research is of course to achieve a better standard of health for Australians. Indeed, one of the prime responsibilities of the National Health and Medical Research Council is to raise the standard of individual and public health within Australia.Since coming to office, the government has demonstrated its commitment to health and medical research with initiatives such as exempting health and medical research from application of the efficiency dividend which was applied to most other spending programs; providing increased funding in our first budget for public health research and the establishment of centres of clinical excellence in hospital based research; providing funding for strengthening the health and medical research work force, including new awards to bring Australian researchers back from overseas to establish their careers back in Australia; providing funding for specific initiatives in research in the areas of electromagnetic energy, hepatitis C, drug dependency and youth suicide; providing assurance of base funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council research program by confirming that the funding level of $165 million, reached in 1997-98, is ongoing; and supporting health and medical research institutes with specific, targeted grants—for example, the TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in my electorate of Curtin received substantial funding toward the cost of its new building.This continuing commitment in the current budget provides a significant boost to health and medical research by more than doubling the base funding over the next six years so that base funding for health and medical research in the years 2004-2005 will be over $350 million. This alone gives rise to incredible opportunities for Australia.I am particularly delighted with the path that we are embarking upon. In my electorate of Curtin, we have a number of world-class research institutions and researchers including Professor Fiona Stanley and her team at the Institute of Child Health Research, Professor John Newnham and his colleagues at the Women and Infants Research Foundation, Professor Lynne Beazley and many others at the University of Western Australia who deserve continuing support for their groundbreaking research.The Minister for Health and Aged Care has shown great leadership in this area of health and medical research. The eagerly awaited Wills review commissioned by the government has been applauded widely by health and medical researchers and scientists throughout the country. The government has responded by accepting one of the key recommendations of the review to double the base funding for the NHMRC, and the recommen dation for the appointment of a full-time head of the council. The Wills review is a document well worth reading. Some see it as a blueprint from which the government can continue to launch reforms to achieve the vibrant, motivated and well supported research environment of which we are capable, and that will underpin the nation's improved health and welfare for many years to come.Health and medical research will have an ever increasing impact on the nature and quality of health care throughout the world. The doubling of the funding now will create a wealth of new opportunities for Australian researchers to be able to take part in the phenomenal medical breakthroughs that are happening and are anticipated as a result of well-funded and innovative research, particularly in the field of human genomics. The Wills review set out in considerable detail just how vital health and medical research is for improvements in our health system and the scope of opportunities that exist for Australia.This country has a history of achievements in this field. Currently, Australia produces about 2½ per cent of the world's health and medical research output. There is no doubt that Australian researchers, institutions and companies have been at the cutting edge in their fields. Over the decades, Australian scientists and researchers have made major contributions to medical breakthroughs—from penicillin to AIDS testing and many other areas. Australians have received four Nobel prizes for medicine and physiology alone, as well as many other prestigious awards, and we are widely recognised internationally for our strength in health and medical research.The link between our research capability and the delivery of a better health standard is undoubted. But increasing the funding for research can lead to enormous long-term economic benefits in the wider spectrum. The Wills review identifies a window of opportunity. The report states:Australia has a rare opportunity to use its strong health and medical research position to build a biotechnology industry—the industry of the 21st century. This window of opportunity is a product of our accumulated knowledge in research and clinical practice; combined with the unprecedented opportunity for new understanding brought about through study of the human genome; and the massive information processing capabilities available through bioinformatics to take advantage of this knowledge. This window represents an opportunity to improve the health of our population, to build the economy, and to create valuable jobs.This government has demonstrated its understanding of this opportunity to capitalise on our good fortune with a strong economy and a stable of world-class researchers. Now we can be entrepreneurial, responsive and intelligent in our ability to nurture the scientific work force and develop the opportunities to commercialise our research outputs. It is against the background of a strong economy that we are able to visualise an exciting future for Australia in the field of health and medical research, and the establishment of competitive industries in biotechnology and indeed in pharmaceuticals. The government is creating an environment where we can build on our very good research credentials and capabilities and capture the value of our intellectual property. This means money, this means jobs.We have the opportunity to build and enhance both a biotechnology industry and a pharmaceutical industry. We currently have a pharmaceutical trade deficit of about $1 billion. We have the opportunity to establish a viable pharmaceutical industry. We are fully capable of emulating the success of the pharmaceutical industries in countries with smaller populations than ours, such as Sweden and Switzerland. And other opportunities arise as pharmaceutical companies worldwide are increasingly outsourcing their research. It is estimated that in the year 2003, companies will be outsourcing 20 to 25 per cent of their pharmaceutical research and development expenditure, in excess of around $US40 billion per annum. Translated to the Australian context, that would represent $A375 million per annum, based on our share of world research. New industries can provide not only the opportunities to develop health and medical discoveries and create wealth and jobs for the country but also a broader range of career options to attract our best and brightest young scientists to research.Australia also has the necessary characteristics to succeed in biotechnological develop ment with our strong economy and our substantial capacity, including high quality postgraduate training, high quality clinical practice and a long tradition of successful fundamental biological research. Commercial development in biotechnology in the United States alone is already estimated to present unbelievable growth opportunities, with sales of biotechnology products projected to exceed $20 billion by the year 2000. This government is creating the environment to ensure that Australia is well-positioned to capitalise on our knowledge, skills and assets to secure a prominent lead in biotechnology.The predictions of biology as the science of the 21st century have been made by many. Already revolutionising biology, genome research has spawned burgeoning biotechnology industries overseas and is providing a vital thrust to the increasing productivity and pervasiveness of the life sciences. There is little doubt that this will be the third great technology revolution in modern history. Earlier this year, the Minister for Health and Aged Care opened the Australian Genome Research Facility. A major target of our budget funding is the development of a national medical genomics research capability. Australia is already part of the International Human Genome Project and the technology and resources promoted by this project have already had a profound impact on biomedical research.We stand on the brink of the new world in medical science and technology. With human genome research it is possible to track down a disease related gene, identifying its position on the chromosome and then isolating it. The increasing detail and quality of genome mapping have reduced the time it takes to find a diseased gene—from years to months, weeks and sometimes just days—and scientists are using the scientific tools to discover dozens of diseased genes each year. Australia has the opportunity to be part of cooperative programs to work towards completing the first full human DNA sequence and identification of all genes in the human genome, as well as studying sequence variation and its relationship to disease, and identifying and analysing the function of genes in the human genome. Given our reputation for ethical, excellent research, we could lead the world in the study of the ethical, legal and social implications of new genetic technologies.Consider for a moment the potential of just one new gene technology, the DNA chip—a thin slice of silicon the size of a coin upon which threads of DNA are arrayed. These chips can identify the DNA changes that lead to disease and, along with family histories and data from population studies, we will be able to establish an individual's risk of developing common but hard to treat disorders like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and even psychiatric disorders, where multiple genetic alterations contribute but each does so on a small scale. Genomic data could give patients and health care providers useful information about an individual's disease risk profile. It could point to which prevention strategies, when available, should be utilised.Eventually the DNA chip technology could be used to identify which patients are genetically most likely to respond to specific therapies. Diseases may be subclassified by the underlying genetic configuration, rather than by physical symptoms. Administering drugs targeted only to that particular genetic subtype could maximise efficiency, minimise side effects and reduce treatment time and costs wasted on ineffective therapies. This is the future we need to embrace and this government is taking steps to ensure that Australia stands to gain the benefits of the revolution in medical science and technology.Let me conclude by quoting the National Health and Medical Research Council on this budget initiative. Professor Warwick Anderson, the Chairman of the council's Research Committee, acknowledged Dr Wooldridge's continued keen interest, understanding and support for health and medical research, and said that the budget initiative `will also place our researchers in an ideal position to contribute to the worldwide pool of knowledge from which new and innovative health care approaches will be developed.' The Chair of the National Health and Medical Research Council, Professor Richard Larkins, welcomed the Howard government's vision:The additional funding will allow Australia's health and medical research effort to be broadened to include greater emphasis on clinical and population health areas. . . (which) will contribute to further improvements in health care that will benefit all Australians.This budget initiative is creative, inspirational and timely, providing a truly visionary commitment to Australia's future in the new world.12:48:005788Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—It needs to be said from the outset that this government does not have a vision for anything other than a new tax. It also needs to be said that a government that does not embrace its people does not have a future. I think the one thing that strikes me, above all else, about this Howard government is its chest-thumping, self-congratulatory and unbridled arrogance. We see this arrogance every day during question time when the Prime Minister and his cohort treat the due process of parliament with sheer contempt. We see this arrogance in the way in which some ministers refuse to answer questions relating to their portfolio responsibilities. We see this arrogance in the way in which the Prime Minister and his Treasurer have become obsessed with this new tax, which they claim Australia has to have. And we now know that this arrogance in relation to the GST is more about the Prime Minister's own survival as leader of the coalition than it is about caring for Australian families.We see this arrogance in the manner in which some ministers treat the public. I have, for instance, a file full of letters from all over Australia, from people who wrote to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs months ago and are yet to receive an acknowledgment of their correspondence, let alone an answer to their queries. We see this arrogance too in the treatment of people with disabilities, and it is on that issue that I want to focus today. In particular I want to deal with a situation which confronted a delegation of mothers who went to meet the minister responsible for the provision of income support for people with disabilities, Senator Newman. Senator Newman was attending a meeting on women's interests at a hotel in Perth in May when these mothers sought to present 25 pot plants, each with a card, to her. Each pot plant had a white flower symbolising hope and each card carried a brief family story.I understand that the mums did not have an appointment with the minister and I understand that she is a busy person, but the minister neither acknowledged nor met with those mums and has not since responded to the information they left for her attention. Because of that I intend to record here today as many of those family messages as time will permit. I trust that the government and the minister may take notice of some ordinary Australian battlers who are simply seeking to achieve a fair go—a fair go at a time when the Prime Minister and his Treasurer tell us that it is `win-win' for Australia; a fair go at a time when the Treasurer has built a surplus by taking from Australian families and using that surplus to bribe through a new tax which will again slug those battling families and make it even more difficult for them to achieve their reasonable hopes and ambitions for a fair go, a fair go that I believe all Australians are entitled to.If I can get through these 25 cards, I am going to. Each card has a little heading which says, `AT LEAST 25,400 Australians with disabilities have critical unmet needs for disability support services'- critical unmet needs which were ignored in this budget. On the left of the card is a little comment by the family. The first of the 25 cards states:When cuts are made to disability funding, families have to play an even greater role. From somewhere we have to summon the energy to either fight the cuts or to take on the duties relinquished by Government.On the right of the card is a story about the particular child. In this instance it is Hannah, who is 7½ and profoundly handicapped. The card says:She has no communication and cannot move her limbs unless in spasm. She needs regular suction as her ability to swallow is diminished and she has to be tube fed. At night a tube has to be inserted to enable her to breathe without a struggle. Sometimes she needs extra oxygen. Hannah has a large medication requirement to help control her epilepsy. . . . . . . . . .Our younger daughter Tess seems to be very accepting of our situation. However, it's easy to understand why resentments occur towards disabled siblings when so much of their parents' time and energy has to be focused in one direction. Tess is unable to benefit from the normal upbringing or participate in the usual family outings which are taken as a right by most of the community.The parent's comment on the second card states:"Sometimes I'm too tired and worn out from the constant appointments, personal sacrifices and battles we have to fight to seek help. Explaining issues like these to other people—who then may judge them is just not worth it."Karina has Downs Syndrome. Our other two children have easy access to school, recreation and the suburb in which they live. Karina doesn't. We are constantly involved in meetings to secure her future prospects. Karina also has a lot of medical needs and doctors appointments.. . . . . . . . .How can I ever return to full-time employment if I need to take Karina to appointments often at weekly intervals? Hence our family earning potential is drastically affected for the rest of our lives.The next card states:"Not an hour of the day passes that we don't feel the despair, and anger, of knowing that our child is not being given the opportunity to live life to his full potential."Our son Simon is 11. He has a rare condition which causes him to act in very destructive ways . . .As Simon grows bigger his strength increases and it is a very real and serious concern as to how we are to keep him safe.Simon is currently living at a residential service, Lady Lawley Cottage which is run by the Red Cross.If it were not for the support of the service we feel we may not have been able to keep Simon alive—or to keep ourselves together as a family.Simon will have to leave Lady Lawley Cottage within the next year.Our most urgent concern is to plan for his long term residential care.There are still no plans for his long term needs.The next card states:"We are concerned for Dallas's future opportunities and lifestyle, particularly with funding becoming increasingly difficult to get, and the confusion as to where to access it." Dallas is 11 years old, the oldest child in a family of five. She has been diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy and as she grows older is faced with many intellectual, physical and social challenges. Many of these challenges are exacerbated by living in a rural environment with limited facilities and opportunities to provide her with equal access to the main community.. . . . . . . . .Dallas is loved by us all and is very popular with those who know her. She is always cheerful and in many ways unaware of the challenges that are ahead of her.The next card states:"It is a very sad that things have to reach crisis point before anything is done. A person virtually has to have a nervous breakdown, become terminally ill or drop dead before anything is offered."Our daughter Lesley is 14. She has an intellectual disability, epilepsy and very high support needs. Lesley does not sleep through the night which makes it difficult to cope.Over the years, we have found it very hard to get the respite we need to help us manage Lesley's care. We have now reached the stage where we have requested permanent accommodation.It is possibly the hardest decision we have had to make. But for the sake of our sanity, our wellbeing and keeping the rest of the family intact, there doesn't seem to be any choice.The next card states:"Michael has many unfilled hours at home and can become bored. I feel like I'm letting him down by not being able to meet his need to expel his boundless energy."Michael is the youngest of our four children. He is 18 and has a mild intellectual disability but it has had a major impact on his life and on our family's life.. . . . . . . . .Because he hasn't got a job, he spends a lot of time at home. I try to keep him engaged and entertained but I have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and can't do a lot of physical activities with him. I often feel like I'm nagging him. I also feel like I'm letting him down by not being able to meet his needs.I am concerned that the longer Michael is without work, the more he will become isolated from the community of which he would like to be a part.The next card states:"My husband is also incapacitated. He has been on crutches for six months and it looks like another six months before he may be able to walk properly. So you can see I care for both my daughter and my husband, and sometimes I am at my wits end." Anita is 40. She has cerebral palsy, epilepsy and a mild intellectual disability. After being out of work for six years, Anita got a job at a sheltered workshop 18 months ago. Since she has been working there it is unbelievable how much she has changed: having the brain stimulation has made a remarkable change.Both my husband and myself are age pensioners in our mid 60's. What we need and require is for Anita to be funded for housing so that she can be somewhat independent like the others who work with her. She has drop epilepsy so she needs a carer out of work hours.We would like her to share with another couple of people and live independently which we think is her right at her age.The next card states:"What is going to happen when she finishes school, what about long term accommodation, will she be loved and cared for safely when we have gone from her life?"Our daughter Kelly is 13. She has a rare muscular disorder, an intellectual disability and epilepsy. Kelly cannot walk or talk and requires 24-hour care with every facet of her life. She is totally reliant on us for feeding, bathing, dressing and medications. During the winter months she is vulnerable to chest infections so she has to be nebulised morning and night.Kelly wakes during the night and often bangs and makes noises for three or four hours at a time while our family is trying to sleep.Respite care is very hard to access and the amount of respite available does not keep pace with Kelly's rising needs.We worry about Kelly's future care and feel that we are at the mercy of the community and the Government. It seems we have nothing to look forward to until "our crisis" arrives.The next card states:"The constant struggle for better services from disability agencies whilst caring for Toni has left us physically, emotionally and mentally exhausted."Tony is nine years old. She has a rare genetic condition which has rendered her totally blind, partially deaf, severely brain malformed, cerebral palsied, epileptic and severely disabled. During the first five years of Toni's life she didn't sleep for more than one hour at a time and had constant seizures. It was quite normal for me to get up to her ten times a night. During the day it was a constant battle to try to get sufficient food, liquid and medication into her to sustain her life. Even today, it takes up to one and a half hours to feed her at mealtimes. My husband's job involves working long hours and he often travels away from home. I have a chronic back condition and desperately in need of more help in caring for Toni. She is our only child and we love her enormously but we are concerned that without additional help we won't be able to continue to look after her at home.The next card states:"What happened to all the help given to keep Ben alive—modern technology when you saved his life and sent him home screaming? I thought I was an inadequate mother and cried, so he screamed more and I cried harder."Ben is 15 and is quad spastic. He is already taller than I am.. . . . . . . . .It's hard to get the equipment he needs. Because there was no money to fund a new module to support his sitting, he had to use one that was too small for him for 12 months. It led to a six and a half week stay in hospital, four theatre visits and skin grafting. I wonder how much all that cost.For two weeks a year, Ben goes to a respite service. It's the only time our other son Jamie gets to have his needs put first. Our own personal needs individually and as a couple—what's that, I've forgotten.The next card states:"Sometimes I wonder what the future holds for us. I figure it is best not to think about it as it is far too scary and depressing."Emma is five years old and has an intellectual and physical disability. She is still in nappies, unable to dress or feed herself and cannot talk. She is, and always will be, totally dependent (on me) for her most basic daily needs.As Emma ages, it appears that the specialised services we have been using so far will be reduced.My primary concern is to be able to access a good respite program. I have been using respite since Emma was 16 months old. Without that regular break I would not be able to manage her. Without adequate respite, Emma and I would rapidly be faced with a major crisis situation—an event I want to avoid at all costs.In the long term, respite is of vital importance for me to cope with the long haul ahead of me.The next card states:"Nicole is left with many unfilled hours in her week where she feels frustrated at not being able to enjoy and participate in many social activities in the community."Nicole is 22, has Down Syndrome and poor vision. Nicole left school five years ago and after a long and draining search for work now has a job for ten hours a week.We have tried to find a course which will help Nicole improve her independence skills and her employment prospects but the answer is always the same—not enough money.My main concern for Nicole is that she has some balance in her life. She does not earn enough money to enable her to participate in the recreation activities she would like to in the community.My husband and I are not well. Over the years my health has deteriorated trying to meet the multitude of demands in seeking to improve Nicole's quality of life and her level of independence in preparation for the day that we won't be around to care for her.The next card states:"We don't see much of a future for us as a family."D'Arcy is ten, and while physically active, he has an intellectual level of about an eight month old baby. He has constant bowel problems, epilepsy and heart problems, no language and little reliable means of communication.It can take up to 40 minutes per meal to feed him and he requires constant supervision because he puts everything (but everything) in his mouth.Everywhere we go, everything we do, one of us must give our whole time to supervising D'Arcy. We can never have a relaxing day with our children.D'Arcy generally enjoys his life and is usually in good health. We love him a lot and know that we are lucky to have him. BUT we need support for us to keep caring for him, particularly as he is getting bigger and stronger.The next card states:"Recently I had a mental breakdown after trying to be a mother/father and trying to live two lives—Melissa's and my own for so many years. My mind was screaming for a break, for her to be independent and not be reliant on me in every daily event."Melissa is 19. She has Lawrence Moon Syndrome which presents with some physical anomalies, mild intellectual disability . . . and Retinitis Pigmentosa. Melissa has less than 10% vision, tunnel vision and is going slowly blind. She is emotionally about 11-14 years and sometimes very wise. She writes like a six year old yet has a brilliant memory for numbers, birthdays and events. She has a subtle, quick sense of humour and is extremely perceptive when assessing people.. . . . . . . . .My hope is that Melissa will perhaps be able to live in a group home. That is also her wish to enable her to be independent and live her own life. The next card states:"I don't want to do this for the rest of my life and I think Sarah has a right to a home of her own before I die. Every year she is becoming more and more attached to me. As time goes on it will only become harder on her when I am finally no longer able to care for her at home."Sarah is 19 and has Tuberous Sclerosis—a genetic disorder that affects all systems of the body. Sarah's symptoms include epilepsy, intellectual disability, tumour, facial rash, autism and behavioural problems.. . . . . . . . .When Sarah's father left home five years ago, Sarah became very emotionally attached to me. She's becoming more and more attached as time goes on. Within the next two years, I want a full time accommodation placement for Sarah. Until then I want care for her every afternoon when she gets home from her day placement. At present, her sisters care for her until I get home from work which means they can't participate in after school activities themselves.Unfortunately, time is going to prevent me from reading the rest of these cards, but they are a fair sample of what these families wanted to say to the minister. Unfortunately, the minister, because she was too busy or what I do not know, did not receive the delegation. As I have said, these people have had no response to the information that was left. I want to compliment those families on the compassion and on the enduring love for their children in the face of the great difficulty and challenge that they go through every day of their lives.I recently joined the Adopt a Politician program, a program initiated in Western Australia by the National Council on Intellectual Disability. It is a great program. It enables politicians to become more aware of the needs of the families whom I have just spoken about. This organisation has recently added to its Time to Care Campaign a booklet entitled National disability crisis: who cares . . . more or less. They point out that tens of thousands of Australians with profound or severe disabilities are not receiving the basic support they need. In this book, in great detail, they have done a state by state analysis. For instance, they point out there is great disparity in the level of Commonwealth funding. For instance, the funding varied from a low of $408.97 per person in Western Australia to $809.46 per person per year in South Australia. That is a great disparity.An immense amount of work needs to be done in this area. I hope this campaign will help those people achieve what they need. I will read the last card I have. Its heading is:"Can someone out there see we need help! Please listen."The previous speaker said that we are living in a strong economy. How strong an economy do we need before we can start to attend to the needs of people like these? Surely it is time that we started to get rid of this nonsense of an idea of a GST and started to care about families. I look forward to the time when I can speak on a Beazley budget because I know that a Beazley government will be compassionate and will care about the sorts of people I am talking about.13:08:005792Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Having repaired the economy and having established the processes for tax reform, the current government is well on the way to having the resources and the capacity to build the caring and compassionate society that every Australian would like to see. The damage done to Australia by the Labor Party over 13 years is absolutely staggering when one sees the effort and pain that is required to bring the nation back to an equilibrium.Everybody can find something in their electorates that they would like to improve or change. The need for respite care for the elderly and for those with disabled children is one of those acknowledged problems, and this government has shown that it has the capacity to not only design programs but deliver them as well. We have structured large-scale changes and we have had the capacity, the inclination, the intelligence, the drive and the enthusiasm to deliver on our programs. That is what governments should be about.Gone are the days, thank goodness, when this House would present a facade of a budget or a facade of a program knowing that it could not be delivered and that there were not the resources to carry out the program as identified. This budget delivers every promise the coalition made during the election campaign, and that is an exceptional achievement for any government. Usually, programs announced during election campaigns are completed over a three-year period with the most psychedelically attractive and vote conscious decisions being realised close to the following election.Instead of hastily realising and bringing to fruition programs following an election campaign in as good an order as possible, the tradition of this country has been to make promises, forget some of them, delay others and then put into action the most electorally appealing programs at the last minute just prior to the next election, hoping that the commitment to those attractive programs would be sufficient for further electoral success. I do not believe Australians want that any longer.Australians need to lose their cynicism and disregard for the way in which things have been done in this place. I have to say that no Prime Minister taught cynicism more successfully than Paul Keating, the previous Prime Minister. Bob Hawke—hail fellow well met—was an Australian who could identify with anybody. He had his faults and I disagreed with him politically of course, but he had an understanding of what it was like to be an average Aussie. Paul Keating, on the other hand, did not know and did not seem to want to learn. So the cynicism that has arisen in Australia and the increase in popularity of a party like the One Nation Party are really attributable to the way in which Paul Keating conducted government over a long period of time both as Treasurer and as Prime Minister.In the first bills to deliver the budget—the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1999-2000 —we see what the government has done in the 1999-2000 budget. The government has been able to achieve so much for the economy: with the deficit on the way to repair, solid interest rates and good growth. Growth is greater in Australia than in all the OECD countries added together, but it is not growth at a level which is impossible to sustain. It is growth that carries on because of the enthusiasm and confidence of Australian producers and consumers, the Australian men and women, and despite the problems that we identify in our region.These economic gains have been achieved in the context that this budget brings no increase in taxes on income, no increase in company tax, no increase in tax on personal excise, petrol excise or any of those other charges the government can slide through for revenue increases, and no increase in the rates of the wholesale sales tax. That is a record to be really proud of—delivered first up, in full, on the table, with no increases in taxes, nothing hidden, nothing under the table, nothing unsuspected.Running in parallel to that process of producing this budget is the prospect of changing the whole taxation system of Australia, first of all, to reduce personal income taxes. PAYE taxpayers, the people who go out daily and weekly to earn an income for their families, are paying far too much tax. The only way in which that taxation can be reduced or changed is to adopt a new taxation system. The government, with a surplus budget, does not need additional funds. The government does not need to raise an additional dollar from the Australian people. The Australian budget is in surplus. The fear and the analysis—84BST CLAIRMr St Clair—Scaremongering.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I just think it is convoluted thinking which is primitive and shows the Stonehenge type attitudes of the Australian Labor Party. They appear to want nothing to change; they are happy with a wholesale sales tax with seven levels of taxation. It is a most confusing and complicated tax system which we share with four other countries, and most of those countries are not the forward looking and progressive nations that we consider ourselves to be. Most of them are pretty regressive and backward. They are developing countries, and Australia shares our tax system with them, and the Australian Labor Party wish to see that continue.The Australian Labor Party in their processes appear to have no ideas whatsoever. They appear to have settled very comfortably into a continuing mode of opposition. Being in opposition is comfortable and it suits them. That is where they are going to be. They are going to jump up every now and again to have a go at this issue or another issue, go back into their shells and have a few internal warfares—Left versus Right or some state blow up—and then come out again on another issue. They are comfortable in opposition and comfortable to continue in opposition. They have no ideas, no themes, no directions, no challenges for the nation. At least Whitlam and Hawke, and to some extent Keating, had challenges for the nation, but not the current opposition.So the government forges on with continuing ideas, challenges and a resolution to change the way in which Australia is perceived, to change the way Australians think of themselves and to change the status of Australia in the world. This budget lays the first brick of that changing regime. In the last three years, we repaired the budget, got all the nasties out of the way and brought the budget into surplus so we could start this period with a new tax system that allows the average family in Australia to be $40 or $50 a week better off. This system is opposed by the Australian Labor Party but will be welcomed by most Australians. So that change is in train.What has been done in detailing this budget? What were the promises? Let us have a look at those. With respect to education, first of all, the government is committing $4.8 billion in the forthcoming year to the education of primary and secondary school children. In that program we deliver in full the commitment that we made during the election campaign that there would be additional funding. In this instance $533 million will be provided for Catholic systemic schools to allow those schools to catch up.I know, Deputy Speaker Mossfield, that you understand the needs of those schools very well indeed. You and I have been around western Sydney for some time and we have seen the needs of the Parramatta diocese and the need to meet the aspirations of parents. So often, the first school in a new and developing suburb is a Catholic school. So often, the local parish is the only group of people identifiable as a group, that forms the basis of a community, that can start things like that moving. Having put up a building and added a few demountables as the school grows, they then have to decide—as the demand from the expanding suburb increases along with the number of children coming through—whether they can increase from two streams to three streams. Often they have not had the resources to do so.I have spoken to many leaders in the Catholic Education Office, along with my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party in western Sydney, and we all know that this need has been around for a long time. Well, we have delivered on it, and I am really pleased that we have been able to deliver on it. The system that we are supporting here is one of commitment to values, standards and fine educational results. By any measure, the Catholic systemic schools in New South Wales—and those around Australia, for that matter—have the highest results when one measures their commitment to literacy and numeracy and their commitment to the wellbeing of parents.Under a similar program, the government has been able to bring along the non-Catholic schools in the government sector. I have noticed there have been some comments from the state governments and from teachers federations about the federal government doing these things. Firstly, it was a commitment given at the time of the election campaign. They should have had a scream at that point if they had been really anxious about it, but they did not; they chose not to. Secondly, the Commonwealth government has undertaken in the budget to increase funding to government schools during the coming years. Most of the funds that will be gained by the states come from the change in taxation—a change that they are very happy about because it gives them additional resources. To direct criticism at the federal government with regard to state schools is completely wrong and false. So there is an increase in expenditure and commitment to government schools, as spelt out in this budget.We have put additional funds into providing a safer community through the Tough on Drugs campaign. Having listened to Angela and Tony Woods, whose daughter Anna died from her first dose of Ecstasy, I am not in support of condemning drug abusers to a lifelong continuation of their habit. I am not one who thinks that shooting galleries are the answer to this problem. I think that the only solution to this problem—being captive to a habit forming drug that creates a craving which is so strong that a person's life is destroyed—is to provide a release from it. I am so pleased that the Prime Minister has seen fit to establish the Tough on Drugs program and, with the agreement of the premiers, this year an educational program is going to take place for schoolchildren, for those most at risk. I understand that there will also be programs for parents. There will be ongoing support for addicts, assisting them in the recovery process and rehabilitation—the most fitting way to deal with the problem.We then have the government's commitment to families and the government's commitment to health. What a great program. People are actually going to be encouraged to insure; there is going to be an advantage in insuring for one's own health—having a doctor of choice, making sure that all of the best things in the health system are accessible by people, by families. I consider that this will be the key to the recovery of the integrity of the health system in Australia. The 30 per cent concession given to those people who insure, which commenced at the beginning of this year, has been further enhanced by decisions made in the budget, the legislation for which, I believe, may have come into the House today.People who are currently insured will receive a concession in premiums and those on high incomes who do not insure will be disadvantaged; there will be a penalty against their name if they do not insure. This is an extension of the program which enables young people who insure to have long-term protection of their health needs and assures older people, who may be more frail, that they are doing the right thing by continuing their health insurance.Two million Australian families will qualify for additional assistance under the government's new tax system, which will begin on 1 July next year. That will provide at least $140 per child, and in a one-income family with dependent children under the age of five it will provide $490 per child. That is the increase. This government is doing things for families. This government realises that the time of greatest stress and expense to families is usually when children are young.So this government is committed to the wellbeing of families through providing incentives for health insurance, increasing family payments, protecting teenagers and kids against drugs, and increasing funding for education. In addition to that, just to take it one step further, in the area of training and employment there is the extension of the Work for the Dole program—a program that I have seen work to great effect, a program that arouses enthusiasm and commitment from previously unemployed young people—Mr Albanese interjecting—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Yes, indeed, my colleague is absolutely right. The self-esteem of that individual and of that group, working together, flourishes and grows.Mr Albanese interjecting—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—All you need to do is show a bit of leadership in your electorate and get out there and say, `We need some Work for the Dole teams out here. There are a lot of projects they could do, and there would be a lot of advantages to our community.' That great organisation, Wesley Mission, at Vision Valley have got a Work for the Dole team in which 80 young people are learning new skills. They will come through that process with certificates. They will achieve something for all those underprivileged kids coming to have a holiday break or undertake an educational program at Vision Valley. They will be contributing to the wellbeing of those young people, and they will be establishing for themselves skills in bushcraft, landscaping, computer techniques and general handyman services. It is a program that will earn them certificates from the local technical and further education college. What could be better than that? Is it better to sit around drinking coke and smoking cigarettes at the local bus shed or to be out doing something that benefits them, with the prospect of roughly half of them going into jobs and all of them receiving acknowledgment for the work that they have done? I think this program is a great program, and the Work for the Dole program is great for young people.I conclude by indicating that the needs and wellbeing of older people in our community who have been concerned about the processes of change to our tax system will be protected. These people will not be hurt in any way. These changes will advantage them also. Whether these people are insured, superannuated, self-funded retirees or pensioners, the protection of their future is guaranteed, not only by the decisions taken in this budget and in the tax package but also by the continuing good management of the nation's economy so that there is stability, a certainty and a predictability about the sale of Australian products, employment, the level of inflation and the level of interest rates. All of these things build stability and confidence and a certainty in the future. (Time expired)13:28:005796Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to rise to make a contribution to this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 . I am pleased to do so particularly in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the shadow minister for family and community services, because it is families who suffer most in this budget. Since the budget I have had the opportunity to speak to a number of community groups, particularly those in the housing sector. The response of these groups has been dominated by disappointment, anger, disbelief and disgust at the contempt with which this government continues to treat Australian families, particularly the disadvantaged. The paltry budgetary commitments to housing demonstrate the extent of this contempt.What housing measures did the budget contain? Nothing much. Indeed, what overwhelmed most housing commentators was that, despite the fact that Senator Newman's press statements were posted on the Internet well in advance of the Treasurer's speech—so much for the government's legislation about controlling information on the Internet—they still failed to provide a media scoop because there was just nothing in it. Most of the initiatives revealed by Senator Newman on the night were old announcements. Since the budget the government have continued to reannounce them at every single opportunity.Just a few weeks ago, the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, insulted delegates at the national homelessness conference in two ways. Firstly, she said that the solution to homelessness was that homeless people had to just stop making themselves homeless. That was the solution. They just had to get out there and fix the problem. There was no real talk of government assistance. Once again, it was blame the victim. Secondly, she insulted the delegates at the conference by announcing the paltry $60 million for youth homelessness for the third time. She also reannounced the $45 million for domestic violence—again, for the third time.The homelessness package was first announced in December 1998 as a response to the prime ministerial task force on youth homelessness. It was then reannounced in the budget and it was then reannounced at the homelessness conference. The delegates who were there who heard Senator Newman's speech thought, `Oh, this is good. We're getting $180 million. We got $60 million promised in December, another $60 million in the budget and we've had $60 million again today.' But, no, they were wrong. It is simply the same amount being reannounced over and over again. If only the funding for homelessness strategies, for domestic violence and for all these social programs could be multiplied every time the minister announced them. Then we would have a government that actually did have some social compassion and showed some commitment to equity and social justice.But the disappointment and anger that many community groups felt after the budget pales into insignificance when compared to the dismay and the shock expressed by these groups when Meg Lees and the Democrats made their historic, sleazy deal with the government to introduce the GST. Considering the nature of the Democrats election promises and their recommendations to the Senate inquiry into the GST, I find it quite amazing that Senator Lees can possibly characterise her deal as a successful outcome for all concerned. It is a deal that abandons average Australian families. It is a deal that does nothing to deliver to lower or middle income earners and delivers everything to the top end of town. This was the view of even the spokesperson for small business on Lateline last night.It is a deal that addresses none of the concerns which were raised by the housing sector, something that Senator Lees said was on the table in her negotiations with the government. But, of course, we all know it was not so much `negotiation' as `capitulation'. Concerns raised by the construction industry, state government housing authorities, tenancy associations and social housing organisations have all been ignored. Senator Lees and the Australian Democrats have said to these groups, `Thanks for the months of lobbying. Thanks for all your expert evidence to the Senate committee. Thanks for your letters and petitions. But we're going to ignore you, we're going to ignore the community and just cave in to John Howard's obsession with implementing a GST.' The Democrats have shown that they have more loyalty to the government and its GST agenda than they do to the community sector, welfare sector and housing organisations that gave evidence to the GST inquiry.What amazes me most about this is that the Democrats settled for so little. Here they were in a prime bargaining position. They had a situation whereby the Prime Minister, obsessed with his GST, would have allowed anything to be placed on the agenda. The whole Democrat platform and the issues they said they cared about could have been placed on the table, not just in terms of the GST but in terms of compensation, in terms of funding for social policy, in terms of funding for the ABC—all the issues that the Democrats say they care about, including the environment where the result of the deal is pathetic and destroyed in one fell swoop the Democrats' green credentials.The complicity and subservience of the Democrat negotiators enabled the government to offer even less than they offered to Senator Harradine. Had Senator Harradine done a deal with the Prime Minister—a deal his conscience would not allow him to make—the government would have had to pay more to compensate Australia's families and pensioners for the costs of the GST. Senator Harradine rejected a five per cent pension increase linked to wages and other measures worth around $1½ billion to $2 billion per annum. He rejected it because he believed that it did not go far enough to compensate the pensioners of Australia for the massive increase in costs caused by the inflationary, job destroying GST.The simpering Democrats, however, settled for a four per cent pension increase that is not even concretely linked to wage rises. The Democrats agreed to a pension increase that is not even worth half of what Senator Harradine rejected. Some $730 million is what the Democrats got for the pensioners of Australia. That is some $730 million on one hand but with a 10 per cent GST that will make their everyday existence a constant financial struggle. Their eagerness to please the government at the expense of Australian families is further demonstrated by the fact that Senator Lees, at a Press Club function earlier this year, described the government's offer to Harradine as a `paltry, inadequate sum'. If it was so paltry and inadequate, why did she settle for half? A couple of months later, in her eagerness to sign on the dotted line, she accepted half this paltry, inadequate sum. Shame, Democrats, shame!So what will be the impact of the Howard-Democrat GST on the housing sector in Australia? The concessions the Democrats believe they have wrung from the government regarding housing generate more questions than they do answers. It is hard, as we have found out in question time, to get any answers out of this government about what is in their deal, about what the change from the budget is. But what we do have is a Democrat web site which has this great achievement up there in an attempt to mislead not necessarily the public—I do not think they are worried about them—but their own members, because the members of the Democrats are very angry about the deal that has been done and the sell-out over this GST.For example, the Democrats have boasted that they have `won a commitment that public housing tenants will not have their GST compensation deducted by 25 per cent through a rise in public housing rents. This will be a condition of the new CSHA, saving tenants around $17 million a year'. That sounds all very nice but, as we have pointed out in questions to Minister Truss in this House, because rents in public and community housing are linked to income, in a situation where there is a four per cent pension increase, one per cent of that increase immediately gets swallowed up in increased rent. We raised this concern. The government did not really care too much about it; they did not really respond. However, the Democrats are now saying that they have won a commitment. What the Democrats do not seem to understand—but I am sure the government do all too well—is that it is state governments that receive the revenue from public housing rents, not the federal government.The New South Wales Federation of Housing, in its evidence to the Senate inquiry into the impact of the GST, made the point that no public or social housing authority can possibly recoup the income lost on the increased costs of maintenance, management fees, office rent and office expenses incurred by a GST. Because there is no GST claimed on rent, housing authorities cannot claim for their increased costs.In 1996-97 the New South Wales Department of Housing spent over $113 million on maintenance of existing housing stock. The GST will add an extra $11.3 million to this bill alone. Even if public housing tenants' rents were to rise in accordance with the government's original plan, the New South Wales Department of Housing would only receive an extra $40 million from that rent increase.I do not think the Democrats understand the significance of the deal they have made with the government. They have ensured that, as a condition of the CSHA, there will be a further loss to the state and territory governments of $70 million in rental income. All that appears in writing is the commitment of the government's promise to `negotiate a mechanism with state and territory governments to ensure rents won't increase'. There is no promise that the Commonwealth government will make up the shortfall.I do hope that the Democrats have negotiated for this shortfall to be compensated for by the Commonwealth in the new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. If this has not been agreed to, then the Democrats are responsible for ensuring that funding for state public housing authorities has effectively been reduced by $70 million—a further cut to public and community housing. Congratulations to the Democrats; what a great deal, what great negotiation!This is not to say that Labor believes public housing tenants should be forced to pay extra rent in line with their compensation packages; quite the contrary. That is why we argue that there should not be any GST at all. That is why we have taken a principled position such that, were it not for the sycophantic fawning of the Australian Democrats, there would not be a GST.The Democrats have also made much of the government's promise of an extra $15 million a year for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. Whilst I cannot condemn any increase in funding for SAAP, when it comes to demand in this area, $60 million over four years is a drop in the ocean. The amount appears especially slim when compared with expenditure the government has forecast in other areas. Let us not forget that this is a government that has devoted $150 million—or 2½ times that which it is giving to SAAP—to change the tax office computer system just to prepare it for the GST.Last year the government itself sponsored a review by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute which recommended that there be 25 per cent growth funds for SAAP to allow the program to properly service current unmet demand—not future demand, just the demand which is out there already. Fifteen million dollars a year is nowhere near the 25 per cent increase requested by the government's own review—nowhere near it.In the budget week, the same week that the government failed to provide the much needed 25 per cent boost in growth funding to SAAP, figures were released that showed the numbers of people accessing homeless services in Australia had risen from 101,000 in 1996-97 to a frightening 166,000 for the financial year 1997-98. The Council to Homeless Persons estimated that, in addition to these figures, a further 120,000 requests for assistance had been turned away.The government's propaganda machine went into overdrive. Senator Newman issued a press release congratulating the government on its success; she actually said that the government had been successful because there were now more people accessing homeless services. What sort of Orwellian doublespeak is it when the government uses as an example of excellent service management figures demonstrating how 65,000 more Australians have had to seek government assistance to prevent homelessness as a result of this government's policies and failure to provide an adequate social safety net?Big Brother was alive and kicking, as revealed in the fact that the government press release did not actually give the figure of 166,000; it took out 33.6 per cent and gave the figure of 110,000. Why? Because it said that children did not count—`They don't have votes, so we won't count them. We won't worry about kids who have nowhere to live, who are sleeping under bridges in our cities, sleeping on railway stations. We'll just ignore them.' It is families who are first and foremost being hit by this government's reactionary, heartless agenda. How the government can possibly justify excluding children is beyond me.My concern is that an extra $60 million over four years is simply not enough if we want to get serious about tackling homelessness. Based upon a conservative estimate of 50,000 homeless people living in Australia, the promise to the Democrats amounts to a pathetic 82c per person per day. Whoopee! They cannot even get a litre of milk or a loaf of bread for that—and that is a conservative estimate. Private rents, as a result of this deal, will rise as landlords compensate for increasing maintenance costs. Construction costs for new homes, as a result of the GST, will rise. If you cannot afford either, you are in trouble. Public housing will not only lose $70 million, thanks to this deal, but the government in all likelihood will continue its recent trend and attack funding for social housing through the CSHA.On 16 May housing ministers from all states and territories wrote to Senator Newman to express concern about the funding crisis created by the Howard government. According to the ministers—and they should know better than anybody else—conservative and Labor ministers, they required at least $730 million in additional funding simply to maintain existing levels: $390 million for the GST, $100 million in efficiency dividend cuts and $240 million as a result of the federal government's refusal to index housing funding. What has been the response? The government has said that it will provide compensation for the GST of $269 million. That is not even enough to compensate for the GST alone where the figure was $390 million—and this at a time when 235,000 Australians are on public housing waiting lists. Of course there are other cuts. We cannot forget that the government has cut $100 million from the CSHA already.No bandaid solutions or paltry compensation measures can remedy the impact the GST will have on Australian families. In the housing sector the GST will ensure that the average Australian home is thousands of dollars more expensive. And if Australian families are pushed out of the housing market, they will find that private rentals have soared. If they are pushed out of that, they will find that they cannot get into public housing.The Democrats, through their bumbling inexperience, have ensured that generations of Australian families are condemned to living with the GST. Their deal is hopelessly inadequate, their negotiated compensation package is laughable and the extra funding to SAAP is but a drop in the ocean. The Howard government and the Australian Democrats have a lot to answer for. In the meantime, we will all be paying the price every time we purchase something—but they will pay a price come the next election. (Time expired)13:48:005800St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—This is the first budget that I have had the opportunity to comment on, and I must say that I have been looking forward to it. Before I speak on the content of this particular budget and the appropriation bills, I must pay tribute to the previous coalition government for making and taking the hard decisions of the past three years and delivering to the people of Australia a strong economy. It is because of those decisions that we can now see that the fiscal direction of this nation is in fact forward, not backward as it had been under Labor. Having spent my whole life in small business, the importance of good governance of the nation's books cannot be overstated.Having listened to the comments on the other side, may I also say that `profit' is not a dirty word, nor is the concept of creating wealth in this nation. They are the two major ingredients of providing employment opportunities and of providing this country with a future. Let us be proud of the fact that we on this side of the House wish to implement policy that rewards effort, unlike the members of the opposition, who really want to continue with a policy to reward failure.Today I would like to focus, if I could, on one major aspect of the budget, that is, that part of the budget that has shown that the coalition government has confirmed its commitment to regional and rural Australia. It is a commitment that the Labor Party in 13 years of government failed to make, and it continues to lack the understanding and, for that matter, the policies to assist the development of this country's interior.The major aspect of the budget on which I wish to talk is transport and transport infrastructure. We all know that transport is vital to the economic and social development of regional Australia. The Howard-Fischer government continues to recognise this fact and maintains a strong commitment to all aspects of transport, in particular to ensure the road system is safe and efficient. It is important that, when we talk about transport, we are concerned about not just the transport of people but the transport of all goods and services to and from regional Australia. This includes the transport of some of our major exports such as coal, wool, beef, lamb, cotton, grains, dairy products, sugar, rice, minerals—and the list goes on and on.My electorate of New England covers a fairly large area of northern New South Wales which runs from Tamworth in the south to the Queensland border just north of Tenterfield, and it is heavily reliant on the transport industry. The transport artery of my electorate is the New England Highway. In my electorate alone, this national highway covers some 400 kilometres. This transport corridor runs from Sydney to Brisbane and is a major part of that route. It is used by many transport companies to service the towns in my electorate and to transport goods interstate and provide those services between Sydney and Brisbane. Without this highway, many of the towns and regional cities in the New England would not be at the standard at which they are today.Road transport is not the only type of transport used in the New England. We have in the small town of Bendemeer a company by the name of Southpac Ltd which exports granite blocks to Europe. This is done with great difficulty because tonnes of these granite blocks get shifted, and this is done by transporting that granite block by rail from Tamworth to Sydney and then shipping it out of Sydney. I was recently looking at the port facilities in Newcastle, knowing that that port will be of great advantage to the exporters of New England as it gets developed. Like all regional towns, the towns in New England rely heavily, as I said, on the transport industry. We need to transport the products we grow and manufacture to the marketplace, and we need to bring out to the country those inputs that help make us competitive and profitable.The coalition government confirmed its commitment to both the transport industry and regional Australia in the 1999-2000 budget. The budget has honoured the federal coalition's 1998 election commitment on roads in a budget that provides a significant boost to road funding over and above existing forward estimates. This coalition government will spend $1.6 billion on Australian roads in the 1999-2000 year, of which 90 per cent is to be spent in regional and rural Australia. This money will be targeted at principal freight highways, accident black spots and, of course, bridges. This government understands the importance of safety on the roads and, because of that understanding, has committed a further $37.79 million to the highly effective Black Spots Program. This program is helping to reduce injuries, deaths and road crashes generally in those danger spots throughout Australia.A new initiative has been provided for bridges in this year's budget. The federal government is providing $20 million for upgrading the bridges on the national highway—a significant amount of money. This is due to the proposed increase in mass limits for heavy vehicles to 45½ tonnes. The National Road Transport Commission estimates that the increase in mass limits will assist in providing up to $1.3 billion annually in our gross domestic product—a significant amount of money.This type of efficiency in the transport industry and its resulting competitive savings will bring massive benefits to rural and regional Australia, which will continue to provide growth for our towns and regional cities. This 1999-2000 budget includes a $14 million payment towards honouring the Prime Minister's 1998 election commitment to provide $195 million of additional funding to the national highway and the Roads of National Importance Program.This budget contained, I am pleased to say, some $10 million for upgrading the New England Highway in my electorate and a commitment for a further $20 million in the following two years. Two major and urgent construction jobs have been allocated funding in this budget: the Rose Valley deviation north of Tamworth and the Devils Pinch accident black spot, which is 25 kilometres north of Armidale.One of the two major projects to receive the funding was, as I said, the New England Highway deviation through Rose Valley near Bendemeer. It is considered substandard due to the presence of three narrow bridges on the narrow and winding road alignment. The federal government will fund construction of new approach roads to bridges over Rose Valley Creek, Poison Swamp Creek and Dunduckety Creek. The plan also allows for the addition, very importantly, of both northbound and southbound overtaking lanes and truck parking areas.The other major project included for funding in this budget in my electorate of New England was the Devils Pinch accident black spot area, which has been a notoriously bad section of this highway for many years. The funding program handed down by the minister in this budget means that $2 million is provided in this 1999-2000 period to advance planning on that program, that $6 million is provided in the 2000-01 period for the start of construction and that a further $8½ million is provided for the completion of this most vital and important project.This funding is tremendous news for not only those who use the New England Highway in their everyday work but those who are looking to travel via the New England region to Queensland, thereby attracting visitors to my electorate on a safe national highway. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, for these vital projects to be included in this particular budget. I have fought long and hard for this commitment, long before I came into this place.The Howard-Fischer government has continued its commitment to reform the Australian rail industry. This has been done by removing the barriers to the rail network to new operators by injecting private sector expertise and creating an environment in which rail can flourish. This is being achieved through a reform program being implemented in conjunction with the states to improve safety and regulatory and operational standards across the whole national rail network. Let us now look at the Labor Party record. In the 13 years the Labor Party was in power, they continually increased costs for the transport sector while cutting support.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements58025802Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is attending a private family funeral in Melbourne. The Minister for Employment Services will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice580258025802Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, will you guarantee that you will not dip any further into the surplus to pay for changes to your GST deal with the states?ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—What surplus did you have?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Get your hair out of your eyes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer has the call and the chair is not being aided by the member for Deakin or by the member for Batman.5802Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The states are, of course, completely protected under the government's tax arrangements. In fact, the Commonwealth has guaranteed that they will receive no less than the financial assistance grants, and they will be delivered a growth tax, something which the Labor Party opposes and something which the Labor Party would never be able to deliver because it has no growth tax that it could actually give to the states.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It is the same tax as you.CT4Mr COSTELLO—No wonder the Leader of the Opposition interjects. He has no proposal to give any growth tax to the states. That is the point. The silence means consent.The second point is that in relation to the surplus this government has made building Australia's budget back into surplus a cornerstone of its economic policy. The fact that we can talk about surpluses is an indication as to this government's economic direction. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he was a Minister for Finance in two budgets and he accumulated $23 billion of deficit—not one surplus, not one balance ever.58025802Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What messages do the latest growth figures have for the need to continue the reform process?5802Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for that question. In answering it, let me inform the House that, according to the ABS national account figures released today, the Australian economy grew by 1.1 per cent in the March quarter to record through the year growth of 4.8 per cent. That is a stunning result and above all it is a great compliment to the hard work and the commitment of all of the Australian people because, when the economy grows, the people benefit. The people benefit through more jobs. The people benefit through stronger economic performance. The people benefit through higher labour productivity, which means real higher wages. The people benefit through lower inflation, which helps to deliver lower interest rates.The accounts show that inflation pressures remain very subdued while productivity grew very strongly, by 1.2 per cent in the quarter, to be 3½ per cent higher over the year. That is why wage and salary earners in this country, the workers of this country, are better off, because their real wages are higher. When you add high real wages to cuts in mortgage interest rates, you have a level of purchasing power which is to the enormous benefit of the Australian community.This is the first occasion for 30 years that the Australian economy has recorded through the year growth of four per cent for eight quarters in a row. The last time such an outcome was achieved was 30 years ago, from the June quarter of 1969 to the March quarter of 1971, when a coalition government was in power. This stunning result, which is of such benefit to the Australian people, has not occurred by accident. It has not occurred through stunts; it has not occurred through accident: it has occurred through the steady application of sensible economic policy. It is worth recalling the words of the Reserve Bank Bulletin in May of this year, where it said:This combination of strong growth and exceptionally low inflation is quite unlike the experience of the preceding 30 years. That such a performance has been maintained almost two years after the Asian crisis first broke in Thailand is indicative of the extent to which the Australian economy's underlying strength and resilience have been improved over time.These changes have included better arrangements for macroeconomic management but also extensive improvements in the economy's structural features. In other words, what these figures reveal, what the Reserve Bank Bulletin said, what this stunning performance measured against the record of the last 30 years tells us loudly and clearly, is that today's economic strength is a product of yesterday's policy resolve. Tomorrow's economic strength will not be the product of waving cans of soup around in front of television cameras but it will be the product of good policy, it will be the product of courageous leadership, it will be the product of a government that has a good Treasurer, that has the capacity to provide decent economic advice and decent economic management.This is a great result above all for the people of Australia, because it is the people of Australia who benefit when our economy is strong. It is the people of Australia whose children's job prospects are enhanced by a strong economy and it will be the people of Australia, particularly in future generations, who will benefit from future reform. The message is that, if we want to maintain this rate of economic growth, if we want to be able to say in a few years time that the economy is continuing to grow strongly, we will have the courage as a nation, as a parliament, to embrace necessary economic reform, and that, of course, means fundamentally taxation reform.58035803Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, in light of your statement today that `there is no net cost in this package to the states', doesn't your GST deal with the Democrats include a public housing measure that will reduce revenue to the states by up to $70 million per year? In light of your guarantee that the states will be no worse off, doesn't this mean that you will have to eat further into the surplus to pay for it?5803Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—No. As I said earlier, the agreement that the government has made with the states is that the government will give them the guarantee up to the financial assistance grants. It is a guarantee that we have already got in the intergovernmental agreement and the Commonwealth will make it good.58035803Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. With the release today of the quarterly national account figures, what can the Treasurer tell the House about the health of the Australian economy? What does this growth mean for Australian families, the unemployed and business?5803Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The big news today for the Australian economy is that, in the March quarter, the Australian economy grew at 1.1 per cent, or 4.8 per cent for the year. It is often said in the newspapers and by commentators around the world that the US economy is enjoying unmatched growth and prosperity. The US is growing at an annualised rate of 3.9 per cent, and Australia is growing at 4.8 per cent. Japan contracted in the last year by three per cent, Australia grew by 4.8. Germany grew at 1.3, Australia grew at 4.8. France grew at 2.8, Australia grew at 4.8. In Britain, growth through the year is at 0.6 per cent, Australia is at 4.8. In Italy it was 0.9 per cent, in Australia 4.8. In Canada it was 2.8. The average growth rate in the last year amongst the G7 nations was 1.6 per cent, and in Australia it was 4.8 per cent. The OECD growth rates were at 2.2 per cent, and Australia's at 4.8 per cent.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Members of the Labor backbench interject in an angry fashion because they are upset that the Australian economy is growing. The Australian economy is the standout economy in the world, and the Labor Party backbench gets upset. This is a strategy by the Labor Party: they would rather run down their country in the hope of some political advantage than acknowledge the good work of our exporters, our business and our employees and the importance of the government's economic policy. In the Asian region in the last year, nearly every economy has gone into recession—Korea, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines and New Zealand. The one economy in this region that grew in the last year was Australia. It is not only growing, but it is growing at 4.8 per cent.It is no coincidence that what managed to keep confidence in the Australian economy during the period of the last year was the fact that the budget was in surplus. Mr Speaker, can you imagine what would have happened in Australia if we had continued Labor's policy of $10 billion deficits as we sailed into an Asian financial crisis? Can you imagine how exposed the Australian economy would have been if the policies of the failed finance minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, had prevailed?Another thing about today's figures: this was the sixth consecutive quarter of growth above one per cent in Australia—the first time ever that that has occurred in this country. According to reports from New York, the Professor of Economics at MIT, Paul Krugman, told a Carnegie Council lunch this week:I would like to see more Australias around the world. Australia's internal strength and its appropriate policy mix meant that its appearance of vulnerability did not result in any crisis at all.Professor Krugman also said:International investors continued to be confident about Australia, despite a relatively small and short-lived fall in the currency, because of its excellent performance and the transparency that was not evident in the crisis-hit nations.What does he mean by transparency? He means transparency in budget policy—the charter of budget honesty. He means the statement of monetary policy agreed between me and the Reserve Bank governor. He means an open program of corporate law reform. He means the new financial structure which we have put in place as part of the Wallis reforms, described by the IMF as `path breaking reform'. He means all the hard work in the last three years that set Australia up to weather the Asian financial crisis. As the Prime Minister says, it is the hard work of today which will set us up for the future.Those people run around putting on stunts, holding up tomato soup cans outside the House of Representatives. The greatest contribution that the Leader of the Opposition can make to economic debate is crank calls to Democrat offices and cans of soup outside the House of Representatives.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—Mr Sidebottom interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Braddon knows that he is not only acting in an unparliamentary fashion but he is not in his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. He was asked a question which has absolutely nothing to do with this part of it. Since he raises the question of stunts, where's the debt truck?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, the Leader of the Opposition has raised the point.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Where is that debt truck?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer will return to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is policy. It is policy that counts when it comes to economic management. It is not crank calls to Democrat offices or stunts outside the House of Representatives—or an opposition which is stunt driven, not substance driven.58045804Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prior to negotiating the GST deal with the Democrats in the Senate, you made the call, which is often repeated by the major parties, for Senate reform. Given that you achieved 85 per cent of your tax package with a Senate you called `obstructionist', given that the current Senate has passed over 400 bills and rejected just a handful and given that it is vital for our democracy to have at least one house of parliament that more than simply rubber stamps the executive's laws, will you continue to advocate reform of a Senate that demonstrably better represents the will of the people than this place?5805Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I believe in a bicameral system of government. I also believe that governments that are elected with explicit mandates to implement policies of reform ought to be allowed to do that. I am naturally very pleased with the outcome of the negotiations with the Senate, and my views about the other matters that you have raised will always be consistent with those principles.58055805Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the government propose to simplify the indirect tax system in Australia? What advantages will this bring to the Australian economy?5805Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government proposes to simplify Labor's complex wholesale sales tax system—the government proposes to abolish Labor's wholesale sales tax system. Under Labor's wholesale sales tax system of 12, 22 and 36 per cent rates, knitting needles are taxed at 22 per cent and knitting wool is exempt. Sewing needles are taxed at 22 per cent and sewing thread is exempt.The Labor Party thinks you should tax brooms at 12 per cent and rakes at 22 per cent. I asked the Australian Taxation Office: what is the difference between a broom and a rake? It is the number of needles that come out of the head. Once you get over so many teeth, it becomes a broom, according to Labor, and then it goes up to a 22 per cent tax rate. This is the system that Labor is wedded to. Under Labor's system, chocolate is taxed at 12 per cent but chocolate Quik is not taxed. Strawberry Quik is taxed at 22 per cent. What a penalty for being pink. And you call yourselves Lefties.Not only is the coalition going to abolish Labor's wholesale sales tax system, we are going to abolish Labor's financial institutions duties. We are going to abolish Labor's bed taxes. We are going to abolish Labor's stamp duties—DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, ha, ha!CT4Mr COSTELLO—on shares. We are going to simplify Labor's tax system.Of all the stunts that the Leader of the Opposition has pulled, he was standing outside the House of Representatives—this is the heir to Chifley and Curtin—with tins of tomato soup. This is the heir to Gough Whitlam's `It's Time', with his tins of tomato soup. No substance, only stunts. In none of those does he stand up with his tins of chocolate Quik and say that chocolate Quik should be taxed at 12 per cent and strawberry at 22 per cent. And you call yourselves the Labor Party.58055805Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question to the author of the debt truck stunt, which is now sitting in a garage—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question or be sat down.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—waiting to be renovated, is as follows: Treasurer, have you seen the comments by Mitch Hooke, Executive Director of the Australian Food and Grocery Council? He said, `So the tax system that we wanted to get rid of in fact is now being duplicated with all its problems, but extended to apply at the restaurant and takeaway meal section, and all the pre-prepared foods that are in the supermarkets, as well as bakery products.' Is it not a fact, as Mr Hooke warns, that anomalies which arise in 70,000 wholesale sales tax points will now arise more frequently in 370,000 small businesses? Have you also seen his estimate that, because of this, compliance costs will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—and will see basic food prices rise, even if they are GST free?5805Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Of course the government's tax changes will simplify considerably the three wholesale sales tax rates—they will be abolished. The difference that we currently have is that, under Labor's tax system, an antique gold plated fountain pen is tax free, and pens and crayons are taxed at 22 per cent. What have you got against children?The Labor Party says that household vinyl floor tiles should be taxed at 12 per cent and that marble floor tiles should be tax free. The Labor Party says that works of art should be tax free and a children's painting set taxed at 22 per cent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—A point of order!Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition, while I am very happy to hear his point of order, will not be called while the House continues in this way.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, and it goes to relevance. The question related to the statement of Mr Hooke, the Executive Director of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, that we now have any anomaly problems with the WST squared in this particular proposition from the government. He said that what it will do is impose huge price rises in relation to food. That is the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and I will rule on relevance. The Leader of the Opposition's question was a wide-ranging one. By any measure, the Leader of the Opposition's question was a lengthy one, and it ranged over a number of items. The Treasurer will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I know that the Leader of the Opposition just then alleged that Mr Hooke had said that there were compliance problems squared, and if he has a quote to that effect I would be very interested to see it, because I have the article about Mr Hooke here in the Australian Financial Review . This is one of the reasons why you should never take the Leader of the Opposition's quotes literally. But I give him the benefit of the doubt. If he turns up a quote where Mr Hooke said `compliance squared', which he just alleged to the House, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But Mr Hooke says this in today's Australian Financial Review :"I certainly reassured [the Government] that I believed tax reform was in the national interest." Mr Hooke said the Government knew the Food & Grocery Council's preferred position . . . . but that the deal struck to exclude prepared food from the tax was the "political reality" and that the industry would now work out the administration requirements to get the new system working.That is what responsible people do. We would take these classifications questions from the Labor Party seriously if they had but one policy to simplify classification issues. But they have not only lived with them but created them over the last 13 years. In relation to classifications issues we say only this: hypocrisy, your name is Labor.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence. The Treasurer asked me a question then. I would like to supply him with the answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call, and will resume his seat.58065806Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you inform the House of the benefits to the retail grocery industry of the government's new tax system? What would be the impact of failing to reform the tax system for this industry? Are any alternatives being canvassed?5806Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for his question. A longstanding concern of many small businesses in the retail area, particularly in the grocery business, has been the operation of the wholesale sales tax as it affects their competitive position against the majors. The government is concerned about the competition in that industry. We have a parliamentary inquiry looking at the issues so that the small business sector's point of view can be properly heard. That is an important inquiry.However, an inquiry is not needed to understand the disadvantage which small business has suffered as a result of the wholesale sales tax system. In fact, there is an organisation—the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia—that for many, many years has been campaigning for a fairer tax system so that the small operators at least have an equal treatment through the tax system compared to the big operators.Whilst we have the Labor Party's silliness over definitions, the fact of the matter is that the competitive disadvantage of small business against big business in the retail grocery business has been estimated by NARGA—the industry association—to be putting them at a disadvantage of around $120 million every year. There will be many Labor politicians who claim to be concerned about small business, but who are doing everything in their power not to correct the disadvantage which has been suffered by the small business community. The NARGA submission says that if you can have a better and fairer tax system:The removal of this anomaly will be a major boost for small business throughout Australia but, in particular in the rural and regional areas. The boost will underpin the ability of small retail businesses to not only maintain existing jobs but to grow their existing employment base.The fact is that in the wholesale sales tax system if you are a big operator then you have vertical integration. You own the chain of production right down to the point of retail distribution, and you actually pay less wholesale sales tax than the small guy who buys through the independent wholesaler. This is a major structural problem with the system. The people who are suffering are the small business community. We have a chance to finally give small business the sort of opportunity which they need. We on this side all know that, if you give small business a go, they will go out and create jobs. That is why we say this package is good for small business. This particular proposal has been called for for years. It does show you the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. When there is a chance to do something to help small business, they vote against it. We are for small business. That is why we are for this package.58075807Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, are you aware that Senator Allison said this morning that the regional limitation for the diesel fuel rebate could be formulated in a number of ways:It may be where the truck is registered. It may be logging of where it travels to and from. It may be the kinds of produce that it carries. We are still waiting for a proposal from the government which outlines how it will deal with that question.Are you also aware that the Treasurer said this morning on the same issue:The law is finally settled. There is no doubt as to where it applies. It is where you are operating.Minister, who is right? Is the issue finally settled but you forgot to advise Senator Allison?Government members interjecting—XW4Ms KERNOT—Let the Treasurer tell you. Or is the issue still to be decided but you forgot to tell the Treasurer?5807Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I make the observation that I have had a constructive conversation with Lyn Allison this morning, I have agreed to meet with her next Monday so that we can continue to talk sensibly and negotiate a way forward, given that she and the Democrats have made themselves relevant to the process of reform and you have completely sidelined yourself.The principles are clearly established. The principle of the matter is that the fuel excise is available on the basis of where the fuel is essentially used because that reflects the purposes for which it is to be rebated. There is nothing complicated about that at all. I really think that you must be deeply regretting the fact that you have made yourself totally irrelevant to the whole process.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory!Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory knows better than that and, if he responds to the chair in that manner again, he will be warned.58075807Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister outline to the House what benefits the tax reform package will have for the cost of transport incurred by rural and another regionally based industries, particularly those in my electorate of Parkes where the minister has been so well received in his three visits in the last month or so?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Shoring up the votes too.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—It must have been hard leaving Red Hill!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! I concede that yesterday the member for Batman was unfairly named by the chair, but a balance has now been struck. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has the call.5808Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I must say that I have enjoyed my trips to his area in recent times, particularly when it came to launching the new initiative for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, with all that that means for rural and regional Australians in far-flung areas.It was whilst I was last there that my attention was drawn to the enormous savings that local industry can enjoy if we are able to reform transportation in this country. Indeed, it was put to me that if we can move ahead with the higher mass limits reforms in this country, worth an estimated $840 million to GDP annually, we can have a real impact on simple things like the cost of transporting stock out of Central Queensland and the major works in Dubbo when you actually couple that with the enormous savings that will flow out of the fuel rebates that we are proposing. We found a typical example would relate to a company that is currently using $1.25 million litres of diesel a year. They will save virtually $300,000 a year just on fuel. Over and above that, they will save a great deal of money on their trucks, on their parts, on their tyres. All of that is money which stays in the Dubbo community, which circulates in the Dubbo community, which generates more job opportunities. I had my attention drawn, too, to the benefits that will flow to a transport operator in Mackay, in the member for Dawson's seat, where we have a company that uses 2½ million litres of diesel a year, and they will save $600,000 a year. Again, that is of enormous and real benefit to that community. But it is a tragedy that the opposition thinks all of this is just too hard.Whilst I extend my sympathies to the member for Dickson in her battle with fatigue, I have to say it must be difficult indeed for her at the moment watching from the grandstand as the government delivers on tax reform that will benefit the constituency that she says she cares about. Indeed, I note with some interest that not only does she say that she cares about it, but one of the insiders in the ALP was quoted over the weekend as having made this comment:If there is one person who knows instinctively a huge amount about the electorate—in the Labor Party—who has the communication skills and capacity to sense the mood that is running and grab it, she is the best we have got.This is the spokesperson who has dealt herself right out of the game, knowing that if she had not engaged in that political flip-flop last year—dare I call it that political treachery last year—she could have been in there instead of her former Democrat colleague making a real difference for rural and regional Australia. She could have been, and she threw it away.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not want to relieve him of his ramblings, Mr Speaker, but he is not very good at it. I think you ought to bring him back to relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! This would not be the first occasion on which I have sat through a number of answers in which reference has been made to shadow ministers as well as portfolio matters. The question and answer should refer to the portfolio they administer. I invite the minister to return to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—My point is that for anyone who engages in the debate about rural and regional Australia these issues of tax reform are vitally important.The member for Dickson says she has exhausted herself out there over the last six or seven months listening to every peak body, every community organisation, she can find. They will all have told her in rural and regional Australia that they want tax reform, but she has dealt herself out of the game. Now she seeks to make herself relevant again on what are relatively minor issues compared to the overwhelming benefit of what we are proposing and what her former colleagues in the Democrats have recognised are necessary in reforms for rural and regional Australia.Really, in the end probably all it confirms is what we already know by the member for Dickson's own admission: she has not ventured into rural and regional Australia very much anyway. When she was Leader of the Democrats she did not think there was much point because there were no votes in it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The reality is that what we are now seeing is what amounts to the pursuit of, in relative terms, trivia. What we are seeing is that she is paying the bush lip-service. She has effectively bought herself a season ticket in the tax reform grandstand.58095809Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, if the principles you referred to in your previous answer to me are perfectly clear, will the tax treatment depend on the kinds of produce which trucks carry?5809Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—No.58095809Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services, representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, can you inform the House how the revised tax package benefits students and education? Would you inform the House of any alternative views on this issue.5809Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The good news for the member for Robertson is that Australian education will be more affordable under this government's package for lower, simpler, fairer taxes. Thanks to the Australian Democrats, school tuckshops will not charge the GST. Thanks to the Australian Democrats and their help, employment related courses, adult education colleges and community colleges will not attract a GST. Thanks to the help of the Australian Democrats, this package is a better deal for Australian education.This package means that education will be GST free. This package means that education will no longer be affected by Labor's unfair wholesale sales tax, which means that there will be no wholesale sales tax on scissors, paper, crayons, drawing pads, computer disks, paints, envelopes, computers, diaries, satchels, glue, paste, folders, calculators, sticky tape, exercise books, pens, pencils and batteries. All of these goods will be very considerably cheaper under the government's tax package.Thanks to the government's package, school tuckshops will no longer be affected by the wholesale sales tax, which means that school tuckshops will no longer face the problem of having to decide when a crispbread, which is exempt, becomes a Ryvita, which is taxable—and that is Labor's system. School tuckshops will not have to decide how much salt you have to put on peanuts before they become taxable—which is Labor's system. Tuckshops will not be confronted with the problem of when a box is for a frozen pizza, which is exempt, and when it is for a hot pizza, which is taxable under Labor's system. Tuckshops will no longer have to tax paper bags at 12 per cent but tax them at 22 per cent if they have a pie printed on them. That is Labor's system—and what has the Labor Party got against meat pies?The Australian Education Union is claiming that this package will cost students more. The union should go back and take a course in remedial maths, because this package will reduce the cost of education services by $720 million over three years—or by nearly $200 for every consumer of education in this country. Teachers should not mislead their students, and so I call on members of the Australian Education Union opposite—such as the member for Brisbane, who is a former official of the Queensland Teachers Union—to stop taking orders from the union and to tell the union to lift its game.58095809Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, will you rule out ever trying to include GST-free food in the GST net at any time in the future?5810Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Obviously the government is going to legislate this system as agreed with the Australian Democrats; it has no intention whatsoever of changing it.58105810Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can the minister inform the House how veterans will benefit from the new tax package?Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Isaacs.5810Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Page for his question and for his interest in veterans' issues and also war widows. The Liberal Party, the National Party and the Democrats have great news for the veteran community. As of 1 July in the year 2000 veterans will benefit from a one-off four per cent increase in pensions and allowances and also from a two per cent real increase in allowances. The veterans will also benefit from measures in the original package, which included income-free areas being increased by 2.5 per cent, the pensioner tax rebate threshold being increased, and the treatment benefit level will be increased by 2.5 per cent. I am also advised that also means that some veterans who do not qualify for a gold card today will be eligible for a gold card under these tax reform measures. That is on top of the extension as of 1 January this year.We have also agreed to extend the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus to eligible persons aged 55 years as of 1 July next year. The Labor Party want to oppose this. If they were really fair dinkum about the welfare of veterans and war widows, they would have been part of the process of developing better benefits for the veterans and war widows of this community.Veterans will also benefit from an expanded range of professionals who may provide GST-free health services, included appropriately qualified naturopaths, acupuncturists and also herbalists. This is not only good for veterans and for war widows; it is also good for their families—DT4CREANMr Crean—Are you good for them too?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—We have to ask ourselves why the Labor Party is not serious about the welfare of veterans and war widows. They are on the sideline; they are not even in the debate. The Democrats, the Liberal Party and the National Party are part of the debate. The Democrats, the Liberal Party and the Democrats are serious about tax reform. The commitment that we gave the farmers at Longreach at the recent cabinet meeting was well received by those out in regional and rural Australia. The veterans who live in rural and regional Australia said that they want tax reform. Many of the Labor supporters are wondering why the Labor Party are not part of the debate. They have dealt themselves out, they are not part of it, and they never have been.58105810Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware that in an increasing number of retirement villages—including, I might say, RSL homes—there are both nursing homes and independent living units on site? Isn't it a fact that under the GST deal negotiated with the Democrats there would be two different prices paid in the communal dining room for a plate of chicken and salad, depending on whether or not the resident lived in the nursing home section, the hostel section or the independent living section? Can the minister inform the House of just what happens when residents sit down together for lunch in the communal dining room? Do nursing home and hostel residents qualify for the cheaper GST-free meal while all the others have to pay GST on their meal? Minister, how do you justify a tax that discriminates against a growing group of older Australians who are doing their very best to live independently?5810Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I find this sort of contrived anger rather tiresome.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister need not resume her seat, but she will not respond to the question until the House has come to order.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—The fact of the matter is that living in a retirement village is a lifestyle choice. It is the same as choosing to live in a strata unit or in a cottage: it is the choice you make as an individual as to the way you wish to live. The question of living in residential care is a question of whether or not you are judged able to look after yourself according to an ACAT assessment or not. One is a medical judgment; one is a lifestyle choice. When you make a lifestyle choice, you are subject to exactly the same tax as anybody else. When you are in a residential facility, you are in a facility which is GST free. That includes all of the inputs that come in to run that facility, and the inputs taxes are deductible in the hands of the providers. It is a very simple distinction to make, and I do wish you would learn. You are truly the dimmer of the `glimmer twins'.58115811Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Can the minister inform the House how older Australians, particularly pensioners, will be far better off under the government's new tax system than under the current broken Labor tax system?5811Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his particular interest in pensioners. I am delighted to assure him that pensioners can look forward to a much improved standard of living under the new tax system. On our side we have been referring to some of the benefits that are going to be given to pensioners as compensation, but they are much, much more than that. In fact, this tax system will provide a real bonus to pensioners. There will be a significant capacity for them to improve their lifestyle. This is the government that legislated to guarantee that pensioners would always receive no less than 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. That guarantee stays in place.We promised, when we went to the Australian people with the new taxation system, that there would be a four per cent increase in pensions and other benefits from 1 July 2000. Even though basic food has now been taken out of the GST equation, that four per cent guarantee stays in place. So that is an increased benefit to pensioners. We had said previously that we would guarantee that the pension would stay at least 1.5 per cent above whatever the CPI rise might be. That has been improved to two per cent. So there is a further bonus for pensioners in this package. This is not just compensation; it is much more. There is a real pension bonus.What I find remarkable in this whole exercise is that the tax wallflowers opposite, the people who are sitting on the shelf watching it all happen, are actually going to vote against this pension rise. The Labor Party will become the first party in the history of this country to vote against a real increase for pensioners. These are the people who claim they have an interest in the poor and the disadvantaged. They are going to vote down a pension rise. Fortunately, there are enough people of goodwill in this House and in the other place to deliver this real increase in benefits to pensioners—not just compensation; a real bonus for pensioners in the new tax system.58115811Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Why did the government reject the Democrats' position, recommended in their supplementary report to the Senate, which would have left all registered health products untaxed, as they currently are? Why is there a difference in the tax treatment of Strepsils Plus, which is GST free, and ordinary Strepsils, which come plus a GST? Why are you taxing some health products which are used every day by so many Australians?5811Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Because the Australian Democrats sought to extend GST free treatment to those items which are on list S2. We currently operate a different list for S2, and GST-free treatment has been extended to S2. The government's original position was that it should be extended to prescriptions. If you have a problem with the items which are on schedule S2, you had 13 years to fix it, but you did not. I seek to add to an answer I gave in relation to—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Let him do it after question time.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will do it after question time. It is about the Labor position on brooms and rakes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That would be more appropriate. Have you completed the answer to the member for Jagajaga?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes.58125812Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. What measures is the government taking to address the critical issue of entrenched high levels of unemployment within indigenous communities throughout Australia? Can the minister inform the House of the feedback the government has received from indigenous communities and the business community in relation to these plans?5812Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Bradfield for his question. I also thank the member for his advice and active participation in putting this program together. We have had quite a team effort to bring together the government's indigenous employment policy. The member for Leichhardt and the member for Page had some good advice, the member for Herbert was also involved in it and had some very sensible things to say, and we had a very constructive discussion with community leaders at Palm Island. The point is that if you have a strong economy there are more things that you can do for people who are disadvantaged. One of the great things about this government is that we have now seen growth of over one per cent in six consecutive quarters. That is the best result of any government in the history of Federation. It is a fantastic result. And the other person who has stood behind this program is the PM, who enthusiastically endorsed this policy and gave us the authority to go out and put a package which would actually be of assistance to Aboriginal people.We have the money in the budget. That is a start. We also have some constructive ideas to help those who are unemployed. The level of unemployment amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is about three times the national average. If you take into account those people who are in CDEP, the rate of unemployment is about 40 per cent. Obviously that is simply not good enough. We as a government are very committed to doing something about it.We have a greater focus in this program on the private sector. A lot of jobs today held by Aboriginal people are in the public sector—about 70 per cent—so we have given emphasis to real jobs in the private sector, and we think this program is going to help in that regard. We have a wage assistance program. We have a practical incentive for people running CDEPs. We have had a very encouraging response from CEOs of some of Australia's biggest companies who have said that they are going to do more. We had a very constructive meeting with them and we have hopes of much more being done there. We have an improved and targeted training aspect to the program. We have a new voluntary service to the Indigenous Communities Foundation. We have worked with not just the Aboriginal community where they have been involved in all the program but also some of Australia's major voluntary organisations who are giving us some advice. We also have a cadetship program and an indigenous small business fund to give a boost to those indigenous enterprises and people who are prepared to give small business a go and create jobs that way.We are much appreciative of the support and encouragement we have had and of the involvement and participation by people like Joseph Elu, who runs the CDC. We had a meeting with the CEOs, at which one of the big banks was represented, and Joseph said, `For the first time I have sat in a room with a major bank in Australia.' He reckoned that showed that there was a change going on—a change in attitudes to do something better. Evelyn Scott, the head of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, came along to this meeting and another one and was very sup portive. I publicly thank her for that. When we were at the CEOs meeting she said:I am very excited about this event today. It is an historical event in terms of a meeting such as this to be having some of the biggest corporate companies in this country setting out an initiative, taking up an initiative that has been developed by the government. I am excited about the people that sat around the table here who have committed themselves. And that is what it is all about. It is all about commitment and no doubt I will be stressing that it is a learning process for this, both sides, and there is also a wonderful partnership in the whole place.That was a very positive remark and I thank her for it. I hesitate to introduce any political note into such a statement, but the Aboriginal affairs shadow minister was quoted by the ABC. They said:He has praised Mr Reith for consulting Aboriginal people and preparing a well balanced program.They quoted him saying:It shows that he has turned the ship around and he's heading in the right direction.If we are going to have a stronger economy—and that means more reform like sensible tax reform—then that will be good for our small businesses, whether they are indigenous or otherwise.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—Oh, that is a disgrace.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Northern Territory.WI4Mr REITH—If our big companies and our other companies can do better as the result of tax reform, then with a program like this as part of an integrated approach the good news for this country is that we can tackle some difficult issues and tackle them in a constructive way. It is going to mean real jobs for people who for far too long have been disadvantaged.58135813Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister explain why he did not agree to the Democrats' proposal that vitamins and minerals retain their tax-free status? Was it because, as the Sydney Morning Herald reported, the minister thought that the big losses in tax revenue were not justified by the health benefits? Minister, why do you think that iron tablets for a pregnant woman should be used to raise revenue through the GST?5813Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—As the honourable member would know, health will be a big winner out of the GST. We are removing most of Labor's taxes that are already on health products through the cascading nature of the wholesale sales tax system. In my negotiations with the Democrats I was attempting to meet their needs and get the best possible deal for the budget bottom line.58135813Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, can you advise the House of the benefits to Australia's primary producers as a result of the government's new tax package?5813Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. As a representative of the majority of South Australia, he is obviously very interested in how this package is going to benefit all his constituents, and indeed it is. Our government's tax reform package delivers in full; in fact, it delivers more than what we committed to deliver at the election last year for Australia's primary producers. It should be noted that Australia's primary producers account for around three per cent of GDP, and that is worth over $25 billion in export income. For those primary producers we are going to remove around $4½ billion worth of embedded costs that they carry the burden of when they are exporting products out of Australia and earning much needed export income for Australia. Just remember, they are Labor's embedded wholesale sales tax rates.Earlier this week there was an announcement made about the exports of food and agricultural products to Asia in the March quarter this year. They happened to be up 14 per cent on the March quarter last year. In the March quarter this year we saw a rise in the exports of meat to Asia of 27 per cent, of dairy products of 7.5 per cent, of grains of 25 per cent and seafood of five per cent. The most important point to make is that Australia's primary producers have done that whilst carrying the burden of Labor's embedded wholesale sales tax. Remember Labor's 12 per cent, Labor's 22 per cent, their 32 per cent, their 45 per cent?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as to relevance: how can he relevantly answer this question when he knows that primary producers get a WST exemption?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. As the Leader of the Opposition knows—SU5Mr VAILE—The wholesale sales tax system which you are supporting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Minister, you will resume your seat. The point of order was not relevant to the question as it was framed and the minister did not have the call of the House.SU5Mr VAILE—I apologise, Mr Speaker, but it is important to make the point that those export achievements have been done whilst carrying the burden of that embedded taxation system. Imagine what Australia's primary producers can do when we wash it out of the system. They will be able to achieve a lot more and will be a lot more competitive on the international stage.We will also deliver on our commitment to reduced transport costs to rural Australia. We have maintained that commitment in the revised taxation package. The diesel fuel rebate scheme that we promised Australia's primary producers we would deliver will be delivered. The abolition of fuel excise from the rail industry will deliver enormous benefits to primary producers.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—It was not your idea.SU5Mr VAILE—The member for Dickson interjects; I should not respond. It is an indication of what can be done in Australia when the government of Australia and some political parties in Australia put the nation's interests first. We have achieved that with the assistance and the professional manner in which the Australian Democrats have participated in this discussion, to the detriment of the Labor Party, who have been left in the grandstand. I will get back to the point about the fuel excise on the rail industry. In New South Wales alone, the saving by the abolition of that fuel excise is going to equate to a $2 a tonne reduction in freight, which is about $18 million off the bottom line of the grains industry in Australia; that is, straight back into the pockets of the producers. This is important policy reform for Australia's primary producers who desperately want it, and they are supporting the government in these measures.The fishing and aquaculture industries in Australia—$1.9 billion worth of industry, $1½ billion worth of exports—will also have their costs reduced by around $100 million a year. This is because we are going to get rid of the embedded wholesale sales tax system which the Labor Party want to protect. They want to keep the 12 per cent, the 22 per cent, the 32 per cent and the 45 per cent, that clumsy, cumbersome system which they instigated in this country. Our commitment is that we will remove the wholesale sales tax system and we are going to achieve that on behalf of Australia's primary producers. We will do it with the mature and professional approach of the Australian Democrats, who are participating in a decision making process to benefit Australia, not just to benefit their political ends. It certainly is something that the Labor Party in Australia—the pink party in Australia, the pink Quik party in Australia—could never achieve.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I think that is an appropriate note on which to ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous5814581415:06:005814Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—In my answer today on wholesale sales tax, I said that brooms are taxed at 12 per cent and rakes are taxed at 22 per cent, which is correct. I also said that whether you are a broom or a rake depended on the number of teeth on the head, a broom having more teeth than a rake. I then said that under Labor's tax system the greater the number of teeth, the higher the tax rate. What I should have said is that under Labor's tax system it is fewer teeth that leads to the higher tax rate.Auditor-General's Reports5815581510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the following Auditor-General's audit reports for 1998-99—No. 43—Performance audit—Networking the Nation—The Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, and No. 45—Performance audit—Food safety regulations in Australia—Australia New Zealand Food Authority.Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the reports be printed.Bills5815Messages received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 Matters of Public Importance5815581510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government's 30 per cent health insurance rebate to achieve its membership target or restrict premium increases to less than twice the rate of inflation.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:10:005815Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—It is obvious that the Minister for Health and Aged Care is not prepared to come into the House and defend this massive waste of taxpayers' funds. Last year I described the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance as the worst piece of public health policy in Australia's history. Less than six months later the proof is on the scoreboard and the minister is nowhere to be seen. For all the government's bragging about its achievements on health insurance and the minister's spin doctoring, the facts speak for themselves. The rebate has failed to achieve the government's very modest target for increasing membership. The rebate has failed to curb the upward spiral of health insurance premiums. The rebate has failed to win its target group of young people, which the funds cynically want to use to cross-subsidise their existing members; the rebate has cost more than its initial budget estimates, despite the lower than anticipated membership; the rebate has failed to spark any real reform in the industry; and the rebate has failed to take any pressure whatsoever off the public hospital system.If there was any honesty on the government benches, the minister would come in here and admit these failures. Instead, of course, he is furiously trying to convince everybody that black is white. The dismal failure to boost membership is described as a surge. There is no admission that the government has achieved less than 10 per cent of its own target. If it had achieved the target, it would have had to call it a tidal wave. Rather than concede the failure of the fourth rescue package in four years, the minister is now spruiking a new one with the introduction of a lifetime community rating. Also, rather than focusing on fixing up the mess in health insurance, the government has gone off and created a new one with the GST on health products.The government has had three tries on health products to define exactly what will attract a GST and every time they have botched it up. Today, I have just used one example—Strepsils Plus and Strepsils—but there are so many more. It is a pity that Meg Lees accepted such a half-hearted compro mise, because it has created a real mess and left a new tax on so many essential health items that are widely used and now will attract a tax where they previously did not. The minister has deigned to join us.MG4LEEMr Lee—He has been on the phone.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—He must have been on the phone to one of those private health insurers. The government has followed the same formula in tax policy that it has used for private health insurance—ignore the expert advice, try a half-baked plan and if that fails try another one. This is exactly what we are seeing with private health insurance. We are now into our fourth rescue plan in four years. The government keeps pouring money in to prop up the industry, promising that success is just around the corner and that then pressure will come off the public hospitals. But the results demonstrate it has failed. Premiums are still increasing at more than double the rate of inflation. The subsidy of $1.7 billion in public funds has only resulted in an extra 57,000 Australians taking out health insurance—a cost of $30,000 for every extra person that has taken out insurance.The $7½ million publicly funded advertising campaign has sunk of course without a trace. Gap payments have escalated and efforts to produce improved, simplified billing and gap-free products have not happened either. As for the overall result, some of you might have seen in the Herald Sun today that they did a little opinion poll which shows that just 13.4 per cent of people think that private health insurance offers value for money; 86 per cent say it does not. Obviously, the government has not convinced very many people. Let us look at that incredibly shrinking target that the government has used to justify its expenditure of $1.7 billion a year every year on that health insurance rebate. We were told at the Senate inquiry that the rebate would increase the participation rate to 45 per cent; 2.8 million extra Australians were going to take out health insurance—that is what the industry said. The private hospitals, the private insurers and the doctors have all walked away from their words now.When the Prime Minister launched his health policy in 1996 including the first means tested rebate, he said it would boost membership by 40 per cent; that is 1.8 million extra people. What happened? It did not. The means tested rebate was a dismal failure because the health funds pushed their prices up within weeks of its introduction. Membership did edge up a little bit, by 35,000.MG4LEEMr Lee—For one quarter!PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—That is right. And then it continued its downward trend. With the new round of price increases that started yesterday we will be seeing history repeat itself. When the Prime Minister announced a much more expensive 30 per cent rebate, we could not get a target out of the government, not for love or money; it did not matter how many times we asked them what the target was. But under repeated questioning the Minister for Finance and Administration finally gave it away and we discovered that the government wanted to get an extra 550,000 new members for spending $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money.The minister then decided that things were not looking too good and so he has been going round for the last few months dampening down expectations—`We don't actually want anyone extra to join health insurance. We'll be very happy if things just stay as they are.' So, after telling us that $1.7 billion a year was necessary to create this brilliant new future for the private sector and remove all pressure from public hospitals, this minister is now telling us he wants to spend $1.7 billion to tread water. Even the latest rescue package and undoubtedly not the last—lifetime community rating—will, according to this minister, do nothing but maintain the status quo. As a result of an amazing leap of logic, the minister was able to act wonderfully surprised in front of the cameras, just a couple of weeks ago, describing the actual increase in membership of 57,000 people as a `surge'—but it was a very small surge. More likely it will turn out yet again to just be a little blip on that graph, just as there was a small increase after his failed first scheme.Fifty-seven thousand people represents a tiny 0.2 per cent increase in the proportion of the population covered by private health insurance. Between them those people just bring $40 million into the insurance pool while the government, using our money—using Australians' money—has spent more than 40 times this to achieve this result. That is this government's way of pouring money into private health insurance—$30,000 for each and every new member. The reason for this is very simple. You might be wondering where on earth the money has gone. Over 99 per cent of the cost of this rebate has gone to people who already have private health insurance. Of the $1.7 billion a year committed to the rebate, $1.68 billion has gone to those who already have private health insurance. It is the worst targeted measure ever taken by a government and also the most expensive.To understand just how large a figure $1.7 billion a year is, let us compare it to the assistance that is given to other sectors of the economy. The Productivity Commission's Trade and Assistance Review last year records the total level of assistance given to other sectors, showing both the tax expenditures and the budget outlays. I was quite surprised when I saw these figures. The total budget support for the primary production sector amounted to $823 million and all the assistance to manufacturing amounts to $1.4 billion. But what does this government give private health insurance? Private health insurance gets more support from this government than what goes to primary industry or manufacturing industry in every single year.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Shame!PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—The minister was of course particularly pleased—Mr Downer interjecting—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—He's off and away now. Which loser are you going to be talking about today? The minister was of course particularly pleased when he talked about the `surge' in membership for those aged between 20 and 24. He obviously did not stop to think about it for very long. This age group has increased in both the previous quarters when total membership dropped. Why would that be? The minister, along with all the rest of us, should be aware that many young people finish their education between the ages of 20 and 24 and so stop being covered by their parents' private health insurance. A proportion of these—I'll let you know how big in a minute—could be expected to take up private health insurance at that time in their lives. But what proportion would it be? The Bureau of Statistics tell us that there are 1.3 million Australians between the ages of 20 and 24, and 8,609 of those took out private health insurance. That is 0.6 of one per cent of all Australians of that age. That was a surge!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I thought the minister was out there boasting about it.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—The minister is deluding himself. He was boasting—it was a `surge,' it was something that would turn the industry around. The minister is deluding himself if he thinks that this is a sign of the bright future of the industry. If health insurance is attracting only six out of every 1,000 young Australians, this minister needs to get the message that they do not want it.There is one target, however, that the minister has exceeded, but unfortunately that is for the cost of the program. The budget papers record that in its first six months the 30 per cent rebate cost the government $544 million in cash outgoings, and so it goes on. We put all the figures together and we find that the total budget cost of the rebate in the first year is $1.65 billion. That was originally meant to be the cost in three years time when participation got to 33 per cent. We are up there already with virtually no increase in participation rates. The prospect is that the full cost of the rebate will continue to escalate well beyond the estimates provided by the government. Just yesterday we saw one of the main reasons for that. The cost of this rebate is going to go up every time the price goes up. From yesterday we know that the actual increase was 4.9 per cent nationally. It is interesting to note that the publicly owned Medibank Private kept its increase to the inflation rate—1.9 per cent.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Let's sell it!PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—That is what the government wants to do. The question has to be asked: why have HCF rates gone up by eight per cent and MBF by six per cent? Within the product ranges there also seem to have been some very steep increases out of line with the industry average. Even though there have been concerted efforts to find out all the details, a number of the funds have said,` No, we can't tell you that'—apparently at the behest of the minister's office. The public spokespeople for various funds have declined to give the details for their price increases by state and by product. No wonder there is a mysterious veil of silence. It is not hard to guess why.Some of these increases are outlandish. We heard months ago from the Defence Health Benefits Fund and we heard yesterday from those who have had increases of between 15 per cent and 25 per cent. That is why this private health insurance rebate not only has failed after the first six months but also will continually cost this government and the public more and more as the price of health insurance continues to rise as this government does absolutely nothing to get it under control and as this government forgets that the primary purpose of a health minister is to look after those who need to go to public hospitals. If this money had gone into public hospitals we would have seen 275,000 extra patients treated around Australia. They are the real losers out of this government's policies. The real losers are those public patients who could have been treated but who have not been treated because of this government's obsession with private health insurance. (Time expired)15:25:005818Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—What a pathetic effort. The Leader of the Opposition, on his way back to Perth on election night on his plane, went up the back and confided to some journalists that he was disappointed that, at the last election, he was not able to make more out of health. In 1996 the then Labor health minister, the member for Fremantle, refused to debate with me. In 1998 the shadow minister for health refused to turn up at the National Press Club. It is clear why Labor have so mispositioned themselves on health. It is lovely to see that there is still somewhere where Stalinist ideology reigns. The Labor Party are locked back into the mind set of the late 1940s at the beginnings of the National Health Service.The fact is that Labor have no record. It is absolutely galling to come in here and listen to a carping, negative, whingeing, opportunistic opposition who in 13 years of government did not do one single thing positive for the private health insurance industry but rather let it wither on the vine. They come in here and carp and whinge and criticise a government that is actually trying to do something.Labor's record is worse than no record, it is a seriously negative record. In 1984 they removed tax deductibility for private health insurance, just as they had done in 1973. And they will do it again. I am very happy to say, every time I have the opportunity, that Labor's policy is to take this away. They did it in 1973 under Whitlam, they did it in 1984 under Hawke and if they ever get the chance to be in government again they will do it again. They will try to weave and duck and get out of this and they will try to avoid the point, but the fact is that you do that at your peril. That is your policy—to remove this rebate, to take it away from Australians.Let me tell you the other things that the Labor Party did to the private health insurance industry while they were in government. Between 1983 and 1989 they removed the federal government's contribution to the reinsurance pool. This is money that shares the costs of older Australians and Australians with a chronic illness. They were taking away money directly from older Australians and Australians with a chronic illness—$100 million that was put onto health fund members. The Medicare rebate was reduced for in-hospital services from 85 per cent to 75 per cent—the funds were made to cover the rest. The hospital bed day subsidy was abolished in 1986. That took $135 million from the industry.Finally, in 1993 they signed a health care agreement with the states that actively encouraged the states to shift from private patients in public hospitals to private patients in private hospitals, removing that source of revenue for the state hospitals and increasing the cost structure of health funds. Access Economics has estimated that, for the 30 per cent of Australians with private health cover and the very large number of other Australians who would like it but feel they cannot afford it, that put $846 million of additional costs onto this industry or put premiums up 39 per cent higher than they would have been otherwise, just by these decisions.So it is not no record, it is a record of active opposition; a record to allow this industry to decline. If you talk to anyone who was involved with the origins of Medibank in the 1970s or Medicare in the 1980s you would know that these were predicated on a vibrant private health sector taking about 40 per cent of the population. The fact is that you need a mixed system in this country. The only people who do not concede that are the opposition.It is a difficult area. I must say I have better days than my days dealing with the private health sector. But the fact is that Labor could not even come up with a policy at the last election. They went to the last election with the Leader of the Opposition saying, `Oh, we have got this on the backburner.' The fact is that they did not have the intellectual capacity—they did not have any capacity at all—to know what they would do with the private health insurance sector. They were prepared again to try to duck and weave and hide. That is the reason that the Leader of the Opposition confided to journalists on election eve on his way back to Perth that they got it wrong.But, rather than do something about it, rather than actually admit the problems, he has now handed over the health sector to the Stalinist wing of the Labor Party, who are still running an ideological based agenda. When I became health minister in 1996, I inherited an industry that had just lost in that financial year $75 million. In the first full financial year that I was minister it lost $131 million. That is over $205 million lost in two years. It was bleeding to death. It had incurred those losses because of long-term active neglect by the Labor government, which was hoping that this industry would wither on the vine. It has been very difficult to turn this industry around, but we are having quite some successes.The opposition makes much about targets. I have always had modest targets. I have always said that I want to put a floor under private health insurance, and I think we have a good chance of achieving that. The so- called target of 550,000 extra people was never a target; it was simply a figure used by one department to attempt to cost a process. You do not always have to make assumptions. My assumptions have been modest.MG4LEEMr Lee—What are they?8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—They are very simple. They are to try to put a floor under private health insurance.MG4LEEMr Lee—To achieve growth.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—No, to keep it flat. The fact is that in the last Keating government 6.1 per cent of the Australian population dropped out of private health cover. In the last Howard government 4.4 per cent did. That is more than I would like to see, but the fact is that it was 6.1 per cent under you doing nothing and it is 4.4 per cent under us. Fully 1.7 per cent of the population are in private health cover who would not have been had we done nothing, and that at a time when the industry had accumulated losses over the same period of $205 million. It is actually not a bad record.The Labor Party, of course, has internal dissent here. Some in the Labor Party understand that what is being done is seriously stupid.MG4LEEMr Lee—Here comes Graham.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—No, the guru from the New South Wales Right, your area, John Della Bosca. It is worth putting it into the parliamentary record. I do mention Graham Richardson, because he is actually one of the few people in your party who knows anything about health. You do not, in spite of the fact that the two of you have been shadow ministers together for two years and have not managed to put a health policy together. According to the members of the federal caucus who have spoken to Della Bosca, he believes that Beazley must find new ground on health. He advocates junking the current approach of shadow minister Jenny Macklin—it would be much easier if you junked Jenny Macklin at the same time—which concentrates almost exclusively on the public hospital system. Just as Gough Whitlam was able to bring Labor to embrace state aid for church schools in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Della Bosca apparently argues that Beazley should be able to devise a 1990s policy that embraces both public and private hospitals. There is absolutely no hope of that happening with the present opposition incumbent in health, because what we are seeing run here is an ideological agenda that is basically opposed to the private sector. Graham Richardson understood this as a former health minister.MG4LEEMr Lee—Here we go.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—His comments were these, and they are worth repeating, and I will repeat them many times. Richardson said:I steered a package through Cabinet, but I resigned before I could sell it to Caucus. Practically the whole package died when I left, as the Labor Party has always been a bit biased against private health insurance and without a sponsor any proposal to the industry was doomed.So here you have a former Labor health minister, a former Labor power broker from the New South Wales Right, saying that the Labor Party is a bit biased against the private health sector.Where the Labor Party have got this so wrong is that, as in other areas, they fail to understand the aspirations of the Australian people. While only 30 per cent of the population may have private health insurance, a very large percentage of the population values it. They may wish to have it in the future or they have had it in the past and they have dropped out and they worry about it. It is only about a quarter of the Australian population that actually match the aspirations of the Labor Party, and that is they do not care about the private health sector. I am happy at any stage in the political debate to go in to bat for the 75 per cent of the Australian population who either have it, have had it and may want it again or do not have it and may want it in the future. This simple, fundamental misunderstanding is why the Leader of the Opposition lamented the fact that he could not make more out of health in the last election.The opposition made much about premium increases and described some of them as outlandish. I must say, as someone with private health cover, unlike many on the other side of the House, that I do understand, because I have to pay those premium increases myself. But I would ask the opposition what in fact they would do. In 13 years of government, on not one single occasion did the opposition attempt to modify or knock back a premium increase. They went straight through without any examination whatsoever. The law on this is very strict. Government has very little capacity to intervene. In fact, the only time a premium increase has been knocked back in toto was in 1978, and that was overturned by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But, short of that, you can be in there arguing with the industry, trying to get premiums down, trying to get them to behave in a more reasonable manner. We have had only two out of 44 funds in Australia increase their premiums in a 15-month period. This is completely unprecedented in the past. That has provided a degree of certainty that the Australian public have never had with private health insurance. The funds now have all put up their premiums at the one point in time rather than leapfrogging each other trying to get advantage and trying to create uncertainty.The shadow minister said that as soon as we introduced the 30 per cent rebate funds put up their premiums. Absolute rubbish. In fact, two out of the then 48 or 49 funds put up their premiums. You would expect, with premium increases located right throughout the year, that in any one month four funds would put up their premiums on average, so in fact nothing unusual happened. We have been able to get rid of that uncertainty and bring all funds into a time when they can put up their premiums at the one time, not leapfrog each other but give a degree of certainty, and you will not see any more premium increases now till next year.Some funds have put up their premiums by very large amounts, but the simple fact is that these are not-for-profit funds. They are not trying to make money; they are trying to keep going. Only two years ago this industry had lost $210 million over a two-year period and some funds have not properly recovered from that. For me to attempt to deny those funds the premium increase would mean that effectively I would be saying to those funds, `Go broke!' What would happen to the members in those circumstances? People have a right to change funds. If they are not happy with their fund they can shop around. Some funds with premium increases that might seem quite large may not have increased them for two years. I know that one of the funds that has had a large premium increase had no premium increase last year at all. It is up to the members to choose.This comes back to the fundamental difference between the two sides of politics. We believe in choice in health care. We will fight for choice. The essence of the 30 per cent rebate is choice. We are giving the Australian population the choice of whether or not to take out private health cover. It is up to them whether they wish to do it. Labor wishes to deny that choice, just as it wishes to deny choice to parents to send their children to non-government schools. It is an authoritarian attitude that this government will never have. I am happy to go to any election or any forum and argue that the Australian population should be given choice, because that is in essence what we do.That $1.6 billion to $1.7 billion is a lot of money. It shows our commitment to choice. It shows our commitment to those members of the Australian public who are struggling to hold their private health cover. I have never said that any one item or any one change would be sufficient. Change is happening all the time and it will continue to happen in the future. It is fundamentally unfair that long-term members are not able to get greater benefits by having their membership for a long time. Labor was in government for 13 years. What did it do about it? Nothing. We have been in government for just over three years. What have we done? We have allowed loyalty bonuses. We are going to introduce lifetime health cover. That will mean that the long-term members get the benefits to which they are entitled.Labor had 13 years to do something about simplified billing. What happened? Absolutely nothing happened. Today in South Australia half of all hospital admissions are on a simplified billing basis. In Victoria, it is about 20 per cent. Australia-wide, it is about 7½ per cent—up from nothing just 18 months ago. It is going up exponentially. This is a difficult industry and we are trying to do something about it. I am happy to be compared at any point with a government that did nothing, with an opposition that wishes to take away a 30 per cent rebate from the Australian population, and with an opposition whose only contribution is to carp, whinge, and be negative and opportunistic.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—It is to hold you to account—that's what it is.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—You will miss out on the health ministry at the next election, just as you did in 1998.15:40:005821Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I have heard some rubbish in my time in this place and that is what I have heard in this rather pathetic response from the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I am delighted to be able to stand up in the House and endorse the remarks of the member for Jagajaga in this MPI today. This government and this Minister for Health and Aged Care have a fixation with the whole issue of health insurance, to the detriment of so many other health issues that face this country today. Those opposite, despite constant statements to the contrary, would like nothing better than to dismantle the Medicare system.Ideologically, they somehow believe that, by unduly bolstering the private health system and neglecting to adequately address the public system, the pendulum will swing back to where all Australians will have equal and adequate access to their health needs. If they believe this to be a true and honest record of what must happen, then what goes on in their electorate is totally different from what is happening in mine—and from what is happening, I would think, in the electorates of most members in this place.When I approach my state health minister, Judy Jackson, and her departmental officials for any additional health services, the cry goes out, `There's not enough money! We need to rationalise services.' To my mind, that is code for cutbacks and removal of services from the community. They also say, `It's all about the bottom line.' This minister has convinced his ministerial colleagues that he should be given an additional $1.7 billion annually from the budget to allocate to the Australian public in an attempt to woo people back to the health insurance system. One should look anxiously to see what will be the impact of such an enormous fiscal bribe.On this side of the House, we asserted at the time that this option was going to be a dud—a real fizzer. We also asserted that not only would the numbers of people in private health insurance not increase dramatically, but the money would be far better spent on state public hospitals. That is a statement that no-one can deny. We also alerted the minister to the possibility that premiums would need to remain at current levels and that any attempt by the health funds to increase their premiums would thwart his attempt to woo back the punters.What has been the first flush of this fiscal bribe? A paltry 57,000 Australians availed themselves of the opportunity to return to the health insurance fold. As I represent an electorate with a low socioeconomic base, I would be very interested in seeing a socioeconomic breakdown of these 57,000 people. I would wager that they are not the average punters who are struggling to stay afloat in my electorate and in yours. Rather, they are the upper echelons of our society who are taking the opportunity to maximise benefits for themselves at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. `What about premium increases?' I hear you ask. In today's Tasmanian Mercury, at page 25, it says:Private health insurance premiums will rise on an average 4.9% this year, prompting the Federal Government yesterday to urge policy holders to shop around.What a great excuse—shop around. The article continues:Only 8 of the 44 registered health funds have decided against any increase in premiums this year.Our wonderful health minister—the pompous man—said:. . . he welcomed the 4.9% increase—or less than $2.00 a week for families with full cover—as the lowest in five years.That $2 a week might not be much to him, but I can assure you that for plenty of people in my electorate this $2 is going to be very difficult to find. The article went on:"Half the fund members in Australia will pay 4.0% or less by way of increase," Dr Wooldridge told parliament. "If people are not happy with the increases in their funds, then I suggest they shop around and find one that's cheaper," he said.This is a typical dismissive retort from a pompous minister who is more au fait with the wine connoisseurs of this country than with the battlers who currently have health insurance. For those battlers, constantly under pressure from this government on so many other fronts, this is the straw that will break many of them.As the shadow minister said in her speech: what do young people in Victoria say about this fiscal bribe? A poll in today's Herald Sun, in which young people were asked their views on whether private health insurance was value for money, had the following responses: a pitiful 13.4 per cent said yes, it is value for money; a whopping 86.4 per cent said no. I am sure my two daughters, Sarah, 23, and Hannah, 20, who live in Richmond, would also agree with the majority view, as would most young people throughout this nation. They are not fooled by this attempt to bribe them. Who, Minister, is in touch with what is really happening in Australia and what ordinary Australians want to see happen to our health system? Certainly not you.Just prior to question time, the honourable member for Cowan spoke eloquently and rather movingly about the needs of people with disabilities and their family carers. Reading out from cards sent to but totally ignored by the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Jocelyn Newman, the member highlighted just how screwed up this government's health priorities really are. Just imagine the improvement in my state's health budget and in its health services for all Tasmanians if we were granted our percentage share of the $1.7 billion annually handed out by this government. I have two country hospitals in my electorate whose services are stretched to the limit as they attempt rather valiantly to cater for the diverse needs of the people in the Huon and Channel area.Despite the best intentions of the state government to prioritise health funding across the state, both hospitals are under enormous pressure to rationalise services. The dedicated staff provide an amazing range of services, but people are now starting to vote with their feet as their doctors realise that the health budget dollar is being squeezed time and time again. As people look elsewhere, the bureaucrats who constantly focus on the bottom line see the opportunity to stretch the health dollar even tighter—and so the story goes on. It is a real catch 22 situation.I have asked people in my electorate for their views on this whole issue. In fact I have polled 9,000 of them just recently. I can assure the House that they would bow down and worship anyone who took the opportunity to put this $1.7 billion annually—and rising—back into the public health system. I have no love for the private health insurance funds when I see so many of my disadvantaged, low income families and senior citizens continually being asked to fork out yet more and more money to stay basically in the same spot. Minister, how about eating a bit of humble pie? The Treasurer still has some he can share with you.This minister has more plans for a solution to private health insurance than Gary Ayres does for the Geelong forward line—and they are both as unsuccessful as each other. Minister, let us see you sitting down to come up with a fairer and more equitable solution to Australia's health system than your failed 30 per cent health insurance rebate.15:48:005823Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to speak on the matter of public importance raised by the opposition. Again, as we have heard all week, they are matters of public importance with no substance. What is important is that those opposite, including the member for Jagajaga and the member for Franklin, voted against the Australian people receiving the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance.Under Labor in 1991-92 there was a 17 per cent decrease in membership of private health funds. In 1992-93 there was a nine per cent decrease in membership of private health funds. In 1993-94 there was a 4.5 per cent decrease in membership of private health funds. So the hypocrisy of the MPI today only shows that the member for Jagajaga, the member for Franklin and their colleagues can do little but harp and carp, continuously deriding this government with political point scoring.I remind the people of Australia that the member for Jagajaga actually voted against this bill for a 30 per cent health insurance rebate, which was introduced by this government. She voted that 36,719 people, or 43 per cent of those who voted for her, not receive the 30 per cent rebate. I wonder how her electorate feels about that. She refused this benefit to almost 50 per cent of her electorate.The electorate of Gilmore has approximately 70 per cent of residents on incomes of less than $30,000, with 60 to 65 per cent of people in receipt of some form of social security payment. In the past year alone, hundreds of people have written to me regarding private health insurance, asking whether they and their families will have security and peace of mind. Health is the number one issue facing Australians, and Gilmore is certainly no exception.On top of the hundreds of people who have written to me specifically on issues of private health insurance premiums, there are literally hundreds more who have signed petitions, responded in surveys or dropped into my office concerning this very issue. They always ask what the government is doing about it. We have acted. The Labor Party scoffed at this incentive scheme many times, yet before the last election said that they would retain it. We all know that the Labor Party oppose government initiatives for the sake of it, but all that sort of hypocrisy highlights to the residents of Gilmore and people in Australia with private health insurance is that Labor will say one thing and always do the complete opposite.Residents will now be able to choose the payment of this incentive through the method best suited to their needs. Under the Labor government, private health insurance was a luxury of the rich. Those who could afford it did so, but there was no incentive for others to take it up and no extra assistance given to our hospitals to cope with the pressures of those who could either not be bothered or could not afford the choice of private health insurance. Under this measure there is choice.One of the most interesting things I have read recently regarding the introduction of this measure is a survey by one of our national health insurance firms, which showed that more than two-thirds of Australians supported the introduction of a rebate for private health insurance. For all their talk about caring for the Australian community and people, the Labor Party has shown that it does not care about providing choice for Australians. It does not care about providing employment opportunities in regional and other areas, but most of all it does not care about the people of Gilmore or, for that matter, Jagajaga or any of the opposition's other electorates.With increases also come higher levels of benefits for the products which have a premium increase, such as dental, optical, chiropractic treatment, physiotherapy and natural therapies, and higher levels of cover for hospital treatment. To deny a health fund a premium increase could result in financial difficulty which would cause disruptions for members. The average increase for the 34 funds announcing an increased premium in June is only 4.8 per cent. What does this mean for consumers? On average a single member will pay about 15c a day more.Speaking with my local health insurers today I found there has been a definite increase—in fact, the words used were `a radical increase'—in memberships by both young people and older people, particularly self-funded retirees and, I am delighted to say, young people with families. This government has improved the system and will continue to do so to allow all Australians to participate. However, as I have said before, I firmly believe that those who can pay should do so, not like one well-known Prime Minister of the Labor Party who boasted openly that he would not bother to join.So what has Labor offered us? Long waiting lists, queues in hospitals, huff and puff and very little in the way of policies to benefit Australians. I sometimes wonder whether their motive is to see all private health schemes close and Australian families become dependent on public health systems— heaven forbid! How can the members for Jagajaga and Franklin explain to their constituents that they so blatantly and so willingly betrayed their interests by speaking and voting against this legislation?In Gilmore there are some 35,700 covered by private health insurance. That is 35,000 people who have saved to take out private health insurance and who maintain private health insurance in spite of rising premiums. I know personally that many of these families, pensioners and self-funded retirees were struggling to meet their payments knowing full well the importance of having health insurance. I quote from a letter I received unsolicited from a constituent in Mollymook. It reads:I am writing to you because I get sick and tired of hearing the opposition saying only the wealthy can afford private health funds.I am a widower.I've been in a fund ever since it started to operate.I'm in the highest premium.I live on $13,000 a year, pay taxes, eat well, dress well and have a reasonable social life.I don't drink, smoke or gamble and I am not a whinger.I am 87 years old.I was asked to read this letter so that the members on the opposite side who keep harping on this and on the new tax system understand that we really need these reforms. It is fact that several Australian state governments have found it impossible to provide a public universal health insurance scheme which meets everyone's needs and meets all or even most costs. Australia needs a private health insurance industry to help with resolving the funding priorities. It should also be pointed out that, of the 44 health funds, 40 are not-for-profit organisations and the premiums are ultimately returned to their members.Health funds have limited control over the charges set by doctors and private hospitals and no control over the rising costs of health technologies. Another major impact on the rising costs of health care is, of course, the baby boomers, that great blip on the radar of Australian demographics. We are all reaching the age where our visits to health facilities are increasing in number, severity and, therefore, use of costly resources. As a greater proportion of the population visits health facilities more often for more major reasons, so the costs of providing for the extra services required will certainly rise. An unfortunate correlation of a society of people whose life expectation is continually increasing is that as we live longer we have more time to use health facilities and we are more likely to succumb to health problems that require technologically intensive solutions.The latest figures show a 0.2 per cent increase in membership figures from January to March 1999. This takes the level of participation for the quarter ending on 31 March 1999 to 30.3 per cent. The increase in coverage equates to 57,015 extra people covered. More still are thinking about it, waiting for our tax cuts which the opposition is denying us. This government has actually reversed the long-term trend of annual membership decline of around two per cent and has added new members with an overall turnaround in this quarter of up to 0.7 per cent. It should also be noted that the average membership decrease per quarter between June 1997 and December 1998 was 47,364. However, the March increase of 57,015 amounts to a turnaround in membership of more than 100,000 people for the quarter ending March 1999. This does not include those who received the extra benefits from this government from the gold card.Health funds under Labor were left without any assistance at all. We, as a government, have policies. We have a strategy, and we will continue to place those strategies and policies in place. Regardless of what the opposition does, we will continue for the betterment of the Australian people and their families.15:57:005825Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—In the few minutes that are available I would just like to point out that the member for Gilmore defends the right of choice, but because a former Prime Minister exercised that choice she ridicules him. Maybe she supports the right of choice of the current Prime Minister that says that people can pay for their private health insurance simply by taking an overseas country off their trip next year.Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Bills5825Message received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] Bills5825r7965825Bill returned from Main Committee with an amendment; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendment presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendment—Schedule 1, item 34, page 30 (lines 12 to 15), omit paragraph (b), substitute:(b) the licensee or authorised person is a resident of a country (other than Australia), or a territory (other than an Australian-controlled territory), to whose residents an agreement applies; andAmendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.5825Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5825r7515825Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.5825Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5826r7485826Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.5826Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5826r7495826Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.5826Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5826r8075826Debate resumed.16:04:005826St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I mentioned before the break that the Howard-Fischer government has continued its commitment to reform the Australian rail industry. This is being done by removing the barriers to the rail network to new operators, by injecting private sector expertise and by creating an environment in which rail can flourish. This is being achieved through a reform program being implemented in conjunction with the states to improve safety, regulatory and operational standards across the national rail network.Let us now look at the Labor Party record. In the 13 years the Labor Party was in power they continually increased costs for the transport sector while cutting support. Under Labor, federal road funding was cut back savagely to $840 million per year less, even in actual dollar terms, than it was in 1982-83, yet over the same period federal fuel excise on diesel went from 7c a litre to 35c a litre. A good example of how an increase in the price of fuel can affect the price of transport is that every rise of 1c a litre in the price of diesel adds about $100 million to the cost of road transport.When I think of which party has the greatest concern for the safety of the population of Australia that operates on our roads I do not have to think very hard. May I remind the House who it was that terminated the Black Spot Program which had improved the safety on our roads and which had delivered four times the cost benefit ratio on all types of road funding. That is right, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews—it was the Labor Party. It was the coalition government that reintroduced that funding for the Black Spot Program in its first budget.When you look at the rail industry you will see that the Labor Party's record is once again nothing but an absolute disgrace. Labor's mismanagement of Australian National resulted in Australian taxpayers subsidising Australian National by hundreds of millions of dollars at the same time as jobs were being slashed—7,000 jobs in South Australia alone. Rail lines were closed and business opportunities were lost while taxpayers' money was being wasted and Australia's rail infrastructure deteriorated significantly. Despite the standardisation of the Melbourne-Adelaide corridor, transit times are slower there because Labor did the job on the cheap. The Labor Party allowed different and incompatible rail operating and safe working systems to continue on the interstate rail network with no attempt to standardise them, which made compliance costly and of course reduced job opportunities.It is unfortunate that, for the Labor Party, things do not seem to have changed—as was shown earlier this week when the shadow Minister for Transport and Regional Services put out a press release saying that the coalition government had cut funding. She said:Yet since coming to office the Coalition Government has cut funding for the interstate rail network, delayed that funding and—over successive Budgets—repeatedly ignored calls for a greater Commonwealth investment in maintaining and upgrading the track.In response to these comments, my fellow National Party member and Minister for Transport, John Anderson, said that she was `dead wrong'. I quote from his press release of 31 May:Ms Kernot has claimed the Coalition has cut funding for the interstate rail network over successive budgets, but she is dead wrong and should check her facts.The Coalition has provided $250 million over four years for upgrading and maintaining the interstate rail corridor—money Labor never spent. I find it hard to see how Ms Kernot can describe this as cutting funding.This only proves that the Labor Party cannot get its facts right about the transport portfolio. If they are having trouble now in opposition, it is no wonder they made such a hash of it when they were in power.The transport network in Australia is looking into the future, and so is the Howard-Fischer coalition government. The future is looking bright and colourful for the transport network in Australia—no thanks to the Labor Party. The new tax system which is about to be introduced is going to be of huge benefit to Australian transport industries—much to the disappointment, I believe, of the Labor Party.At the moment, diesel fuel has an excise of 43c per litre for road users and 36c per litre for rail. When the new tax system is introduced, vehicles of 20 tonnes and over will receive a 23c per litre saving—I must repeat that it is 23c per litre—on the cost of their fuel. When it is estimated that 87 per cent of the nation's road transport tasks are for these types of trucks and that every cent per litre saved in the price of diesel saves about $115 million a year to the industry, you can see how competitive the transport industry will become. On top of that, when you add the savings of 23c per litre on vehicles of 4.5 tonnes and over that operate in regional Australia, including vehicles owned by primary producers, you can see the massive contribution this is going to make for producers and exporters, particularly those based in regional Australia.One of the most cost-effective means of transport in the world today is rail. The new tax system plans to benefit the rail industry by approximately $180 million per year. We heard the answer from the minister talking about a saving in New South Wales of something like $2 per tonne on the grain freight rates. This will be done by abolishing all excise tax for diesel when it is used on the rail network. This in turn means that the cost of transporting goods by rail will drop. This will open doors for manufacturing to set up in regional Australia.In conclusion, the budget, together with the new tax system, will benefit producers, exporters, manufacturers and all those who have the potential to create wealth in this nation. Most of all, it will bring benefits to the people of New England. I commend the bill to the House.16:11:005827Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—The appropriation debate permits members to range fairly widely in their comments. I note that many on the government benches have tried to convince themselves of a bright new future under the goods and services tax. The members for Adelaide and Ballarat are two that I think went rather overboard. It is also interesting on this side to listen to their new-found enthusiasm for the Australian Democrats.I must also say that the comment by the member for Mitchell, that the rise of One Nation was due to the way Paul Keating ran the government, is not only outlandish but also unworthy of that member. I listened to what my colleague the honourable member for New England said about the Black Spots Program, something that I am particularly interested in. What he did not say was that was started under the Labor government. We all welcome its reintroduction, but bear in mind that it was a Labor initiative.Those opposite, and some in the media, are claiming that Labor is out of the game—up in the grandstand, they are saying. As always, history will be the judge. We will stand by the decision which will show whether we are in the game or out of the game on tax. Hopefully, the Democrats will enjoy their moment in the sun. History has a way of dealing with people who will go anywhere, at any time, with anyone, for a moment of political gratification. There is a stronger word for this action than the word I use in describing the Australian Democrats as the marshmallows of the Australian political system.The bribe of tax cuts is as old as the political system itself—what the government giveth, the government taketh away. I am old enough to have lived through many budgets. I have no doubt that there will be an initial reduction in personal income tax but, just as the GST will be increased from 10 per cent, so will personal income tax be increased. I would like to be as certain of winning the lottery as I am that, within five or six years of the introduction of a GST, personal income tax will be restored to current levels and the GST will have commenced its inevitable upward climb. How the speeches of those opposite will come back to haunt them, and how the Democrats will be shown up for the opportunists they are.I am waiting for my neighbour and my federal member, the member for Gilmore, to inform us that she has received no calls of complaint about the GST. She always manages to receive no complaints, only letters praising whatever the government does. Although our electorates are not all that distant, they most certainly are different in the reaction we get to anything. I most certainly have had calls and letters—ranging from religious organisations to charities, industry representatives and community representatives—telling me what a dreadful thing the GST is. As I usually say in my letter of reply to them, it is a pity that they were not this vocal prior to the last election. But then, if we had had the wide ranging debate on the GST that was promised by the Prime Minister, they might have been aware of the ramifications of this tax.I note from today's media that the state premiers, whom the Prime Minister so loudly touted as being aboard the tax wagon, have now fallen off, as the promised removal of the state taxes will remain. The state premiers, like the general population, have been conned. Regardless of the spin those opposite put on the proposed GST to try and convince the public, they also have been conned and their constituents will deliver the verdict at the next election.Let us nail the constant lie being told that the ALP wants no change to the tax system. We have constantly said that the tax system should be changed and is in need of an overhaul, but it can be changed without a GST. Time will wipe the arrogance off the faces of those opposite in regard to this GST—especially the arrogance of ministers who are treating this topic with contempt in question time.I turn to another issue I have raised in this House over recent weeks. Yesterday in its editorial the Illawarra Mercury carried the headline `Customs Catastrophe'. The editorial said:Throsby MP Colin Hollis has every right to say `I told you so' over the lack of customs surveillance at Port Kembla'.Although I appreciate the support of the Illawarra Mercury in my long campaign to upgrade the standard of customs operation in the Illawarra it gives me no great joy to be proved right. For over two years I have been saying publicly and privately that Port Kembla is a wide-open port. It is a tempting destination for drugs, people smuggling and other contraband. It is a tempting destination because it has a `wide-open-all-hours' sign entrenched on the outer harbour. The port has been breached on too many occasions, and we only hear of some of the incidents.A logical question is: just how many times has the port been breached and what exactly has been taken ashore? It is a question that no-one can even attempt to answer. The government now has a record of Customs ministers. Since 1996 it has had four—Prosser, Ellison, Truss, and now Vanstone. I have invited each of them to visit my electorate, to inspect Port Kembla with me and to talk direct to people involved in working on the waterfront. Not one minister has ever taken up that invitation. Minister Ellison did reply. The others did not even bother with this courtesy—an example of the arrogance the member for Cowan referred to about these ministers in his speech.This Monday when I opened my mail I discovered an answer to a question on notice I had lodged on 11 March 1999. It was a response from the current Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Amanda Vanstone. I appreciate the minister's response, because it absolutely confirms what I have said privately and publicly for a long time that the ministerial colleagues who preceded her always refused to acknowledge. l asked the minister a simple question on notice:Is the Minister able to say when surveillance cameras were installed at the Port of Kembla; if so, (a) how long have the cameras been in operation, (b) how many cameras have ceased operation and why, and (c) where are the cameras now located?The response is that a surveillance camera was installed in February 1997. But the camera operated only for four months. It was removed in June 1997 because it was `reported as unserviceable ` I am also informed that this unserviceable camera is one of a pool of cameras held by the New South Wales regional office of Customs. I think a bad buy was made somewhere along the line. One would naturally hope that these other cameras are working well, otherwise it can be concluded that there are many other ports in New South Wales that are similarly open wide because of the lack of surveillance.I saw this camera in operation when it was first installed at Port Kembla when I toured the area in February 1997. The camera was so well placed that everyone at the port knew where it was. It was so state of the art that, instead of focusing on a vessel or some activity at the berth, the majority of images recorded were overshadowed by fixtures belonging to the building itself. It was trained on the bottom end of the gangplank. As the minister's response makes clear, that camera had major problems and was packed away in a box and sent 80 kilometres up the road to Sydney. No camera has ever replaced that one.Instead of the problem being fixed, every time I raised the issue of port surveillance I was met with an attack by ministers. On 19 March 1998, the then Minister for Customs, Mr Truss, issued a media release headed `Hollis and Martin play politics and ignore the facts'. The media release said:It is time for Mr Hollis and his colleague Mr Martin to . . . stop trying to score cheap political points with inaccurate and false claims.I will leave it to others to judge who is scoring cheap political points. It is time the government got serious about surveillance at Port Kembla—and indeed throughout Australia. It is time adequate funding was restored to Australian Customs and other law enforcement agencies charged with protecting Australia's territorial integrity. Coastal surveillance, as anyone will tell you, does not come cheap. That is recognised. The government, however, must now recognise that coastal surveillance cannot be undertaken on the cheap either.Over recent months we have heard much about the penetration of our shores by foreign vessels carrying human cargo. It is people smuggling on a wide scale by unscrupulous, greedy smugglers who rip off refugees, stripping them of their life savings with the false promise of a new, better life in Australia. One has a certain sympathy for these people who are landing here. They have been conned out of very hard-earned money with these false promises and I suspect that someone is living in a luxury flat in either Shanghai or Hong Kong on these ill-gotten gains. These refugees, many sick or elderly, often with children, are herded into the rust bucket vessels like animals. This inhuman activity, preying on people's personal, political and economic insecurity, is to be condemned. But Australia, like it or not, has sent a dangerous message to Asia, Africa and the Middle East that this unscrupulous, inhuman activity of people smuggling will succeed because our coastal protection and surveillance is slack. That has been the message since 1996, with the election of the Howard government and the penny-pinching decisions to plunder Customs and Federal Police funding.Why is it that these miserable human cargo vessels are suddenly plying the seas headed for our coast? Why is it that, nearly on a weekly basis, they are headed this way? There have been some recent successful intercep tions of vessels off the east coast of Australia. Only two weeks ago a vessel carrying something like 79 refugees was intercepted in the waters off my own electorate of Throsby. But there was one vessel yesterday or the day before off the coast of Western Australia and, had it not been for the fact that some tourist had decided to go and take an early morning photograph, that vessel carrying 11 illegal immigrants would have landed there and those immigrants would have come ashore. That is happening around the coast of Australia today because of the penny-pinching attitude of this government. We have taken the money away from the Customs services. We have not restored them.We hear the government making much about the fight on drugs and all the things that they are doing. The one thing that they should be doing is restoring the Customs Service and the personnel in the Customs Service to what it was some years ago. One should never forget that there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to smuggle drugs, people and other contraband into this country. In Port Kembla, there are over 500 ship visits a year. How many people just happen to walk down the gangplank of a ship visiting the port each day? What do these people carry off the ship with them? Nobody can say, because Customs personnel in Port Kembla are stretched beyond all reasonable limits.There are five officers there now, which is a massive decrease from the 16 officers under Labor. These five officers work nine-to-five office hour shifts and they cover the huge geographic area from Sutherland to the Victorian border. With five Customs officers, you would expect that at any time someone would be on holidays, someone would be sick and someone would have leave, so in effect you have three Customs officers working nine to five covering the area from Sutherland to the Victorian border—and I know the minister at the table knows the geographic area I am talking about even if other members do not. It is an absolute impossibility. To add insult to injury, what does this government do? Those five officers were on the water there at Port Kembla. You would expect that Customs officers at a port would be on the waterfront where they can gather information and keep a watch on what is happening at the port. This government in its wisdom decided, `No, we are not going to have the remaining five officers there at the waterfront where they are doing their job.' It moved them into Ellen Street, Wollongong, which is 10 kilometres away in the downtown shopping centre of Wollongong. The insensitivity of this government and the false claims it is making when it comes to Customs and Customs surveillance are just unbelievableMy argument for the past two years has always been consistent. Put the Customs officers back in Port Kembla where they are at the `coalface' of the waterfront activity. Increase the personnel from the current five officers to the 16 previously employed. I would even go further and say that there should be more, but I will settle for the 16 that were there under Labor. Further, provide the necessary technological resources to ensure that the port is maintained under surveillance 24 hours a day. We expect that our front-line defence Customs personnel will protect our community from the smuggling of drugs and other contraband. We expect that our health standards and requirements will be complied with to ensure broader public health. I have an enormous admiration for the tremendous work the five Customs officers do in the Illawarra as they vainly try to undertake their duties, but the miserable resources provided to them permit them to do only so much. They are fighting a war with important implications for our community, with one hand tied permanently behind their back. It is unacceptable and has continued for far too long. It is time that this penny pinching by this government stop. The five Customs officers deserve better treatment. So does the Illawarra community, and it is time this government recognised this.In April this year there was a case aboard a vessel called the Tomis Future involving a Romanian crew who complained that they had been without fresh water for almost a fortnight and were unable to shower or bathe while outside the port of Kembla. The crew's other concern was that allotments from their wages had not been made to their families back in Romania while they were at sea. We became aware of this situation when a local fisherman found a bottle with a message in it written by the Romanian crew. In the Illawarra we called the Tomis Future the `message-in-the-bottle vessel'. Incidentally, when the vessel berthed at the Port Kembla grain terminal it was found after inspections by AMSA officers to have some 44 defects, relating to lifeboats, generators, fire dampeners and the engine room. The message-in-the-bottle vessel has now left Port Kembla, after these inadequacies were fixed, but it is missing at least two crew members. As the ship made its way out of Port Kembla in late April, two of the crew jumped overboard and swam to shore—and this is not the first ship that this has happened to. At this time we still do not know where they are. They are somewhere in the Illawarra or more likely the Sydney suburbs. That is how easy it is to slip into Port Kembla.There is absolutely no surveillance. People come onto boats there. I have been onto boats. As I have said many times, I am on the board of Mission to Seamen. I go onto boats and I am never challenged. I see the people on that boat and what they are carrying off. And not only that, there is no Customs surveillance there. It is an absolute disgrace.Once ashore one could, if you had the will, escape into the region or just travel 80 kilometres up the road and get lost in any Sydney suburb. It is clear now that all you have to do, if your intention is to smuggle drugs, other contraband or even people into Port Kembla, as was the case a couple of weeks ago off Wollongong, is to wait it out between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and then come into the port. If you wait it out, Port Kembla is then a private playground. There is no surveillance and Customs officers will be tied up with their many duties.The drug trade, as is well known, is worth billions of dollars. Drug smugglers are well organised, well financed and well equipped. It is well organised, criminal and dangerous. We put up against it an under-armed, under-resourced group of law enforcement agencies, but we now face the added dimension of people smuggling. It is becoming `another day, another boatload of poor souls clutching at the opportunity to have a better life in Australia'. It is not the vessels we have all had our attention drawn to by the media and the spin doctors of the government in the last few weeks that are the major problem; it is those vessels that berth at our ports seemingly legitimately each day, either unloading or loading their cargo. It is these vessels' gangways that are the thoroughfare for entrenched, unsuspicious smuggling that needs extra attention.In Port Kembla, one cannot keep the community safe from drugs, contraband or illegal immigrants if there are five Customs officers working flat out in unrealistic shifts covering a huge territory from an office in the Wollongong central business district. And you cannot dream of keeping a community safe if there are no surveillance cameras maintaining a watchful eye on activity 24 hours each day. (Time expired)16:32:005831Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to rise in support of the fourth budget presented by the Howard government—the fourth successful budget in a row—which has been well received in my electorate of Moreton where a lot of people are greatly impressed by the fact that this government is acting responsibly in making sure that its spending priorities are within its income capacity and repaying the massive debt clocked up by Labor during their 13 years in office. In fact, $23 billion of additional deficit—an additional bill for the Australian taxpayers to meet—was clocked up in the last two failed Labor years. We have the busy job of repaying that debt and rebuilding this country.The other thing that I am especially proud of with regard to this budget is that already, just a few months after being re-elected to represent the very good people of the electorate of Moreton, I am able to report that each and every one of the matters which we took to them—promises, initiatives that we offered them—have been delivered and paid for as a result of this budget. So it is a responsible budget which reconfirms the commitment of this government to saying one thing before an election and doing the same thing after the election. In other words, we are delivering on what we said.Today I rise as it is a matter of great distress to me to note that one of the best programs that this government has put forward, which has been very well received by young and old alike in my electorate, namely the mutual obligation to work for the dole concept—expanded in this budget—is continuing to be ignored and rejected for ideological reasons by the Brisbane City Council. I would like to outline a couple of the things that have happened in relation to the Brisbane City Council's philosophical hatred of work for the dole and, as a result, their total disconnection with reality and the needs and wants, particularly of younger Australians, in the city of Brisbane.It is a disturbing fact to me that the City of Brisbane continues to not cooperate with those who wish to organise Work for the Dole projects, and that directly affects people in my electorate. When you look at what the government has done as a result of the budget this year, we have offered an expanded Work for the Dole concept. The pilot was well received. To date, Work for the Dole has been available to job seekers aged 18 or over, with 18- to 24-year-old job seekers being required to participate and older job seekers volunteering, all of those who have been receiving youth allowance or Newstart allowance for at least six months and those who are on a maximum rate of payment. Participants have been working for six months, 12 to 15 hours per week, depending on their age, and the hours are commensurate with national wage training rates. Basically, all of it is an acquittal, through the number of hours worked for the dole, of the amount of money that they are paid through the dole. So there is nothing at all unfair or unreasonable about the concept.Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you know in your own electorate, young people in particular grab hold of Work for the Dole as a concept because it gives them the dignity they have been searching for. Having a job is not so much just about having the remuneration you get from the work that you do selling off your labour to somebody who is going to provide you with capital as a trade. It is also about the dignity of actually being involved with others, participating in the work force and being able to look in the eye of those who are contributing through taxes to you as a dole recipient the money you are getting, and saying, `I am actually doing something for the money you give me.' Mutual obligation therefore has been very well received by those who are involved.The government has so far put together 16,000 people from July to December 1998. Of the 16,000, around 80 per cent chose unfunded activity, including 36 per cent who found part-time paid work. Overall, 30 per cent of mutual obligation participants have income from employment compared to 13 per cent of job seekers from the same age group. In other words, Work for the Dole has also exposed potential full-time workers to those who have provided them with positions. Work for the Dole has been a way for young people to show potential full-time employers their stuff, but not in Brisbane under the Brisbane City Council. It is an absolute outrage that to date the Brisbane City Council have turned their back on Work for the Dole in leaps and bounds.In fact, I know of two programs put forward by the Salvation Army, one a 94-place program and another one a 50-place Work for the Dole program, which have been rejected by the Brisbane City Council. Why? For philosophical reasons. We have had senior councillors of the Brisbane City Council, including the Deputy Mayor, Tim Quinn, and the councillor for Acacia Ridge, Kevin Bianchi, as one of the committee chairman in the Soorley administration, actually say to the Salvation Army, `We will not participate in a Work for the Dole project because we want it to fail. We want the Liberal government's proposal to fail.' That is quite an extraordinary thing because, if the Brisbane City Council want it to fail, that means they also want to deny people in Brisbane the opportunity to participate and gain all of the benefits that come from involvement in the Work for the Dole project. They want to deny young people in the city of Brisbane the opportunity to prove their stuff to potential full-time employers and they want to deny them the opportunity to gain the dignity that they get from involvement in Work for the Dole.It is not simply a political, philosophical divide that separates reality from the Soorley administration—the Labor Party administration in Brisbane City Hall—it is the blatant two-facedness of the approach they have. Under the previous Labor Party government, the Brisbane City Council were at one point the largest providers in Australia of LEAP, Job Skills and New Work Opportunities programs. They were quite prepared to actively participate and involve themselves in Labor Party programs—which provided a place and an opportunity for young people to gain some skills, and gain some exposure to potential employers on a full-time basis—but they will not do that under the Howard government for philosophical reasons. It is a two-faced approach from the Soorley administration in Brisbane. It is outrageous that they are prepared to go and eyeball the Salvation Army and say to them straight up, `We want it to fail because we do not want the Liberals to succeed in this particular program.'It is quite a contrast to a matter I raised in the House in November of 1996 when I had another one of my local councillors, Councillor Mark Bailey, sending scaremongering and frightening letters to people in and around my electorate, around Moorooka and Toohey Forest, complaining that, as a result of the Howard government's intention to cease the LEAP and New Work Opportunities programs—which had failed, overall, across Australia—maintenance projects in Toohey Forest, one of the lungs of Brisbane, would be put in jeopardy. He said that the Brisbane City Council could not afford to maintain the parks and gardens and keep them operating unless they had what was essentially Labor's version of Work for the Dole, LEAP. Here we have Councillor Bailey writing a scaremongering letter in 1996 but where is he in 1999? Where are Councillor Quinn and Councillor Bianchi? They are doing whatever it is that Councillor Soorley, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, demands of them in his hatred of anything Liberal.In fact, what Councillor Bailey should be doing is putting his efforts into convincing Councillor Quinn and Councillor Bianchi to stand up to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and tell him to end his philosophical hatred for the government's programs—programs that are succeeding and well-received all around this country but not in the city of Brisbane. It is a statement of fact that, if that were the case, the Brisbane City Council could go on to be a very effective and worthwhile provider of Work for the Dole projects which would enhance the overall opportunities of young people in my electorate. I think this matter is an absolute outrage and disgrace.There are a number of other contrasts over which the Brisbane City Council should hang their heads in shame. One of them is their continual anti-small business program. They have a policy which impacts on small businesses in my electorate over the use of signs. They have outlawed the use of signs except via licensing arrangements in the city of Brisbane. But do we see outlawed signs for the Crackerjack Carnival—which has been a very successful community carnival run at Carindale in the electorate of Griffith, by the former Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Clem Jones, for many years? No, and perhaps that is fair enough because kindergarten and school fete signs and so forth are obviously promoting a community good. But, when we have a lady in her 80s from Greenslopes in my electorate pounced upon by council inspectors on a Sunday morning at nine o'clock and fined $300 for daring to put up a sign that said she was having a garage sale, one has to stop and think about how fairly the Brisbane City Council is acting.The budget also brings forward a number of initiatives for small business. The council's actions in Brisbane are not helping small business, even though this government is doing everything it possibly can. It seems to me that, as we have decreased the amount of red tape—through various initiatives since the time we have been in office—small business red tape has increased under the Brisbane City Council. As we have put forward the idea of a small business enterprise culture program—as announced in the budget with funding of $6.4 million over the next three years—we have the Brisbane City Council applying for RAP funding from this government to try to do something similar. So we have the Brisbane City Council running around saying they want to help small business but doing everything they can in their everyday ordinances and approaches to destroy it. I hope the Brisbane City Council's application for that funding fails, because it seems extraordinary to me they want funding from one area of this government whilst wanting to ignore the very vital and important area of Work for the Dole.I am not the only one in my electorate who thinks this. The president of the South-West Chamber of Commerce shares my concern about the Brisbane City Council's duplication of services and its two-faced approach. On the question of RAP funding to try to bring about a pilot program to help small home based businesses, the president is also concerned that it will duplicate services already in existence—things that are being financed by this government, for instance. The area's consultative committee chairman in the Brisbane South area is also concerned about the Brisbane City Council's double standards. In a letter to me he says:. . . the Brisbane City Council has just declined a 50 person placement under the Work for the Dole project sponsored by The Salvation Army—that is one of the two that I have highlighted—stating it has "philosophical" problems with the Work for the Dole program.That means he is concerned about the Brisbane City Council's application for funding under other initiatives.I think it is important to note in the context of the appropriation bills before us that local government's efforts, particularly those of the biggest local government in Australia, have an impact on the very best of efforts being put forward by this government. It is a matter of grave concern to me that young people in particular in my electorate, and now a greater range of people as a result of matters brought before the budget, are going to face no prospect of getting a Work for the Dole project placement as a result of the Brisbane City Council's philosophical hatred for the program.I think that in itself actually goes to the social fabric of our nation because, as I said, Work for the Dole brings about not just simply a return for time spent working, but also a great deal of dignity, direction and confidence to those who have participated. Despite the Brisbane City Council's efforts, there are still a number of Work for the Dole projects that are taking place in my electorate—but I want more. I promised more in the last election campaign and I intend to highlight the Brisbane City Council's failure to ensure that we do happen to get more of what I want. In fact, the Moreton Youth Advisory Group, which is made up of students from various high schools around my electorate, is also in favour of Work for the Dole. These are kids of 15 and 16 years of age, sub-senior and senior students who know that there is a great deal of dignity from having a job and they support the concept of Work for the Dole. The chambers of commerce support Work for the Dole, the local business houses support Work for the Dole and I want the Brisbane City Council to also support Work for the Dole.It is also worth noting the government's efforts with regard to the Job Network and its ongoing commitment to provide a range of potential job placement agencies for those who are unemployed in my electorate to contact. In fact, there are more than 1,400 locations across Australia, as a result of the government's initiative of the Job Network, and 300 providers. It is all about achieving sustainable outcomes for those job seekers who are the most disadvantaged in the labour market by giving them choice about whom they want to have assist them to get a job. I have to say that the Job Network providers in my electorate—from the Mount Gravatt Training Centre through to the Sarina Russo people and also Mission Employment and the Salvation Army, are all doing a great job. They are providing a range of choices. The Employment National people have also taken up the challenge. With the old shackles of the CES off them, they are facing the challenge head on and they are doing a good job.What is happening is that the interaction between businesses—their wants and needs from the type of employees that are in the marketplace—and job seekers, together with these particular Job Network providers, is producing the result we want, and that is more people in long-term jobs. Job Network members have lodged thousands of new jobs on the national vacancy database. In fact, in March this year Job Network members recorded almost three times as many vacancies notified as the CES for the comparable period in 1998. In March this year, only 11 months after the commencement of the new Employment Services Net Market, Job Network members placed around 2½ times as many comparable job seekers as the CES placed in March 1998. That is a 2½ times better result than the old CES system, so it is obvious that the government's stated intentions with regard to the Job Network, Work for the Dole and mutual obligation are having a very bold and telling effect on the unemployed in my area as well as right across the country.In fact, as at 9 April this year, just a couple of weeks ago, a total of almost 47,000 job seekers had commenced Jobsearch training, which provides 15 days of individually tailored training to help job seekers better market themselves to employers and into a job. These sorts of training schemes are assisting people to understand exactly what employers are wanting, and are providing these sorts of skills and presentation so that people can attract the job that they are after. As at 9 April, over 431,000 job seekers had been referred to intensive assistance, which is the extra help that is needed. It is the most personalised and intensive service for disadvantaged job seekers in this country. It is too early to fully assess the impact of intensive assistance on gaining employment for a lot of job seekers, but the process is right.I will hold the House for just a moment longer and raise the difficulty that a lot of African born Australian citizens are now finding in my electorate. I encourage employers in my electorate to look closely at the determination of a lot of African refugees to gain that additional chance, that opportunity, to prove themselves in this country. These are noble people who have a lot to give to this country. They have come away from violence and torture and all the trauma of being a refugee from the Horn of Africa—people from Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia, countries which have been torn by war where brother has been put against brother. These people are very determined in their aspirations to be good Australian citizens and to get jobs.I must say that I have a deal of distress at the moment that they need to get additional assistance to make the opportunity that they want a reality. I am confident that, once they are in fact placed in employment, they are going to be very good citizens and prove to be solid taxpayers and really grow in this country. These people are facing additional difficulties not only because of the background that they have but also because they are facing some systemic prejudice and, perhaps in the wider community, a misunderstanding as to who they are and what they can offer.They have some real difficulties in convincing the state authorities in Queensland to recognise the skills that they have brought. That is a matter on which I have encouraged them to lobby the Queensland government about because, after all, the Queensland authorities set the standards by which their particular training attainments are actually judged, and whether or not their qualifications are suitable in Queensland is a decision made by the Queensland government. It concerns me that, no matter what additional intensive assistance can come through the Commonwealth for these fine people in order to give them a chance, unless we actually manage to fix up the accreditation scheme—and get the Queensland government to recognise that these are the sorts of good citizens we want and to encourage them to go on to be extra good citizens by recognising their qualifications—we will continue the disappointment that they are having currently in my local electorate.So a budget presents a range of possibilities. It presents a planning program for a government that is delivering on a set of promises that it offered to the people of Australia to make a judgment on before an election. This budget is delivering on the election promises. The government is determined its program should go through—must go through—for the benefit of Australians, but it is up to other levels of government to also play their part. The Queensland government has a role to play in recognising qualifications, particularly of those people from the African refugee community in my electorate. The Brisbane City Council have a fundamental role to play by stopping their philosophical hatred of the fine Work for the Dole program. It is accepted and celebrated elsewhere in Australia, but Brisbane City Council's attitude is denying young people in my electorate the full range of possibilities for Work for the Dole, access that they deserve.16:52:005836Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Before coming down here this evening I received a letter from three Canberra residents, Rosemary Korda, Sally Kaye and Kate McCorquodale, wherein they say:Australia has done a little to relieve Third World debt, but there is much more we could do. In particular we would like to ask you to consider a proposal for the new millennium. We are supporting the Jubilee 2000 movement which recognises that the debts of the poorest countries are unpayable. It proposes cancellation of the backlog of debt by the year 2000, focusing on sub-Saharan Africa.This letter is a fitting way to deal with one aspect of this budget which does not get very much coverage these days and that is the foreign aid sector. This Jubilee 2000 campaign has been essentially run by a coalition of churches in this country and faces the question of foreign debt. An article `Financing Sustainable Development' in Australian Options , November 1998, reports:". . . the weight of past debts . . . threatens future progress . . . the developing world owes approximately $1,300 billion to the governments and banks of the industrialised nations and to international financial institutions. Each year, the repayment of capital and interest amounts to $150 billion—roughly three times as much as the developing world receives in aid."So, when we talk in this country about how much aid we give, we should recognise that the countries we are giving this aid to are essentially paying out far more money to the developed world in foreign debts, and that those debts were accrued in many cases under dictatorial regimes without any measure of control or interest by the First World lenders. In the Jubilee 2000 document they note:In 1980 Sub-Saharan Africa owed US$84.1 billion. Today it owes US$222 billion, or 71 per cent of its annual combined output. The biggest individual African debtors are Nigeria (US$31 billion) and Cote d'Ivoire (US$20 billion) . . . By 1980 developing countries owed the rest of the world US$600 billion. Today the figure stands at US$2.2 trillion.I want to join that campaign and urge this government to be more active on these matters. We know there have been some initiatives. Cuba, despite its fairly dire circumstances under the US embargo, wiped out its debts to a number of Caribbean countries hit by the hurricanes of the last year or so. The United Kingdom in recent years has been a little more responsive.The question of foreign aid in this budget is extremely worrying. A number of articles have talked about the deplorable outcome. The Advertiser in Adelaide had a headline `Overseas aid cut to record low'. The Courier-Mail in Brisbane had `Foreign aid put on low priority'. There has been an attempt by subterfuge to muck around with the figures and mislead, but essentially ACFOA, the Council for Overseas Aid, hit it on the head when it said:The claim that Australian development assistance is above the OECD average is spurious. The unweighted OECD average is 0.4% of GNP. Australian aid, at 0.25% of GNP is well below that.The reality is that there has been a decline of 9.7 per cent in real terms since 1995-96 and much of the foreign aid program includes measures such as the construction of Australian embassies, et cetera overseas. I congratulate the construction in Dili, Timor. That will increase the availability of more government officials from this country to oversight human rights in Timor. Equally, the embassy in Croatia is well overdue. I take the opportunity to join with many of my constituents of Ukrainian extraction who continue to call upon this government to consider a like construction in Ukraine, a country of 50 million people which apparently, according to this government, is not important enough, vital enough, strategic enough or populated enough to merit an embassy. They are far more attractive in other European cities with a more cosmopolitan style.The situation is that we now have the lowest overseas development aid ratio to GNP at 0.22 per cent. There has been a very serious decline with regard to Africa, which is down by 35 per cent in real terms, since the election of this government.If we were to consider only our own self-interest, we should perhaps focus more on foreign aid. When we see boats coming to the shores of this country containing people seeking refugee status and what is essentially economic liberation, we should understand that this country must be prepared to face up to the factors that drive these people from their homelands—economic deprivation, civil wars, the impact of the developed world in trying to force countries to change the various crops they cultivate and the way in which the developed countries and the international banks try to bring in structural adjustment in these economies to basically cut down on government health and education expenditures. These are the factors that drive people to the ships that come to this country. They are the reasons we see in Africa the breakdown of various governments and the need for foreign agencies to send in UN forces to try to impose some sort of civil authority. These are the reasons we have poverty and the spread of diseases and why, because of the lack of policing by immigration authorities in this country over the years, we have the spread of some diseases within Australia that are becoming more pervasive in the Third World.On foreign aid, the outcome in this budget is, unfortunately, very worrying. It is dictated by a Prime Minister who essentially always appeals to the lowest common denominator. We have international responsibilities with regard to the way this planet is going environmentally. But what does this Prime Minister do? He has the little miserly attitude that we might sacrifice 10 jobs if we adhere to our international responsibilities. This is an attempt to push the nationalist plug, to push the self-interest plug. Once again with regard to foreign aid we see it.I now want to turn to the broader budget. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition noted in his response to the budget, the budget that the Treasurer brought down is not the real budget because it essentially relies on the full implementation of the GST with no extra compensation—something which the coalition has already been forced to abandon. Today we heard the Treasurer and some other speakers here trying to ride on the coat-tails of the more pleasant aspects of the GST which were forced upon them by the Democrats.It is not a real budget because it requires the 100 per cent sale of Telstra and the revenue flow therefrom. We all know that the National Party members, many of them in rural centres, are trying to have it each way by disassociating themselves and giving assurances that this will never happen. So it has to rely on that as well.It is not the real budget because it simply hopes that consumer spending will hold up despite the depressive impact of the harsh and regressive GST and despite the government's complete failure to develop proper labour market and industry development measures. It is relying on that consumer spending despite the growth of personal debt in this country, despite the decline of savings. They are the kinds of aspects that this budget is based upon—not eroding the surplus, not getting further compensation for the GST. These are aspects that are now down the drain.One looks in vain in the budget for creative measures that would help provide Australian families with increased security, better opportunities and a fairer and more inclusive community. We see nothing to increase our weak high school retention rates in suburban and regional areas—areas where this government forced upon the state governments around this country changes to disadvantaged schools programs—just more assistance to private schools.We see nothing to reverse the disastrous decline in business expenditure on research and development and innovation—a decline from three per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP that directly flows from the coalition's earlier cuts to industry. We all know that articles have been written around the country. The Australian of 13 May referred to the attractiveness of some other countries in our region for research and development. The fact is that Australian companies are now looking at going offshore because of the lack of incentives for research and development in this country, and that reality is shown in the declining spending on research and development by companies in this country. Naturally, more responsible companies will continue to do it. Others will not because they have not got that tax incentive.We see a government spending $800 million a year less on university funding than the former Labor government and having to hide behind a slogan of this being an education budget. We see nothing to help young people from disadvantaged areas access university studies, just the abolition of scholarships for poor smart kids.We see nothing extra for public hospitals like those at Westmead and Auburn that are so vital to my electorate, just further measures to assist private health funds. At a time when the Auburn Hospital is considering the closure of its casualty and emergency section, this government is prepared to spend on private health twice as much as the state and territory governments around this country asked them to put into our public hospital system. They are prepared to spend twice as much as that to force, compel, encourage and entice people into a private health system that they have rejected. This is a party which always talks about choice, a party which talks about the market setting where things should be. Now it tries to say to the Australian people, `We will spend your money, taxpayers' money, basically to persuade you to take something up that you have previously rejected. If you don't do it through these incentives, we will try to bring tax barriers and penalties to bear on those who don't go into those funds.' This is at the same time as a hospital in my electorate considers the closure of its emergency unit. Money that should be going into the public hospital system of this country is being spent to try and prop up the private health funds that people have walked away from, have voted with their feet and rejected. As we know, there have been four schemes in as many years by this government. Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been spent to try and prop up these funds.Most clearly of all, we see in this budget that there is nothing about jobs for battlers, the battlers of the 1996 slogan of the Prime Minister. We did have a one-minute effort by the Treasurer to persuade this government to set a target of five per cent. But what this budget says is, `No, we are going to have 7½ per cent roughly for the next few years.' Having cut $1.8 billion from Labor's successful labour market programs, what does the budget offer the unemployed? It offers the expansion of Work for the Dole to 25- to 34-year-olds who have been out of work for more than 12 months. It offers 50,000 rather than 25,000 places in Work for the Dole. We know that, despite the occasional positive comment from the relevant ministers, despite those sporadic claims, the scheme's actual performance in producing jobs and having people in employment three months after they leave is very miserable compared with previous Labor schemes.I hear many speakers on the other side often citing the Salvation Army. They refer to it on drug measures because, by coincidence, there is a degree of affinity between the Prime Minister's line and the Salvation Army's in regard to drug measures. The previous speaker talked about the Salvation Army in regard to Work for the Dole. That is all very well, but I did not hear members opposite quoting the Salvation Army in the article in the Canberra Times of 12 May, when the Salvation Army noted that there was `not enough help for the unemployed in this budget'. The reality on the employment front is that we see increasing numbers of people driven from the marketplace and our participation rate in this country declining, and that is essentially hiding a crisis of over 200,000 people in long-term unemployment, a crisis with 700,000 people unemployed in the nation. The ABS figures of 12 May this year in their document 56/99 drove home the reality of what is happening in the Australian workplace. Of the 503,000 part-timers in this country, 63 per cent desired full-time work and 39 per cent of them worked only zero to 10 hours. That survey drove home very strongly the decline in the participation rate and also the fact that people do want more work.I turn to another aspect of the budget that has been comprehensively demolished in the media, namely, the government's failed pea and thimble trick with the Defence budget. In the lead-up to the budget, the government's minders showed no modesty in trying to persuade at least one key press gallery figure how clever the Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, had been in his dealings with the Defence hierarchy. Perhaps their efforts can be dismissed as a transparent attempt to show that the previous minister, Mr McLachlan, had been far less clever in the job. Whatever the jealousies that were behind Glenn Milne's piece in the Australian, one thing is for sure: one searches in vain for anyone who is actually involved with Defence who shares the minister's views about his own cleverness.The next salvo in the minister's propaganda war was his budget night statement headed `Budget demonstrates Government's commitment to a stronger, better prepared Defence Force'. Unfortunately for the minister, portfolio budget statements are now tabled on budget night, thus ensuring that his good news message had completely dissipated by the following morning. As shadow minister for defence science and personnel, the first thing that hit me about the Defence portfolio budget statements was the planned staffing numbers for the years 1999-2000. I well recall the following passage in the coalition's policy at the 1996 election. Remember that? Back in 1996 they said:At present there are approximately 58,000 regular uniformed personnel in the Australian Defence Force. This is the lowest Defence Force strength for the last three decades.They said that because they were trying to make a point. They were trying to undermine the Labor Party's performance by saying how low the figures were. Having claimed that the ADF was undermanned under Labor, the coalition have embarked on an unprecedented agenda of staff cuts as part of the Defence Reform Program. On the government's own calculations, this budget alone abolishes a further 3,000 full-time positions. I emphasise that these are full-time uniformed positions—not bureaucrats, not pen pushers, not support staff, but enlisted men and women. They are cutting out 3,000 this year, having complained in 1996 that the levels were too low. Again on the government's own figuring, this takes to 6,200 the cumulative number of military positions the government has cut.I turn now to the initiatives that the government announced in the budget. Six initiatives were set out in Budget Paper No. 2. They included: enhancement of the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar network; enhancement of the Collins class submarine; the so-called expansion of the combat force; the development of a new `competitive' remuneration structure; the creation of the Office of Revolution in Military Affairs; and an extra $23 million for defensive measures against chemical, biological and radiological agents. There are two remarkable aspects of this. Firstly, four of the six measures are uncosted. Amazingly, we then read that the net impact of all six measures on the overall defence budget is a big fat zero. In plain English, all the minister's new measures have to be funded by cuts elsewhere in the Defence budget—from job cuts, base closures, delayed capital works projects and so on.My concerns about where this leaves serving defence personnel were heightened when I read a recent issue of the regular defence personnel newsletter, The Key. On page 4, there was a detailed article from the Defence Personnel Executive about the next pay agreement. With the current pay agreement having expired on 27 April, personnel were told:It is clear, however, that Defence (like all other government agencies) will not receive sufficient extra in its Budget from the Government to offset any salary increases from the next [pay] arrangement. It is expected that the Government will provide about 1.5 per cent per annum. This means that any salary increase resulting from the next pay arrangement above 1.5 per cent will need to be paid for from the Defence Budget .So, while the minister tells the media that he is giving defence personnel an improved remuneration structure, his department is telling the same people that if they want a rise—of only 1.5 per cent, I note, and not as much as most of the government's well-paid bureaucrats—they will have to surrender some of their longstanding benefits and conditions, even after the massive job cuts they have been through. It is clear from this that, despite its strong protest to the contrary, the coalition sees defence as just another business to be run with a focus on the budget bottom line. Industrial protection for personnel is being dismantled bit by bit, as we have already seen with award leave for reservists—a matter that the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party did not quite agree with the government on according to its last state council meeting.I turn now to the government's increasingly contradictory and misleading statements on the savings being generated by the reform program. On May 17, the Financial Review ran two articles on this matter. One was headed `Defence reform runs into financial, political minefield' and the other `Defence plan in no man's land'. There has been no proper response from the minister to these devastating articles. Firstly, the article reveals that former Minister McLachlan's claimed annual savings of $1 billion by the end of next year was based on the Defence Efficiency Review's suggestion that the ADF be reduced to 42,500. Remember, they were complaining about a force at the 58,000 mark in 1996, and they are now thinking about a cut to 42,000.Subsequently, however, cabinet agreed to set a minimum target of 50,000. The government did not make it clear at the time that the amended target of 50,000 reduced the savings from the Defence Reform Program by $375 million, or by one-third. In other words, for the last 18 months they have been referring to mature savings of $1 billion a year knowing full well that they had actually overturned $375 million of those savings, or over one-third. Despite this, Mr McLachlan still made the following claim about the program on 9 December 1997. He said:Annual savings will be $900—$1000 million—that is an additional $10 billion over a decade to spend on new equipment, better training and exercising. This brings us to the next aspect of the attempt to mislead and confuse. Not only will there not be an additional $10 billion over the next decade but it cannot all go to new equipment, better training and exercising because it is also supposed to be going to extra research, the new remuneration structure, and the other new defence measures that the government has been announcing over the last two years.Perhaps the Minister for Finance and Administration—who keeps lecturing us about accrual budgeting, charters of budget honesty and the like—could ask the defence minister to `please explain' how he is calling on projected savings of $1 billion a year that do not fully exist. How can these savings be simultaneously redirected to a whole host of competing initiatives? (Time expired)17:12:005840Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The economic picture painted by this budget is a far cry from what was faced by the government three years ago. The Howard-Fischer government came to power facing an enormous debt and deficit left to it as a legacy of Labor being asleep at the wheel for 13 years. Three years ago, the question was not whether we would have a deficit or a surplus but, rather, how huge the deficit would be and how quickly the debt left for future generations would grow. Imagine what more inaction—or, more precisely, the indifference or economic mismanagement that had been offered by the Labor government in the years leading up to 1996—would have done for this country, its citizens and our future. Imagine what the impact would have been of the Asian economic crisis—the storm on our doorstep. The world economy was not being terribly helpful to our domestic economy, so imagine what the impact of more years of Labor—with its inactivity, economic mismanagement and record of opportunities being passed by or simply not taken up—would have done to our country.Instead, the Howard-Fischer coalition government has made something out of a very difficult time. Contrast Labor's record with the record of the Howard-Fischer government which, faced with some very difficult circumstances—some of which were left to it by the former government—has managed to engineer new opportunities and prosperity in this country. Opportunities were laid on during the Labor years, with record growth in the countries in our region, but those opportunities were passed by. The Labor government, with now opposition leader Beazley as a key player, had everything going its way and it blew it. Kim Beazley and his team could be viewed as the reverse Midas Messiahs. Rather than turning water into wine, he and his Labor colleagues turned wine into water and then held the water out, boasting, `Look what we've made.' While busy proclaiming the virtue of their own creation, they even let the water dribble through their fingers. Contrast this era of wasted opportunities with the golden era engineered by the hard work, diligence and policy innovation of the coalition—and also the hard work and efforts of ordinary Australians who have embraced our commitment to restore Australia's living standards and our nation's reputation as a lucky country.These appropriation bills about which we are talking tonight do not put at risk the low interest rates and the low inflation that have helped 14,000 Dunkley householders to buy their own homes and that have given 8,000 local businesses in my electorate the confidence and the opportunity to invest and expand and to create jobs and opportunities for others as a result. That is the macro setting that the Howard-Fischer government has engineered.Not only is the macro setting right, in the electorate of Dunkley it has been direct and specific action that has ensured that the community I represent is enjoying not only its share but a little bit more of that new prosperity that is available in our nation. We are very much looking forward to the Frankston peninsula community arts facility, which should commence this year as a result of the Federation Fund—the $1.5 million this government has invested—again underlining Frankston as a regional centre of some significance in the greater Melbourne metropolitan area.It goes further. The support for the local businesses that operate in my electorate, particularly through the TCF and motor industry packages, access to START research and development grants, the export market development grants and the like, is contributing to an economy that very much depends on manufacturing. Manufacturing is the largest employer in the electorate that I represent, and these are very direct and very specific initiatives designed to support the manufacturing sector. On top of that, I am hopeful of hosting an e-commerce summit in the not too distant future to make sure our small and home based businesses are not missing out on the opportunities of the changing nature of commerce.It is an exciting time but, above all, the electorate of Dunkley has a sign up—`Open for business'. It is open for investment, and we welcome people who are prepared to put their faith and their confidence in a local community that has so much to offer. The budget backs up the robust Greater Frankston and Mornington Peninsular economy, and the growing confidence that has produced improvements in the local retail and building sectors, in the manufacturing area I have already spoken of and in the hospitality sector.Today we are debating an appropriation bill which delivers a $5.4 billion surplus in 1999-2000 and which projects further surpluses right through to the year 2003. Surpluses are important because they enable the government to continue with its debt repayment campaign. People wonder why surpluses are important now. When you look back at the years of Labor, the federal government went from a modest amount of debt to an enormous amount of debt that was created from, I think, a very small base and ended up around $90 billion a year, which the Australian taxpayers had to pay interest on. Those funds were borrowed and spent in an earlier time. It is intergenerational theft to run constant, gross deficits and debt that then leaves the cost of that exaggeration in expenditure for future generations. That is unfair. That is denying future opportunities to future generations and leaving it to them to pick up the overexpenditure of those who came before them. In addition to a budget surplus, the bill allows for the repayment of $20.5 billion of Labor created debt—public debt created by the federal government and paid for by all taxpayers in this country. That $20.5 billion debt reduction is the biggest single repayment of public debt in our nation's history. This debt retirement is a deposit on a more secure future for our nation and its hardworking families. The complete sale of Telstra would allow the Commonwealth and all of its citizens, in terms of the payment of interest on and principal retirement of that debt, to be debt free by the year 2003. That is so the taxes that are paid by the citizens of this generation can be returned as works and services for the benefit of that generation and not laid off in paying off debt and deficits accumulated by the exuberance of earlier generations. That is why that is important.Interest rates are important to the people of Dunkley. It has that significant manufacturing sector that I spoke of and it suffered greatly during the years of Labor's recession we had to have.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Absolutely.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—I am sure on the North Coast of New South Wales, which the parliamentary secretary at the table represents, they probably still hear stories about the impact of the recession we had to have on the families who lost their livelihoods, who lost their homes and who lost their future opportunities because of the mismanagement of the former government. Yet it is those opposite who come in here and talk about compensation for tax reform. By any measure, the compensation that is now part of the tax reform package is very generous and recognises the impact of economic policies on different households.That is an idea that is new to those opposite. You did not hear about compensation in the Labor years when people's lives and livelihoods were being taken away. It is a credit to the coalition that the notion of compensation for economic policy change is now a part of the ALP's vocabulary. This is new for the ALP and I am pleased that, through the sensible and disciplined fiscal approach of the coalition, they now recognise the impact of policy changes on the lives of real people.The economy is being steered back into a more stable and prosperous territory because of the government's fiscal discipline. It now sees us in a buoyant and confident place. Ours is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, despite the challenges on our doorstep. Australia's growth has exceeded four per cent over the past two years and, as you heard today, that growth continues to be strong. It is admired by and is outperforming economies in the region and in the developed world.This is a product of decisive leadership. It is action and continuing policy innovation, driven by a conviction that improved living standards are achievable for all of our citizens. The budget delivers on every one of the government's election promises—all of them. It does so without creating debt or putting the economic future of the country in jeopardy. Reform is still high on the government's agenda, and it shows in this appropriation bill. But it is not reform for reform's sake; it is part of a bold and comprehensive plan designed to invest in the long-term future of this nation and its citizens. Taxpayers, businesses and consumers alike will breathe a sigh of relief when the tax reform package finally passes through the Senate, ensuring the introduction of a tax system that will mean that all Australians are better off and that the country as a whole will be in a better position to meet the world's challenges in the new millennium.I congratulate the Prime Minister for negotiating a workable compromise with the Democrats. It delivers tax cuts for the working people of Dunkley, it boosts income support for the less advantaged and it proposes a fair way of raising the funds needed to pay for necessary government works and services. The revised package will boost the disposable income available to all households, ease the stifling impact of Labor's taxation and social security regime, and underwrite the provision of government services into the future.Those opposite have asked us not to embrace a fairer tax system. The opponents of the tax reform plan have asked us to leave in place some of the disincentives that mean that people with three children who may be unemployed need a job paying at least $33,000 a year to be in around the same situation. In some areas within our tax system you can earn more money and be worse off. In some areas, particularly in my electorate where manufacturing is very important, the wholesale sales tax is actually a disadvantage in terms of their place not only in our economy but in the world economy, and those opposite want us to leave it in place. I am not prepared to stand by and allow the major employment sector in the electorate that I represent to continue to be disadvantaged by an outdated tax system.Those opposite want to make sure we are comparable with Swaziland, Botswana and the Solomon Islands. Why? I am not prepared to stand by and allow those good, hardworking people who have invested in their businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector, to be disadvantaged. I am also not prepared to see hardworking people creep forevermore into higher income tax brackets where they start to wonder whether it is worth putting in that extra effort, that extra hour or two at work. I am not prepared to do that. `I cannot', as someone said in another place. That is unfair to the nation's interests and to the future of our citizens.The removal of the in-built competitive disadvantage that Labor's tax system imposed on Dunkley manufacturers is a major relief for this major provider of employment, particularly for the local enterprises who export or compete with imports. The reforms in this budget are not confined to the areas of economic activity and taxation. The government has shown that it is serious about taking action to improve access to health care in Australia for all Australians. On top of the 30 per cent rebate introduced in January of this year, long-term private health coverage will be encouraged through the introduction of lifetime health cover, rewarding early and continuous membership.In addition, older Australians will benefit from $228 million over four years in an enhanced primary care package. Young and old alike will benefit from an additional $210 million of increased funding for hearing services. Indigenous Australians will also benefit from an additional $79 million over four years to improve access to primary health care. Work for the Dole will be expanded to 50,000 places. It is a program that has been widely popular in my electorate as well as all over Australia. Only recently I spoke in this place about a Work for the Dole participant from Frankston whose whole outlook on life and motivation was changed because of her participation in the Work for the Dole program.I was pleased to actually ring up an employer today and recommend a Work for the Dole participant who I had come into contact with when the Minister for Employment Services and I met with some of the participants on a recent tour around Work for the Dole providers in my electorate. I was able to say, `This person is ready for work. They know what it is like getting up in the morning even when the weather is rotten. They know what it is like working in a team. They understand the work ethic, and they understand how to contribute in the workplace.' I was pleased to make that recommendation to an employer.The pathways to support young people into the work force will be strengthened with further funding to support the all-time high of 206,400 new apprentices at December 1998 and an expansion of Green Corps and the Jobs Pathways program that have proved so successful in Dunkley. At a local level I am pleased to chair the Peninsula Job Team, which is currently organising a new apprenticeships expo for 18 August. We are working on the theme of `The job journey—your tour begins here'. Why are we doing that? Because we are marketing to not only the unemployed, not only the young unemployed, not only school leavers, not only those who are more mature aged unemployed looking for a career path change but also employers that there is something worthwhile in the new apprenticeship system that supports all of their aims.If we can show, through example, other employers in the area who understand that the rigid, inflexible apprenticeship structure left to us by the former government has been changed and revitalised, then that is a way of creating more employment opportunities within the electorate. It is also a way of letting young people know that there are career starts in these types of positions, because I am advised by some of the Job Network providers that there are difficulties in placing and filling some vacancies in some vocational streams.The vocational streams issue itself is something that is receiving attention at a local level, and that is why we have involved PVET, the ASTF cluster which involves 22 secondary colleges in the Dunkley and greater Mornington Peninsula area. PVET have been so successful that their success is presenting them with some challenges. Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, you would be aware that people are now able to undertake part-time apprenticeships where they can start getting some of the training and work placement experience while they are still at school—another opportunity for gifted people who are prepared and willing to make a contribution to our nation but who may not be academically inclined. That is a real improvement that is available, in contrast with some of the comments made by the speaker prior to me.PVET has been so successful that they have 30 students within the region already involved in part-time apprenticeships. The very able and dedicated Libby Le Rossignal, the Executive Officer of PVET, and Sharon Koning, the Workplace Coordinator, do a lot of the legwork in bringing the employers together with the schools, with the parents, with the students to make sure it all works. I believe that ASTF cluster work in the area of part-time apprenticeships is something we should support. This one cluster in the electorate of Dunkley has eleven vocational streams. It has a waiting list far greater than the total number of students currently in places. So the demand is there. The opportunity for young people to make a career start while still at school is coming together. Dr Kemp is to be congratulated for that. I am flagging the fact that the popularity of part-time apprenticeships is producing some of its own challenges.Investment in our young people does not stop there. There is $131 million over four years for literacy and numeracy programs—programs that make sure that students have those basic skills when they leave school that enable them not only to gain further skills but to function in their community, to participate in life. We are making sure that our school system tools up our young people with those skills. There is also an additional $78 million over four years for teacher training and a significant boost in funding for the non-government school sector—all initiatives to ensure that young Australians have the best possible start for their future.Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall that in February I was talking about my campaign to have key competencies also embraced within the school curriculum. These seven cross-curricula competencies are about making sure that young people have the broad band of skills that future employment and workplaces are looking for. They are also about making sure that, in addition to that workplace know-how, they have some skills that they can take with them for the rest of their lives to make sure that they have a lifetime learning commitment and a way of identifying their future learning needs without needing assistance from those outside their own households.There are many other areas I could talk about, but one I would like to focus on is the continuing investment in improving our nation's infrastructure. A further two years of black spot road funding is provided for in this budget. There is also $195 million over four years for continuing work on the national highway and the roads of national importance system. On that point I would like to flag my continuing effort to expand that funding stream. The Scoresby transport corridor is, in my view, not only a road of national importance; you could almost call it an ERONI, not a RONI. It is an essential road in the national interest. It is a road proposal that has not received quite the same attention in the Melbourne press as has the Geelong Road, but in my view it represents an investment in Victoria's future with manyfold benefits over the investment being called for in the Geelong Road.To give you an idea about why I am so passionate about this subject, it has enormous benefits for the electorate that I represent in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The Scoresby corridor is currently going through an EES process—I believe that is not far off being concluded. I am hopeful that some ideas, such as the idea that the Scoresby corridor should stop at Dandenong and not continue to the electorate of Dunkley, are nowhere to be seen. I know the RACV—in my view, mistakenly—was advocating that position some time ago. I think that is a flawed position when you think that the cost benefit ratio of the project is at its highest the further south the project goes.The transport corridor—which should, I believe, involve not only road but also rail and personal transport avenues such as bike pathways and the like—services an area with a population the size of the population of Adelaide. Total employment in the area is 360,000 jobs or 28 per cent of Melbourne's work force. I will put it another way: one job in every 20 in our country is in this catchment area. The Scoresby corridor has an enormous potential to benefit the area that I represent with a reduction in travel times for our manufacturers in the Dunkley electorate. There is an enormous amount—450 hectares—of industrial land around Frankston. This is a project that should be supported, and I will continue to work to see it implemented. (Time expired)17:32:005845Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise today to speak against the appropriation bills. Since my election I have distributed hundreds of community surveys. The replies I have received show the number one issue in my electorate of Lowe is employment, closely followed by education and training, law and order and the environment. These are the issues my electorate is most concerned about. In my view, these are the issues this government needs to address first and foremost.The budget is a continued example of this government's commitment to creating a long-term liability for the disadvantaged in our community. This is a budget that brings little hope for those who most need help from the government. The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, and the shadow Treasurer, the Hon. Simon Crean, are both completely right when they describe this document as being not the real budget. The real budget will become self-evident if the GST is passed in the Senate. Many of the so-called benefits in this budget are also dependent on the further sale of Telstra. The Howard government must be under public scrutiny for what they have not done for those who are disadvantaged in our community. The presentation of this false budget disguises such accountability by only showing a theoretical bottom line that is contingent on so many other factors. There is precious little in this budget for aged people, working parents, people with disabilities and young people. There is a big sell-out on the environment.I now wish to bring to the attention of this House specific members of the community who will be most disadvantaged by this budget. As I said earlier, my surveys show that the issue of most concern to my electorate is employment. Incredibly, the budget forecasts the unemployment rate will be stuck at 7.5 per cent, and in all the documents released by the Democrats and by the government on 28 May 1999 there is no mention of how they will improve Australia's level of unemployment. We know why jobs did not get a mention in the Howard government-Democrats-coalition backroom dealings: the GST is a job killer. The GST will cost the Australian economy hundreds of thousands of jobs.It is a tax that many European countries are now trying to escape because the tax costs jobs, especially in the services sector. I need not remind this House of the importance of the services sector in the Australian economy and the number of jobs this sector provides. The GST will destroy the services sector which at present employs 81.7 per cent of all employed persons. On 31 March 1999, Democrat Senator Stott Despoja said that the package would be unacceptable in terms of jobs if the following five changes were not made:. Replacing the $2.5 billion of petrol and diesel tax cuts with cuts to payroll tax;. Zero-rating food, reducing the job damaging tax mix switch;. Replacing the First Home Buyer Scheme with a GST rebate; . Zero-rating inbound tourism; and. Reducing the taper on unemployment benefits.Not one of these conditions has been fully met in the sweetheart deal between the Howard government and the Democrats. We can only assume the senator is as good as her word. This package is not good for jobs. The silence from the Democrats and the government is deafening on the issue of jobs. The coalition government gives the young unemployed no hope of finding work: 21.3 per cent of youth in Sydney's inner west are unemployed and do not have any hope of employment under this government.This sense of hopelessness is fed by the government's failure to develop job creation strategies in this budget. The government simply has not implemented, and will not implement, job creation programs. For example, the government will not provide real training. The government refuses to consider wage subsidies as an alternative method of encouraging job creation. The only future young people can look forward to is Work for the Dole. Window-dressing by renaming it as Work for the Future or any other euphemism will not repair its badly tarnished reputation as a failed scheme. The fact remains that this government simply will not implement a job creation strategy. The government does not seriously consider the plight of unemployed people in this budget.Another disastrous consequence of this budget is in the area of education and training. Education is not free of GST in this Howard government-Democrat deal. The GST applies to school uniforms, books and stationery, school bags, train and bus tickets, some school excursions, sports equipment, school shoes—and the list goes on.The issue of food is raised at this point. We have all heard the cliches about, `Take-away food gets the GST but so-called fresh food is exempt.' But what does that mean? We go into our delicatessen and see what is for sale. There is a range of processed foods for sale. In fact, it is difficult to identify one food product that is not processed. So which of these products is subject to GST and which is not? The original position of the Democrats was to exclude all food from the GST. Now, only half the food is excluded—or so the Democrats say. But is it only half, in light of the fact that almost all foods are processed in some way? It is scandalous to think that a government wants to tax food, a basic necessity of life.I turn now to the impact of the budget on the environment. This budget does not really account for the need to better fund environmental programs that ensure that we continue to protect and enhance our natural heritage and environment. Senator Robert Hill has announced several initiatives that include extending the Natural Heritage Trust to deal with air pollution in major cities, waste awareness programs and the farm forestry program. On the surface, this sounds good. However, money for this environment program is completely dependent on the further 16 per cent sale of Telstra. This means the Howard government wants the parliament to make a choice: one, sell more of Telstra at half its true value, like the first float; or, two, ignore the environment.There is no real reason why we cannot have environmental improvements without flogging off Telstra. The future of the environment should not be dependent upon the privatisation of a substantial asset like Telstra. However, the Australian people are being forced to accept environmental improvements conditional upon the Telstra sell-off. This is economic blackmail. Worse, the government seems to want to help those who can afford to buy more Telstra shares to get richer at the expense of the public interest—namely, protecting our environment. This is appalling.When we examine the environmental initiatives of the Howard government, even these are not sustainable. For example, the so-called `clean air' initiative is a farce. The government is actually giving 10 times more money to promote pollution than it is giving to reduce it. The air we all breathe will be the worse for this budget. The Democrats have caved in to the government—against the advice of one of their key advisers, the respected environmentalist Dr Clive Hamilton. Dr Hamilton has been shocked by the significant increases in air pollution predicted in the modelling of the government's compromise proposals. He has warned that the concessions by the Democrats are contrary to the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.The Democrats' sell-out will result in long-term damage to the quality of life in our cities and will undermine moves to use alternative energy. My electorate of Lowe is located in the heart of the inner west of Sydney. We are already choked by fumes, crowded streets, unbearable traffic and parking problems. This environmental vandalism is a slap in the face for my constituents. This budget is an environmental catastrophe.It is the Democrats who have put the final seal on the fate of the environment, through their support of the government's GST. Never again will they be able to parade themselves as the champions of green causes. Never again will they be the party that is seen by their voters as the champions of the environmental cause. The Democrats have betrayed their middle road policy, clearly siding with the Howard government, thus returning to their cultural roots. The Democrats have sealed their own fate by betraying the disadvantaged in our community and betraying the environment. The electorate will not forgive what the government and the Democrats have done to the people of Australia. They will not forget them at the next election.I turn now to speak on the impact of these bills on people with disabilities. The budget provides people with disabilities no joy. Under Labor, programs existed which helped those with a disability to find employment. These programs had a 70 per cent plus success rate. The Howard government pulled $17.6 million out of this program in 1996-97. The 1999-2000 budget has allocated $10 million to remodel the current program but no extra money to give those people with disabilities a chance to get a job.I turn now to the area of law and order—in particular, to legal aid. The Attorney-General's Department has admitted that there will be no more money for legal aid in the next four years. My electorate is experiencing an increase in the number of people attending our offices seeking outright legal advice. These cutbacks are excluding would-be litigants from legal aid, on policy grounds, by the Legal Aid Commission. The Legal Aid Commission is required to make tougher, narrower policies on taking on matters, thus narrowing the qualifying criteria. The result is that justice is not being done, as the likelihood of access to legal representation in Australia is becoming a myth. This situation is disgraceful and a blight on our legal system.Must I remind the Howard government that the judiciary is one of our three arms of government? Must I remind the Prime Minister that our justice system depends in large part on the precedents established in our courts? Must I remind the Prime Minister that our judges can only rely on the quality of representations put properly to their courts in making their determinations and ultimately forming the body of common law upon which our system depends? Must I remind the Prime Minister that without proper representation it is a case of `garbage in, garbage out' in terms of the quality of justice dispensed? This is no fault of the tireless and professional standards of our judiciary and the officers of the court—who are, by world standards, of the highest quality. It is a function of the availability of justice for all.I have seen the plight of too many of my constituents who, with legal aid, would have had a good legal case or would have mitigated their punishments and costs. Instead, the Legal Aid Commission, starved of funds, must make tough choices as to who does and who does not get legal aid funding. This cutback flies in the face of the actual sky-high numbers of applications from people desperate for representation and advice. I am aware of the near heroic efforts of the pro bono schemes of independent law firms, the Law Society of New South Wales's Pro Bono Scheme, the Bar Association's Legal Assistance Scheme and the schemes of bodies such as the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, but even these services are stretched to their very limits. The legal aid and pro bono services are at breaking point. It has now reached a point where a significant percentage of the population cannot gain access to the justice system, and they lose for no reason other than sheer economic incapacity. Once again, the Howard government has demonstrated its utter contempt for the Australian public.Mr Hockey interjecting—83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I now address the budget's impact on local government. Lowe has five local government areas, member for North Sydney. They are Ashfield, Strathfield, Burwood, Concord and Drummoyne. These councils will now have to compete with the other 705 councils for just $7 million over two years to help them with administering the implementation of the GST. This translates to less than $10,000 for each council in Australia. Not only that: this funding is a one-off occurrence which will leave ratepayers to bear the burden of administration costs of the GST, costs which may be very substantial.I turn now to the impact of this budget on small business. This budget is a bad budget for small business. We must remember that many small businesses employ the young and those who are aged 40 and above. Insufficient compensation is available for small businesses to administer the costs of a GST. My electorate of Lowe is a multicultural and diverse community. Some 23 distinct ethnic groups are listed in the 1996 census data. For many of these communities, small business is a way of life. Those small businesses include grocery stores, coffee shops, pizzerias, delicatessens, restaurants, auto repairers, panel beaters, hairdressers, butchers—in fact, all those businesses we take for granted in our daily lives. They are hopping mad about the GST.For many small business proprietors in my electorate, the GST will lead to several negative effects. First, small business will be forced to increase prices to help meet the costs of administering the tax. The capital which must be spent on new cash registers, computer software and other incidentals could be spent on improving and building businesses, and finally employing more people. Thus, the new tax system will dramatically increase the compliance costs for small business, and 1.5 million businesses will, for the first time, become tax collectors for the Howard-Democrat GST. Small business, in particular, will pay a very high price for the Howard-Democrat GST, with the Treasurer's tax office having to run around inspecting the type of food sold to determine whether the GST should apply or not. Are we going to install a GST police as exists in Italy? What a joke. Second, if business suffers, we will see the impact of this suffering through job losses. This is of great concern, especially when small businesses employ approximately 70 per cent of all workers in Australia.The next area I would like to address is that of child care. There is nothing in this budget for working mothers and fathers to assist them to stay in the work force, because they are unable to access child care. Child care has had no increase in funding since 1996, only savage cuts. A tax which burdens one section of the community, the poor, whilst rewarding another, the rich, is scandalous. The GST is regressive in that it is an indiscriminate tax. Poorer people will be disadvantaged in that they tend to spend on items which are currently untaxed. The tax cuts will never compensate for the amount of GST.I now move to the manner in which the Howard government and the Democrats constructed the 28 May 1999 deal. On 21 September 1998, journalist Brian Toohey prophesied that the Prime Minister would allow the Democrats to `knock food out of the GST once it gets to the Senate'. The events of the past week have proven Mr Toohey right, as the GST looks set to pass through the Senate, thanks to a shady deal finalised by the Democrats and the coalition just last Friday. By their unwillingness to move on the GST issues of food, books and diesel, the Democrats are alienating the many voters who voted for them. This could only be because they wanted to be `players' and prove themselves a political force.I wish to conclude with these observations on the `real budget'. The GST is going to cause a great deal of suffering for lower income families and pensioners, small businesses, those with disabilities, our young people, women and the unemployed. The GST is an unfair tax. It gives the biggest benefits to the rich and slays the poor. The tax mix shift modifications to the budget proposed by the Democrats have only marginally reduced the increase in the indirect tax proposed in the government's original package.Mr Hockey interjecting—83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—This is totally inconsistent with Democrat policy to eliminate the increase in the indirect tax burden. The member for North Sydney knows that I am speaking the truth. Finally, fiscal impact has been totally ignored by the government. The fiscal impact of the proposed Democrat modifications will be between $1.5 and $2.2 billion per year. As for the removal of state taxes, these promises have been largely aborted.We have heard the Democrats say, `You've got to keep the bastards honest.' For nine months, we have heard the Democrats say in respect of this budget, `The process has got to be transparent. Everybody has got to know, absolutely, what cards are on the table.' So how do the Democrats' actions compare to their words? They have acted dishonestly. They have concealed the deal of 28 May 1999 from their own party. They have even concealed the deal from some of their own senators. There is a continuation of the tax mix switch. The Democrats have become the bastards. They themselves are dishonest. They are the ones the Australian public will not forget at the next election.Mr Hockey interjecting—83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—The GST is inefficient and unnecessarily complex. Most of the taxes that were originally going to be abolished are now going to be retained, including financial institution duties, which will now remain for a further six months—and the member for North Sydney knows that well. Bank account debits tax remain until at least the year 2005 and most of the other taxes remain indefinitely.I conclude by noting that we will not see the effects of this new tax immediately, but its effects will be pervasive and, I fear, irreversible. We can only hope and pray that, in the ensuing weeks, the Democrats will see wisdom and abandon this terrible decision. I urge the House to think again, to examine its conscience and then oppose these bills.17:52:005849Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—As the member for North Sydney has said, the people of Lowe certainly have a poor substitute for the former member with whom I spent quite a number of years in the state parliament and here in the federal parliament. It is very interesting to sit here, listening to a number of speeches from the Labor Party, and hear the whining that is going on at the present time about the influence that the Democrats are suddenly having on this parliament. Might I remind the member for Lowe and others opposite that in a parliament, as far as I am concerned, there is a government and an opposition, and both sides should be doing what is best for the country.There is no use the Labor Party complaining about the fact that the issues before the parliament now look like passing the Senate. They opted out of the game. They opted out of the debate. The member for Dickson, who came down to this place and joined the Labor Party because she wanted to have a higher profile, is now on the sidelines watching one of her former Democrats colleagues taking the running in this particular issue and making a high contribution to the future of Australia. No wonder she is peeved and asks these stupid questions such as we heard in question time about what a truck might carry—whether the type of produce on the truck is going to define what the tax might be. I have never heard such a stupid question. Nevertheless, that seems to be the attitude of the Labor Party at the present time.Many members from the government side have made it very clear that at last we have a budget that is giving us a surplus. I know that the opposition continue to cry about the fact that there is not enough money for this or that particular program. We have come to understand that with the Labor Party across Australia. They have form in many areas—not just in the federal area, where we had deficit budgets in the last two years of the former government of $13 billion and $10 billion; something like $24 billion of deficit in two years. If you look at Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia you will see there is a lot of form there, too, in the way the Labor Party handles finances. Many people in my electorate have said that they at least give us credit for the fact that we took the hard decisions and have got this budget back in surplus, and are doing something about debt.If you have a close look at the budget you see that, over the period of just on three years, this government has paid off just on $24 billion of debt and that at least we are starting to get the Australian economy back on track. When we do get the budget in surplus, we can then start to apply the funds that are available to some of the programs that are necessary in this country. I have heard the Labor Party talking about the fact that they do not want a new tax package, they want to remain with the old tax program and they want to continue with the inequities that were in that program—and we have heard of many of those being explained in this House. They certainly do not have a vision for the future and they do not know what a modern economy is all about. There is no doubt in our minds about that.There is no doubt that in rural Australia the Labor Party are an irrelevance because they do not understand the costs associated with business and industry in the country. The new tax package that has been put forward by the government addresses many of the costs that we have at the present time. Earlier today we heard the honourable member for New England explaining how important some of these things are. I will reiterate some of those statements. For country and regional Australia, freight is the greatest disincentive to decentralisation of industry and the encouragement of production and export. Everything that goes to the country has to pay this exorbitant tax and everything that comes back to the ports has to pay it again. That costs industry an enormous amount.I heard the honourable member for New England mentioning some figures. Let me mention one in particular which might bring it into perspective because of the extent and the size of Australia. If you are shipping goods from the north-west of Western Australia across to markets in Sydney and Melbourne, some four and a half to five thousand kilometres, this reduction of 23c a litre means over $700 savings on one truckload. That will be passed on to the consumer. Often I hear it said cynically on the other side of this chamber, `Oh, it won't be passed on.' The trucking industry in Australia is the most competitive industry in the world. It will be passed on. There is no doubt about that because, if one operator does not give the benefit, another will. There is no doubt that those benefits will be passed on.The honourable member for Lowe made some comments about small business. All I can say is that he has no understanding of small business. He says that there will be added costs to small business in the new tax package. Let me take him through a few things that at the present time are attributed to costs in small business. Let us look at the wholesale sales tax. I said to one business operator in my electorate in the election campaign, `What would you estimate is the cost of the tax that is sitting on your shelves at the present time?' He thought for a while and said, `Gee, it'd be about $70,000.' He has $70,000 worth of tax sitting on the shelves for which he has probably had to borrow money on an overdraft. If he does not sell the product, he has still paid the tax. You do not get it back. Under the new tax system, not only do they not have to pay tax on product that is not sold but they do not have to pay the tax on the product that is sold until the end of the month. Obviously that is freeing up an enormous amount of capital in small business.What about some of the other changes that have been put forward by the government? What about the abolition of provisional tax? Any small business that starts up and is successful and has a good profit in its first year could, if it is a partnership business, be up for 47c in the dollar tax. What does provisional tax do? Ninety-four cents in the dollar tax. People cannot get started under such a system. And yet this new tax system says there will be no provisional tax. Is that a benefit to small business? I would have thought so.Also, if you have a look at some of the other areas in small business, one of the very big freight operators in the electorate of Page has said that he estimates that with the savings on fuel there could be a 10 per cent reduction in the price of food items—just from freight. I do not know whether that is absolutely accurate, but this particular gentleman is a very experienced operator and I have to accept that he must be fairly close to the mark. He hauls all the groceries for Woolworths on the North Coast, so he has a pretty fair idea what the cost of that is. That will also benefit small business.There is no doubt that there are going to be some compliance problems, but in one area only and that is where you have a business that is selling fresh food and processed food. No other areas are going to have any problems at all because the system has not changed in that area, but in an area where you have fresh food that does not attract a GST and you have a tax on processed food, yes, there are certainly going to be some problems in the initial stages. Speaking to a businessman only yesterday who runs a big shopping business in Canada, he said that for the first 12 months or so there was a bit of a problem. After that, it ironed itself out and they now have no problems at all. So I think we need to get some of these things into perspective.Also in this budget, as the honourable member for New England mentioned, there is good funding for roads. In my electorate of Page I have a road of national importance which is called the Summerland Way. The Summerland Way is a heavy vehicle route which bypasses the main Pacific Highway into Brisbane. It is a very important link and the money in the budget is very welcome. I am fairly disappointed with the attitude of the New South Wales government because, at all times, they have tried to stop the spending of money on the Summerland Way. First of all, they were not prepared to match the money—that is fairly typical—even though they had made all sorts of promises. Then they tried to say that they had been spending the money, but it is a state road so it was maintenance money. So I am very disappointed.When we do try to get projects up, they then try to palm off on to us works that should be done by the state government. At the present time, I am demanding that a major deviation at Wiangaree be the project that the federal government puts the money towards, because at least we know that we are going to get a major deviation on this road and we are not going to have the funds frittered away on jobs that should have been done by the state. During the state election campaign, we had a great campaign about a new party in New South Wales. It was Country Labor. They did phenomenally well; they got two in. That is the extent of Labor representation in New South Wales that we see in the regions.Also, I want to mention the money that has been put towards bridge subsidies, especially for upgrading transport systems for heavier load limits. That is a very important issue to regional Australia. It can save millions of dollars for all the regional industries. Again, we have the New South Wales government procrastinating, playing political games, saying that they will not agree to it because of the extra cost that might be attributed to some of the roads in New South Wales. I do not accept that as being a reasonable argument at all. The federal government is contributing towards funds, especially with some of the bridges that might need to be upgraded. I think regional New South Wales will again find that they are not being served well by the state government in New South Wales.As I said, this budget continues to give benefits to regional Australia. In the area of agriculture, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, I know something dear to your heart is that the budget confirms the package that was put forward for the sugar industry, where the sugar industry in Australia asked that the tariff be removed. I want to reiterate that it was a sugar industry committee chaired by the Chairman of the Queensland Canegrowers Council, Harry Bonanno, which asked that the tariff on sugar be removed, but of course there were some areas of that industry that would certainly be affected by that. The government promised that there would be an $11 million program to support the sugar industry, and the budget shows that that is being honoured. I know that members who represent the sugar industry are certainly pleased with that, particularly at the present time when the price of sugar on the world market is collapsing because of the devaluation in Brazil which is having a tremendous effect on the world sugar market.The other area which has been honoured and was certainly a hot issue during the election campaign is the package for the pork industry. There were a number of pork producers across Australia who were very concerned about the effect that imports were having on their market. There was a need to see that the abattoirs in particular were competitive and could compete with overseas abattoirs, and that money is available for abattoirs and producers who might need to have a close look at their operations within the industry either to upgrade or to get out of the industry. That money has been agreed to in the budget.Another area that is very close to my heart is an area that I was associated with as Minister for Water Resources in New South Wales, and that is the money which is being put forward for the capping of the bores on the Great Artesian Basin. The member for Lowe was talking about environmental issues. This is one of the greatest resource and environmental issues in Australia.Our forebears, I suppose, did not realise when they tapped this underground water, which was of such great benefit to inland Australia, just exactly what they were doing. They knew the water was there, they knew the pressure from underneath was driving it up, but it was just running away, and continues to run away. We now know this water is replenished from the Great Dividing Range, hundreds and hundreds of kilometres from where it is found. It only moves at about three to four millimetres per year underground. It is not an inexhaustible resource and it is something that needs to be protected. I applaud the minister for obtaining $31.8 million to cap the bores on the Great Artesian Basin because water is so important to Australia. One of the great things we must understand in this country is the importance of water. It is the driest inhabited continent on earth. I sometimes hear people say it is the driest continent on earth. It is not; Antarctica is. Water is vital not just to agriculture in Australia but to the whole population. We need to have a very sensible look and a very close look at the use of water within Australia.I noticed there is funding in the budget for the regional forest agreements and I want to make some comment about that, again with regard to New South Wales. The National Forest Policy Statement that was put forward some years ago by the Keating government was a genuine attempt to try to get some balance in this industry. To understand the industry is to know that forestry is the greatest decentralised industry in Australia. There is no doubt it has great benefits for the country. It produces product that we desperately need. It is a matter of getting a balance. The National Forest Policy Statement was an attempt to do that, but the Carr government could not help but play politics, could not help but embrace the extreme green movement.The regional forest agreements in New South Wales are becoming the most difficult in Australia to conclude. The New South Wales government will not address the real issues. They will not take into account the socioeconomic effects of some of their decisions on very small country towns. In my electorate, I am talking about Woodenbong, Urbenville, Bonalbo and Grevillia. There is also Dorrigo, which is in the electorate of Cowper, and Ebor and other areas in the electorate of New England. I cannot think of the names, but there are certainly some more down in the south-west of New South Wales. The point is that we need to get the data right and we need to take into account the socioeconomic effects.No-one disagrees with genuine protection of areas that need to be protected, but it is not a matter of locking up the whole world, and that is what is going on at the present time—it is preservation of the areas; it is not conservation of the areas. These people are never happy. It does not matter what you do, they continue to try to grab, grab, grab. I applaud the Minister for Forestry and Conservation for the position he has taken in making it very clear to the New South Wales government that he expects them to do the right thing, and I would expect the people of New South Wales to be watching very carefully to see what they do. New South Wales is attempting to hold the industry to ransom. It is saying, `If you do not agree to the Regional Forest Agreement that we put forward, then you cannot export chips after November this year.' It is a disgraceful exercise that has no regard for the national interest, no regard for the economy and certainly no regard for regional Australia, particularly the small towns that absolutely depend on this.In the few minutes left to me, I want to talk about the strategy put forward today by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business for Aboriginal employment. As he mentioned, I have had some input into that. It will provide $100 million over four years and is a vital program. A lot of good things are being done by this government to allow Aboriginals to have a say about their own future, to get them involved, to get them trained and educated, to get them employed and to own their own property. I have a close association with the Aboriginals in my electorate. I have had both the minister for employment and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in my electorate. They were well received and they are coming back. The local Aboriginal groups are trying very hard to see that these strategies work. (Time expired)18:12:005853Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—When we debate the federal budget it should be an occasion to reflect on the need for a vision for the future of our country. Unfortunately, in my view, the budget does not contain a sufficiently comprehensive vision—notwithstanding the fact that the Treasurer has been talking in recent times about the need for a vision. Such a vision should focus on two important factors: firstly, the goal of overcoming social injustices in Australia and the world and, secondly, the goal of developing the full potential of our nation, not just in terms of economic growth but also in terms of population growth, and this involves a much better and more positive immigration policy.In my speech today I will focus on the first aspect—that is, the need to address the issue of social injustices in Australia and the world. We are facing an important crisis as we approach the end of the 20th century. I refer to the increasing economic inequality in the world and particularly the fact that more and more people are living in poverty. This phenomenon has two dimensions: firstly, the dramatic poverty which the majority of people in the so-called Third World countries continue to face, which is increasing, and, secondly, the poverty and social injustices which an increasing number of people in our society are facing.Poverty is often not thought of as a crisis. This is precisely because it is not a single event but an ongoing situation which many people face throughout the majority, if not the whole, of their lives. Because of this, the media do not find the issue of poverty newsworthy or exciting. They cannot see that there is much that can be done about it and therefore they tend to accept it with all its ramifications. However, the existence of so much poverty in the world and in our own society is, in my view, a testament to the failure of our civilisation. No matter what our technological developments are, no matter what heights of knowledge and scientific development have been reached, our political and economic organisation is clearly a gross failure because of the existence of so much poverty and social injustice. Indeed, given we have so much technology which in theory allows us to eradicate the overwhelming proportion of this poverty and inequality, the fact is we do not. That fact itself is something which we as a civilisation ought to be ashamed of.Those concerned with social justice and the eradication of poverty are facing a new challenge. That is the phenomenon of globalisation, which itself has increased inequality and poverty throughout the world, including in our society. I have already remarked on this phenomenon in my paper of last year entitled Economic globalisation and the need for a new International Response. In that paper I said on this phenomenon:Recent theorists argue that there is forming in the world an internationally elite class of people who are shaping events, not merely in their own countries but for millions of people in many nations. At the same time and as a consequence, more and more people are forming an underclass because they do not have sufficient access to technology and information and are unable to participate except at the edges in the marketplace. Increasingly these people are unemployed or underemployed, the system has no need for them. The welfare state sees them as a burden and their right to an income is increasingly cut back. Similarly, Hans Peter Martin in The Global Trap argues that globalisation is creating a situation in which the communities of all the nations in the world will be divided roughly on a 20:80 basis. This division will mean that the top twenty-percent will be wealthy in terms of assets, income and (most importantly) information. On the other hand, the other eighty percent will be increasingly impoverished, with a very large group suffering severely with malnutrition, lack of basic necessities and fewer services to meet their needs.If these theories accurately reflect what may happen in the future, economic globalisation will create massive poverty throughout the world with unimaginable consequences in terms of human suffering. Recent developments in the world would tend to support these pessimistic conclusions. Thus, for example, in his book The Globalisation of Poverty Michel Chossudovsky sums up the situation thus:In the South, the East and the North, a privileged social minority has accumulated vast amounts of wealth at the expense of the large majority of the population. This new international financial order feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the natural environment. It generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife, undermines the rights of women and often precipitates countries into destructive confrontations between nationalities. Moreover, these reforms—when applied simultaneously in more than 100 countries—are conducive to a "globalisation of poverty", a process which undermines human livelihood and destroys civil society in the South, the East and the North.Of course, it is the so-called Third World and Fourth World countries which are suffering the grossest consequences of this globalisation of poverty. Chossudovsky characterises the human situation thus:Since the 1980s, the "macro-economic stabilisation" and "structural adjustment" programmes imposed by the IMF and the World Bank on developing countries. . . have led to the impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people. . . Internal purchasing power has collapsed, families have erupted, health clinics and schools have closed down, hundreds of millions of children have been denied the right to primary education. In several regions of the developing world, the reforms have been conducive to a resurgence of infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria and cholera.The most serious aspect, from the point of view of the Third World countries, has been the dramatic increase in so-called Third World debt. For example, Martin and Harold Schumann in The Global Trap emphasise that in 1996 the developing world owed in debt $US1,940 billion. They also point out that the wealthiest 20 per cent of the nations of the world dispose of 84.7 per cent of the world's combined GNP, account for 82.4 per cent of the world's trade and possess 85.5 per cent of the savings in domestic accounts. Furthermore, from 1960 to 1996 the gap between the richest 20 per cent and the poorest 20 per cent has more than doubled despite various promises of support for development. The most shocking fact is this: that 358 individual people around the world own the same wealth as the poorest 2,500 million people.Given this situation it is no wonder that we have a situation of massive crisis with respect to the poorest nations of the world. Indeed the situation has reached such a point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the need to address the issue has developed a coalition of people around the world which is entitled the Jubilee 2000, which you may have heard about. This is a worldwide campaign to try and help the poorest countries through alleviation of their debt. In fact, in its statement Jubilee 2000 says:Poor countries owe a vast amount of money to rich nations and international financial institutions . . . like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For developing countries as a whole this debt is over $2 trillion.That is, US dollars. It goes on:Most of this is owed by "middle income" developing countries. But some of the lowest-income countries in the world also are heavily indebted, owing around $250 billion.Hundreds of millions of people living in poverty in low and middle-income countries alike are paying the price for their countries' enormous international debt. Ordinary people did not benefit from many of the loans that gave rise to this debt. Yet they bear the principal burden of repayment. Without major debt reduction, poor countries are trapped, making unending interest payments on the their debts. This requires them continuously to divert large amounts of scarce resources from health care, education and food resources . . . The debt burden inhibits the social and economic development that is needed to lift people out of poverty.They point out that the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, for example `spend more each year on repaying their debts than they spend on all primary education and health care.' The same is true in some Latin American and Asian countries where the vast majority of people live below the poverty line. Under these circumstances the Jubilee 2000 program proposes to cancel the debts by the end of the year 2000 of the poorest 40 countries. Such a definitive cancellation of debt would go a long way towards helping to resolve this issue of the increasing inequality between the rich and the poor of the world.The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, of which I am the Deputy Chairman, has listened to this argument from the Jubilee 2000 committee and in August this year we will be sponsoring a seminar on this Third World debt and what can be done about it. I invite all members of parliament to attend and listen to the special speakers to see whether we in the Australian parliament can do something to contribute towards this program.But more than this needs to be done. We need to look also at the possibility of developing other measures such as the reform of the international monetary system and the production of fairer deals in trade and international finance for these countries. We need to get a better world order which allows for economic development which is more fair and more just rather than unjust and which will be a matter of pride for the civilisation of the world rather than a disgrace, which it is at the present time.I want to refer also to the poverty and social injustice in our own country. Within our own country the gap between the poor and the rich continues to widen. Globalisation and recent economic transformations have given a few wealthy Australians a large bonanza at the expense of many other citizens. In the current edition of the Business Review Weekly's Australia's Richest 200 list, the top 10 individuals own a total of $19.15 billion. Within a year, the overall wealth of the top 200 richest people in Australia grew by almost 20 per cent to $57.09 billion. Meanwhile the poor got poorer.While this accumulation is taking place, the federal government has been squabbling over whether we can find $1 billion for all of Australia's poor people. One might think that in these circumstances the priorities of our society might be considered a little askew. Some would say we have lost all sense of our moral obligation to the poor and disadvantaged in our society. The fundamental principles of social justice appear to be increasingly forgotten.While the Howard government seeks to pat itself on the back about the level of economic growth, it also hides the fact that the overwhelming proportion of this growth has gone to the rich rather than to the poor. Indeed, there is no doubt that poverty is increasing at a significant rate within Australia. The number of people falling under the Henderson poverty line continues to increase. This is borne out by all the recent facts in relation to whatever measure of poverty you take—the Henderson poverty line or another line.I might point out that poverty is not just a question of a single measure of income. There are other dimensions to poverty. The very important organisation the Smith Family in their paper, `Australia's poverty challenge: Breaking the poverty cycle by addressing the poverty profile', by Elizabeth Orr and Fiona Taylor in 1996 set out the fact that poverty is not simply a question of income, but has a number of dimensions—economic, educational and emotional. They say:The poorest in our community are trapped within all three of these interconnecting cycles. To assist the poor caught in these cycles of poverty in Australia the following 10 profile characteristics must be targeted for attention in the future—This is based on their survey, which indicates:. 100% of the survey families live on inadequate cash levels to cover basic family costs;. 92% of respondents have minimum education and job skill levels;. 76% of families have been forced to move away from family and friends and face deep loneliness and isolation without support networks;. 18-35 year olds are the most at risk age group for poverty, representing 66% of the sample;. 67% of the sample live in accommodation they cannot afford, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. This has resulted in payment default and dislocation at least once every two years; . 55% of the families surveyed had one or several of their family members suffering from the effects of trauma or chronic illness;. 51% of the clients in this study had parents who also received a regular benefit payment. Of all families who have adult children, 87% of these adult children are also receiving a benefit—a three generation perpetuation of the cycle;. 50% of the client group have been living on a benefit for more than 2 years;. 46% of the sample represents single-parent families;. 30% of the sample represents unemployed clients—70% of whom are singles.The Smith Family say this:The advantages of a stable home environment, good health, access to low cost housing and education cannot be underestimated. Future policy and service development must reflect holistic approaches to poverty which will endeavour to re-establish equitable access to basic services and redress the pressures that lead to family breakdown. Only then will the next generation have a genuine opportunity to break the perpetuating cycle of poverty that currently limits their potential to experience all the benefits of a quality Australian lifestyle.In my book Understanding Social Justice: An Australian Perspective I talked about the importance of our working together as a society to overcome poverty and social injustice. I said that we have to address a number of factors which constitute the phenomenon of social injustice. Rather than the question being addressed in terms of whether or not a small addition or deletion in a particular federal budget is sufficient to address this question, we must be much bolder in facing up to these issues. We as a society must be prepared to address these questions in a much tougher and much more comprehensive fashion than we have been prepared to do.We must recognise that social justice involves the following elements. The first is the provision of basic income through redistribution for all people; a basic income for everyone. Secondly, we must recognise that there are certain universal social human rights which everyone is entitled to: employment in a reasonable job; quality education for all—not mickey mouse education but quality education—freely available health care, especially for the poorest in the community; and affordable housing. In addition to that, there is a third element of social justice that we must focus on. It is access and equity, ensuring equal rights for people from different groups in our community, including minority groups such as the ethnic communities, the Aboriginal communities and other communities that may be disadvantaged and have not got sufficient access. Most important is the principle of poverty which John Rawls, the philosopher, put forward: looking at the most disadvantaged in our society, the poorest, the disabled, those who cannot look after themselves and trying to make sure that we have programs in place that directly benefit them.These are the issues which we should be addressing in this federal budget and which we should be addressing if we are going to be a society that is committed to equality and fairness. I regret to say that this budget does not address these issues. Furthermore, the overall program of the government is increasingly not addressing these issues, even though some of the ministers, like Minister Reith, have recognised that we need to do so. (Time expired)18:33:005856Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I have to totally disagree with that last conclusion of the member for Calwell. This is a very good budget, and I think it does go a very long way to addressing quite a few of the issues that he raised earlier. I would like to start by illustrating a simple example of how this government is in fact achieving some very worthwhile results in helping people to address one of the issues that he talked about, unemployment. It was very interesting to listen to his speech. The survey that he was quoting from he mentioned was taken in 1996, which really was a reflection on the 13 years of the Labor government. On Tuesday of this week, the Warrnambool Standard , which is a very famous newspaper of very long standing—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It is published every day.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—That is right. It is famous for its connections with the Archibald family, amongst other things. I would like to read the front page headline of the Warrnambool Standard . The headline was `More jobs: unemployment figures fall'. The story reads:Unemployment figures in the south-west are down with jobless numbers for Warrnambool showing a drop of almost 20 per cent since April 1996. There were 2245 unemployed registered with Centrelink's Warrnambool office in January 1996 and in April that year it was 2108 . . .A slight drop. It continues:The figure for April this year is down to 1719.The article goes on to say:Positions vacant advertising volumes in The Standard for April this year were up 49 per cent on April last year, due in part to the privatisation of the Job Network.This article, which the newspaper has chosen to make its lead story on Tuesday, is a very important example in a practical way of the work that the Howard-Costello government, the coalition government, has been doing in getting real results and real benefits for Australia, and in particular for regional Australia. I am very proud to be part of that government, and I believe that the budget and the tax reform package that has just been agreed to are a great double in building on the achievements of the government so far. I believe they will show that not only do we care about people but also we are providing real, practical solutions in trying to help them help themselves to get a better future. So I reject many of the points that were made by the member for Calwell. I also sympathise with many of the points he raised, but I think the solutions are in following what the government is doing in continuing to build on the strengths of the achievements so far.This budget shows in many ways just how much the government is continuing to build on those strengths. We have seen the fact that the budget is in surplus. What a contrast with the Labor Party. A $10 billion deficit was the legacy we were left by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Finance. We have seen a whole range of programs in this budget that are going to further help, whether it be in health, whether it be in employment or whether it be in education. I think it is also important to remind everyone that this budget has achieved that surplus without increasing taxation. That is a very significant point. We are seeing a whole range of programs that are being put forward for regional areas, and I will come back and detail those in a minute. We are seeing a whole lot of things in health, in Work for the Dole, in assistance to get employment, in assistance to agriculture in a very positive and practical way, in road funding and in education.A look at the key points in this budget will show how much the government and the Treasurer should be congratulated for a very fine budget. Not only are they my words but, as you will hear, endorsements have come from a range of commentators who have recognised what a great job the Treasurer and the government have done. As I mentioned, we start with a $5.4 billion surplus. In itself, that shows a very responsible approach to economic management and a recognition that the time has come to wind back the huge debt we inherited from Labor. Running a budget surplus is one part of attacking that very serious problem. By reducing the debt, all Australians benefit because not only does it help to improve our credit rating—and we are already seeing the results of that, which means that borrowing rates will start to be trimmed—but also it will mean that the interest taxpayers fork out each year will be reduced.A range of changes are being brought in to help families. For example, the family tax benefit is going to be extended to dependent 21-year-olds—something that Labor could never have done in its wildest dreams. There are a number of moves in the health area. In particular, there are moves in country areas to establish 30 additional regional health services over the next four years. Some $43 million has been allocated over the same period to provide an incentive for long-serving GPs to continue practising in rural and remote areas. People in the country are only too acutely aware of the shortage of doctors, and this government is taking some positive, practical steps to address the problem.The Rural Australian Medical Undergraduate Scholarship Scheme is to be established to help train rural students. There is very clear evidence that the best way of getting medical students to practise in the country is to en courage students from the country to train as doctors. There is also a move to establish a food and fibre supply chain program to open markets for farmers. I think that will have a direct benefit. There is a tax on infrastructure problems, with $195 million over five years to upgrade the National Highway System roads of national importance and the Black Spot Program, which has been so effective in tackling some of the worst sites of road accidents. That is going to be extended for another two years.As I mentioned earlier, the Work for the Dole scheme is to be expanded to include 25- to 34-year-olds who have been unemployed for 12 months. There is no doubt that the Work for the Dole scheme has been a great success. Anyone who has spoken to some of the participants on the Work for the Dole scheme will know that it is achieving in a practical way. It is giving people the opportunity to get back into the work force and feel that they belong to society.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You were one of the strongest advocates of the Work for the Dole scheme.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—I am a very strong advocate of the Work for the Dole scheme, as the parliamentary secretary reminds me. It is important to see the effect that it has on people. I well recall four years ago talking to people who had been put through the range of training programs that the previous government had. They were so frustrated and angry. They said, `We have been trained and trained to do all these things but we cannot get a job. We cannot do something practical.' Contrast that with the Work for the Dole scheme, which is actually getting practical results and helping people regain their self-esteem, get a bit of confidence and get back into the work force and get the jobs which they so desperately want.A $1,000 incentive scheme has been introduced for payment to employers hiring new apprentices in rural and regional areas, as has an indigenous employment program, which the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has been commended for. As we heard earlier today, it is a very real and practical step. This contrasts this government with the Labor Party when it was in government. This government is about getting practical outcomes. The Labor Party was full of rhetoric and was always spending taxpayers' money. Labor did not seem to care whether it had actually raised the money, but as long as it kept spending it then it felt that somehow or other that would make everyone feel good. We know that just spending money of its own does not necessarily get results. The fact that the Labor government left us with such a mess, particularly the big deficit, shows that it had lost the plot.I could talk about a number of other things in the budget, but I would now like to move to the reactions of some of the independent commentators who were talking on behalf of their own constituencies. I will start with the National Farmers Federation. They understand what the budget means for people in the country—as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would well understand. The NFF President, Ian Donges, said:The Government should be congratulated on its economic management over the last three years . . . NFF especially welcomes the commitment of $17.5m over the next 2 years to fund a national biotechnology strategy, because without it Australian agriculture will fall behind in the global race to capitalise on new and more efficient agricultural systems.We also welcome the doubling of expenditure on specific rural health initiatives to $172m over 4 years, which will fund the Coalition's election commitments and, in particular, we welcome the new initiative of bonded medical scholarships for rural students.Mark Paterson, from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said:This is the budget business was looking for . . . This ($5.4b) surplus will ensure interest rates are kept low.That is a bit of a contrast with what we had with Labor when interest rates for housing loans were over 17 per cent. The Executive Director of the Business Council of Australia, David Buckingham, said:All the conditions are right to underpin the move to the new tax system—low interest rates, low inflation, sustained growth and agreement from the states . . . The new tax system will provide dividends to the whole community including greater investment, more jobs and a more sure revenue base. It is so hard to understand how the Labor Party can just ignore the benefits of all this and continue to nitpick and argue about various relatively minor aspects of policy. I suppose all it does is reflect on the fact that they have no real policies of their own. Dick Wells, Executive Director of the Minerals Council, said:The Commonwealth Government is to be commended on a responsible 1999/2000 budget.Bruce Freeland, Chief Economist with the Commonwealth Bank, said:The 1999/2000 Budget is a further step along the path of fiscal consolidation.I could go on. There are many more quotes that really do point out just how well this budget has been received. Looking at social welfare, Carolyn Gray, President of the Carers Association of Australia, said:The Carers Association of Australia welcomes the government's commitment to meeting its election promises to carers in the 1999/2000 Federal Budget.Aged Care Australia said:The 1999 Budget is heading in the right direction in its policy initiatives and funding for older Australians.The Association of Independent Retirees said:The Association Members and, indeed, all older Australia, will welcome the Health and Aged Care initiatives in the 1999/2000 Budget.These are very positive responses, and it is very disappointing that the Labor Party can do nothing but sit there and criticise, playing a negative role. Looking at the reaction of some of the daily newspapers, the Australian Financial Review said:There is no doubt that Mr Costello has left the government accounts at the end of this century in much better order than most people would have expected only a few years ago. The surplus building of the past two years puts Australia in a strong position to weather the sudden downturn in Asian economies. And productivity growth is starting to generate the virtuous cycle of an economy that can run at higher rates of growth with lower inflation.Contrast that with the Labor Party. Every time growth rates went up, we had the usual problem of productivity growth not being able to keep up with it. The cycle of the economy could not sustain continual growth: we saw inflation take off and then interest rates go up. That killed off the better economic growth. That was the typical boom-bust cycle of the Labor Party. The Australian said simply:The Budget is a good one.The Sydney Morning Herald described the budget as responsible and fair, saying:Mr Costello and the government deserve full credit for steering the economy through the recent turbulence in the region.In all it has been a very positive endorsement.I would like to turn quickly now to the second part of the double for the government for May—that is, the new tax system. What a great achievement that is by the Prime Minister. Everyone on this side of the parliament is very proud of the Prime Minister. I think people in Australia are very grateful that this government is one about achieving and building on reform, and one that is going to continue to make sure that, as we go into the next century, Australia does not lose the advantage we are starting to build up. It is an advantage that is very much a result of the work that this government has done.I give credit to the previous government for some of their reforms. We have kept those reforms going. It is a pity, though, that the opposition has forgotten that, when it was in government, it actually believed in reform too. Now it spends its life just carping with negative criticism.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Marching back to the past.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—That is a good way of describing them. When we look at the achievements arising from this tax reform, the benefits for regional Australia are going to be fantastic. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, redressing the imbalance that has really started to build up between regional Australia and the major cities is long overdue. This tax reform package does it in a number of ways. One of the most obvious is reducing freight costs. Transport is a major cost for people in the country.It is hard to believe that those opposite continue to oppose this and say that people in the country have got to bear a disproportionate level of the tax on transport. It is really quite hard to understand how they can stand up in here and talk about equality when, by their own actions, they have perpetuated an inequality which they built on as they continued to raise the excise on fuel. This will go a very long way towards assisting people in regional areas, whether it be through the reduction of fuel excise to 20 cents for heavy transport in regional areas or the removal of fuel excise completely on rail, which is a major contributor to the development of regional Australia. Clearly, getting that tax off the inputs that rail freight is a part of is important.With the whole tax reform system, we are going to see major cuts in income tax—something that the Labor Party could never have dreamt of and, it seems, they cannot accept or endorse. They seem to have great difficulty in giving any credit to people when they set about achieving some real results for all Australians. More than that, the reform of a tax system that has long been out of date will favour exports. I would have thought that, with the ongoing difficulties that Australia has had with its balance of payments over many years, a reform of the tax system that enhanced exporting would be something that everyone would endorse.The Labor Party did endorse it for a little while in 1985, but then it all got too hard because the unions said no, so the Labor Party said no. Yet we can see that, by this reform of the indirect tax system, exporters will get a benefit of about $4.5 billion. Clearly, if we can do something to improve our export performance, all Australians are going to benefit.In the short time that is available, I would like to again turn to some of the responses we have had from people who appreciate what the government is doing. I might start with the National Farmers Federation because they, more than any others, recognised long ago the importance of this tax reform system. They actively campaigned for it with the previous government, as they have with this government. They have been entirely consistent. As their president, Mr Ian Donges, said in reference to the tax agreement that was reached between the government and the Democrats:The agreement on diesel means that the unfair tax on distance which has affected rural Australia for so long has been reduced by over half.In some of the editorial comment, the Sydney Morning Herald really summed it up when they said:The GST compromise between the Howard Government and the Australian Democrats represents a triumph for the Prime Minister.They went on to say:By behaving as a political party, the Democrats have made a difference.. . . . . . . . .The significant loser from the GST deal is the Labor Party, specifically its leader, Mr Beazley. For three years Labor has ditched the great economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating governments for a leftist populism that is associated with its prized recruit, Mrs Cheryl Kernot . . . Mr Beazley now has to do the hard work of restoring the policy integrity of Labor . . .The budget and the tax reform put together a great double for this government—one that, as we go into the next century, will stamp the hallmark of a successful, achieving and practical government that is really going to make Australia a better place for all of us.18:53:005860Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—Despite economic growth, this budget and the government's tax package deliver nothing for Australian women. Economic growth, the foundations of which were laid by Labor, has failed to deliver strong jobs growth for women. Women's participation in the labour market is stagnant, and in the case of married women has actually declined. Women are giving up looking for work, because with the cost of child care, the changes to the labour market and the privatisation and fragmentation of employment services, finding a job is just too hard. Women's earnings have slipped considerably, due to the Howard government's attack on the Australian industrial relations system.The Treasurer was crowing about his $5.4 billion surplus—the deal with the Democrats obviously punches a hole in that figure—but it is worth remembering that this surplus is built on the most vicious of cuts to child care, to public health, to education, to public housing, to employment programs, all the things that make life a little easier for average families. This surplus is dependent upon the full sale of Telstra and the passage of the GST bills. Both of these measures are unpopular with Australian women, because women know they are the ones who will pay the price.Women under the age of 44, those who are more likely to be entering the work force for the first time and bringing up young families, overwhelmingly voted Labor at the last election. They delivered an overwhelming vote of no-confidence in the policies of the Howard government. Women, knowing full well that they would bear the brunt of the GST, vehemently opposed it. They know that they are losing both ways under this budget and the tax measures it depends on. It is women who will pay the GST every day on things that have never been taxed before, and it is women who will see less than their fair share of income tax cuts. Only about five per cent of women earn more than $50,000, so the majority of tax cuts will go to high income men.The economy under John Howard has failed to deliver strong jobs growth for women. Women simply do not have the same job opportunities under John Howard that they enjoyed under Labor. In the past year just 86,000 new jobs were secured by women, which compares unfavourably to the last 12 months of the Labor government where women took on 102,000 new jobs. Under Labor, record numbers of women moved into the paid work force, boosting family living standards. The participation rate for women under Labor grew from 45 per cent to 53.8 per cent, with married women enjoying the greatest rise. That is because Labor supported women moving into the work force and helped families to balance work and family responsibilities.This government, on the other hand, has slashed the services that working women depend on. The government indulges in plenty of rhetoric about giving women the choice to stay at home and care for children full time; what it is not prepared to do is support women wanting to re-enter the work force. Long-term unemployment for women has risen significantly since this government has come to office. This is the legacy of deep cuts to job programs that has left so many women with few opportunities for re-entering the work force.The 1999-2000 budget was an opportunity to redress these issues. The government could have chosen to reinstate some of Labor's successful Working Nation programs. Instead, the government allocated just $24.2 million to the return to work program, which is about $140 per year for each woman who has been out of work for more than two years. That might just be enough to get some help with writing a resume, but it is not much for actual training. The government spent more on computers for the Taxation Office to implement the GST than it has on providing real services to Australians get back to work.Increased unemployment for women is set against the backdrop of decreasing wages parity for those women who are employed. As many predicted, with this government's agenda to decentralise wages bargaining, women have been big losers. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that women's slow progress towards equal pay is stalling, and in some areas is actually going backwards. Australia's pay gender gap has traditionally been one of the lowest in the world, second only to some Scandinavian countries and well ahead of the United States and Britain. This has been largely as a result of the equal pay cases won from 1969 to 1971 and the centralised nature of our wages system—the award system and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.Looking at the 1996 to 1998 Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, however, there seems to be emerging signs that the gender gap is increasing. Despite strong wages growth, women are now earning $243 a week less than men. Three years ago the figure was $232 a week less. Western Australia has the least regulated wages system in the country and also the worst paid women in the country. In Western Australia the gap is about $300. Taking into account the wages of part-time female workers, the figures reveal that women still earn just 66 per cent of what men do.Of particular concern are industries such as hospitality—a major employer in my area and a major employer of women and, incidentally, one of the sectors that will be most disadvantaged by the GST. In this industry there has been a four per cent increase in the gap between male and female full-time ordinary weekly earnings. There has also been an 11 per cent increase in the gap between average weekly total earnings in the industry. The situation for non-unionised labour is even more serious, with average earnings of women who are union members being about 24.5 per cent higher than those of women who are not unionised.A recent report entitled Australia's young adults: the deepening divide shows that young women aged 20 to 24 make up 60 per cent of young adults in the bottom five per cent of income earners and only one-third of the top 20 per cent of earners. What is more alarming is that the gap between male and female earnings rose from 12 per cent at the age of 20 to 18 per cent at the age of 24. The disparity is due largely to continuing gender segmentation of the work force in industries with high concentrations of women workers suffering poor wages, but it is also due to the fact that women are more likely to be working part-time. Increasingly, women are accepting part time jobs when they would prefer to work full time. Between December 1996 and 1998 the number of women working part time who wanted more hours rose from 155,000 to 165,000 while the corresponding number for men fell.Lack of affordable child care is a major barrier to women participating fully in the work force. This budget does nothing to make child care more affordable with any fee relief being delayed until July 2000. Child-care responsibilities are a significant factor in discouraging young women's participation in the labour market: 15 per cent of women aged 20 to 24, compared with three per cent of men in the same age group, have withdrawn completely from the labour market. Eighty per cent of those women have dependent children and one-third are single parents.This detachment from the labour force places young mothers, especially sole parents, at greater risk of not re-entering the work force. It exposes them and their children to a continuing cycle of poverty. That is not to say that the stereotype of single mums happy to live on welfare is in any way accurate. Research by Fiona McDonald from the Brotherhood of St Lawrence and Belinda Probert from RMIT shows that the experience of motherhood often increases young women's commitment to education and career development. People who have been in the work force for many years and who have education and experience find it difficult to combine work and family responsibilities. It is so much harder for young women who may not have completed their education and certainly do not have the employment experience that employers expect.Too many women are locked out of the work force by high child-care fees. The recent Senate report on child-care funding showed that affordability was the major issue for families using child care. Women find themselves making a choice: they can barely exist on benefits yet employment opportunities, when they do arise—employment opportunities that might offer a way out of the poverty cycle—are not practical due to the high cost of child care. Since 1996 this government has cut $851 million from child-care funding. The Productivity Commission report on government services for 1999 shows that between 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 long day care spending per hour fell in five states by an average of about 10 per cent. During the GST inquiry, the Department of Family and Community Services admitted that the government had done no research whatsoever on the likely effect of the GST on raising children, nor on the administrative work that would be required of child-care centres.Another issue worth further investigation is whether child-care centres will get any of the $500 million that has been allocated to assist small businesses and charities with the start-up costs of GST administration. Presumably, private centres would be eligible, although there is not that much money to go around, but non-profit community based centres are neither charities nor for profit businesses. There will be no relief in this budget for families struggling to afford child care. They will have to wait until July 2000 for any relief. The increase in part-time and casual work which I mentioned earlier—particularly for the most marginalised and vulnerable workers—means that even if child care were affordable it would be difficult to access. Shorter, less regular shifts have become the norm in many industries, making child-care arrangements difficult, if not impossible.The government is failing to close the gap between what men and women earn, and a quick glance at education in this budget will reveal at least part of the reason for this. Although women's participation rate in higher education has improved over the last decade, largely as a result of the efforts of the Labor government to improve women's representation in tertiary education, women still make up only about 40 per cent of enrolments in non-traditional areas such as agriculture, architecture and science. In engineering, 6,186 female students were enrolled in 1997, representing only 14.1 per cent of total enrolments. Women were also underrepresented in higher degree enrolments.So women can still be seen—at least in some respects—as an educationally disadvantaged group, and thus are more likely to be among those most affected by the coalition government's cuts and changes to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. Following on from the increased charges of up to 125 per cent and the lowering of the repayment threshold from average weekly earnings to around $21,000—which the Howard government announced in its 1996 budget—applications for university places declined by 3.1 per cent in 1997 and a further 2.7 per cent in 1998. This year they recovered slightly but are still 4.8 per cent below the level of 1996.Educationally disadvantaged groups are those most likely to be deterred from participation in higher education by the prospect of significant increased debt levels and a ridiculously low repayment threshold. Women who seek to enter or return to higher education some years after leaving school—perhaps after establishing a family—have also been hit by the changes. Applications from mature age students have fallen to an even greater extent than have general applications; 3.8 per cent in 1998 compared to 2.7 per cent overall. Appli cations from mature age students fell again this year.This year's budget brought even further bad news for higher education with the axing of the Merit Based Equity Scholarships Scheme: 109 women were enrolled in the scheme in 1998, which provided a valuable HECS exemption to those women. The government has abolished that scheme, claiming that it was not increasing the participation of traditionally under-represented groups, but it has not replaced it with anything, clearly demonstrating a total lack of commitment to equity in line with its total lack of commitment to, and understanding of, the value of education in Australia's social and cultural wellbeing.The move to abolish the higher education merit and equity scholarships for smart disadvantaged students is an indicator of this government's priorities when it comes to education. I do not know how we can expect to build a clever country or a knowledge based society when this government makes it increasingly difficult for kids from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, from non-English speaking backgrounds, from the bush or from disadvantaged backgrounds to get to university. It is worth noting that the $700,000 that the Prime Minister spent on renovations to the Lodge and Kirribilli House could have paid for 200 of these scholarships.How can we address the disparity between men's and women's wages and employment opportunities when we saddle women who want to retrain or achieve further education with the type of HECS debt that causes a real strain on the family budget? Universities are facing their fourth consecutive year of funding cuts, with another one per cent to come off operating grants in the year 2000. In total, the government has cut $2.7 billion from education in 1997, and nothing in this budget does anything to redress those cuts—cuts which included $840 million from university operating grants, $170 million from TAFE and $130 million from government schools, as well as $1,130 million in increased HECS charges and $460 million in reductions in student assistance.The government's education priorities are further demonstrated by the disparity in funding allocated to public and private schools. There is an extra $210 per year for each private school student, as compared with $10 per year for the 70 per cent of children in public schools. There is nothing wrong with increasing money to Catholic schools—indeed, according to a Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs review, Catholic schools are entitled to category 11 funding, which will be backdated to January 1998. The real issue is parity for government schools. There is a real need for an increase in funding for government schools, a need that has been totally ignored by this government.The tax changes that the government keeps referring to as tax `reform' do little for ordinary families. The Senate inquiry into the GST found that the impact of the tax package will fall more heavily on women because, in general, women in Australia earn less than men do and so they will not benefit from the tax cuts to the same extent. The tax cuts overwhelmingly go to high income males, and the costs of the GST will be borne disproportionately by women, who are generally low income earners.Women are poorer than men and will therefore be harder hit by the GST. The average income of women is just $21,000, and women are more likely to bear the responsibility for purchasing goods and services for the household and will therefore bear more of the costs of the GST. Job losses are also concentrated in industries where many women work, including personal services, communications, public services, retail, entertainment, cafes and hospitality.The Women's Economic Thinktank commented that, as women are the low income earners and the managers of household finances, the gender issue is that many more women than men will be unfairly taxed. Professor Patricia Apps from the University of Sydney commented that the tax package means higher taxes for the second earner, typically the female partner on lower pay.The difficulties of the Democrats' GST will also tell on ordinary families if these measures are actually passed. In a family where two people are going out to work it is very common for people to buy a simple take-away meal or something that has been pre-prepared from the supermarket. It is just a reality of life that most working families rely on these sorts of services, and those are exactly the sorts of foods that will be taxed under the Democrats' GST. The other disparity is, of course, that working families are more likely to buy the sorts of processed foods that are to be taxed. Take for example the difference between cordial and fresh juice. I do not know many families with three and four kids that buy freshly-squeezed juice at $3 something per litre as compared with a bottle of cordial that lasts for two weeks.In the short time remaining I want to make some brief comments about the Office for the Status of Women, which for more than 20 years has advised the federal government about issues of concern to women. Until the election of the Howard government in 1996, OSW was a world leader in setting agendas of reform. That office has now virtually disappeared. Its staff numbers have been reduced from 50 to 34, and many of its grants have been handed to other departments.Indeed, tracing the domestic violence grants has been a matter that I have been particularly interested in, and it is interesting to note that the largest single expenditure item in the domestic violence grants has been the Men's Relationship Support Initiative, with some $6 million allocated to July 2001, with $1,024,715 of that having been spent to date. It is interesting once again that, with that being the single largest expenditure item, this measure that is supposed to benefit women is being targeted at men. (Time expired)19:13:005864Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Gilmore is a part of the Illawarra. How I wish it wasn't. It is ludicrous to be a part of the Illawarra. As in astronomical terms, Wollongong displays the magnetism of a black hole, sucking all of the resources from all of the regions surrounding it. Those in government departments use the Shoalhaven's socioeconomic status, demographics and welfare agency statistics to gain financial and other support for the Illawarra, but it all goes to Wollongong. We in the Southern Highlands, Shoalhaven and Kiama districts have our needs too. When we endeavour to attract funding and resources, we are told that we have been provided for in Illawarra's allotment—but we never see it.I welcome this government's budget for 1999-2000. In particular, I welcome the benefits it contains for my electorate of Gilmore. The best news, of course, was the commitment of $34 million for main road 92—or the Shoalhaven Highway, as we know it. This House is no doubt tired of hearing about main road 92 and the potential growth in jobs, industry and investment its construction will provide on the South Coast. I have been talking about it ever since I stated my wish list in my maiden speech. But not only was it in my maiden speech; it was also in the maiden speech of John Sharp, the former member for Gilmore and former transport minister and, to his credit, in that of the former Labor member, Peter Knott, when he was the member for Gilmore. They all knew of the benefits main road 92 would bring to the Gilmore electorate.But does our newly elected member for South Coast, Wayne Smith, realise this? Not so. He and the state Labor Party have reneged on their prior commitment of funding for this road of national importance. Our state Labor member and the Carr Labor government do not see that the safety of residents and road users in Moss Vale, in the highlands and in Kangaroo Valley would markedly improve as trucks and other heavy plant are removed from the current roads that are inadequate for their size and needs.In particular, in the historic township of Kangaroo Valley, where the town's traffic almost trebles each weekend, the battle is done when following behind large trucks. In fact, it can be a turn-off to visiting Kangaroo Valley—something the people there can ill afford. Obviously, with almost an hour off the travelling time between the Hume Highway or Canberra and the coast, trade and, consequently, road freight would increase. The Labor government and its member for the South Coast cannot see that, along with the increased interchange between the tablelands and the coast, business infrastructure would become more viable and so be more devel oped. And that future potential would become well identified in the area and employment prospects would increase as business took up the challenges and new opportunities.As I said before, main road 92 was a state road, a very important road but nonetheless a dirt track, traversing the escarpment from Nowra through Braidwood to Cooma. The local community has been pushing for the upgrade of main road 92 for more than 20 years—and for more than two decades they have been ignored. Main road 92, a state government responsibility, is still a dirt track. However, following a great deal of negotiation and $12 million from the local council, main road 92 was declared by the Prime Minister in March 1998 to be a road of national importance.After allocating its $100,000 share of a joint three tier of government study of the route prior to the state election, the Carr government has now decided that main road 92 is not worth building—and that the people of the South Coast are not worth supporting. Yet they were quite happy to spend $100,000 of taxpayers' money on a road which they believe is not important. And their thoughts on this road are shared by their federal counterparts. Let us not forget that it was the former opposition transport minister who last year criticised the federal government for supporting main road 92.Unfortunately, the state government have done a backflip on their commitment to the road. They have been involved in political and emotional blackmail. Now the state government are saying `We will do the Princes Highway first.' I do not disagree that they should upgrade the Princes Highway; they should. It is, after all, their responsibility, and badly needed. And I will support them all the way in making the existing priorities of the state government far more realistic for the next 10 to 15 years. But the Princes Highway has always been a state road, and providing for such badly needed upgrading should not stop a road of future importance.So why the backflip? Why not support a project which would inject much needed resources and optimism into one of the state's most depressed regions? Are the Labor government that blind? Of course not. They know what they are doing. They know full well that, if they can hold up main road 92 for a couple of years, they can have a go at Joanna Gash in the next federal election. But I do not think the voters in Gilmore can be so easily tricked. They know that the newly elected member for South Coast is not supportive of main road 92. In fact, in his maiden speech, he made no mention of the number one priority for the residents of Gilmore.Again, I congratulate the government for allocating the funding to this budget and showing continued support for the people of my electorate of Gilmore. Even Duke Energy recognises the importance and suitability of the route selected for main road 92. They are using it for the gas pipeline. Surely it makes sense to do it all at the same time: to lay the gas pipeline, lay the cables bringing leading edge communications technology, and lay the road once—not dig it up each time for each job.The people of Gilmore have celebrated this announcement, as main road 92—or the Shoalhaven Highway as we like to call it—is now ready to go. And I thank previous ministers—John Sharp, Mark Vaile and now John Anderson—for their understanding of the importance of this road to the future economic growth of Gilmore.Two more budget initiatives have been welcomed by my constituents. The Defence Force is the biggest single employer in Gilmore, providing jobs for more than 1,800 personnel and civilians directly and thousands more indirectly. Defence investment in Gilmore is also vital to our community. By allocating $50 million for upgrades at HMAS Albatross in this year's budget, this federal government has demonstrated its commitment to defence and to the Gilmore community. The families of Defence Force personnel keenly appreciate that tangible commitment in the form of defence housing. This comes on top of the $26 million allocated in last year's budget and is part of projects now worth more than $118 million.This federal budget also brought good news for HMAS Creswell and Jervis Bay. Whilst it is not part of Gilmore, my electorate straddles this defence facility and its surrounding area, which is the work environment for hundreds of my local constituents. A sum of $3.5 million has been allocated for the redevelopment of waterfront areas at HMAS Creswell as well as $1.041 million for the construction of the Royal Australian Navy's Ship Safety and Survival School at HMAS Creswell. Another $1.1 million has been allocated for the remediation of Mary Creek at Jervis Bay.At a time when the attention of the world is focusing on conflict both near and far from our shores, our defence capabilities are becoming even more important. We need to be prepared for war but be able to adapt for peace. Funding and resources must be targeted to front-line soldiers, sailors and aircrew. Australians expect this from responsible governments, and the Minister for Defence is to be complimented on his professional approach to his portfolio. The 1999-2000 federal budget commitment to defence in Gilmore benefits not only our conflict preparation but also the local community. It has been welcomed by the residents of Gilmore.Other specific local measures in the 1999-2000 federal budget provide further initiatives that will benefit our residents, particularly local families. The $561 million over four years for other non-government schools, based on the needs of parents, is good news for me, as we have a number of non-government schools that will benefit from this measure. I know of many parents working two jobs in order to provide choices for their families. However, I hasten to add that the extra funding for our first-class state schools has also been welcomed. It is not professional staffing that is lacking in any school; it is the standard of our buildings that is lacking, and there is inadequate space.Lifetime Health Cover—allowing private health insurance funds to charge lower premiums for longer, continuous membership, with protection for those over 65—to take effect from 1 July 1999, is welcome news to us. With its high percentage of retired residents, many of whom are older residents and many of whom have sacrificed much to retain our country's freedom and way of life, Gilmore will appreciate these measures.As chairman of the defence and veterans' affairs policy committee, I know how important it is to veterans that all Australians suitably recognise and commemorate their efforts in times of conflict. Not only did our veterans sacrifice much in war but they and their families are still paying the price in terms of health, wealth, relationships and lost opportunities.There is increased funding for the subsidised hearing program for pensioners, part-pensioners, veterans, children and those under 21 years. If you cannot listen to the radio or hear the TV or use the telephone, you are much more isolated. This increase in funding for hearing programs will help to keep our people playing active roles in our society. Many of my constituents will benefit from the free voluntary annual health check-ups for all Australians over 75, a measure which helps them focus on being proactive about their health. From 1 January this year, the number of Gilmore residents eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card has increased by more than 150 per cent. That is an extra 1,000 people who are now eligible for assistance to pay for their medicines. That is 1,000 more people who are paying only $3.20 for prescriptions rather than $20 for each one.I also welcome the extra $19.8 million over four years to fight drugs in schools, as part of the more than $220 million extra for the Tough On Drugs strategy to support communities in the fight against drug abuse. Gilmore, a place of fun and recreation, also has a significant drug problem that we do not want to see continue. The government initiative to increase funding for education, including zero tolerance for drug pushers, is very good news.An extra 600,800 Green Corps places is great news. We now have four projects in Gilmore which translates into 40 more young people who are gaining valuable skills, self-esteem and status in our community through their own efforts. Our residents will also warmly receive Work for the Dole being made compulsory for 25- to 34-year-olds who have been in receipt of unemployment benefits for 12 months or more. At last those people who have been desperately seeking ways to join the work force through the Work for the Dole projects will be allowed in. Such is the success of the Work for the Dole program, based on our SEAL—Shoalhaven Earning a Living—program, that we actually have people queued up to join. Forty-two per cent of those participants go on to get a job, well above the national average of 32 per cent, which is well above Labor's capital intensive so-called labour market programs.This budget also extends measures to combat social security fraud which have reflected enormous savings to date so that we might better direct resources to those who really need them. As Australians, we choose to look after our neighbours and provide assistance when they can no longer look after themselves. That is what these measures are for: to ensure that people really are trying to help themselves. No longer will we tolerate those who are, by deceit, taking from those who are in need. The extension of respite support for carers of young people with disabilities and for carers of people with dementia and other cognitive or behavioural disabilities is very welcome. In Gilmore, as in most other places, carers do the bulk of looking after people with special needs. Extra respite care can go some way towards meeting everybody's needs so they can function better in the long term. I applaud the government for recognising such need through the extra funding from this budget.The budget contains an extra $1 billion over four years to help homeless people and those at risk of homelessness. I sometimes pause and wonder why an electorate with so many empty houses would have so many homeless people and so few houses for rent. Of course Gilmore is a holiday destination and most of the so-called empty houses are holiday houses, which do regularly have people in them for short periods of time. We need facilities for crisis, medium- and long-term accommodation for a range of people who become homeless for many different reasons. And we need it in Gilmore; we do not need it in the Illawarra. By that I mean the Southern Highlands, Kiama and the Shoalhaven. Just today I received advice that we are a community in high need of service after 13 years of govern ment by Labor. I will do all I can to see that these services and funds are given to Gilmore.Whilst there is no reason to crow about being recognised, the fact remains that, in order to help ourselves, we need the full support of this government and the state government, including the member for the South Coast. We need a reversal of decisions by the state government such as its demonstrated lack of support. We want to provide quality support for people who want to take control of their lives for the better in the long term. We want to instil the family values of love, honour and respect without trapping people in dysfunctional family situations. The Australian Labor Party have shown their complete lack of vision for our area. They have none. During the three years the federal coalition has been in government—just one term and some months—as the federal member for Gilmore I have attracted $148.8 million for infrastructure and projects, $126 million for investment and jobs, $538,000 for aged care, $33,000 for the veterans, $8.53 million for youth and education, $2.64 million for community, families and security and $1.9 million for the environment.The people of Gilmore are looking for vision and government dollars and to see priorities made being kept. This government is helping to provide that vision through the funding of projects such as main road 92, the university for Nowra due to open in 2000, the ethanol trial plant, the new navy helicopter contract, the Nowra Christian School, the Shoalhaven Anglican School, St Johns High School, Nowra TAFE, Ulladulla TAFE and Moss Vale TAFE, and Landcare-Dunecare projects at Nowra, Berry, Kangaroo Valley, Jervis Bay, Cudmirrah, Lake Conjola, Narrawallee, Kiama, Swan Haven, Shoalhaven Heads, Minnamurra, Vincentia, Termeil, Tabourie Lake and Burrill Lake. But there is much more to be done.This speech should serve as both a thank you and a warning to the government—a thank you on behalf of the local residents for your commitment to our needs and a warning to be prepared for me to be on your doorstep seeking more support for local projects. These projects will include: the upgrade of the Princes Highway, particularly around Kiama, the Southern Highlands university, the Ulladulla boat harbour, the Jervis Bay marina, the Ulladulla fishing museum, a bushfire centre of excellence, the Solar Sailor research and development for further solar powered craft, the academy of music, the arts centre in the Shoalhaven, more focus on oceanography and aquaculture, more defence facilities and employment opportunities at Albatross and Creswell and also further upgrading of the facilities for tourism. All these things are part of the Gilmore vision: that is, creating more investment and employment opportunities through the development of infrastructure and through the provision of more support for families and the local environment. That vision goes into the next century—just as this government has brought down a budget, a budget surplus and a tax reform package for the new millennium.In closing, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the important work being done by many of its staff. With more than 3,000 people working here during sitting weeks, the frenetic pace of budget week has brought home just how important each and every cog in the workings of this House is—everyone from cleaning staff to ground keepers, catering, administration and security. They do a fantastic job in keeping this House in order.In particular, I would like to pay tribute to the staff of the Information and Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. They do a tremendous job and provide an invaluable service providing members, senators and their staff with information, quickly, comprehensively and always willingly. Not only do they help boost the productivity of an electorate office, but through their work they have also improved the quality of service that my office provides to the constituents of Gilmore. Thank you to Dr June Verrier and her team for their assistance and the support they provide for all members of this House.In conclusion, Mr Speaker, may I say that this budget is responsible and pragmatic and provides a solid basis from which all Australians, particularly the residents of Gilmore, can work to help themselves and their community. It is a far cry from what those opposite are saying. I seem to recall those opposite criticising the very budget which provided these measures for Gilmore. They criticised our hospital rebate scheme, our Work for the Dole programs, our tax reform package and the GST, and the funding for non-government schools. In fact, they are very good at criticising, but what have they offered in return? I will tell you what they have offered—fear campaigns, put-down and derision. Those opposite who aspire to government do not even bother offering serious policy options. The only one among them who did now occupies a place on the back bench.Scaremongering is what the Labor Party is good at, but that is not the sort of skill that a responsible government uses to run a country. That is why the people of Gilmore know that they cannot trust the scaremongering of the opposition and certainly not the state government on its commitments prior to the last state election on Main Road 92.Debate interrupted.Adjournment586910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.31 p.m., I thank the member for Gilmore for her accommodation and reference to parliamentary staff. I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.586919:31:005869Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—At a time when this government is preoccupied with tax reform, at a time when it argues that tax reform is in the interests of the nation, I have been overwhelmed by the inequity that exists in the tax system and overwhelmed by the Treasurer's failure to even answer a letter than I have sent to him in relation to one particular constituent within Shortland who has been treated very poorly by the tax system. This government believes that the only tax reform Australia needs is a GST, a regressive 1950s style tax that will tax every Australian every day from birth to death.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—That's not true at all.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—I suggest the members on the other side of the House actually listen to the case I am about to share with them tonight, because it could also affect constituents within their own electorate. I argue that tax reform is more than a GST. Nothing could demonstrate more graphically to me the inequity that exists in our tax system than the plight of young Jed Kaiser. Jed Kaiser is a three-year-old who lives in my electorate of Shortland. Jed's father was tragically killed on 14 November 1996 in the Gretley coal mine disaster. It was a tragedy that left a young boy without a father, a young woman without a husband and a family that has to now scrape and struggle to survive.Jed was awarded $75,000 lump sum compensation by the New South Wales WorkCover Authority. You might think that that is a lot of money, but $75,000 does nothing to replace the loss of a father for a young three-year-old or, as he was then, just a baby. This money has been invested with the Public Trustee and cannot be touched until Jed turns 18 years of age, except for educational needs. He also receives $150 a fortnight from coal mine insurance, a paltry amount when you think what he has lost and what his future is now, in comparison to what it was when his father was alive. Last year, his mother, Lisa, had a taxable income of $9,058. This is the money that this family has to survive on after losing their main breadwinner.Jed was overwhelmed in January when he received a tax bill for $1,600. Jed and his mother do not have money to pay this tax bill. They are very poor. They struggle for every little bit of luxury, every bit of food that they put on the table. But the tax office has now threatened to access that $1,600 by going in and taking the money from the Public Trustee funds. Jed cannot access that money, except for educational expenses, but the Australian Taxation Office can take the money that has been put in trust for Jed to replace the loss of his father and to at least give him some hope for the future.This is disgusting, particularly when at the same time that Jed was served with this $1,600 tax bill, Kerry Packer's personal income tax bill was assessed as being $30. On one hand we have a young boy who has lost his father; on the other hand we have the richest man in Australia paying $30 tax. It is just not on. It is very inequitable. Young Jed's situation is grossly unfair, but the Treasurer cannot even answer my letter.The University of Newcastle has taken up and has been supporting Jed in his battle for fairness. He is not a wealthy three-year-old whose father has set up a trust to avoid tax; he is a young boy who has suffered the greatest loss any young person could suffer. Jed does not have a father and that is why he was awarded the $75,000. Fairness in our tax system is not a GST. Fairness is making sure that three-year-olds who have lost their father do not have to pay tax on money they cannot even use.587019:36:005870Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I would like to take the opportunity tonight to update the parliament and the Australian community on the efforts that are being made in my electorate in Mangrove Mountain to eradicate the outbreak of Newcastle disease which occurred there on 1 April, when it was first identified. This outbreak of Newcastle disease is an endemic strain which has unfortunately mutated from a non-virulent form to a virulent form. The only way to eradicate it, on advice, was to destroy all the livestock and birds in the area. It involved the destruction of 1,928,020 chickens on the mountain, fully de-stocking 32 farms. It also involved the destruction of backyard flocks of chickens and other pets. This was very traumatic to the community of Mangrove Mountain. It was not just backyard chooks, it was things like peacocks, ostriches, canaries and budgerigars, pets that have been in the family for many years, children's pets. It is, Mr Speaker, a tragedy, a natural disaster of immense proportions.The community of Mangrove Mountain have rallied to the cause. They understand it is in the national interest to ensure that this disease is controlled within the control area of Mangrove Mountain. I am pleased to report to the parliament that the federal government, following my representations, provided some ex gratia payments and set up a system where those farmers who are without income can receive support benefits for the next three months. It must be remembered that all of the stock in their chicken sheds was destroyed. It means they will have no income and no production for an unknown time—it will be at least three months and possibly six months. As I said to the Prime Minister when I was seeking support, if it had been a flood or a fire that devastated this community all of Australia would have been rushing to help the Mangrove Mountain community, but because it was a disease outbreak—something we had not experienced to this extent anywhere Australia—the impact was not readily seen by the rest of Australia. The impact is just as serious if not more serious than a flood or a fire because the impact will go on for so long. I am very pleased the federal government was able to provide that support.In addition, there has been a tremendous effort on the part of many volunteers in the Mangrove Mountain area to assist with monitoring and to assist the support staff—they include people from the Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Service, St John Ambulance, the Central Coast Coastal Patrol, Gosford City Council, the CWA, the RSPCA and WIRES. Even the Queensland Fire and Rescue Association travelled down from Queensland to assist the volunteers—remember that at that time many of our emergency service volunteers were involved in the clean up of the hail damage in Sydney so it was difficult to provide enough volunteers. Staff from the New South Wales agriculture department had control of the clean up efforts. I hesitate to mention groups because I know I will have forgotten some other groups and people who have assisted over the last couple of months in the efforts to clean up this disease.Comments have been made by people that there are still many questions to be answered, and that is true. The community of Mangrove Mountain deserves answers as to where this disease came from, how it mutated, what precautions can be taken for the future and whether the federal government or the New South Wales government could have done anything better in our assistance to the farmers to eradicate this virus in the Mangrove Mountain area. I encourage the federal government and the state government to have an inquiry at the completion of this eradication process to ensure that the efforts we have made are the best available. If things can be done better—should this ever occur again—we need to ensure that that will be done. Also, the residents of Mangrove Mountain deserve to have a full inquiry to answer their concerns.(Time expired)587119:41:005871Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—Tonight I want to focus on the importance of multiculturalism to my electorate of Chisholm and the Australian community generally. As all members would be aware, Australia's migration program began in earnest with the dismantling of the White Australia Policy after World War II and its replacement with a non-discriminatory program of migrant intake. In fact, some 5.7 million migrants have settled in Australia since 1945. Today, nearly one in four of Australia's 18.6 million people were born overseas. The benefits of this largely bipartisan program have been well documented. Unfortunately, in the past few years the program has had its detractors as well, but I do not wish to dwell on that tonight. I encourage this parliament to continue robust support of migration but would also like to explain some of the problems within the system that need to be rectified.In my seat of Chisholm over 30 per cent of residents were born overseas. One of the great joys of my job is visiting the various ethnic communities in Chisholm—be it the Chinese and Vietnamese restaurateurs in Box Hill, the dynamic and well organised Italian and Greek senior citizens clubs in Clayton and Oakleigh or the emerging population of Sri Lankans in Mount Waverley. It is an area thriving from the benefits of mass migration. When asked to list the benefits of multiculturalism it is easy to reel them off—new customs, new religions, new music, dance and food and the obvious economic advantages of increased commerce and trade opportunities. I believe the new customs that have come with the post war migration program have greatly enhanced our civic life and are wonderful additions to the local culture of Chisholm.One of the most underrated benefits of multiculturalism is the different perspective that migrants bring. It is my belief that the best education we can give to our children is to encourage them to learn from each other. Migrants bring with them a wealth of traditions, skills and experiences. Listening to stories from migrants reminds all Australians of how truly lucky we are and safeguards us from becoming too inward looking due to our physical isolation. However, if we are to support a strong migration policy, there are a number of things we need to do as a nation. Firstly, we must continue to administer a humanitarian program that allows for family reunions and, secondly, we need to provide the infrastructure to enable migrants to acclimatise to the new culture. Sadly, I would have to say that the government is failing on both counts and there is proof of that in my own electorate.The government has gutted the family migration stream, and in particular the parents migration stream by slashing it to a mere 500 places and effectively ensuring that thousands of people will never be reunited with their parents. Many local migrants have come to my office in the past few months seeking residency for their parents only to be told that they must join a waiting list—now at over 20,000—that is never likely to be cleared. This leaves many migrants with the unpalatable choice of finding the money to emigrate, fly home for a visit or never see their parents again. In relation to my second point, newly arrived migrants need considerable support to adapt to their new home and they encounter adjustment problems such as language difficulties, dealing with bureaucracy and gaining employment. In addition to this they obviously need ongoing support in light of the fact that many migrants come here jaded from unpleasant experiences at home and without their network of friends and family.There is a range of organisations in my community that provide this sort of infrastructure: the Communities Council on Ethnic Issues (Eastern Region), the Oakleigh Migrant Resource Centre and the Chinese Community Council of Social Services. Sadly, there are never enough funds to ensure they deliver their services properly. Chisholm has an ever-growing number of migrants settling in the area, particularly in the Box Hill end. As you can imagine, it was a huge surprise to me when the Migrant Information Centre, initially earmarked for Box Hill, was opened in Mitcham. This is despite the fact the City of Whitehorse, which encapsulates Box Hill, has the third-highest number of residents of a non-English speaking background out of the eight eastern municipalities. The City of Maroondah, in which Mitcham is located, only ranks seventh.In addition, Box Hill is the transport hub of the east, serviced by bus, train and tram. It is home to numerous services—such as Centrelink, the tax office, Human Services and AMES—and is a thriving shopping centre. This makes Box Hill an ideal location for the service. This extremely puzzling decision has been shrouded in controversy; the disproportionately high salary of the centre's CEO and the contentious appointment of the member for Deakin to the board of directors are both examples of this. To add further insult to injury, Box Hill's immigration office will now be closed on 25 June. Whilst the reason given for the closure was the need to rationalise services, it appears no consideration was given to the inconvenience to clients of moving the facility, not to mention the lack of logic in moving it away from amongst its clientele.In conclusion, I believe it is crucial that Australia continues to pursue a non-discriminatory immigration program in a broader framework of a targeted population policy. However, ethnic diversity comes with a price tag. To continue to be a choice destination for migrants looking to resettle, we must provide sufficient services that offer face-to-face contact for people not fluent in English. Support services like those needed for the booming migrant population in my electorate must be located in sensible locations. (Time expired)587219:46:005872Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Tonight I want to argue the cause against the implementation of legalised heroin shooting galleries, in New South Wales or anywhere else. I am indebted to Ross Goodridge, barrister-at-law, for drawing to my attention some of the implications that legalised heroin shooting galleries would create in any community. Some of the questions that Ross Goodridge asks are as follows: where would the shooting galleries be? Would they have to have police approval for the siting or zoning? Would there be objections taken from local residents and would there be a change in the zoning that would allow galleries to be established? If the answer is no for the establishment of a gallery and that there should be discouragement of police supervising the selling of drugs in the vicinity, does that mean the lack of police supervision will encourage further crime in that area? If doctors are to supervise the purchase and distribution of drugs in close proximity to a gallery, will that mean that the police turn a blind eye to the distributors and pushers of drugs?The police have to have a role in this process, and whether or not they are encouraged to do their duty as far as pushers or sellers are concerned has to be a matter ascertained by the community. Statistics from around the world show that there is a strong correlation between a person being affected by drugs and the occurrence of crime. Does that mean that galleries will encourage prostitution and other related crimes in an area? Is that what a particular community would want? Would the sale of drugs be tolerated in the shooting gallery premises? First of all, the sale of drugs can be anything from sales of large quantities of drugs to a $20 hit and addicts sharing drugs with each other. If no drug selling will be tolerated, how can that be policed? Are addicts expected to drive across the city to Cabramatta, say, and then come back to the centre of Sydney? Will that not occur? How artificial would it be to say to an addict that he must buy his heroin outside the door of a gallery and bring it into the gallery to use it?Does the government really want to provide premises for the sale of illegal drugs anyway? I notice the government of New South Wales says that it will let other people, not government agencies, conduct the galleries. I have mentioned the consent of neighbours in this process. Would every doctor be entitled to prescribe heroin for an addict? If every doctor were entitled to prescribe heroin, would each doctor be under an obligation to prescribe heroin to any person in need? Could a doctor make a judgment as to whether a person were in need or could a doctor refuse to prescribe heroin for an addict? What about under-age users? Would a doctor be able to say that he could prescribe for an addict at the age of 18 but that an addict under the age of 18 would be denied the drug? How much heroin would each doctor be allowed to prescribe per patient—two hits per day, five hits per day or as many as the patient wanted? Would the sharing of Medicare cards, not for the purposes of a prescribed drug but for the purposes of identification, be allowed?Who would be entitled to have heroin prescribed? Does that mean that every addict has to be identified and for ever after remain classified as an addict? I think this is a hopeless process of assigning people to a permanent life of addiction, and it is just impractical and unworkable. What this nation needs is a program of compassion and care for addicts, the goal of which is to get them out of where they are into something better. To me, it will not work to assign as their only prospect a heroin shooting gallery. I feel Tony Trimingham's pain for the loss of his son but I think he is wrong. I think he is wrong to espouse illegal shooting galleries. I believe that he should resign from the Prime Minister's committee because he cannot share the role of being a person espousing an illegal process, something that really is a terrible blot on the name of Ted Noffs, who would do anything to stop addicts continuing their dreadful habit. What we have seen in Sydney, I believe, should not be promoted by the New South Wales government or anybody associated with the federal government. (Time expired)587319:51:005873Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I stand on an issue of fairness and equity to all Tasmanians and the wider Australian community. It centres on the Bass Strait, the notorious stretch of water separat ing Tasmania from mainland Australia—notorious among seafarers for its wild and unforgiving reputation, but equally well known, I am sorry to say, as one of the most costly links in Australia's transport chain. Bass Strait is a major impediment to economic self-sufficiency for Tasmania and King Island. It is a barrier to investment, jobs growth and population of our beautiful island state. That is why the campaign continues to have Bass Strait recognised as part of the national highway network, for it to become, if you like, Australia's national `sea highway'.Successive governments have gone part of the way in trying to establish transport equality for Tasmania, but the cost of the movement of freight and passengers across Bass Strait is an issue that will not go away. Accordingly, the government has rightly maintained the long-standing commitment by the Commonwealth to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme in its recent budget. I also recognise positively the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme introduced in 1996. This scheme is now the springboard for the National Sea Highway Committee, a Tasmanian based group formed to lobby for transport equity and cheaper fares, to continue their campaign. It is a scheme that gives us a glimpse of the massive benefits that could be achieved by more affordable travel across Bass Strait, which I want to talk about a little later.But first I have to question the sincerity of this government in regard to what is a vitally important issue to Tasmanians. Firstly, the government appears to have done an about-face on the question of the recognition of Bass Strait as part of the national highway. Back in 1996, coincidentally during an election campaign, the then shadow transport minister, John Sharp, heralded the introduction of the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme in recognition of the strait as part of the national highway. The Prime Minister himself also acknowledged the great disadvantages facing Tasmania because of Bass Strait. He knew that is what Tasmanians desperately wanted to hear. Yet the former shadow minister's statement now appears to have been a cruel hoax, if we are to believe his successor.The current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, now says the statement was `incorrect' and that the former minister had made a mistake. Does the Prime Minister agree? The current minister says the Commonwealth is unable to fund travel on Bass Strait as part of the national highway because it would not be allowed under the Australian Land Transport Development Act of 1998. That, I suggest, may be a matter of interpretation and further consideration.All Australian states except Tasmania are connected by an effective national highway system funded by the Commonwealth. Yet, while the cost of freight and more recently passenger vehicles has been equalised, there is still no equalisation of the cost of passenger ferry travel to and from Tasmania. It has been said that the cost of sea travel between Tasmania and Victoria is the equivalent of imposing a toll on state borders. Imagine the outcry if there were a toll on state borders across mainland Australia. I say again, it is an issue of transport equality for all travellers across the Bass Strait.But it now also appears to be an issue the current transport minister is trying to sidestep. He does not want to meet the Tasmanian National Sea Highway Committee because he knows there is a very good case for a fully effective national highway to Tasmania. The group is coming to Canberra later this month and wanted to meet the minister. He said no. He does not see the point at this stage. The point is that the minister should at least seek to be better informed. He should not snub this delegation. The federal opposition wants to be better informed and has agreed to meet the group. At the very least the delegation will get a hearing from senior members of this parliament and they are on this side of the House. We are prepared to listen. If he is not aware, I remind the minister that this will be the largest ever bipartisan delegation coming to Canberra from Tasmania to continue the campaign for national highway status. It transcends political boundaries and involves key representatives from business and tourism sectors. Yet the minister cannot find the time to meet members of the delegation. Instead he has handballed the issue to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government.I again remind the minister that this issue will not go away. It is a proposition worth more investigation. Even with the recently introduced vehicle subsidy, the cost to a family of four for return travel across Bass Strait is in excess of $1,000. Compare the cost for a family of four to travel an equivalent distance on Highway 1. There is no comparison.The cost of air travel is another impediment to Tasmania's tourist industry and the economy in general. Although air services appear relatively secure, the fares remain high for the great percentage of people coming to and from Tasmania. There is an argument for transport equality for Tasmania, an argument that should be heard. (Time expired)587419:56:005874McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—Tonight in the parliament we have students from Anakie, Batesford, Shelford, Inverleigh, Meredith and Lethbridge primary schools. They have come to see the parliament in action and they need to behave in the gallery or otherwise I might be stood down from the parliament. One of the schools comes from the town of Meredith, which is the home of the very senior politician of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte. Sir Henry Bolte was a legendary figure in politics in Victoria, as most members opposite would fully understand. He was elected as the temporary leader of the Liberal Party and went on to be the Premier of that state for 17 years. He was a local identity in the town of Meredith and all our students in the gallery would be fully aware of that. They understand that Sir Henry Bolte's name will live forever in the city of Melbourne in that his name is on the City Link bridge.These young students had a mock parliament in Meredith just last week. The classroom was divided into the government and the opposition. They had some eloquent speeches and, unlike the case often in this House, they had some short speeches. The subject before that important parliament was that these students should wear their school uniforms on their trip to Canberra. That resolution was carried by the vote. The Speaker on that occasion, Mr Speaker, was me and I acted impartially, as the member for Wakefield handles the affairs of this House. I followed your very good lead, Mr Speaker, in this particular parliament in Meredith.The representatives at Meredith understood that they needed to defend the interests of the local community but also be aware of the national interest in terms of the problems facing members in this parliament—taxes, pensions, health and defence. They would be aware when we were discussing these matters in this important parliament that Sir Henry Bolte had brought some of these traditions to the city of Meredith and the surrounding district and that he was a great defender of rural Victoria. These young students can understand that long tradition.The students would be aware that there are changing themes in Meredith and in this part of Corangamite where the wool industry is undergoing considerable changes. The profitability of that industry has declined. However, there is a new industry emerging in plantation of blue gums, Globulas eucalyptus, and these plantations are now developing some other profitable enterprises. Because of the changes in the way these trees are grown—with the use of ripping, moulding and spraying—we can get two crops in 21 years, which are woodchipped to supply the insatiable demand for paper in the Japanese market and throughout the world.We also have here tonight the teachers, who have come here on a number of occasions: Michael Kinnane, Rob Lamond, Neil Lynch, Jackie Kaiser and Debra Stravanuto. I thank them for being with us.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:005875House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices5875The following notices were given:Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to provide for the administration of the social security law, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to give effect to international social security agreements, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to make amendments consequent upon the enactment of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999, and for related purposes.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986, and for related purposes.Mr Ruddock to move—That:(1) The House of Representatives:(a) welcomes the public launch today of a draft document for reconciliation by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and congratulates the Council on its efforts;(b) indicates support for the Australia-wide consultations on the draft document for reconciliation;(c) notes that this consultation process will culminate in an event in May 2000 being organised by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation to launch the Council's final proposals for a national document for reconciliation;(d) commends the consultation process and calls on its Members to take active steps to encourage all Australians to participate in the consultations, including local governments, State and Territory governments, schools, businesses, and community organisations and groups; and(e) agrees that a successful May 2000 reconciliation event, which attracts broad community participation and support, will make a significant contribution to advancing national reconciliation; and(2) A message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.1999-06-02Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members5876587609:40:005876O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—Last Sunday in Launceston, we celebrated National Organ Donation Awareness Day with a thanksgiving and remembrance service conducted by the Australian Kidney Foundation. They are a not-for-profit organisation who have been in existence since 1968. The service allowed us to pause and reflect on the advances which have transformed so many lives in the second half of the 20th century.The development of dialysis and transplant technology has given a second chance at life to people with kidney failure. Just a few decades ago, those lives would have been cut tragically short. Now there is the capacity to extend their life expectancy, which can even outstrip many of their contemporaries. One Tasmanian woman who was just 21 when she suffered terminal kidney failure celebrated this week the 31st anniversary of the transplant operation which has extended her life into her fifties. While that may have been something of an exception at the time, successful transplants have now become commonplace. But all of them, of course, require uncommon generosity in the form of organ donation.The service provided an opportunity for us to acknowledge the gift of life, to remember those who gave and to give thanks for the lives extended. It was also an opportunity to reflect on the extent of the needs and how we in the wider population can help to address them. Every year, 500,000 Australians consult their doctor with some form of renal infection or associated problem. In total, kidney and urinary tract problems are the cause of 8.4 million visits to the doctor, or 32,000 consultations each weekday. The annual cost to the health system of kidney and urinary tract disease is more than $900 million.While the goal remains to prevent kidney disease and renal failure, for thousands of Australians it is already too late. There are currently about 3,000 people on the national pooled waiting list for a transplant operation. The waiting time is about three years. Governments now, though, are turning their attention to organ donation.The Australian health ministers conference at its next meeting in Canberra on 4 August will consider a South Australian proposal to increase the rate of organ donation. The South Australians have reported extraordinary success from a three-year trial. The organ donation rate has increased in the trial to more than double the national average and almost three times the rate in Tasmania. The South Australians have done it by establishing an independent agency to promote awareness of organ donation in the community, recognise and meet the needs of recipients, fully preserve the dignity of donors, and recognise and meet the needs of donor families.The new approach has shifted the emphasis to supporting families. It ensures a sympathetic and understanding approach to the families of potential donors and offers a full counselling service to provide support and backup. The results are impressive and I support its adoption on a national basis.Researchers around the world are working on many exciting possibilities in transplant technology. Internationally, biotech companies are working on the developing science of clonal culture tissue engineering and the fabrication of human organs. But in the meantime we need to be conscious of the benefits of the current transplant technology. We need to remember the donors and acknowledge the contribution of their families. We need to give thanks for the gift of life to recipients. We need to promote awareness of the need for future donations to enable this wonderful work to continue. The Australian Kidney Foundation operate very much by donations. I pass on my full support to them and wish them well in what is the awareness week for organ donations.587709:43:005877Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I want to place on record the excellent work of the Hawkesbury Skills Work for the Dole program running in my electorate. Hawkesbury Skills have been implementing Work for the Dole since its inception and have an innovative and highly successful program. It provides a valuable combination of work experience, choice, vocational and social development and active pursuit of employment with projects of genuine benefit to the local community. This approach, along with its number of different strands, allows it to cater for the broad diversity of background, skills and interests of its participants and is part of the reason for its success.The current program offers to participants a number of projects. The horticulture, landscaping and environment strand has already completed a number of successful projects and has greatly improved and enhanced the physical amenity and usefulness of several key sites in the local area.The desktop publishing service provides a valuable resource to non-profit community organisations, producing for them quality promotional material, pamphlets and brochures. The added benefit of this has been the strengthening of links with the local community.The next step in this area is the extension to more sophisticated promotional material such as video and/or CD-ROM production under a program they have called Totally Motivated Design. This is an exciting development which is attracting a lot of interest both locally and further afield.Fourthly, their construction and property maintenance strand has provided valuable work experience and skill development for the young people as well as producing much needed maintenance for some local facilities and construction of valuable improvements such as the installation of disability ramps completed as a result of work with the Hawkesbury Access and Equity Forum Committee. Fifthly, their local arts project was an important feature within the rejuvenation of part of Richmond's central business district.Hawkesbury Skills' success has been outstanding. Of the 208 participants in the previous and current Work for the Dole contracts, 54 per cent have gone on to further study or employment. At Hawkesbury Skills, they display a victory board which lists the names and the progress of people who have left Work for the Dole and gone on to further study or to employment. They have completed three full boards with names of successful graduates from their Work for the Dole program and are on their fourth board of people moving on to study, to full-time study or to employment—that is, over 100 people have achieved success out of Work for the Dole.The wide range of occupations, study courses and the start of worthwhile careers shows a fascinating insight into the range of interests and the employment opportunities available and is a tribute to the hard work of the team at Hawkesbury Skills. Full credit goes to Graeme Skimmin, the former manager, Hugh McKinnon, the current manager, and the current team which brings with it ability, commitment and resourcefulness—a team which is making a real difference in the lives of these young people, a team which is helping them to find hope, to find motivation and to find direction and which is helping them to make that very difficult transition from unemployment to work. I am pleased that the Work for the Dole program has been increased in the recent budget and I look forward to further valuable work in the Hawkesbury region as a result of this. (Time expired)587809:46:005878Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I have consistently called on this government over a record four Customs ministers to address the issue of Port Kembla's lack of surveillance and the stress the five Customs officers covering Sutherland to the Victorian border are forced to work under. Australia, because of its lack of coordinated coastal surveillance, has become a popular destination for refugees and a money spinner for unscrupulous smugglers dealing in human cargo.Just yesterday came news that another 13 illegal immigrants had penetrated Australia's coastline in the west. This comes on top of the human cargo vessels that have plied the Australian coastline in the last month. It really has become a case of `another day, another boat'. With this year having hit its mid point, we have already seen a 122 per cent increase in illegal immigrants arriving on our shores. It will come as no surprise that there are more on the way.Despite all this and despite the government having been warned, our coastal surveillance has been diminished rather than enhanced. It is seriously underfunded and seriously underresourced. The answer so far by the government has been the establishment of a prime ministerial task force, due to report findings by the end of this month. The Customs minister has now been saying publicly that the report deadline may have to be extended. What for? The minister already has a series of reports but she is determined not to release them publicly. The reason is that the reports will reveal that the government was warned to expect this plague of human cargo arrivals long ago.While they were being warned, the government continued to penny pinch from our front-line coastal defence agencies. This is what will be revealed by the reports that the government refuses to publicly release. These reports reveal that no surveillance of major ports like Port Kembla has left communities absolutely vulnerable to the smuggling of drugs, people and contraband.The message is out there in Asia, Africa and the Middle East that Australia's coastline is an easy touch. It is a message heard loud and clear by smugglers and the people with limited confidence in the future of their current homelands. Protecting Australia's territorial integrity does not come cheap, but this government does not appear to recognise that effective coastal surveillance cannot be achieved on the cheap either. You will need more than an aeroplane buzzing around the sky to ensure territorial integrity and need more than the five dedicated Customs officers undertaking their duties with one hand tied behind their backs to protect the community.It is time for the government to forget about reports and instead act now to defend the coast against an ever increasing incursion of human cargo headed for Australia. While the government does nothing, it is leaving our coastlines vulnerable. There are boats even today off the top end of Queensland, and what is interesting is that the boats are now coming down the east coast rather than the west coast. They are still coming down the west coast, but they have added the east coast to their itinerary, and the fault lies with the government and its penny-pinching methods. (Time expired)587909:49:005879Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise today in this House to speak out on an issue that I believe we as a society have to urgently address—that is, the criminal activities directed at one of the most vulnerable groups in our community, the aged. The latest figures from the Bureau of Criminology reveal an alarming rise in the incidence of crime against older citizens. It is something that all decent Australians find appalling and outrageous. Occasionally we see a story on the news about one of our senior citizens who fought off an attacker. We condemn the cowardice of the criminal and marvel at the tenacity of the older victim, as well we should. But, sadly, for every one of those high profile incidents there are thousands of victims who simply could not fight off the offender.In this the International Year of Older Persons I believe we need to look at new ways to help solve the growing problem. While police and sentencing are state government matters, I feel compelled to speak out on behalf of the thousands of older people I represent. This generation of seniors have earned our respect and admiration. Many fought in the Second World War. They worked hard to build Australia into the fantastic country it is today. They are very strong, tenacious individuals, but physically—simply by virtue of their age—many are frail or just not as able as they once were. They do not deserve to spend their retirement either fearful or having to lock themselves in their homes with expensive and invasive security measures. They should not have to worry that someone will try to swindle them out of their life savings or snatch their handbag when they go shopping.In my view, one part of the solution is to set in place much tougher sentences for those who commit crimes against people over 60 years of age. It is not the whole solution. I think as a society we have to reinstil values of decency and respect for our elderly. This starts in rebuilding family relationships and ensuring children have a loving family environment in which they can learn such values. However, I think we can start to tackle this problem. I am calling on all state governments to look at doubling the sentences given for a particular crime if it is carried out on someone over the age of 60. If someone was convicted of assault and would have normally received five years and that assault was carried out on someone over 60, then the sentence should be automatically doubled to 10 years.Let us face it, people who prey on this age group are cowards. They figure they are going to get the same sentence if they try to mug a robust 25-year-old who might fight back or an 80-year-old, who physically has less chance of doing so. So they go for the easy option. But they may think twice if they know that they will get a much tougher sentence if caught targeting older people.It is incumbent on all of us as law makers to look at ways of addressing the concerns of this generation. I have written to the Queensland state Attorney-General asking that he look into this option as a way of protecting our elderly. It will send a strong message to criminals that, as a society, we will not continue to tolerate their targeting of this age group. Tougher sentencing and, may I add, truth in sentencing is one way we can tackle the growing incidence of crime against our seniors. I call on the state governments, which are responsible for sentencing, to look into this matter with urgency and to take action to protect our elderly.588009:52:005880Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I raise today the lack of funding for Parents Anonymous, a service in Victoria which, after 25 years of service to the Victorian community, has now lost its funding. That funding was $100,000, which was provided by the state government in Victoria to provide detailed counselling services to parents who were in crisis. As a result of the funding being cut by the Victorian government, there is no phone counselling service available in Victoria for parents in crisis. There is a parent help line which the Victorian government has been telling us is the equivalent. However, that help line provides only referral services. It does not allow a mother or father in crisis to call and talk through with a trained counsellor the issues that they might be dealing with in such a way that they can handle those issues, rather than taking it out on their children if they have got to that point in their crisis.This service closed on 14 May this year, after 25 years of operating at the presbyterian church in Collins Street, Melbourne. Over 70 volunteers worked for this service. That is why a service could be provided from 7 a.m. until midnight on the small amount of $100,000. A large number of those volunteers live and work in my electorate. Certainly, a large number of the callers live in my electorate and have found this service to be of great value over the 25 years.I am very concerned. The reason I raise this matter in this federal parliament is that Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services, said in the recent budget statements that the government have great concern for parenting issues and that a large amount of money should be put into educating parents and providing counselling and mediation. I would urge the minister to intervene in this matter and either encourage the Victorian government to reinstate the funding or provide the funding themselves so that Victorian parents are not disadvantaged compared to parents across the rest of the country.In New South Wales and Queensland, Parent Line is funded to provide counselling services as well as advice and referral. In Victoria, the Kennett government has not seen fit to provide sufficient funding for those counselling services to be available immediately for parents at the time of their crisis. In recent times we have even seen a hotline set up for AFL footballers if they are having trouble dealing with drug and alcohol issues, dealing with family crisis or dealing with difficulties in being away from their family when they travel. AFL footballers can ring if they are experiencing any difficulties or are in crisis, but parents across Victoria do not have a similar service. I think $100,000 is not too much to ask this minister to intervene, and I would encourage her to do so.588009:55:005880Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The arrest and conviction of Australian CARE workers Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace by Yugoslav authorities is appalling and almost beyond our understanding. The most charitable and forgiving interpretation of this miscarriage of justice is that it is a result of a misunderstanding of what these two fine Australians were doing.Peter Wallace's family live in Mackay in my electorate. The Wallace family are distinguished by their long-serving commitment to selfless public service and their community holds them in the very highest esteem. Their courage and fortitude during this terrible ordeal have been remarkable, for we can only imagine the pain they are enduring daily. My local newspaper in Mackay, the Daily Mercury, galvanised the feeling of outrage in the local community and organised a petition calling for the release of Peter Wallace and his colleague. The overwhelming response, 6,500 signatures, was a testimony to fine reputations so deservedly earned by the Wallace family. I circulated that petition to all members and senators and I want to thank those who so willing signed it. The response was tremendous and it gave heart and encouragement to Mr and Mrs Wallace.Recently I presented that petition, with Mr and Mrs Wallace, to His Excellency the Yugoslav Ambassador to Australia. We were given a most courteous and sympathetic reception and I was impressed by the ambassador's obvious personal distress, not just as a representative of his country but as a parent who loves and cares about his own children. The ambassador is a man of culture, a celebrated poet in his country, and is keenly aware of the anguish of the families of our two CARE workers. I know that he would have conveyed that petition to his government in Belgrade with his personal observations.I would now like to mention the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer. He has defended Peter Wallace's and Steve Pratt's innocence without indulging in intemperate remarks. Mr Downer's calm, compassionate and commonsense approach to this distressing matter has been a great comfort to the families, friends and supporters of Peter Wallace and Steve Pratt. I also want to thank the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, for their ongoing efforts to obtain the release of Peter Wallace and Steve Pratt. Mr Fischer and Mr Downer both met Mr and Mrs Wallace while they were here in Canberra and assured them that the government was leaving no stone unturned in the unrelenting campaign to have them freed.The military court that convicted and sentenced Peter Wallace and Steve Pratt has until Friday to prove written reasons for the verdicts. An appeal will be lodged within three days and we must all hope and pray that that appeal meets with success. I notice that Mr Jesse Jackson is intervening and again we hope that he is successful in the moves he is making. I believe that the government has done and is doing all it can. I also want to thank the ongoing efforts of Mr Malcolm Fraser, the special envoy, CARE Australia and so many others, including the President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and the UN Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson. I am sure our thoughts and prayers are with the families today. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills5881r7965881Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Tanner moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House 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".09:59:005882Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I rise to echo the remarks in the House of my friend and colleague the member for Melbourne, the shadow minister for finance. I indicate to the Main Committee, in my capacity as shadow minister for communications, that it is proposed when the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 reaches the Senate, the Labor Party will move for it to be referred to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee to deal with that aspect of the bill that relates to radio spectrum. I simply make the point that there is no insidious motive in suggesting this reference.This bill cuts across radio spectrum and radio licences. It has been something of a practice in the past that where technical matters such as these cut across spectrum issues they do get the scrutiny of a committee. In recent times, we have seen radio telecommunications legislation so referred. It does give the industry the opportunity of commenting on the detail of the government's proposal with which, I must say, at first sight there seems to be no difficulty. I suspect that reference to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee could effectively be done by way of written submission and on the papers. I indicate that to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who is at the table, but I do not expect at the end of the day that will either delay the passage of the legislation or cause the government any great difficulty.10:01:005882Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank all participants in the debate on these measures. In conclusion, I would like to summarise the merits of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 . Firstly, this bill contains provisions for the tax treatment of domestic spectrum licences. I note the comments of the member for Perth, and I thank him for that contribution. I understand the referral in the Senate to a committee. This bill will allow a deduction for expenditure incurred in acquiring a spectrum licence, amortised over the effective life of the licence. In addition, the bill will ensure that Australia is able to assert its taxing rights over income from the use of spectrum where the spectrum licence is owned by a non-resident and includes payments for the use of spectrum licences in the definition of royalty under the income tax law.Secondly, this bill will make a number of technical corrections to the tax law arising from the tax law improvement project. There will also be technical corrections in relation to the introduction of youth allowance and the Austudy payment. Thirdly, this bill will enable the calculation of the provisional tax uplift factor using the new single measure of gross domestic product as part of the change in the presentation of the national accounts published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. At this point, I foreshadow that the government will be moving an amendment in the consideration in detail stage. The amendment has been circulated. I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5883Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:03:005883Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 30 (lines 12 to 15), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the licensee or authorised person is a resident of a country (other than Australia), or a territory (other than an Australian-controlled territory), to whose residents an agreement applies; andI have moved, on behalf of the government, an amendment to part 3 of schedule 1 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 , otherwise known as TLAB6. The amendment I have moved will amend existing paragraph 3(11A)(b) of item 34 to ensure preservation of Australia's taxing right in relation to relevant spectrum income under the `business profits' article of all double tax agreements which are attached to schedules to the International Tax Agreements Act 1953, whether or not the agreements are with countries or territories and whether they have entered into force at the time when spectrum amendments in TLAB6 take effect or do so later.As not all double tax agreements are with countries, the amendment will ensure that the existing amendments extend to residents of territories with which there is a double tax agreement. Otherwise, such persons could gain a tax advantage in auctions for spectrum licences as compared with Australian residents and residents of tax agreement partner countries.The amendment will also ensure that the TLAB6 amendments apply not merely to those agreements in force when the legislation takes effect but also to those coming into force later. There are currently some agreements substantially negotiated but not yet in force, and to leave these agreements unaffected could give residents of those countries an unfair advantage in auctions for spectrum licences. I commend the amendment to the Main Committee. I present the explanatory memorandum.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The bill has been agreed to with an amendment. The question now is that the bill be reported to the House with an amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5883r7515883Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.10:07:005883Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 but will be seeking the support of the Main Committee for a second reading amendment that condemns the government's sloppy taxation administration in failing to act quickly to close a tax avoidance loophole which now requires transitional provisions.The bill has three main purposes. First, it amends the early release of superannuation provisions of the Small Superannuation Accounts Act 1995, which governs funds held in the Superannuation Holding Accounts Reserve to make them consistent with the early release provisions applying to other superannuation funds. Second, it amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to close a loophole which allows certain distributions of trust income to superannuation funds set up for the benefit of trust beneficiaries under non-arms-length arrangements to be taxed at a concessional rate of 15 per cent. Thirdly, it amends the superannuation guarantee regulations to continue, with effect from 1 August 1996, an exemption from the superannuation guarantee charge for employers who hire senior foreign executive employees who meet the criteria for former class 413 overseas executive visa. I will address each of these subjects in order.The first provision of the legislation relates to applying the early release provisions to the SHAR. When Labor introduced the superannuation guarantee reforms, many workers who did not previously receive superannuation contributions became entitled to contributions made on their behalf by their employer. The success of the superannuation guarantee and Labor's other superannuation reforms is widely accepted. Superannuation coverage increased from around 40 per cent of the work force in the early 1980s to the current level of over 90 per cent of all employees. In particular, part-time and casual workers were also able to access the benefits of saving for a retirement income through a tax advantaged superannuation account. This included the wider benefits of death and disability insurance and a host of other services offered by superannuation funds. The coverage of women workers in particular increased dramatically.Because part-time and casual employees became eligible for superannuation contributions, employers were required to contribute small amounts due to the smaller wages of these employees. Unfortunately, not all privately operated superannuation funds would accept small amounts and some employees may not have been able to find an appropriate superannuation fund that would receive small contributions. The Labor government responded to this policy challenge by creating the SHAR in 1995. The SHAR exists as a low cost, safe haven for employees' superannuation contributions which ensures that the contributions will not be eroded as a result of excessive fees and charges. Labor also introduced member protection rules applying to all superannuation funds that prevent the erosion of small balances, thus ensuring that workers' retirement incomes are preserved.SHAR accounts have interest calculated on the daily balance of the account which is then credited to the account on a quarterly basis. The interest is exempt from income tax. Employees are encouraged to build their SHAR balances up and transfer them into a superannuation fund other than SHAR. However, if an account balance exceeds $1,200, interest is only credited on the first $1,200 of the balance, which also acts as an incentive for employees to transfer their funds to another fund which allows the retirement savings to compound.Labor also recognised that some workers may need access to their superannuation savings before retirement in limited circumstances, such as in times of financial hardship as a result of being unemployed or being retrenched. That is why we introduced measures which allowed access to not only account balances in SHAR but also superannuation funds in general. When people are down on their luck, Labor's early access provision allowed limited access to superannuation generally by applying to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. An applicant was required to prove that they were suffering from financial hardship. Having proved that to the ISC, the applicant was then entitled to access some of their superannuation.It was also possible to access superannuation accounts with less than $500 in them if they changed employers and also if a person was permanently leaving the country. In other words, if a person was no longer going to be a burden to the Australian taxpayer, they could access their superannuation contributions. The government changed the early release provisions of superannuation moneys with effect from 1 July 1998. The new provisions are: applicants suffering from severe financial hardship must meet an `objective test' of 26 continuous weeks on a Commonwealth income support payment if under 55, then prove to their superannuation trustees that they are suffering from financial hardship; if leaving an employer, the $500 threshold for receipt of monies was reduced to $200; and, if permanently leaving Australia, access is no longer available to those aged under 55.The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation examined the regulations and recommended a similar although slightly less onerous set of criteria. Labor senators, seeking a practical solution to the government's policy, proposed that the objective test should be reduced to 12 weeks. While not being the ideal situation, at least it was a better deal for people suffering from financial hardship than the government's original position of 39 weeks on a Commonwealth income support payment. The final result was that the original 39 weeks on income support test was reduced to 26 weeks, the $500 threshold was reduced to a $200 threshold, and persons leaving Australia were allowed one year's grace period to sort our their affairs while still being able to access their superannuation. The bill provides the same provisions to the SHAR.While Labor is not opposing these provisions in the bill, I wish to bring some issues to the attention of the government that it should consider closely. People should be encouraged to leave their superannuation funds in their account to compound so it is there at retirement to provide a decent retirement income. However, those in severe financial difficulty should be able to access small amounts of superannuation to get through a difficult period. The government has introduced provisions allowing access to superannuation on compassionate grounds through the APRA. The access conditions are strict and often people in financial difficulty do not meet those strict criteria.For example, those who cannot pay their rent are not able to get access to their superannuation but those who have a housing mortgage may qualify for access if their mortgage is about to be foreclosed. There are cases where people will run up credit card debts to pay their mortgages but cannot access their super to pay off their credit card debt. Instead, this policy encourages them to use available funds to pay off their credit card debt but let the bank move to foreclose so that they can access their superannuation. That policy makes very little sense. Like many of my parliamentary colleagues, I am aware of people who have claimed to be in financial difficulty but who have had to wait the full 26 weeks before being able to apply for access to their superannuation funds. I suggest that the government might like to review the activities of this legislation and report to the parliament on how these provisions are working.The second provision in the legislation relates to the closing of the tax loophole. Schedule 2 of the bill proposes to close a tax avoidance loophole, and this is welcomed by the opposition. Section 273 of the ITAA currently does not prevent the distribution of trust income to a superannuation entity set up for the benefit of the trust beneficiary. The income of a superannuation entity is generally taxed at the rate of 15 per cent if there is no `special income' component, which is usually taxed at the rate of 47 per cent. Special income is income derived from certain non-arms-length transactions that fall within the provisions of section 273, which are designed to prevent tax minimisation.However, if certain non-arms-length income is distributed to a superannuation fund set up for the benefit of a trust beneficiary, it may be possible to have it taxed at the concessional rate of 15 per cent rather than 47 per cent. This bill is designed to close this loophole by ensuring that income derived from certain types of non-arms-length transactions that is distributed to a super fund from a trust will be treated as special income and will be taxed at the rate of 47 per cent. While this measure is welcome, the government is guilty of sloppy administration by having to retrospectively apply this measure. Let me showcase this example of poor tax administration for the benefit of the Main Committee.In November 1997, the Assistant Treasurer issued a press release announcing the closure of the loophole. Although this was a case of government by press release, it was a warning that a loophole would be closed and that was a welcome announcement. However, the original bill giving effect to the announced measures was not introduced until some seven months later, in July 1998. The bill concerned, Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998, lapsed when the election was called by the Prime Minister.If this was not bad enough, the measures in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998 and in the bill currently before us were different from those announced in the press release of November 1997. That means that those people who acted in good faith on the government's press release of November 1997 could, in some circumstances, now be in breach of the bill currently before the Main Committee. Fortunately, the government addressed this issue by including transitional provisions for unit holders who derived income complying with the November press release that would have been in breach of the bill. The point is that these transitional issues should not be necessary. It is a very good example of worst practice tax administration. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for sloppy taxation administration by delaying the closure of a tax avoidance loophole and being forced to introduce retrospective legislation and transitional provisions".Of course we are used to sloppy taxation administration from this government. The Treasurer has been unable or unwilling to answer simple questions relating to the GST on food in the House this week, for example. We should not forget the government's record on the superannuation surcharge, which has caused and continues to cause enormous problems for the administrators and members of superannuation funds. However, one would have thought that, given this measure is supposed to prevent the loss of some $15 million in revenue, the government would have given it a policy priority rather than waiting over a year and a half to implement it.The third provision of the legislation relates to the continuation of the superannuation guarantee exemption for employers of foreign executives. The final schedule of this bill makes amendments to the superannuation guarantee exemption on foreign executives. From August 1996, new visa classes 456 and 457 were introduced which replaced the visa class 413 applying to senior executives visiting Australia. Visa class 413 was recognised in the SG regulations as exempting employers who employ senior executives who make provisions for their retirement in their country of origin. However, the SG regulations do not exempt employers with executives employed under the new visa classes from the SG charge.This measure continues the exemption for employers under the old 413 visa class and extends the exemption for 456 and 457 visa class holders. A question arises as to whether, although they are exempted from having to pay the superannuation guarantee contributions on behalf of their employees, those employees can salary sacrifice into superannuation to gain access to tax concessions, as has happened in the past. However, the provisions restricting access to superannuation moneys after leaving Australia permanently until age 55 are expected to prevent this practice from continuing. That concludes my observations about the legislation.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10:19:005887Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am advised the government will not be accepting the amendment by the honourable member for Melbourne.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—You amaze me!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I thought I might have surprised you. Nevertheless, the amendment he has moved is obviously completely unsuitable to the government's purposes in the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , which is submitted for consideration in the Main Committee today. I want to make a couple of comments about the member for Melbourne's contribution, some general comments about superannuation and a couple of specific comments about the bill in my contribution in this place today.Administration by press release, as I think the member for Melbourne put it, is standard practice. In relation to taxation matters—matters which affect the way in which income for the government is collected from Australian citizens and companies operating in this country—the practice has been a matter of usual course for a long period of time, and I cannot see how it can be done any other way. When rules change, the announcement of the change in itself signals essentially the change in the rules, and legislation always follows. This is a practice which was used by the Labor Party when in power, it is a practice which makes sense and the government will continue to use it. Just as budget announcements on the second Tuesday in May have always produced a series of immediate changes to taxation rules, so too did the press release of 17 November 1997 which announced various changes to tighten rules governing access to moneys in those small superannuation holding accounts reserve funds.In the general sense, changes to superannuation I do not really like. I think people expect greater certainty, and they lose faith with superannuation each and every time a change is wrought to the system governing superannuation. I know that in 1996 I was elected, in part, on the platform of there being no more changes to super—certainly not following the processes which the Australian Labor Party followed during their 13 years in power with introducing laws, amending them, changing people's expectations and changing people's operating parameters, all of these uncertainties having been built into the superannuation system in this country by the Australian Labor Party.In this regard, I acknowledge the government's 15 per cent superannuation surcharge. It was not voted against by anybody in either House, as I understand it, but I think just about everybody in this place would hope it disappears one day. We all accept the 15 per cent superannuation surcharge was brought in as one of the many measures behind the government's determination to overturn the $10.5 billion Beazley black hole which we found when we came to power. That an amount of $23 billion was added to the government debt in the last two Labor budgets in this country is a matter of history, and the 15 per cent surcharge was one of the measures introduced by this government to overturn the debt and create a surplus inside three years. Whilst I would like this surcharge to disappear down a black hole in itself because I think it sends the wrong signal to people who should be encouraged to put money aside for their retirement years, I accept it was a measure made necessary because of the economic conditions the Labor Party left this government with.Superannuation should be all about encouraging thrift, encouraging saving and encouraging people to put something aside for their retirement years. I suspect I am of a generation—in fact, I know I am of a generation—which is constantly being told I will not access a pension from the government. Rather, my superannuation contributions will be the basis on which I should retire one day about 40 years from now. I guess this is in stark contrast to a lot of older Australians who had an expectation built out of measures introduced by governments earlier this century of there being a universal pension. In fact, for many years in this country a percentage of the tax taken was a contribution to a universal pension scheme. A lot of Australians continually argue with me that, having made their contribution through the tax system, they should be entitled to a retirement income. Theirs is an understandable sentiment, it is one which I support in general terms and it encourages me to aspire to making sure I have sufficient income to look after myself and those I care about in my retirement years.Superannuation should also be about, therefore, rewarding effort. For those who have bothered to do something for themselves instead of waiting for their nation to pick up the tab of their retirement years, superannuation should ensure they be rewarded for their effort. They should be given stability in rules and regulations which govern both the money going in and the money coming out. They should be able to plan with some certainty that their expectations will be met.A very wise and, in fact, quite wealthy man—I knew him about 20 years ago—said to me when I first entered the work force, `Don't take out superannuation until you're about 10 or 15 years shy of retiring because the value of money changes.' This was an understandable comment in that high inflation era. I guess one of the best things this government has been able to achieve is a low inflation environment, which means people taking out superannuation today can now set a benchmark for the performance of future governments to meet: to keep inflation low, to keep interest rates low and to keep the economy stable so as to ensure the expectations they have as they contribute to superannuation are met.The Australian Labor Party's compulsory levy—which has meant every worker in this country has forgone a wage rise over quite a number of years now in order to make sure of their having money put into a superannuation account—has had a great deal of success because of its compulsory nature. The member for Melbourne commented that we have gone from a 40 per cent superannuation contribution pool amongst Australia's work force to well over 90 per cent. Naturally, because it is a compulsory contribution. But, again, a number of people have made the comment to me that their wage increases were traded off by the people who ran the unions and Industrial Relations Commission hearings year in and year out; a compulsory superannuation was taken away from people's expectation of a certain level of earnings in order to ensure there was a compulsory saving for retirement.The fact of the matter is every small business in this country is still meeting the cost of that wage rise without actually giving the incentive to the worker on a weekly basis of the benefit of that wage rise. The compulsory superannuation levy is a wage rise forgone. There is no reward to the worker on an every-day week. In fact, in a lot of ways, the Australian Labor Party have sent a signal of devaluing Australian workers as a result of this deal.My cynicism extends to another extent: superannuation funds administered by union officials of course have done very well as a result of the system the Australian Labor Party established. Union superannuation funds management fees which they rake off each year now contribute towards the cost of the Australian Labor Party's election campaigns. Workers in this country have their savings locked away in superannuation funds and, as some of the measures in the bill before us today dictate, it is very difficult for them to meet the criteria which may be applied in order for them to access funds because of compassionate reasons.A lot of people would like to have access to the money which they have had to give up through a compulsory levy—to pay off bills, to perhaps get rid of certain personal credit costs, or to lower personal debt. They have not had the benefit of accessing increases from their boss in the form of wage rises because they are forgone as a compulsory super charge. They cannot direct these funds directly to paying off personal debt.It is an absolute irony that the national debt and each person's personal debt in this country have gone up while, at the same time, compulsory savings have produced an increase in the overall savings in this country. So it is an interesting point to make: we have this amazing irony that, yes, savings through the compulsory superannuation levy are up, but debt is also increasing. At the same time individual Australians would like to be able to access some of the money to repay their own personal debt—and I think this would be a very good thing. But understandably, because of the overall objectives of superannuation which are now clearly understood by a lot of people, it is difficult for them to access those funds.I suspect in a lot of ways the jury is out on superannuation and a lot of people remain somewhat sceptical, particularly as changes continue to come in. As a government, we have had to continue to deal with a number of necessary changes in order to fix up things which were left unfixed by Labor's rush into super. Those necessary changes include those matters before us today.There is the matter of small amounts held in the superannuation holdings account reserve. This was a response from the Labor government after it became pretty obvious to a lot of people that, for a long period of time, small amounts of super were being milked dry by management fees and people were losing their wages into superannuation accounts to have management fees drawn off them; in fact, the total amount of benefit they were getting was becoming zero at a rate of knots. This was fixed back in about 1995 by the Small Superannuation Accounts Act.What we are doing here today in amendment to this particular act is to keep faith with the changes announced in November 1997 tightening the rules governing access to moneys in this superannuation holding accounts reserve for the purpose of strengthening the government's retirement incomes policy and addressing abuses of various arrangements; in other words, this relates to false claims by individuals who say they are departing Australia permanently in order to access the SHAR accounts.Also, we are looking at tightening section 273, which is an existing anti-avoidance measure, so as to close a loophole which allows certain distribution of trust income to superannuation funds made under non-arms-length arrangements. They are taxed at the concessional rate of 15 per cent.I would like to highlight the third part of the bill before us, which is the exemption of senior foreign executives from the superannuation guarantee. At the heart of this is part of the government's ongoing program to encourage further foreign direct investment in this country to ensure that the government's objective of internationalising the Australian economy is realised. Minister Hockey, who has been in the chamber this morning, is spearheading the government's efforts to get more direct investment in this country to make this the financial centre of our region; he is doing a very good job at exactly that.It is a well-stated intention of the government to get more foreign direct investment in here. As a result, senior foreign executives are likely to come into Australia and leave. To have them making a contribution to compulsory super which they cannot access until aged 55 or more is of course a more than—pardon the pun—`taxing' situation for them. What the government is attempting to do by the particular measures in this bill is facilitate the movement of highly skilled business executives and specialists; and the exemption only applies to senior foreign executives to limit the potential for labour market distortions.The matters in this bill are made necessary to fix things left unfixed, as usual, by the previous government. I commend the matters to the House.10:32:005890Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 before us has four limbs. It tightens the rules applying to early release of funds from small superannuation accounts by reducing the threshold below which account holders can access their money before retirement from $500 to $200; by replacing the current subjective financial hardship test with an objective test already in place for the wider super industry; and by restricting access to funds in small superannuation accounts for non-residents until age 55. It also closes a loophole in the current law allowing favourable tax treatment of trust distributions to super funds, which I certainly welcome; and it exempts senior foreign executives from the superannuation guarantee charge.Let me say from the outset that I welcome the second limb of this bill, that part that does close the trust loopholes. The changes proposed will ensure the right amount of tax is collected from trust distributions to super accounts. These changes will save the government approximately $15 million and obviously are a step in the right direction. However, I want to make some brief comments on the bill's other changes of which I am not so supportive.What we have here is a seemingly innocuous bill, making relatively minor changes to the superannuation laws. But what the bill starkly demonstrates is the growing gap in the treatment of the haves and the have-nots in our increasingly globalised society. By `the haves', I mean that global citizens' employers will do seemingly anything for them, be it arranging visas, accommodation, schools and ever more lucrative packages. These include the highly educated, highly skilled corporate executives to whom this bill refers, but also the ever increasing number of lawyers, accountants, engineers and IT professionals for whom national boundaries mean very little.By `the have-nots', I mean the ever increasing number of people left behind by globalisation—those on the fringes of employment in casual or part-time employment. While we can bellow the virtues of the wonderful American miracle and others around the world, we must remember that four per cent unemployment these days does not mean that 96 per cent of people have all the employment they want, as perhaps in the past it did mean. That is the difference, and that is where the figures can hide the true picture of gross underemployment in many economies, including, I would suggest, America. For the unskilled, the uneducated, there are fewer and fewer meaningful occupations in the ever more competitive and technological global economy.On the one hand, this bill ensures that senior foreign executives working in Australia are exempted from the super guarantee. On the other hand, the bill proposes changes that will make it even harder for people with money in small superannuation holding accounts to get that money out before they reach retirement age.The minister in his speech introducing the bill stated that the purpose of continuing to exempt foreign corporate executives from the super guarantee charge is to `help the internationalisation of the Australian economy by facilitating the movement of highly skilled business executives and specialists into Australia', the rationale being that such foreign professionals generally `have equivalent or greater retirement income arrangements in place in their home countries'. I suppose that, were Australia to impose the charge on such executives, it might discourage them from bringing their specialist skills and experience into Australia. But I wonder, given the salaries that these executives attract, whether it would be a significant factor in their decision to come to Australia or not.However, I have no objection to measures designed to entice such workers here, so long as they pay their fair share of income tax while they are in the country. After all, in many cases our organisations need their skills and expertise to keep up with developments overseas. But I think it is interesting to contrast the favourable treatment these corporate highfliers receive in this bill as opposed to the ordinary Australians affected by the other changes.The proposed changes to the early access rules applying to small super accounts will bring them into line with the changes made to the rest of the super system by regulation a few years back. Those changes saw the replacement of the subjective financial hardship test with an objective one which looks simply at things like the length of time an applicant has been in receipt of social security benefits, or whether the applicant's bank has threatened to foreclose on their mortgage. They also restrict access to non-Australian residents so they cannot access those funds until they reach preservation age of 55.The stated aim of these changes was to streamline and tighten arrangements for the early release of super so that it is better directed towards provision of retirement income—all very laudable. But, in other words, they were designed to make it harder for people to access their super prior to reaching retirement age. Again, it sounds good. From experience in the electorate, though, they certainly have had this effect. The super accounts covered by the bill before us are those established under the superannuation holding accounts reserve set up in 1995 to protect very small superannuation holdings. We are talking about accounts containing typically up to just $1,200. In fact, to encourage holders to move them into normal super funds, interest is only credited for the first $1,200. Currently holders of such accounts can only access the funds where their account balance is under $500, where the holder has been forced to retire because of permanent disability, where they are suffering severe financial hardship, where they have turned 65 or where they are no longer an Australia resident or employed in Australia.As far as I am concerned, superannuation has two purposes. First and foremost, it aims to provide for people in retirement. Second, it is meant to reduce future government outlays, especially when faced with supporting an ageing population. However, after witnessing the workings of the early release rules applying to the broader industry since 1998, I have my doubts about whether the changes in this bill, mirroring, as they do, those earlier changes, do anything to achieve either of these goals. Invariably, the early release of super cases my office has dealt with since the recent changes have suffered enormously at the hands of bureaucracy administering the scheme.In one case I recall a couple with a child in intensive care in Sydney. They came to my office seeking assistance after weeks of getting the run-around from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the agency tasked with deciding where funds can be released. I think the father had about $2,000 in his super account. He had not been unemployed for 26 weeks, he did not have a home loan and, on the so-called compassionate grounds, it looked like there was only a slim hope he qualified for early release. The father had just started working, but had not yet drawn a wage. The family needed to travel to Sydney to be with their child and simply could not afford to do so. Besides charities, their only possible source of money was through the father's super. My office tried to expedite matters, making direct contact with officers in APRA and explaining the urgency of the case. But it hit the typical bureaucratic brick wall. Some six weeks later, after giving up hope, I received notification the release had been authorised.What I am trying to say is that, even with the streamlined objective test proposed in this bill, the time delays for decisions are considerable and make a joke of the sums of money involved and the urgency with which that money needs to be accessed.Besides that case, my office has dealt with innumerable cases where workers have been retrenched or where unforeseen expenses have arisen as a result of a physical or mental illness of the applicant or a dependent family member. In the majority of cases, the applicants fail the objectivity test and the decision seems to take a painstakingly long time. In most cases, too, we are not talking about much money—a few thousand dollars at most. I think the maximum that can be released is $10,000. People usually want to access their super only as a last resort, and the type of people who have a lot of money in super are not usually the ones that reach that last resort position.The anguish, the uncertainty and the delay applicants face when trying to have the funds released seem to only exacerbate what are already exceedingly stressful times. In cases like these, it is very difficult to explain that the government has tightened up the rules to better direct their funds towards their retirement or, for that matter, why politicians can access their very generous schemes well before age 55. The bill before us plans to introduce the same rules to even smaller accounts. The question I ask is: why bother?One must seriously question the need for an objective test, or any test for that matter, for the amounts of money typically involved in these small super accounts. At most, we are talking about $1,200. I ask: how much does it cost the government to provide the bureaucracy to assess these applications? What are the social and other costs associated with not letting these people get access to these sums? What about job mobility? The Minister for Employment Services has made a large play on the `job snobs'. What about seasonal workers and such accessing this money if it is available to help them relocate to look for these jobs that are supposed to exist in the big cities? I suggest the government should lend its bureaucratic expertise and its wealth of experts in superannuation, some of whom I gather are sitting here today, to look at that particular avenue of access to help people become more mobile in our work force.Does the government seriously think that people who are so desperate that they need to access a few hundred bucks from their super accounts are not going to be a burden on the state, or at least have to access state help at retirement? More and more of them certainly will if we do not let them access that money, at least to relocate. Does the government seriously think the sums we are talking about are going to somehow push these people over the pension asset test? In many cases, it would surely make economic as well as social sense to allow the withdrawal of these amounts.Mr Deputy Speaker, the Treasurer delivered a budget he described as `a budget for the new millennium': a surplus, low inflation, low interest rates and good growth—but growth, I should say, largely based on domestic consumption and imports. Therein lies a danger—looking at the upside of those numbers does not tell the stories of some of the little people who have suffered at the hands of policies required to deliver these numbers. On a daily basis, my office deals with these stories. The hard-won gains made over the last three years have come largely at the expense of many people at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, with seemingly little sacrifice made at the other end.It is telling that, at a time when the government is keen to make it harder for the growing underclass to access what little super they have, it has shown a complete reluctance to bring politicians' super in line with the rules applying to the general population. I recall the comments of one MP recently, who asked me whether I realised that, if the preservation age for MPs' super was increased to 55, party politicians would just hang around until they turned 55. It says something, doesn't it, about the preselection process of the parties. The argument was that allowing early access lets the parties get rid of their deadwood. As far as I am concerned, reasoning like that is a sick joke, an insult to the taxpayers and voters of Australia and an indictment of the party system. I wonder what the government's response would be if the private sector came to them with the same arguments. The fact is that the same rules must be applied to early access of parliamentarians' super as to others.Let me conclude by saying that, in the globalised new millennium we are moving towards, one thing does appear certain: instead of closing the gap between the rich and poor, the gaps are increasing as those people left behind by the rapid technological and other marketplace advances struggle to find a meaningful place. Regrettably, all too often government policies seem to only compound these differences, and this seemingly insignificant, innocuous bill is a case in point. It will make life just that little bit harder for those at the bottom, while for those at the top it lets the new global citizen write their own rules. What is more, it is doubtful it will achieve much because of the likely administration costs and because, no matter how hard the government makes it for these funds to be accessed, the majority of their holders will access government support at some time in the future. I commend the government for the action it has taken on trusts in this bill, but ask it to note well my comments on the other proposed changes.10:46:005893Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 is an example of the government moving to resolve problems—to carefully fix and address identified difficulties—and to carefully move in areas where we have seen, over the 13 years of the administration of the previous government, a reluctance to do anything quickly or thoughtfully. An example is the very area we are dealing with today—the small superannuation accounts reserve. This reserve was established by an act of parliament in 1995 after seven years of paying for people who were holders of small amounts in superannuation.Year after year there were debates in the parliament about the losses being incurred by people who had contributed small amounts to superannuation funds—where interest charges and fees that were taken out by the funds were far more than were being contributed by the itinerant or casual worker. In 1995 the Small Superannuation Accounts Act was passed, and a process was put in place whereby people who were making a compulsory contribution of small amounts to superannuation had a place to put their funds where they would be preserved and where there would be a benefit at the end of the day when they came to retirement.It took the previous government seven years to realise that the super funds were ripping off those small individuals with fees and charges. I do not know how many accounts I brought into this parliament to demonstrate to the then Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer the fact that people had a declining amount in their super balance. In fact, the harder they worked, it seemed, the less money was left for them to retire on. Eventually, with the support, I have to say, of the opposition of the day, this legislation was passed, and there is a preservation process for people with small amounts. Those small amounts are being made on a regular basis by itinerant workers, casual workers and people in part-time work.That is a sensible administration—a sensible solution—except I do not know whether the tax office is the right place for it to be kept. It has not been too entrepreneurial in investing funds, as far as I am aware. But it should be put in context of us assessing the totality of what is happening in superannuation in Australia today. One must look at the total super statistics if one is to appreciate the movements of large amounts of money. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has released statistics on superannuation for 1997-98 and for the June 1998 quarter. The contributions to superannuation in Australia in 1997-98 were $33 billion—huge amounts of money going into super funds. The net contributions—that is, the contributions less the benefits—were $11.8 billion in that year. The contributions in the June quarter alone in 1998 were $9.5 billion, comprising $5.8 billion in employer contributions and $3.7 billion in employee contributions. Roughly 60 per cent of the total has come from the employer.Self-managed funds were the fastest growing, and this is the area that I have a particular interest in because I think the growth in self-managed funds indicates that people feel they can produce a better result by managing their own retirement investments than many of the institutions can. As at 30 June 1998, there were 181,700 excluded funds and 3,300 industry retail and public sector funds. The total amount of superannuation assets as at 30 June 1998 was $359.4 billion. That is a huge amount of money stored in institutions. It is interesting to note that the breakdown of investments at that time was roughly 37 per cent in equities and unit trusts, 24 per cent in interest bearing securities, roughly 12 per cent in cash deposits and placements, roughly seven per cent in direct property investment, and a total of 16.5 per cent was invested overseas. That is the context in which we look at the affairs of today which relate, really, to the small amounts—the Superannuation Holding Accounts Reserve, the SHAR—as the government moves to be consistent and close loopholes and fix up problems in superannuation.The limited circumstances in which an individual could draw small amounts from these small amount funds have in the past been these: the balance in the account was less than $500 and the contributor had ceased to be employed by any of the depositors, the individual is in severe financial hardship the individual has retired because of permanent disability, the individual had turned 65 years of age, or the individual was not an Australian resident and not employed in Australia. The government has moved to tighten up some of these things. As previous speakers have indicated, an objective test is to be applied to the process. The severe hardship test has been removed and, where the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority determines in writing that an individual is in severe financial hardship, the objective test is that an individual, for a period of at least 39 weeks or two or more periods that add up to 39 weeks since the person had turned 35 years of age, is in receipt of welfare or benefit payments or for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks a person had been in receipt of payments.When one comes to look at the examples given in the explanatory memorandum, one starts to realise the wisdom of this tightening up process. It is all very well to say, as some members have in this debate, that people should be allowed access to their super. That is a subjective judgment, and the conditions under which they could be allowed access would vary, depending on the outlook and attitude of every member of the parliament. The fact of the matter is that there are some circumstances under hardship where individuals can gain, and have gained, access. But if one is 30 and one has run up a bill by buying a new motor car and then suffers financial hardship through those causes, is that any less a circumstance of hardship where penalties and fines are being confronted and a young family may be involved than somebody of an older age who has an illness?These are judgments that must pose great difficulty for the regulators—saying that one hardship is more worthy than another. So the process which is to be put in place is to say that, if a person has been on welfare payments for an extended period, if there has already been an assessment that they are suffering difficulty and financial hardship and if there is no recourse to any other funds whatsoever, then they are entitled to draw on their retirement benefits, on the stored benefits of their work over a period of time. I find that not hard to accept, because the fact of the matter is that if a 30-year-old is out of work and thinks the best thing to solve particular shortages of funds is to get into their small super savings, they then come to the end of their life with nothing left because, at every period of hardship in their life, they have drawn on their super funds.This is not a process of a casual bank account. This is a process of storing up funds in a particular account and by a particular process for use by the individual on retirement. The introduction of the legislation made that clear back when the government chose eventually to instigate a mechanism for people having small amounts of superannuation to hold for retirement to store it in one place, to store it so that a multiplicity of contributors could add to it—an example would be fruit pickers moving from one orchard to another, having one place in which their super funds could be deposited; they could be deposited with the SHAR. That is fine for them.I have another instance within my own electorate, that of part-time teachers at TAFE. It is a similar thing. Many of them are married women, teaching on a regular basis at TAFE. They have a small amount of income, but it is enough for their family needs. They are not looking for full-time work and this family arrangement suits them just perfectly. These small amounts that are compulsorily taken out of their salaries are deposited with the SHAR. They may move from one TAFE to another or they may move from one educational institution to another, but instead of having a diversity of funds soaking up all of these small amounts, making huge charges on them, these funds that are compulsorily deducted by employers are deposited in one place and are there for the person's retirement. They are not a casual banking account to be drawn on at the whim of an individual suffering momentary financial hardship.That is not the purpose of this legislation, that is not the purpose for which the previous government introduced it and it is not comparable in any way with the spurious analogy with members of parliament. It is a special circumstance which has been thought through by this parliament to assist those people who are employed, either by poor fortune or by good management, on a casual or part-time basis. Some of the greatest growth and opportunities for women in Australian society have been through casual and permanent part-time work, and many of them are in the circumstances of needing to have access to the SHAR. They have taken great advantage of it, much to the benefit of their families. To present it as solely the area and the habitation of the downtrodden and the disadvantaged is a completely wrong concept.I found great enlightenment in reading in the explanatory memorandum the examples of how the new Commonwealth income support test would actually work. There is an example there of a woman aged 55 who has been on a service pension, no doubt a war widow on a Department of Veterans' Affairs benefit, for 26 weeks. That person in those circumstances can access the superannuation funds, provided there is less than $200 in the account. The same circumstances apply to the example of a person over the age of 60 years. She received social security pension payments for 20 weeks from Centrelink when she was 61 years of age and for another 20 weeks when she was 62 years of age. She can access her super fund. But Simon, aged 20, who has never had social security benefits or who was put off benefits because of his failure to comply for some reason or another and is not actually on benefits at the time that he applies for relief or to gain access to his super savings is not eligible. I find that satisfactory. I think the government has been thoughtful in its processes here, in what it has done and the amendments that have been made.The second part of the bill relates to the non-arms-length trust distribution to superannuation and other funds. The announcement made by the Treasurer on 25 November 1997 was that the tax law would be amended so that trust distributions made from all trusts other than unit trusts to a superannuation entity should be treated as special income of the fund and taxed at the non-concessional rate of 47 per cent. Everybody seems to be in agreement with this measure, which seeks to patch up what the government saw as a disadvantage to the Australian community. The government has moved sensibly to repair that process.Another part of the legislation relates to the exemption of senior foreign executives from the superannuation guarantee charge. That is an on-balance judgment, saying that the retirement package of somebody who is not a resident of Australia is a matter for that person and their employer. Under the migration law a person coming into Australia as an employee has very narrow limitations placed on them as to what they can and cannot do. The retirement arrangements should not require that individual to make a contribution to Australian super funds or to prepare for their retirement in Australia, because it is never the intention that they retire in Australia. This legislation makes sure that there is no compulsory removal of a superannuation levy from that person. I have got no problems with that; I think it is reasonable. It means that working in Australia is more attractive for foreign executives or highly skilled individual sports men and women, coaches, or whoever. Under immigration law, there is a limited number of opportunities for people to come into Australia as non-residential workers. Of course, as soon as somebody becomes a resident, they will be paying the super guarantee levy and they will be treated in the same way as everybody else.In conclusion, I was pleased when the former government decided in 1995 to deal with the problem that was confronted by many casual and part-time workers. It was slow in acting, and the process has worked satisfactorily. I believe that the lower limit was too low. This government moved to increase that, although it should have happened before the change of government. I am pleased that today there is now an objective test available which makes it easy for administrators and members of parliament to assess whether a person is eligible to draw on their super funds. That objective test is easy to assess. It replaces a non-objective test which was extremely difficult to apply and very hard to manage for someone seeking to assist a person in hardship.At the end of the day, the objective test will work better. The amount of money available in the account has been reduced and the objectives of the legislation are preserved. People who are making a small contribution towards their retirement have those funds preserved for the benefit of their retirement. The account is not to be used as a casual bank account which can be drawn upon in times of misfortune or circumstantial hardship. Those funds should be preserved for retirement or for times of hardship for which there is no other solution than to draw on those funds. I have no trouble in supporting the legislation and in completely rejecting the amendment moved by the opposition.11:05:005897Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to speak in this debate today because, as the honourable member for Mitchell and other people who have participated in this debate are quite correct in saying, superannuation is becoming more and more important not only for the economy of Australia, in boosting our national savings, but also for the future of individuals upon their retirement. Whilst agreeing with many of the comments made by members on both sides of the House, I indicate that I support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for finance, the member for Melbourne, which outlines that, whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, we are seeking to condemn the government for sloppy taxation administration by delaying the closure of a tax avoidance loophole and being forced to introduce retrospective legislation which, if you read through this bill, you see that this certainly is.This bill seeks to amend the Small Superannuation Accounts Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act. Once every sitting, it appears, very broad legislation such as this, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), is introduced into the parliament. I note that this bill is not the only superannuation amendment bill put forward already this year. Unfortunately, I think this is once again a lost opportunity.These bills provide an opportunity for the House to consider anomalies and small changes which are primarily of a non-controversial nature and to ensure that superannuation legislation is up to date. But there is one area which is glaringly out of date in 1999. Once again, the government has failed to introduce another clause; instead of four clauses, we have today three clauses.Firstly, the Small Superannuation Accounts Act is being amended to change the amount that can be withdrawn from the SHAR when an individual ceases employment; to restrict access to moneys in SHAR when an individual is not an Australian resident; and to replace access to moneys in SHAR on the grounds of severe financial hardship, with a new objective test based upon whether an individual has received specific government payments over a period of time. Secondly, this bill seeks to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to remove an anomaly in relation to non-arms-length trust distributions to superannuation and similar funds. Thirdly, the bill contains a provision which would exempt senior foreign executives from the superannuation guarantee.I suggest to the House that this bill should contain a fourth clause—a clause which would amend the Superannuation Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act to make provision for same sex couples to get the same benefits currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples. At the moment we have a situation whereby there is no encouragement for people in same sex relationships to contribute to superannuation. That is because discrimination occurs on a number of levels. On one level, upon the death of one partner, superannuation fund trustees have refused to make a pay out to the surviving partner.When payments have occurred, the tax treatment is very different; and that comes down to the fact that, in the relevant legislation, de facto relationships are defined on the basis of someone of the opposite sex. In 1999, that is very sad. That is not a view which is held just by the Labor Party; that is a view which is held very broadly, by people such as Christopher Pearson, the editor of the Adelaide Review. He wrote an article in the Australian Financial Review on Monday, 3 May. This article was headed, `Saving not such a super idea for same-sex couples'. In it, Mr Pearson, not noted to be a supporter of the Labor Party but indeed very much a part of the Adelaide establishment, said:Most people are legally obliged to contribute to superannuation schemes but same-sex couples are not entitled to the same benefits as those in the most directly comparable heterosexual category, childless couples in de facto relationships. The discrimination takes two main forms. On retirement, super funds haven't been paying a lump sum or joint pension to contributors and their partners. On death, funds haven't paid death benefits to same-sex partners, even where specified as the intended recipients.For all its caution on social issues, the Howard Government is not indifferent to equity arguments from self-funding retirees. The Senate's resident expert on superannuation, John Watson, a very conservative Tasmanian, has surprised colleagues by defending the entitlements of same-sex couples. Other ministers and members who've argued the case include Amanda Vanstone, Judi Moylan, Brendan Nelson and Christopher Pyne.Christopher Pearson goes on to basically endorse the private member's bill which I have before this parliament and which up to this point has received only very minimal debate. He outlines, I think very clearly, a call for a conscience vote on this issue. As Christopher Pearson argues, it is simply the case that you do not have to endorse people's lifestyles; you simply have to accept that it is occurring and accept that people are entitled to the same financial benefits regardless of their sexual preference. Discrimination distorts the superannuation industry. It is not surprising that the Australian superannuation funds have all come out in support of changes to legislation which would remove this inequity.It is not surprising also that this bill has received very strong support not just from the gay and lesbian community but also from the private sector. In this regard, I wish to congratulate and note the support of The Body Shop in their `same sex, same rights' campaign. On 27 April, I attended in Melbourne the launch of a campaign for a petition to be signed calling upon the parliament to debate this legislation. The Body Shop are indeed a company which the Australian private sector could have a very close look at—it could be seen as a role model. They have a trading charter, and their trading charter says that their trading principles should reflect their core values. It says:We ensure that human and civil rights, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are respected throughout our business activities. We have established a framework based on this declaration to include criteria for workers' rights embracing a safe, healthy working environment, fair wages, no discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation, or physical coercion of any kind.We support long term, sustainable relationships with communities in need. We will pay special attention to those minority groups, women and disadvantaged peoples who are socially and economically marginalised.What an entirely appropriate statement for a corporation in Australia to have. They sponsored this campaign. They put petitions in each of their shops throughout Australia. The petition was launched by Simon Crean, the shadow Treasurer, and there were a number of other people present such as the member for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek, and a number of state parliamentarians including, I note, the Liberal member for Prahran.The Victorian State Council of the Liberal Party, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, will probably be aware, has carried a resolution with the endorsement of the Premier of Victoria for changes to superannuation legislation. The member for Prahran was successful in having that moved and carried by the Liberal Party State Council. So I congratulate her and the Liberal Party State Council on showing this leadership in this way. The Body Shop petition was also launched in Sydney, and the member for Bradfield, Brendan Nelson, and I helped to launch this petition calling on this bill to be debated. I thank him for having the courage to stand up and be counted on this issue.If we are serious about superannuation, we have to be serious about superannuation for all in our community, not excluding one section and not saying that you are less important than someone else. In terms of what is happening in politics in Australia today, it is very unfortunate that this federal parliament lags behind and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to legislate to remove discrimination of a fashion which we all know will occur. The days of discrimination, be it on the basis of gender, race or sexual preference, are numbered. Given that I think there is a broad acceptance of that, that change should happen sooner rather than later.I note that, in the current sitting, the New South Wales Legislative Assembly has passed comprehensive legislation recognising same sex de facto relationships. This legislation passed with the support of the coalition. In the Legislative Council, the legislation was opposed by only Fred Nile, David Oldfield and John Tingle. Unfortunately, this parliament seems to be with that group, with that troika, and what a fine troika it is in modern Australia—One Nation, Call to Australia and the Shooters Party! They are the only people in the whole New South Wales parliament—three of them; none in the Legislative Assembly—who say that change should not occur on the basis of recognising de facto couples as having the same rights. It really does show that people in same sex relationships should be given the same rights in organising their property and their financial affairs.New South Wales is not the only state in which we have seen bipartisan support. In 1994, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the Domestic Relationships Act, which provides a system for the division of property and payment of maintenance when a same sex relationship breaks down. In 1996, the Carnell ACT government amended the Administration and Probate Act 1929 and the Family Provision Act 1969 to provide access to inheritance for de facto partners. These amendments, which had bipartisan support, put same sex and heterosexual de factos on the same footing by defining a spouse as a partner whether or not of the same gender, which is precisely what my private member's bill on superannuation seeks to do.In 1997, in Victoria, the Kennett government passed changes to the Wills Act 1997 to allow family provision orders to be made for the proper maintenance and support of any person for whom the deceased had responsibility to make provision. The focus of this change is to ensure that the legislation operates in a way which is tied to its purpose and leaves out irrelevant factors such as the sex and marital status of the applicant. The Queensland government has also begun moves in this area. An industrial relations bill introduced by the Queensland government last week proposes to recognise same sex relationships under state industrial relations law.The various developments in the recognition of same sex relationships mean that the Commonwealth parliament is now lagging behind. There is broad community acceptance of the right of same sex couples to be recognised, at least in relation to property and financial matters. This is demonstrated by the fact that even the Anglican Church in New South Wales did not oppose the legislation which went through that parliament. There were a number of speeches given which are very relevant in terms of financial matters and superannuation in relation to that bill. I wish to quote from a couple of those speeches. One is from Mrs Chikarovski, the Leader of the Opposition for the moment in New South Wales, who is getting every chance she can to give a speech to show that she is more progressive than the person that we saw during the state election campaign. She said:We accept that, in seeking to define a de facto relationship, the amendments will clarify these property and financial arrangements for a range of people in a range of relationships, and rightly so.If it is good enough for her, why isn't it good enough for this parliament? I want to go a bit further and quote Mr Turner, the member for Orange. He is not a member of the Liberal Party, it is true; he is a member of the National Party. The elected member of the National Party said:I agree with the honourable member for Gosford, who spoke on behalf of the Coalition, who said that we should deal with the issues in a non-emotive way, stick to the facts and not make personal interpretations.He went on to say:I have yet to come to grips with some of the very extreme views held by some of the churches and community groups. We are all supposed to love one another. God has made us who we are and is supposed to forgive us for everything that we do, yet certain people who supposedly follow God's laws will not accept that God has made these people and has made them a little bit different.I believe that gays and lesbians, like us, are members of the community and are loving people, and that we have gone a long way towards recognising that they are part of our community. I would not have wished to have been involved in the gay community 10, 15 or 20 years ago when many were basically forced into a marriage to satisfy the community and their relations. For many years they have had a sham marriage. The children of such unions have suffered because of the frustration of the male or the female partner in the marriage—because many females have gone through the same process. I believe that society is much more enlightened today but it has some way to go. I believe that the bill is a step in that direction and I support it.What an entirely appropriate statement to read into Hansard , given the nature of this parliament and the fact that in this parliament there are people who duck for cover when you mention the issue of same sex relationships and who think that to mention it is to somehow draw into question people's own sexual preference. Perhaps that is what they are scared about. I think the concern which some people have over these issues really is quite amazing.There is no discrimination clearer than that in superannuation. Anyone who believes in the level playing field in terms of the market should support the amending legislation as part of one of these bills that come before the House. If my private member's bill is not voted on, I give notice to the House that on the next occasion that we have a superannuation legislation amendment bill I will be giving this speech but I will be giving it in a different way. I will be giving it as the mover of an amendment to that bill. The government will have to make a decision as to where it stands on these issues.You have now been given the opportunity. You have been given full notice that you have the opportunity as a government to change what is discrimination, to change to what state and territory parliaments, coalition and Labor, and people of goodwill in our community are saying should occur—that is, to remove this discrimination. You are being given the opportunity to do what businesses such as The Body Shop and others in corporate Australia say should happen. You have the opportunity to support reform and to take the initiative. You are also being given the opportunity to do what the superannuation industry itself says should happen, by doing the right thing. I urge the government to do that to avoid making this issue one which is an issue of difference when it should be an issue which is bipartisan before this parliament.11:24:005901Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—At the outset, the government wishes to reject the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne which, while not declining to give the bill a second reading, sought to condemn the government for sloppy taxation administration by delaying the closure of a tax avoidance loophole and being forced to introduce retrospective legislation and transitional provisions. I will come to the reasons that we reject this particular amendment. The amendment itself has no value and is in fact not even a correct statement of the situation concerning the measures currently before the chamber.When one looks at the approach of the Labor Party in relation to superannuation, it is interesting that they have clearly forgotten their sad and sorry record over 13 years of government in this area of superannuation. Labor speakers have made some unsubstantiated claims in relation to the government's superannuation policy. Let us just pause for a moment and consider that it is only about three years since Labor left government. When they did so, they left Australians with unfair taxation concessions for superannuation contributions skewed to higher income earners—the people whom they accuse us of supporting at every opportunity. Their legislation also contained lack of flexibility in choice and the inability to divide up superannuation upon marital breakdown. The government has put in place a number of policies to overcome these problems and consequently in yet another situation the government has not created the difficulty, but we do accept the responsibility to fix it.Contributions have been made in the second reading debate by the honourable members for Melbourne, Calare, Grayndler, Moreton and Mitchell. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank all of them for participating in this important debate. This bill contains a number of measures which make miscellaneous amendments to superannuation legislation. The first measure tightens up rules governing access to moneys held in the superannuation holding reserve accounts consistent with arrangements already applying to superannuation funds and retirement savings accounts. This will strengthen the government's retirement incomes policy and address abuses of the current arrangements.The second measure closes a loophole which allows certain distributions of trust income to superannuation funds made under non-arms-length arrangements to be taxed at a concessional rate of 15 per cent. The honourable member for Mitchell made a most erudite contribution in relation to this particular area. It is expected to result in a revenue saving of about $15 million a year.The third measure continues a former superannuation guarantee exemption for senior foreign executives who meet the criteria for the former class 413 overseas executive visa. This will help the internationalisation of the Australian economy by facilitating the movement of highly skilled business executives and specialists into Australia. Any reasonable person would accept that this is a very positive move and that those international executives should be encouraged to participate and compete for jobs in Australia's world-class corporations.A number of speakers in their contributions asked questions in relation to the legislation. Indeed, the honourable member for Calare asked why the amendments to the Small Superannuation Accounts Act 1995 were needed. These amendments are needed to ensure consistency between the Superannuation Holding Accounts Reserve and other institutions collecting superannuation moneys such as superannuation funds and retirement savings accounts. We do not make any apology for the inclusion of this particular provision. Honourable members would recall that the government announced in the 1997-98 budget, with modifications made on 17 November 1997, changes tightening the rules governing access to moneys in SHAR, superannuation funds and RSAs. Amendments were made to the superannuation industry supervision regulations and retirements savings account regulations on 9 December 1997 to implement the changes for superannuation funds and RSAs. The amendments in this bill will implement the changes for SHAR.The honourable member for Calare also claimed that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing and that this bill will make it more difficult for people at the bottom end of the scale. The government absolutely rejects that particular contention. It is interesting that during the 13 years of Labor government the gap between rich and poor did widen, and that was a matter for regret. But it ought to be considered and recognised that this bill is a responsible bill. We have adopted a responsible approach towards encouraging people to save for their retirement. Whether people are on high or low incomes, this bill does not discriminate. One could argue about the gap between rich and poor, but this bill certainly does not in any way, shape or form adversely affect people who are at the bottom end of the scale.The honourable member for Melbourne, who has returned to the chamber, claims that we have been guilty of sloppy taxation administration. That is the pot calling the kettle black, given the sad and sorry administration of this area by the Labor Party during its 13 years in government. We have also been accused of being forced to introduce retrospective legislation and transitional provisions. The suggestion is that we have been guilty of delay in some way, shape or form.Firstly, let me deal with the situation relating to the amendment of the Small Superannuation Accounts Act 1995. Quite frankly, there has been no delay whatsoever in introducing these amendments. These amendments were announced in the 1997-98 budget on 12 May 1997 and introduced into the parliament on 29 May 1997. As occurs when an election is called, the bill before the chamber lapsed and the amendments have now been introduced as part of this particular bill. The delay in passage of the amendments was due to the referral of the amendments to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and the lapsing of the amendments on the announcement of the last federal election.The amendments with respect to the non-arms-length trust distributions to superannuation and similar funds have also been introduced to the parliament as soon as possible. The amendments have been delayed by modifications to achieve the position announced in the Treasurer's press release. The modifications were required to ensure equitable outcomes for genuine arms-length investments by superannuation funds in trusts. This was achieved by more closely targeting the legislation to the nature of trust distribution rather than to the type of trust. These modifications also require transitional arrangements to ensure that superannuation funds which relied on the Treasurer's press release would not be unfairly treated. The measures were announced on 25 November 1997. The amendments were introduced on 2 July 1998 and lapsed when the 3 October 1998 federal election was announced last year. The amendments currently before the chamber are unchanged from the amendments which lapsed.The third item, the exemption of senior foreign executives from the superannuation guarantee, is another area where we have been accused of bringing in retrospective legislation and also of being guilty of delay. The delay in introducing the amendments was due to two factors. Firstly, there were other more urgent matters being given priority, particularly upon election of the government to office in October last year. Secondly, these amendments required significant at-length consultation with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.It ought to be seen, recognised and accepted by the opposition that no detriment has been caused by the delays. The amendments are straightforward and continue an exemption well understood by employers. In other words, world high-class, high-flyer executives who have a contribution to make to our corporations have not been shut out of Australia, and they continue to be welcomed here to compete for jobs in the marketplace. The continuation of the exemption was well publicised by the government, and employers have acted in reliance upon the government's announcement.The Assistant Treasurer did announce on 25 June 1997 that an exemption for foreign senior executives from the superannuation guarantee would be continued with effect from 1 August 1996, the date that the exemption lapsed due to the renumbering of the former class 413 visa. The suggestion by the honourable member opposite is that these amendments are retrospective. I am someone who in general does not support the principle of retrospective amendments, but it ought to be recognised that these amendments do follow longstanding practice in this place.The date of the announcement with respect to these matters concerning non-arms-length trust distributions to superannuation and similar funds is the date of the Treasurer's media release No. 123 of 1997—2 p.m. on 25 November 1997. It ought to be recognised that the closure of this particular loophole—and it is a loophole—will save some $15 million per annum. The amendments are anti-avoidance in nature, and apply from the date of the press release to deter taxpayers from entering into arrangements which are the subject of the amendments. People have not acted on the law in a belief that it was not going to be changed. We have made the announcement, and these amendments will take effect from when the announcement was made. This is in common with usual practice.With respect to the exemption of senior foreign executives from the superannuation guarantee, these amendments will not retrospectively reduce the superannuation guarantee coverage by senior foreign executives. The amendments do maintain the Australian superannuation guarantee exemption of senior foreign executives, and it ought to be appreciated that senior foreign executives typically have equivalent or greater retirement income arrangements in their home countries and do not wish to be subject to Australian arrangements.One would have been excused for appreciating that the honourable member for Grayndler perhaps did not really understand that the amendments will relate to the matters which are the subject of this particular bill, because his whole speech was predicated on his proposed private member's bill concerning the situation of same sex partners. To achieve the outcome wanted by the honourable member, there would have to be a whole of government approach to change the definition of `dependant' as it appears in tax, superannuation, social security legislation and family law.The honourable member's bill is before the House. He is perfectly entitled to argue it, but the fact that he comes into this debate and, to a certain extent, abuses the forms of the House by speaking on his bill when it does not relate to the provisions of this particular bill indicates that perhaps the Office of Parliamentary Counsel ought to look more closely at the current means of wording the long titles of bills, because the incorporation of the words `and for related purposes' tends to mean that members of parliament are able to stand up in the place and talk about almost anything, as long as it is marginally related. I do not believe it enhances the debate in the parliament if members are able to participate in such a wide-ranging debate right away from the particular provisions of the bill.Returning to the question of exemption of senior foreign executives from the superannuation guarantee, these amendments are to apply from 1 August 1996. They will continue. The superannuation guarantee exemption for employers lapsed due to administrative change of immigration visa classes. If the amendments did not apply from 1 August 1996, employers who relied on the new immigration visa classes announced in the government's press release of 25 June 1997 may be subject to the superannuation guarantee charge. So this particular amendment is totally acceptable and in keeping with usual practice. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to commend the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 to the chamber.Amendment not agreed to.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.UNKNOWNMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5904r7485904Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.11:41:005904Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill 1999 proposes to implement the 1998-99 budget announcement to ensure that a negative CPI result, which did occur for the 12 months prior to 31 March 1998, would not produce anomalies in taxation measures linked to the CPI. Problems arise in the following three areas: (1) car parking benefit thresholds, which determine the exempt amount of car parking benefits, are indexed to the CPI and would reduce, thereby increasing FBT liability; (2) dependent rebate amounts—for example, for spouses, housekeepers, invalid relatives, et cetera—would fall as they are indexed to the CPI; and (3) the wholesale sales tax quarterly remitter threshold is indexed to the CPI. If this were to fall because of a negative CPI result, some taxpayers on the margin may be forced to adopt a monthly remittance schedule instead of the quarterly one they currently enjoy.The solution proposed is for the three amounts to remain at the 1997-98 level for the 1998-99 income tax, fringe benefits tax and sales tax years. In addition, all CPI indexations for later years will be set at the previous year's level where a negative CPI occurs. In addition, drafting errors in the previous FBT legislation are corrected to ensure that references to provisions in the legislation are correctly specified. The opposition has no problem with these proposals put forward by the government, and therefore we support the legislation.11:43:005905Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The Taxation Laws Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill 1999 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 and the Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 to give effect to an announcement made in the 1998-99 budget. It is a necessary bill because it will prevent taxpayers being disadvantaged by a reduction in the level of thresholds in rebate amounts which arises from a fall in the consumer price index, the CPI, as happened in the 12-month period ending 31 March 1998. As we know, a reduction in the CPI is usually a good thing—and I will elaborate on that in a moment. However, the fall in the CPI could, if not addressed, have a negative impact for taxpayers in certain situations. The government's amendments will prevent the fall in CPI from being anything but beneficial to taxpayers.There are various thresholds and rebate amounts in taxation laws that are currently indexed annually in line with movements in the CPI, and this bill will ensure that certain thresholds and rebates do not fall because of the decrease in the CPI for the 1998-99 income year. This bill is how we will ensure that taxpayers are not disadvantaged; this bill is how we will protect taxpayers against the impacts of reductions in the CPI. The need for this legislation comes about as a result of the fall in the CPI of approximately 0.1 per cent for the four quarters to 31 March 1998. Compared with the preceding four quarters, certain thresholds which are indexed against the CPI would, according to the relevant taxation laws, be automatically reduced from the 1998-99 year as a result of the fall at 31 March. As a result, certain rebates which stem from these thresholds would otherwise be reduced, disadvantaging the taxpayers.At last year's budget, the Treasurer announced that these amounts indexed against the CPI would be maintained at the 1997-98 levels rather than being reduced in line with the fall in CPI. The amendments will provide that indexed thresholds, fringe benefits tax, car parking benefits threshold, sales tax quarterly remitter threshold and concession rebate amounts—dependant rebate—in the taxation law will remain at current levels where there has been a decrease in the CPI. The amendments also make minor technical corrections for the fringe benefits tax law by correcting references to provisions in that legislation. Taxpayers will receive a small benefit for the 1998-99 year as a result of the indexed thresholds and rebate amounts being held constant at the 1997-98 level. The indexation amendments will apply to the 1998-99 and later income tax, sales tax and fringe benefits tax years.A direct example of how this bill will protect taxpayers against the reduction in thresholds and rebates stemming from the reduction in CPI is in the fringe benefit tax on car parking facilities. FBT is payable if car parking facilities are provided by an employer within one kilometre of a commercial parking station which ordinarily charges more than the CPI indexed threshold amount for all-day parking at the start of the FBT year. Under existing law, the threshold is indexed by movements in the CPI and would be reduced should the CPI fall in the 12 months preceding the start of the FBT year. The government's amendments to the tax law will ensure that the CPI indexed threshold amount for all-day parking at the start of the FBT year will remain unchanged if the movement in the CPI in the 12 months preceding the start of that year is negative. To expand on the example, although the CPI fell by 0.2 per cent in the 12 months to the March quarter 1998, the threshold amount for the FBT year ending 31 March 1999 will remain at $5.25 per day—the same threshold as for the period ending 31 March 1998.The bill also addresses the impacts of the reduction of the CPI in relation to dependant rebates for 1998-99. The government's amendments, through the CPI indexation bill, will ensure that dependant rebates will also remain unchanged in the event of a fall in the CPI and that there will not be a reduction in the dollar value of these rebates. The rebates concerned include the dependent spouse rebate without child, the child housekeeper rebate, the invalid relative rebate, the parent of the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse rebate, the sole parent rebate and the housekeeper rebate. The bill will also assist those in the position of remitting wholesale sales tax in some instances, and this amendment will ensure that the CPI index threshold amount for quarterly remittances of wholesale sales tax will remain unchanged if the relevant movement of the CPI is negative.The way the taxation law is now, the threshold would be lowered in 1998-99 because the CPI fell over the year to the four quarters ending 31 March 1998. As a result, more taxpayers would be forced to pay sales tax monthly rather than quarterly. However, the government's amendment will change this law so that the threshold will not fall in 1998-99, hence keeping the quarterly remitter threshold at the 1997-98 level of $57,570.I take this opportunity to point to another piece of legislation implemented by this government that assists where similar impacts are caused by the stability or, indeed, reduction of the CPI. Those on fixed incomes, such as our age pensioners, have become accustomed to intermittent rises in their pensions as they rise in accordance with the CPI, albeit in minor amounts sometimes. This government—and I point out that this is the only government that has done so—has by legislation set the benchmark rate of the age pension at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. This means that although the CPI did not increase last year, the rate of the age pension did. This delivered an increase in the pension of $6.80 per fortnight in March 1998, and the government has also provided for this increase to flow to the recipients of war widows pensions. So the government has measures designed to protect those who may have otherwise been negatively affected by the fall in the CPI, just as it has worked hard to ensure that generally the CPI and inflation and interest rates and debt also fall for the benefit of all Australians. How did we reach these reductions that benefit all Australians?0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Tell us, tell us.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—I will. The government's economic policy framework has been directed to keeping the economy growing at a strong but sustainable rate. After growth in excess of four per cent in the past two years, the Australian economy is forecast to grow by a solid three per cent in this coming financial year. Such a growth performance at a time when many of our Asian trading partners have been in recession and overall world growth is below trend at about 1¾ per cent is testimony to the policy framework of the Howard government. This framework has delivered improvements in the fundamental features of the economy that drive economic growth. Our sound policy framework has meant that we have maintained the confidence of those who invest in Australia, the decline in the dollar has been orderly, and interest rates have remained low—in fact, they are the lowest in nearly three decades, which has underscored continued growth and spending.The government's debt reduction program is also paying dividends, for since coming to government, debt totalling $24.2 billion has been repaid, with the expected debt reduction of a further $20.5 billion in the years 1999-2000. We will have seen a $44¾ billion reduction in net debt in just four years. It is within our grasp—with the further sale of Telstra, by the end of the forward estimates period in 2002-03—to completely eliminate Commonwealth general government net debt. Budget surpluses and lower debt are particularly important at this time in reducing Australia's vulnerability to international economic and financial volatility.This bill is not a revenue raiser; it is not a revenue saver; and it is not a burden on expenditure. The financial impact of this bill is not significant, but the acknowledgment of the impact of the level of the CPI on taxpayers by the government is significant. It is a very fair measure and will be of benefit to Australia and all Australians while they are protected against the otherwise extremely positive impacts of stability or reductions in the CPI. I commend this bill.11:51:005907Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I would like to express my appreciation to the honourable member for Curtin and also the honourable member for Melbourne for supporting this legislation. In summing up I would like to emphasise some of the merits of this bill.The bill will ensure that various thresholds and rebate amounts in the taxation law that are currently indexed annually in line with movements in the consumer price index will not fall because of a decrease in the CPI. These thresholds are found in the fringe benefits tax law, the income tax law and the sales tax law. This will prevent taxpayers from being disadvantaged by a reduction in the level of thresholds and rebate amounts. The amendments to the indexation provisions apply to 1998-99 and in latter years. Some of the people who would have been adversely affected without the amendments include certain dependant rebate recipients and sales tax quarterly remitters.The opportunity has also been taken to make two minor technical corrections to the fringe benefits tax law. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that taxpayers are not disadvantaged by falls in the consumer price index in relation to fringe benefits tax on car parking arrangements, the level of certain indexed income tax rebates and the frequency of sales tax remittances.There are no losers from these legislative changes. Rather, they are designed to ensure that taxpayers are not adversely affected by movements in the CPI. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Crosio)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I put the question that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5907r7495907Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.11:54:005907Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—This bill proposes to introduce a generic taxation framework to apply to demutualisation of non-insurance bodies. The legislation is not concerned with the merits or otherwise of demutualisation; it simply establishes a framework that relates to demutualisation exercises. The reason for the legislation is that anomalies currently arise under the existing taxation regime. The tax penalties and anomalies will be replaced by a generic model.The new framework applies to demutualisation that occurs under one of three specified methods. It will only apply to those demutualisations where broad continuity of beneficial interest is maintained. It provides that capital gains tax will not apply to the surrender by a member of membership interests in the demutualising entity. Any CGT liability will therefore be deferred until disposal of the demutualisation shares. The framework establishes for CGT purposes the date and cost of acquisition of shares, including bonus shares acquired by members as part of the demutualisation process. And it will allow demutualising entities to retain any franking account surpluses accumulated before demutualisation. The amendments will apply to demutualisations that are completed on or after 12 May 1998.A mutual company is a company without issued stock capital, owned by its members. A mutual company's ownership structure distinguishes it, of course, from conventional corporations. Voting rights in most companies are determined by shareholdings, with one vote per share. Mutuals have one vote per member, regardless of each member's financial commitment to that company. In a mutual company ownership arises from membership which is based upon the acquisition of a product or service from the company rather than by the contribution of capital. Many mutually owned financial organisations were originally established as cooperatives. Members pooled their resources to achieve specific objectives, such as providing marketing of primary produce or low cost housing finance.Mutuals distribute profits through bonuses or reduced premiums and charges. Profits are also commonly reinvested in the company. The accretion of reserves in this way is the main avenue available to build capital. The decision to demutualise may be driven by many factors, including the need to access external capital to finance expansion, diversification, or to enable a mutual to compete more effectively in the market. For the purposes of this bill, an entity will be a mutual entity if: it is a body corporate; it is not an insurance company or a mutual affiliate company; it is not carried on for the object of securing a profit; it does not have shareholders; and it does not hold property in which its members have a disposable interest, except in the event of a winding-up.The new division 326 sets out the taxation consequences of the demutualisation of mutual entities other than insurance companies. The new provisions will apply if the following criteria are satisfied: the demutualisation resolution day was 4 February 1999 or later, the entity was a resident immediately before the resolution, the demutualisation was implemented in one of the three specified methods, the continuity of beneficial interest test is satisfied, and the demutualisation was or is completed on or after 12 May 1998.The proposed framework will apply under one of the three following methods. First is the direct method, with the issue of demutualisation shares directly to members. Under this method ordinary shares of one class in the entity are issued within the limitation period to existing members. In return membership rights in the entity are extinguished. Shares of the same class may also be issued to new members.The second method is the holding company method, whereby the holding company is interposed between the mutual entity and its members. Under this method, shares of one class in the entity are issued within the limitation period to a holding company. Shares of one class in the holding company are then issued within the limitation period to existing members. In return, membership rights in the entity are extinguished. Shares of the same class may also be issued to new members.The third method is the distributing trust method, whereby the distributing trust is interposed between a mutual entity and the members. Under this method the entity issues special shares, which carry only voting rights with respect to the entity, within the limitation period to the trustee of a distributing trust to hold for the benefit of existing and new members. This issue takes place before the issue of ordinary shares. After the issue of ordinary shares to the trustee, in return for which membership rights are extinguished, the rights attaching to the special shares must become the same as those attaching to ordinary shares. The special shares must then be treated as ordinary shares.The capital gains tax consequences of the legislation are that the proposed measures will: provide that a capital gain or loss arising from the surrender of a membership interest in a mutual will be disregarded; ensure that, on the issue of demutualisation shares, no amount is included in a member's assessable income; and prescribe the date and cost of acquisition of shares, including bonus shares, acquired by members in an entity, including its holding company, as part of the demutualisation process.Basically, the cost base will be determined by reference to whether a member is a pre-CGT or a post-CGT member. Generally for pre-CGT members, the cost of acquisition will be determined by reference to the member's share of the market value of the entity immediately before demutualisation. For post-CGT members, the cost will be determined by reference to the non-deductible costs incurred by the member in acquiring and maintaining membership.Where a member acquires a right to the issue of shares and the member disposes of that right of interest other than by receiving the shares, the date and cost of acquisition will be determined as if the member had disposed of the shares in the entity. It will ensure that, where the distributing trust method of demutualisation is used and special shares are converted to ordinary shares, no disposal will be taken to have occurred for capital gains tax purposes. Finally, it will ensure that a payment out of the assets of a demutualised entity after demutualisation to a shareholder will not be taken to be a payment of dividend. The payment will not be assessable as a dividend, but the cost base of the shares will be reduced by the amount of the payment. If the payment is more than the shares cost base, the shareholder will make a capital gain.No representations have been received from any business groups opposing the legislation, nor have there been any suggested amendments. Accordingly, Labor is happy to support the legislation. Taxpayers can now proceed to demutualise, if they so choose. That is entirely their option. This bill should ensure that a fair taxation regime exists which facilitates this process rather than complicates it. Therefore, as I said, the opposition supports the legislation.12:01:005909Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The proposals in the Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisation of Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999 , which is before the House today, do in fact allow for relief from capital gains tax where an organisation such as a cooperative is demutualised. I believe that these provisions, where the members of a mutual organisation so decide, will favour the corporatisation process if that is to the advantage of the organisation. The organisations that seem to be most in line for this beneficial treatment are cooperatives and perhaps even credit unions. Whether they take advantage of that process or not will depend on the members of the mutual organisations.Huge amounts have been taken from investors in situations such as the St George takeover of Advance, Westpac's acquisition of the Bank of Melbourne and the more recent AMP offer for GIO. This capital gain that has been realised by shareholders, and in one instance by the mutual owners, has been a very strong detriment to people wanting to invest in companies or to gain the benefits of a mutually owned organisation.The Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisation of Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999—huge title—has a range of advantages, and they are obvious when one comes to assess them. The key considerations in this legislation are whether or not changes to the capital gains tax would encourage those changes in a wider field, and I refer now to the Ralph committee, which was charged by the government to look at business taxes. It is fascinating to read the attitude of the Ralph committee to the matters of capital gains tax because the capital gains factors must be considered with regard to demutualisation if people are to move from a mutual organisation to a corporate structure.In his consideration of the capital gains tax, John Ralph considered things such as would capital gains tax relief encourage savings and investment, does relief from capital gains tax produce net economic benefit, would capital gains tax relief encourage long-term investment, does relief from capital gains tax encourage high risk investment or attract mobile international capital, and should small business capital gains tax concessions be rationalised? John Ralph, in his consideration in his publication A platform for consultation, discussion papers with business, came down on the side of favouring a change in capital gains taxes.This government has moved very quickly and very well in this narrow area to make sure that, where cooperatives—whether they be fruit packing houses, building societies or any other structures where a number of people have come together for mutual benefit, where they all directly participate in the ownership and structure of the organisation—decide that they wish to sell that organisation, provided that they sell it to the original mutual owners, they are free of capital gains tax. In my mind, this seems to be a step in the right direction, and it is one that we need to be encouraging in Australia.The fact that we have a very high capital gains tax regime is one that has been used by governments. The House will remember the introduction of the capital gains tax. That was the tax we were not going to have in 1984. I do not think it was ever mentioned. Suddenly, during an election campaign, the government of the day lobbed on us a capital gains tax. Nobody predicted it. There was great fear and concern that it would be on the family home, and it took some time to rectify.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And Gareth Evans wanted to extend it.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—He wanted to extend it to the family home, and there is always the fear that the Australian Labor Party's secret plan is to have the family home included in the capital gains tax. It might suit the Americans with their tax deductibility for interest payments and the other concessions that are made to home buyers, but it does not suit Australians. Australians have a right to feel secure and certain about the largest investment they make in their lives—that is, the purchase of a home.Paul Keating said at the time the capital gains tax was introduced by the Australian Labor Party that it was not going to be a major factor in revenue gathering. It has turned out to be a multimillion dollar tax gatherer for the Australian government, and it is time to consider whether or not it has acted as a barrier or an inhibitor to investment, particularly for people wanting to change their investment.After purchasing shares in the Commonwealth Bank, one dear old man was so fearful of the capital gains tax that he sold his shares within a short time—he took a terrible loss; it was his life savings—only to find that no capital gains tax was going to be applied in those circumstances. It was a tragic decision. He bought the shares for his family. He wanted to distribute them to his family but the capital gains tax scared him off at the end of the day. The government has moved to make sure that does not happen for cooperatives, and maybe for credit unions, where people are seeking to demutualise the process, where there is a gain in the value of the asset, provided that the ownership within the corporate structure is the same as the one within the mutual organisation.I refer the House to some of the aspects of the changes that need to be undertaken in capital gains tax. We have seen this change today and it is obvious that, in making the change, the government considers that it will encourage savings and investment, that it will produce an economic benefit to relieve people from capital gains tax in these changes and that it will encourage longer term investment.When one looks at the changes made to capital gains tax in the United States during the 1980s, one has to observe that, where capital gains tax was reduced, investment actually increased and the tax gain also increased. So in some strange way, by reducing capital gains tax the diversity of investment increased and the tax gain actually increased. Where capital gains tax was increased in the United States in 1987, there was an actual fall in the amount of tax collected.Many countries give a more favourable treatment to capital gains taxes than to personal income tax and ordinary taxes. They do this to encourage savings and investment. For those in a mutual organisation, whether it is a co-op or a credit union, who gain a mutual benefit from the process and where there is a benefit in that investment, this legislation allows that benefit to continue by removing capital gains tax altogether.If that same principle is applied more broadly, I believe—and it is evident from an examination of capital gains tax regimes around the world, particularly in long-term or risky investments—that there is encouragement for investment if there is a moderate capital gains tax regime. The incentive to save rather than consume is obviously strengthened by some relief of capital gains tax. If one compares Australia's capital gains tax regime to the rest of the world's, one would have to look at the United States and Britain. As most of our capital has been invested from Britain, I guess we need to look at their regime. The Australian Labor Party ought to seriously consider the modification of capital gains tax. Tony Blair has taken some very significant steps to encourage investment in Britain. His regime has been pretty thoughtful in the way in which capital gains taxes have been treated.The regime in Britain seeks to spread a progressive tax relief from capital gains tax for individuals depending on the number of years a particular investment is held. That same regime also applies in the United States. So the longer an investment is held, the less capital gains tax is raised on it. Also an interesting circumstance in the United States is that the first $1,000 or $2,000, I think it is, of a capital gain is relieved entirely from taxation. That encourages the small business person—the person who could invest in pome fruit or a stone fruit grower investing in his local co-op—to invest because they will be relieved from capital gains tax in this instance. But I would argue that the principle being applied here needs to be extended further still so that a small amount of money invested in something that shows a capital gain should be relieved of capital gains tax completely.That is the situation in the United States. They have a regime where the marginal rate of taxation varies from 15 per cent through to about 40 per cent, but the capital gains tax on medium-term investments—that is, longer than 18 months—ranges from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. There is a concession which amounts to almost a halving of the capital gains tax for a medium-term investment. For a longer-term investment, it is even lower. So there is a gradation which favours long-term investment. There is a gradation which favours the amount of money earned by the person making the investment.I feel that this legislation is very significant. It starts the change in the regime that I want to see happen and that I believe many people on both sides of the parliament want to see happen. We want to see a relief of capital gains tax. It is far too harsh. It gives us a competitive disadvantage. It discourages investment in more risky ventures. One only has to refer to comments that have been made by those who are specialists in small business investment to understand that a change in taxation would be an advantage to things such as the Business Angels Services.Bob Beaumont, project manager for Business Angels Services established by the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, is quoted as saying in an article by Kath Walters that the anomaly in our capital gains tax regime discourages business angel investment and forces those who are tempted into the market to head to its highest risk end. He is quoted in that article as saying:"Investors find it is hardly worth investing after they do the sums, or they can only invest in companies returning 30-50%."So patient funds and money being invested in innovative projects are just not there because of the capital gains tax regimes. According to research conducted in the United States referred to in this article by Kath Walters, the lowering of capital gains tax increases the investment activity in tax revenue.Barry Westlake, the national manager of Enterprise Market, the matchmaking service run by the Australian Stock Exchange—a very fine program which has been in place for a little over 12 months which has been very successful in matching investors with innovative or small firms—wants industry to snatch the opportunity for reform that John Ralph presents and suggests that two of the tabled options from Britain and the US to which I have just referred have been shown to work. He believes that the federal government is offering one general capital gains tax reduction and one industry specific concession. The article states:"I am a pragmatic businessman," Westlake says. "Rather than argue the toss, I prefer to take the opportunity now for a big step in the right direction."So for those people servicing small businesses, long-term investment or somewhat more risky investment, there is a favouring of reducing capital gains tax in an understandable and commonsense way.The Australian Labor Party should be attracted to this process. This bill today for the relief of capital gains tax, as a process of demutualisation takes place, is a worthy and laudable piece of legislation. I think it is a precursor to an ongoing consideration that this government, the parliament and the nation at large will give to the taxing of capital. Australia is a capital scarce country. We need capital. We need to develop our commodities, our roads, our infrastructure, our ports, our shipping and all of those aspects of life in Australia which do require capital. To be taxing capital at the high rate introduced by the Australian Labor Party under Paul Keating as Treasurer at that time was a step in the wrong direction. We ought to rectify that not by wiping capital gains tax but by having a somewhat more lenient regime of taxing capital which will make us more competitive and more attractive for both Australian and international investors.12:17:005913Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—At the outset I would like to thank the honourable members for Melbourne and Mitchell for their positive contributions and their support of the legislation currently before the chamber. The proposed measures seek to remove impediments to demutualisations and to introduce a broad generic framework for future demutualisations. Summarising the merits of the bill, the bill introduces a framework for the capital gains tax treatment of particular transactions associated with the demutualisation of mutual non-insurance organisations where the demutualisation occurs under one of three specified methods and where broad continuity of beneficial ownership is maintained.The purpose of the amendments is thus to provide a framework which specifies the taxation consequences of certain transactions likely to occur in relation to such organisations. In general terms, a mutual company is a company without issued capital stock, owned by its members. In a mutual, capital ownership arises from membership which is based upon the acquisition of a product or service from the company rather than by the contribution of capital.In the past three years a number of large insurance companies have become demutualised. The decision to demutualise may be driven by many factors, including the need to access external capital to finance expansion, diversification or to enable the mutual to compete more effectively in the marketplace. The taxation treatment for the demutualisations of these organisations is currently prescribed by division 9AA of part III of the 1936 act. It ought to be recognised that there are no similar legislative rules at the moment applying to non-insurance mutual organisations.These provisions are necessary to deal with anomalies that arose from the application of the capital gains tax provisions to such organisations covered by the legislation, including the possibility of double taxation. There are difficulties in the existing tax law as it applies to demutualisation of non-insurance organisations, including this double taxation, which is clearly not in the public interest. These amendments thus continue the government's ongoing commitment to taxation reform and, in particular, to eliminating anomalies which have arisen in the administration of the current taxation laws.The main features of the framework included in the legislation are, firstly, that a member who disposes of a membership interest in a mutual non-insurance organisation in the course of a demutualisation will not be subject to capital gains tax on the disposal. Any capital gains tax liability will therefore be deferred until the disposal of the demutualisation shares. Secondly, the issue of shares in the new organisation will not give rise to a taxable capital gain at the time of issue. Thirdly, the amount paid for the acquisition of shares in the new entity will be determined according to when the original membership interest was acquired. Fourthly, there will be specific provisions establishing the amount paid for shares in cases such as mergers or takeovers. Lastly, and importantly, franking credit surpluses of demutualised entities will be retained. These measures were foreshadowed in the 1997-98 budget and announced in the 1998-99 budget. The government has consulted with interested parties in the preparation of these measures, which will apply to demutualisations completed on or after 12 May 1998. I am very pleased to commend this bill, also, to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Main Committee adjourned at 12.23 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing5915The following answers to questions were circulated:5915(Question No. 8)85915Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth contribute towards funding Victoria's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.(2) Is he able to say what sum the Victorian Government contributed towards funding Victoria's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.(3) Is he also able to say what total sum was spent on funding Victoria's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.5915Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Based on funding under the 1988-93 and 1993-98 Medicare Agreements, the 1998-2003 Australian Health Care Agreements and various hospital related Specific Purpose Payments to the State, the Commonwealth's contribution towards funding Victoria's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:$m1991-921,000.3541992-931,040.1011993-941,212.0671994-951,235.3991995-961,290.0821996-971,293.0001997-981,356.2821998-99 (est)1,362.398These figures must of course be looked at in the context of the overall Financial Assistance Grants to the States and Territories.(2) Based on Commonwealth Grants Commission data on States' own recurrent outlays on hospital services, the Victorian Government contribution towards funding Victoria's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:$m1991-921,128.5551992-93937.4441993-94732.4901994-95730.0671995-96773.5751996-97842.5351997-98912.0091998-99not available(3) The total sum spent on funding Victoria's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year is not able to be readily ascertained. The figures above do not include capital funding by the State or funding from any source for the treatment of private patients in public hospitals.Under the public hospital funding arrangements, State and Territory Governments are responsible for the planning and provision of public hospital services, including the total amount of funds available to the public hospital system.5916(Question No. 43)435916Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth contribute towards funding New South Wales' public hospitals in 1991-92 and in each subsequent financial year.(2) Is he able to say what sum the New South Wales Government contributed towards funding New South Wales' public hospitals in 1991-92 and in each subsequent financial year.(3) Is he also able to say what total sum was spent on funding New South Wales' public hospitals in 1991-92 and in each subsequent financial year.5916Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Based on funding under the 1988-93 and 1993-98 Medicare Agreements, the 1998-2003 Australian Health Care Agreements and various hospital related Specific Purpose Payments to the State, the Commonwealth's contribution towards funding New South Wales' public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:$m1991-921,370.7291992-931,422.2981993-941,492.4971994-951,577.6211995-961,652.3101996-971,726.1551997-981,799.2311998-99 (est)1,909.740These figures must of course be looked at in the context of the overall Financial Assistance Grants to the States and Territories.(2) Based on Commonwealth Grants Commission data on States' own recurrent outlays on hospital services, the New South Wales Government contribution towards funding New South Wales' public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:$m1991-921,387.3661992-931,363.5001993-941,314.9411994-951,607.4141995-961,797.0761996-971,883.2711997-981,962.1001998-99not available(3) The total sum spent on funding New South Wales' public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year is not able to be readily ascertained. The figures above do not include capital funding by the State or funding from any source for the treatment of private patients in public hospitals. Under the public hospital funding arrangements, State and Territory Governments are responsible for the planning and provision of public hospital services, including the total amount of funds available to the public hospital system.5917(Question No. 71)715917Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth contribute towards funding Tasmania's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.(2) Is he able to say what sum the Tasmanian Government contributed towards funding Tasmania's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.(3) Is he able to say what total sum was spent on funding Tasmania's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.5917Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Based on funding under the 1988-93 and 1993-98 Medicare Agreements, the 1998-2003 Australian Health Care Agreements and various hospital related Specific Purpose Payments to the State, the Commonwealth's contribution towards funding Tasmania's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:Specific Purpose GrantsFinancial Assistance GrantsTotal$m$m$m1991-921095586671992-931245787021993-941345847181994-951306127421995-961386517891996-971396668051997-981416808211998-99135 (est)737 (est)872 (est)It should be noted that virtually all Commonwealth assistance to States for public hospitals and related purposes is absorbed into the general revenue assistance pool distributed between States on the basis of relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. As a result the reduction in specific purpose grants in 1998-99 shown above will be more than offset by an increase in Financial Assistance Grants to Tasmania. This increase is a direct result of the change in the distribution of Health Care Grants and will occur despite the fact that Tasmania's population is estimated to decline both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the Australian population.(2) Based on Commonwealth Grants Commission data on States' own recurrent outlays on hospital services, the Tasmanian Government contribution towards recurrent funding of Tasmania's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:$m1991-921461992-931491993-941231994-951371995-961351996-971541997-981551998-99not available(3) The total sum spent on funding Tasmania's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year cannot be readily ascertained. The figures above exclude capital funding by the State and funding from any source for the treatment of private patients in public hospitals.Under the public hospital funding arrangements, State and Territory Governments are responsible for the planning and provision of public hospital services, including the total amount of funds available to the public hospital system.5918(Question No. 78)785918Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth contribute towards funding Queensland's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.(2) Is he able to say what sum the Queensland Government contributed towards funding Queensland's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.(3) Is he able to say what total sum was spent on funding Queensland's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.5918Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Based on funding under the 1988-93 and 1993-98 Medicare Agreements, the 1998-2003 Australian Health Care Agreements and various hospital related Specific Purpose Payments to the State, the Commonwealth's contribution towards funding Queensland's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:$m1991-92669.1271992-93699.8861993-94776.4501994-95812.2011995-96845.5251996-97900.1091997-98929.1881998-99 (est)1,095.070These figures must of course be looked at in the context of the overall Financial Assistance Grants to the States and Territories.(2) Based on Commonwealth Grants Commission data on States' own recurrent outlays on hospital services, the Queensland Government contribution towards funding Queensland's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:$m1991-92685.9731992-93661.9391993-94569.8121994-95656.9411995-96855.1081996-97929.7861997-981,041.6001998-99not available(3) The total sum spent on funding Queensland's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year is not able to be readily ascertained. The figures above do not include capital funding by the State or funding from any source for the treatment of private patients in public hospitals. Under the public hospital funding arrangements, State and Territory Governments are responsible for the planning and provision of public hospital services, including the total amount of funds available to the public hospital system.5919(Question No. 107)1075919Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:What sums were allocated in local government financial assistance grants in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97, (c) 1997-98 to the (i) City of Whittlesea, (ii) City of Banyule, (iii) Shire of Nillumbuk and (iv) City of Darebin.5919Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:CouncilYearGeneral PurposeRoadsTotalCity of Whittlesea1995-96$3,312,290$590,586$3,902,876 1996-97$3,406,245$665,748$4,071,993 1997-98$3,724,564$728,654$4,453,218 City of Banyule1995-96$4,346,062$674,956$5,021,018 1996-97$4,469,455$718,412$5,187,867 1997-98$4,455,201$736,585$5,191,786 Shire of Nillumbik1995-96$2,575,891$597,617$3,173,508 1996-97$2,650,075$578,307$3,228,382 1997-98$2,485,356$579,949$3,065,305 City of Darebin1995-96$6,509,045$724,171$7,233,216 1996-97$6,994,329$704,501$7,698,830 1997-98$6,915,773$665,207$7,580,980 5919(Question No. 550)5505919Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 March 1999:(1) Has he received advice indicating whether the referendum procedure in section 128 of the Constitution permits amendment of the preamble as distinct from the Constitution itself within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.(2) Has he received advice on the validity of Sir Robert Garran's statement that the Constitution could be altered but not the Act in which the Constitution was incorporated.(3) Has he received advice indicating whether an attempt to alter the preamble by referendum would be invalid because of the provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in effect by virtue of the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Acts 1986. (4) Has he received advice indicating whether the Australia Acts 1986 prevent the UK Parliament from amending the preamble.(5) Has he received advice indicating whether the preamble can be amended by the Commonwealth at the request, or with the concurrence, of the parliaments of all States pursuant to placitum 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution and section 15 of the Australia Acts 1986.(6) Has he received advice indicating that the approach referred to in part (S) was flawed; if so, on what grounds.5919Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:It has been the general practice of succeeding governments not to disclose whether specific legal advice has been provided to government for the purpose of developing government policy or making specific government decisions, nor to make available such legal advice. However, I can assure the Honourable Member that the Government has received appropriate legal advice in developing its proposals for constitutional changes to be put to the people later this year. The following comments may assist in clarifying the position.An Australian republic may be established without amending or repealing the existing preamble to the Constitution Act (UK). The Government's proposed constitutional amendments would not amend or repeal the preamble to the Constitution Act (UK).• However, the existing preamble to the Constitution Act (UK) may be amended. This could be achieved by a Commonwealth Act passed at the request of the Parliaments of all the States (under subsection 1 S(1) of the Australia Acts) or by a constitutional amendment under section 128 of the Constitution giving the Commonwealth Parliament legislative power to do so (as contemplated by subsection 1 5(3) of ie Australia Acts).5920(Question No. 552)5525920Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 March 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 393 (Hansard , 22 March 1999, page 3409), have additional full-time officer positions been allocated to the Army Reserve; if so, how many positions have been allocated (a) nationally and (b) in Victoria.(2) Have longstanding officers in the Army Reserve received letters notifying them that they have been involuntarily transferred to the Inactive Reserve; if so, how many officers have been notified (a) nationally and (b) in Victoria.(3) Did the officers referred to in part (2) receive letters from the Defence Personnel Executive stating that their transfer was not a reflection of dissatisfaction with their service but necessary to meet the ongoing developmental requirements of the Army Reserve; if so, did the transfers actually result from the allocation of additional full-time officer positions to the Reserve.(4) What redundancy benefits were provided to the officers who were transferred to the Inactive Reserve.5920Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Army Reserve is manned by personnel serving on a part-time basis. No full-time officer positions have been allocated to the Army Reserve.Following are the number of Army Reserve officer positions nationally and in Victoria:199719981999Nationally344634093414Victoria570549571(2) The use of voluntary transfer, and the ability to involuntarily transfer a member to the Inactive Army Reserve is a management tool available to personnel agencies, such as the Directorate of Officer Career Management—Army and the Army Personnel Agencies, to allow the total management of the personnel asset.In order to provide reasonable opportunities for promotion and command appointments, it may be necessary for personnel agencies to transfer members to the Inactive Army Reserve. This is not an indication of poor or unsatisfactory performance but a reflection of the need to provide opportunities for the continual development of officers. Members to be considered for transfer to the Inactive Army Reserve are:(a) to have served a reasonable time in their current rank; (b) unlikely to be promoted (this may be due to potential or the lack of positions); and(c) are restricting the promotion of junior officers.Since the beginning of FY 1998/99, Nationally 55 officers have been given letters of intention to transfer them to the Inactive Army Reserve. 40 officers accepted and transferred voluntarily. 13 officers objected and appealed, and their cases were reviewed in accordance with the policy. 6 officers have subsequently been transferred involuntarily. 1 officer will be transferred involuntarily on 30 June 1999 and 6 officers will be transferred on 31 December 1999 if no suitable positions can be found for them by then. 2 officers have not yet replied to the initial letter.Included in this National total are 5 officers in Victoria who were identified for transfer to the Inactive Army Reserve; 2 transferred voluntarily and 3 were transferred involuntarily.(3) Officers identified for transfer are forwarded a copy of the `Consultation Notes—Transfer to the Inactive Army Reserve' which informs them of the reasons for their proposed transfer and that the action is not a reflection of dissatisfaction with their previous service. Also they are provided with this advice by their Commander/Commanding Officer/Officer Commanding.Once a member is identified for transfer from the Active Reserve, a proposal to transfer the officer to the Inactive Army Reserve is then prepared, and acting on behalf of the Chief of Army, the delegate signs and forwards a Notification of Intention to Transfer (NOIT) to the member's Commander, Commanding Officer or Officer Commanding. The Commander/Commanding Officer/Officer Commanding consults with the member and explains the proposal and the member's options.Consultation with the member is a significant factor throughout this process, ensuring that members understand their options and that they are informed at each stage.The transfers do not result from the allocation of additional full time officer positions to the Army Reserve, but instead are a way of ensuring younger Reserve officers have promotion opportunities.(4) There is no provision for officers of the Army Reserve to receive redundancy benefits on their transfer to the Inactive Army Reserve. Reservists are not full time employees. Those in the Inactive Army Reserve can still be called on to do project work, for which they will be paid.5921(Question No. 619)6195921Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 May 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 112 (Hansard , 10 March 1999, page 3701) concerning the position of Administrator of Norfolk Island being an office of profit under the crown, have the Hon. Anthony John Messner's Commonwealth parliamentary superannuation entitlements been reduced because of his appointment as the Administrator of Norfolk Island; if so, by what sum; if not, why not.5921Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Advice from the Department of Finance and Administration is that Mr Messner's parliamentary superannuation has been reduced by the maximum required by the Parliamentary Contributory Super annuation Act 1948 because of his appointment as Administrator of Norfolk Island.5921(Question No. 620)6205921Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 13 May 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 315 (Hansard , 10 February 1999, page 2440) concerning a reciprocal social security agreement between Australia and Greece, is it a fact that the Government of Greece is not prepared to proceed with the Australian Government's proposal of April 1998 and wishes to negotiate further towards an agreement similar to those with other European countries.(2) Is it a fact that the Australian Government is insisting on an agreement with Greece which is different from those with other European countries, in particular imposing a 49-year period rather than a 25-year period; if so, why.(3) Is it a fact that the issue has been stalled for a number of years and is creating hardship for many persons.(4) Will the Australian Government discuss the issue at a ministerial level with the Government of Greece to achieve a resolution.5921Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Government of Greece has not responded to the Australian Government's proposal of April 1998. Consequently, I do not know its current position on the matter.(2) Australia desires a reciprocal Agreement with Greece. The same formula, as used with other European countries, would be applied to people leaving Australia to live in Greece after an Agreement is implemented. The only difference is that the combination of Australian and Greek working life residence will be used to work out the Australian rate of pension for people who have already resettled in Greece. This is necessary due to the limited coverage of the Greece's social insurance scheme and because Australia wants to achieve the same level of reciprocity that has been achieved in Agreements with other European countries.(3) The issue has been stalled since 1995. My Government has made efforts to end the stalemate and avoid any difficulties created by delays. However, the matter is now with the Government of Greece. (4) The Australian Government would be prepared to discuss the issue at a ministerial level if necessary, once the position of the Government of Greece is known.