1999-06-103913REPS665501999-06-10Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m. and read prayers.Miscellaneous6655665509:31:006655Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 13, Private members business, submitted in my name, being called on forthwith.This is a motion designed to do what the Howard government has been unprepared to do—that is, to stand up for Australia's almost one million small firms. When the Prime Minister signed that now infamous deal on the GST with the Democrats, he in effect sold out Australia's almost one million small firms. What is an uncontestable fact is that the compliance costs involved in government regulation fall disproportionately on small firms.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. Could I inquire of members opposite whether there has been agreement with the managers of business for this?AV5QUICKMr Quick—There's no point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order.Motion (by Mr Abbott) agreed to:That the member be not further heard.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I rise to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson does not have the call.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you do need to deal with the motion before the House. The fact is that this compliance cost is going to cost Australian firms $200 million—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Hunter will resume his seat. The Minister for Employment Services will resume his seat. The House has already voted that the member for Hunter be not further heard. At that point the member for Paterson rose to second the motion but did not have the call and, for that reason, I sat the member for Paterson down. The member for Paterson has the right to rise and seek the call if he wishes. I call the member for Paterson.09:33:006655Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise to second the motion moved by the member for Hunter.Motion (by Mr Abbott) agreed to:That the member be not further heard.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. I would inquire as to the motion before the House. I understand there is a motion currently before the House that needs disposal.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is right. There is some confusion both between the chair and the clerks, which is entirely understandable, simply because the clerks are not in receipt of the motion in the written form for which the standing orders provide.Mr Horne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! If it facilitates the cause of the House, I will allow the member for Hunter to submit that motion in written form if he so desires.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The chair is now in receipt of the motion.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. I understood that, under the standing orders, any member of this House was entitled to have read at any point throughout the debate the motion before the House.SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—First, you have to sign it. Have you forgotten that?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The House will come to order. The confusion has arisen because the chair was not in receipt of the motion. The member for Hunter has the right to read the motion if it has not been circulated and, in fact, the motion has not been circulated. The chair proposes to read the motion to the House. The member for Hunter has moved:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 13, Private members business, submitted in his name being called on forthwith.Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the question be now put.The House divided. [9.41 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and ProceedingsQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Fitzgibbon's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [9.47 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and ProceedingsQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills6656r8416656Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.665609:53:006656Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.IntroductionI place before the House today a bill to provide the basis for a referendum on whether Australia should become a republic.The Prime Minister made a commitment to the Australian people at the close of the 1998 Constitutional Convention that the govern ment would put the Convention's model for an Australian republic to a referendum in 1999.The government aims to meet that commitment by putting before the Australian people on 6 November the proposal for constitutional change that I have introduced today.As a government, we recognise that the Australian Constitution has served Australia well.It binds our nation together.It has established a stable federal framework of government and endures as the foundation for our democratic institutions.It is precisely because the Constitution has served us so well, and proven so durable, that constitutional change must not be undertaken lightly.However, as a government, we recognise that the Constitution is not immutable, and was never intended to be.As Sir Robert Menzies recognised, the Constitution is not a social or political straitjacket inhibiting consideration of change in a changing world.In providing for its own alteration in section 128, the Constitution looks to the future and acknowledges the possibility of change.It gives the Australian people the right, and the responsibility, to decide whether there shall be change. In the referendum procedure, it provides what is arguably the most rigorously democratic mechanism for constitutional change to be found in any national constitution. A majority of electors must vote in favour of change. In addition, there must be a majority vote in a majority of states.It might once have been thought that the preamble to the Imperial Act which originally set out our Constitution, in referring to a federation under `the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland', could preclude a decision by Australians that Australia should be a republic. However, this is no longer credible.Similarly, the idea that a republic might be established by legislation of the United Kingdom parliament is no longer credible. It ignores the reality of Australia as an independent nation.At the end of the 20th century, the question whether Australia should become a republic is one for Australia and Australians.The republic debate and the Constitutional ConventionWhether or not Australia should become a republic has been the subject of discussion over a number of years.The Prime Minister recognised this when, in March 1997, he announced the government's plan for a Constitutional Convention.The Prime Minister said that the convention would provide an opportunity to involve the Australian people in discussing whether or not Australia should become a republic. It would be a forum for all voices in the debate.One hundred and fifty-two delegates attended the convention, which met for 10 days here in Canberra, in Old Parliament House.Half of the delegates were elected and half were appointed.The reason for the convention was quite clear. It was to provide a forum for discussion about whether or not our Constitution should be changed to establish an Australian republic. Three questions were identified for the convention:. whether or not Australia should become a republic;. which republic model should be put to the electorate to consider against the status quo; and. in what time frame and under what circumstances any change might be considered.The government recognised that there are sincerely held views—in the parliament and across the broader community—on both sides of the debate.The government's objective was to allow the convention to explore these views constructively, in full public view, and to consider which republic model could be put against the existing constitutional arrangements at a referendum.The Prime Minister announced at the time that, if clear support for a particular republic model emerged, that model would be put to a referendum in 1999. He proposed that, if the referendum proposal were supported, the new arrangements be in place for the Centenary of Federation on 1 January 2001.The model which clearly attracted the greatest support at the convention involves a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of the Commonwealth parliament. At the close of the convention, the Prime Minister made a commitment to put that model to the people. That commitment was re-stated in last year's election campaign.Developing the referendum legislationIn March this year the government released exposure drafts of the referendum legislation relating to the republic model: the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999, which I shall refer to as the republic bill; and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999, which I shall refer to as the nominations committee bill.In developing the drafts of these bills, the government has been concerned to flesh out the republic model endorsed by the convention, but not to go beyond what is necessary to implement that model.The government's aim has been to develop a workable proposal which has broad support as an appropriate legislative expression of the convention model.It was therefore important to provide the states and territories, the opposition and other political parties, and interested groups and individuals with an opportunity to have a say in relation to the development of the proposal.It is for that reason that the government decided to release its legislation as exposure drafts for public comment.And the government has been very pleased to receive careful and considered submissions on the exposure drafts. One hundred and eleven submissions were received on the legislation relating to the republic model.On behalf of the government, I would like to thank all of those who contributed their ideas and opinions. Those contributions have been of real assistance in the process of refining the referendum proposal and have borne out the importance of public involvement and consultation.The republic bill and the nominations committee bill have been revised in light of the submissions received, and the revised bills are introduced today.In developing this legislation, the government's aim has been to ensure as far as possible that the Australian people are presented with a safe, workable proposal for a republic that continues our traditions of stable, parliamentary democracy.The object of the republic bill is to give Australia an Australian head of state who can fit into our current arrangements in place of the Queen and her representative in Australia, the Governor-General.The nominations committee bill is not a constitutional amendment but a bill for an ordinary Commonwealth act. It provides in more detail for the establishment and role of the nominations committee, filling in the very broad outline provided by the Constitutional Convention. The convention resolved that the process for community consultation and evaluation of nominations is likely to evolve with experience and is best dealt with by ordinary legislation or parliamentary resolution.As this bill would not alter the Constitution it would not have to be approved at a referendum. Nonetheless, it is likely to be of great interest because, in the event that change to a republic is approved at the referendum, it would provide the means by which the Australian people could be involved in selecting a President.I shall return to the nominations committee bill in my second reading speech for that bill.Public information activitiesThe government proposes to give the Australian people every chance to understand the proposal on which they will be asked to vote.A public education program scheduled for September will alert people to the approach ing referendum, remind them of the issues and provide them with balanced information in an accessible form.Educational material will be distributed which explains the republic model, the existing constitutional arrangements, the implications for state constitutions and the referendum process.The government has established an expert panel, chaired by Sir Ninian Stephen, to provide advice on the educational material to ensure that it is fair, balanced and accurate.The government has also established yes and no advertising campaign committees, drawn from delegates to the Constitutional Convention, to plan and manage robust national advertising campaigns for and against the republic proposal in the final weeks leading up to the vote.In addition, the Australian Electoral Commission will distribute to all electors yes and no cases prepared by parliamentarians, in accordance with the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.The republic billI shall now briefly turn to the specific provisions of the republic bill.The bill comprises three technical clauses and three schedules which follow closely the convention model.The bill would establish Australia as a republic from 1 January 2001, with an Australian citizen as head of state. The head of state would be called the President.Schedule 1 would establish the office of President and entrench elements of a mechanism for choosing the President.Under this mechanism, a committee would be established to invite and consider public nominations for President. The Prime Minister would consider a report from the committee before putting forward a single nomination to a joint sitting of both houses of the Commonwealth parliament. The nomination would take effect if seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and approved by a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Commonwealth parliament. The Constitution would require the nominations committee to be established and operate as provided by the parliament.Only Australian citizens qualified to be elected as members of the Commonwealth parliament could be President. A person could not be President if he or she were currently a member of the Commonwealth parliament or a state or territory legislature, or a member of a political party.Before taking office, a person chosen as President would be required to make an oath or affirmation of office.The President would have the powers, including the reserve powers that the Governor-General has now, and the constitutional conventions that now apply to the exercise of the reserve powers by the Governor-General would apply to the exercise of those powers by the President.The President's term of office would be five years.The Prime Minister could remove the President by issuing a written instrument of removal. The grounds for removal are not specified. The Prime Minister would be required to seek the approval of the House of Representatives for that action within 30 days, unless an election were held and the matter taken directly to the people.Schedule 2 sets out consequential amendments of the Constitution that would be required to alter Australia's system of national government from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.Many consequential and transitional issues can be addressed by ordinary legislation or administrative action. Those that must be dealt with in the Constitution are set out in schedule 2. Most of these are concerned with the removal of monarchical references from the Constitution. Almost all references to the Queen, the Governor-General and the Crown would be removed.The government does not regard the bill as an opportunity to generally tidy up the Constitution. Spent provisions of the Constitution would be altered or removed only where they refer specifically to the monarchical system of government. Schedule 3 would add a schedule to the Constitution setting out provisions aimed at facilitating the transition from constitutional monarchy to republic with minimum disruption to existing institutions and arrangements.The new schedule to the Constitution would make provision to ensure the continuity of existing institutions, and the continuity of legislative, executive and judicial action undertaken before the transition to a republic.It would make provision for choosing the first President before the commencement of any republic on 1 January 2001, and for enacting legislation in the transitional period, so that the first President could take office immediately on the commencement of the republic.It would also make provision to put beyond doubt that transition to a republic would not jeopardise the continuity of the Federation or the coordinated operation of the Australian system of law. Provision has also been included to ensure that the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of the reserve powers are not stopped from evolving in the way that has been possible since Federation.Commonwealth/state coordinationA significant practical issue in any change will be coordination between change at the Commonwealth and state levels.Change to a republican form of government would involve state constitutional arrangements, and in some cases a state referendum would be required. In others, the state government may decide that a referendum should be held, even though it is not required.The Constitutional Convention resolved that, while it would be desirable for any republican arrangements to commence simultaneously in the Commonwealth and all the states, not all states may wish or be able to move to a republic within the Commonwealth's time frame.On that basis, the convention resolved that the government should consider whether specific provision would be required to enable states to retain their current constitutional arrangements following any change at the Commonwealth level.The convention was of the view that the Commonwealth should not dictate state constitutional arrangements in the event that the Australian people voted for a republic. It recommended that a referendum be held first on whether the Commonwealth should adopt a republican form of government, and that the states then make any necessary arrangements for change at state level.The republic bill would not force the states to change.But the government is firmly of the view that, if change is endorsed at the referendum, it would be best for change to occur simultaneously in the Commonwealth and all states. The Prime Minister has written to all premiers seeking their firm agreement that, should the Australian people vote for change to a republican form of government, their governments will do everything within their power to facilitate simultaneous change at Commonwealth and state levels.Provisions in schedule 3 of the bill—which were settled only after considering closely state comments and concerns—would ensure that no state would be confronted by technical barriers if and when it sought to change in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.In particular, these provisions would give the Commonwealth parliament a `fall back' power to amend the Australia Acts to rule out any argument that those acts entrench Crown links at the state level.This is not intended to allow Commonwealth legislation to directly affect the state links or change the processes a state would follow to amend its constitution. Instead, it would merely ensure that the states could proceed with confidence in their own processes for considering change.The Commonwealth would not need to rely on this power if all the states were to pass legislation under the Australia Acts requesting the necessary amendment. The states have indicated that the latter is their preferred approach and that they aim to enact request legislation by the end of July. Consideration will be given to removing the fall back power altogether if all the states are able to pass that legislation by the time the republic bill is finally debated.But unless all states have enacted suitable request legislation by that time, the fall back provision must be retained. Without it, the risk is that if one state fails to secure passage of its request legislation the Commonwealth would be unable to amend the Australia Acts for the benefit of any state.ConclusionThe government's aim is, as far as possible, to present the Australian people with a republic model of government which is consistent with the outcomes of the Constitutional Convention and is a workable proposal that continues our tradition of stable parliamentary democracy.It is already a matter of public record that sitting Liberal Party members will be allowed a conscience vote in the referendum. Some members of the government are likely to vote against change at the referendum and others are likely to vote for it.The government is united, however, in its commitment to let the Australian people vote on the issue.We are confident that the proposed legislation is a fair and effective expression of the convention's model, and an appropriate basis for the question that will go to the Australian people. I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate adjourned.Bills6660r8396660Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.666010:11:006660Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.IntroductionEarlier today—in fact just a minute or two ago—I placed before the House a bill to provide the basis for a referendum on whether Australia should become a republic: the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999, which I shall refer to as the republic bill.The republic bill sets out the changes to the Constitution necessary to establish a republic based on the Constitutional Convention's preferred model.Those changes include a new section 60 establishing a mechanism for choosing a President.Under this mechanism, a committee would be established to invite and consider public nominations for President. The Prime Minister would consider a report from the committee before putting forward a single nomination to a joint sitting of both houses of the Commonwealth parliament. The nomination would take effect if seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and approved by a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Commonwealth parliament.However, the Prime Minister could present that nomination only after considering the report of a committee established for the purpose of inviting and considering public nominations.The bill I now place before the House—the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999—would provide for the establishment and operation of such a committee.The convention resolved that the process for community consultation and evaluation of nominations is likely to evolve with experience and is best dealt with by ordinary legislation or parliamentary resolution.Accordingly, the bill is not a bill for a constitutional amendment, but a bill for an ordinary Commonwealth act.It provides in more detail for the establishment and role of the nomination committee.In doing so, it fleshes out the very broad outline provided by the Constitutional Convention.As this bill would not alter the Constitution it would not have to be approved at a referendum. Indeed, the government does not propose that this bill be passed before the outcome of the referendum is known.In the event that the people approve the establishment of a republic, the republic bill would authorise the passage of the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill in the year 2000, in time for the commencement of the republic on 1 January 2001.Passage of the bill in the year 2000 would enable the first President to be chosen in that year, so that he or she may take office on 1 January 2001.The bill is likely to be of great interest because it provides the means by which the Australian people can be involved in selecting a President.The convention modelThe convention made recommendations about how the committee should be composed and operate.It said that the committee should be of a workable size and should have a balance between parliamentary and community members.It said that all parties with party status in the Commonwealth parliament should be represented on the committee and the composition of the committee should take into account so far as practicable considerations of federalism, gender, age and cultural diversity.The convention said the committee should be mindful of community diversity in the compilation of a shortlist of candidates for consideration by the Prime Minister.Finally, it recommended that no nomination be disclosed without the consent of the nominee.The bill is consistent with these recommendations.It provides a framework for the establishment and operation of the committee without going unnecessarily into matters of detail.It would, of course, be open for parliament to make additional provision if that were seen to be appropriate in the light of experience.The nomination procedureThe convention described the objective of the nomination procedure as being `to ensure that the Australian people are consulted as thoroughly as possible'.It said that the process of consultation should involve the whole community, including state and territory parliaments, local government, community organisations and individual members of the public, all of whom should be invited to provide nominations.The bill would allow these objectives to be met, both through the composition of the committee and through the nomination procedure.Any Australian citizen or group of citizens would be able to nominate a person as President.Nominations would have to be accompanied by the nominee's written consent.Establishment of the committeeThe bill provides for a Presidential Nominations Committee to be established whenever it is necessary to choose a person as President.A committee could be established some months before the end of the incumbent President's term so that a new President could be chosen and be ready to take office at the end of that term.However, if a President resigned or died in office or was removed, it can be expected that a committee would be established as soon as possible after the office became vacant.Composition of the committeeUnder the bill, a Presidential Nominations Committee comprises 32 members. Members would be formally appointed by the Prime Minister, but the appointments would have to be made in accordance with rules set out in the bill.There would be eight Commonwealth members, drawn from the Commonwealth parliament.To start with, each political party with five members or more in the Commonwealth parliament would be entitled to one place on the committee.If there were more than eight parties with at least five members, the eight places on the committee would go to the eight parties with the highest number of members.If places remained after this formula was applied, the parties with at least 15 members would be offered second and any subsequent places in turn, starting with the largest party.In addition, there would be eight state and territory members, comprising one member of each state legislature and one member of each of the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory legislative assemblies.These members would be nominated by the legislatures.There would also be 16 community members, appointed by the Prime Minister, who would not be members of any legislature.The Prime Minister's broad discretionary power to appoint community members, together with the large number of community members, permits the Prime Minister to appoint a diverse membership.The Prime Minister would, of course, take account of the diversity of the Australian community in appointing community members.Functions of the committeeThe functions of the committee are to invite and consider nominations for appointment as President of the Commonwealth of Australia and to give a report on the nominations—including a short list—to the Prime Minister.ConfidentialityThe bill contains provisions designed to ensure the confidentiality of nominations and material received in connection with nominations.Those provisions are intended to prevent the disclosure of nominations except with the consent of nominees, as recommended by the Constitutional Convention.ConclusionThe bill fills in the broad outline for a Presidential Nominations Committee provided by the Constitutional Convention.If the republic bill is approved by the people at the referendum, the government will seek passage of the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 shortly afterwards.I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate adjourned.Bills6663r8426663Bill presented by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, and read a first time.666310:18:006663Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The commencement of the Aged Care Act on 1 October 1997 saw the implementation of legislation that guarantees an aged care system that maintains the comfort and dignity of older Australians in a way that is viable and sustainable and quite new.I am pleased to introduce today the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999, which will introduce further resident protections, implement an election commitment and improve administration of the act.The bill is further proof of the government's commitment to achieving excellence in care for older Australians in residential care. This commitment has been demonstrated by the increased outlays on residential care under this government, by the growth in care places and by the recognition of the complex care needs of residents of aged care facilities. The bill further extends the work already done by the government to improve the residential aged care system in Australia.The government remains committed to bringing about real improvement to high level care, that is, nursing homes, too many of which were simply not in a condition to provide a safe, comfortable and dignified home for older Australians when we were elected to government.The accommodation charge takes account of the special circumstances of high level, or nursing home level, residents and maintains the principle of people making a contribution to improving the quality of their accommodation where they can afford to do so. This is a small contribution to the large subsidies that are paid to ensure this care is given. Protections exist for those residents who are unable to contribute in this way.There are no changes to the quantum or the nature of the accommodation charges, which have been operating since 6 November 1997 through subordinate legislation. This bill formalises those measures in principal legislation to ensure a range of resident protection measures for accommodation charges.The bill also ensures that where a high level, that is, a nursing home level, resident chooses to rent out a former family home to pay for the accommodation charge, the rental income earned does not affect their pension entitlements. This means that a resident can retain the full pension while earning rental income. This bill amends the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act to exclude this rental income and the value of the property from the pension income and assets test.The new measures will also maintain, but through principal legislation, flexibility and choice for older Australians who move between different types of residential care. Where residents have previously paid a bond in a hostel, and would prefer to roll over this bond when they move to a nursing home instead of paying an accommodation charge, they will continue to have the option of agreeing with the provider to roll over that bond.Concessional residents, or those who qualify under the hardship provisions, will not be required to pay the accommodation charge. In addition, this bill widens the definition of concessional resident, to enable more older Australians to be classed as concessional residents and to ensure that they will not be asked to pay an accommodation bond or charge.The bill extends many of the consumer protections that currently apply to accommo dation bonds to also cover accommodation charges, and requires aged care providers to meet a range of responsibilities in relation to the charge.This bill also implements the government's 1999 budget commitment to protect those older Australians who were in a nursing home when the Aged Care Act 1997 was introduced from paying an accommodation charge if they were later to move to another nursing home. Those nursing home residents who were in care at that time and who have moved or will move to another home will now be exempted from paying the accommodation charge.People who were residents of a nursing home when the Aged Care Act 1997 was introduced and who have moved and paid a charge in another home will be refunded for the accommodation charges they have already paid. These refunds will not affect their pension entitlements. Providers will be reimbursed for the amount lost in refunded accommodation charges.The government also remains committed to those who devote themselves to caring for older people in their own homes. The bill reduces from five years to two years the period during which a resident's home must have been occupied by a carer in order for the resident to qualify as a concessional or assisted resident. This change will make it easier for residents to qualify, and attract a higher level of government subsidy. It will also mean that carers will be able to remain in the family home—further recognising the vital role that carers play.The bill also addresses anomalies in the Aged Care Act 1997 in relation to the revocation of approved provider status and the imposition of sanctions for breaches of provider responsibilities under the previous legislation. Provisions will be introduced which will enable the Commonwealth to take strong and decisive action against those providers, for example, who have been convicted of serious crimes, such as the abuse of residents or fraud. The government is committed to ensuring that only those providers who meet their responsibilities will be able to provide care to the most frail and vulnerable in our society.It has also come to the attention of the government that the responsibility of providers in relation to the kinds of fees intending residents can be asked to pay needs to be clarified. The bill makes it very clear that intending residents cannot be asked to pay fees until after they have agreed to accept a place, following notification of a place being available.The bill makes provision for a number of other important changes to ensure better protection for both residents and providers. Concessional resident status is extended to cover residents whose home is occupied by dependent grandchildren. The bill allows for the extension of time limits for entering an agreement for those residents who wish to appoint a guardian to handle their affairs. The bill also provides for extensions to approvals in principle for additional recurrent funding, where providers need to additional time to improve their facilities.These issues are the result of the government listening to and responding to these issues. We have acted in a sensitive way to keep the benefits of the aged care reforms flowing to residents, now and in the future.The amendments clarify and improve the current arrangements set out in the Aged Care Act 1997—the legislation that has seen the most comprehensive and significant reform to the provision of aged care services in Australia over the last decade. This legislation, by encouraging innovation, flexibility and creativity in service delivery and planning, will underpin the provision of appropriate, responsive and quality aged care into the next century. I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills6664r8376664Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.666410:27:006664Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill puts in place arrangements to fulfil the agreement reached at the 1999 Premiers Conference on the level and distribution of general revenue assistance to the states and territories in 1999-2000. The bill also provides authority for the Commonwealth to pay to the states and territories the revenue it will collect in 1999-2000 under the safety net arrangements which were implemented to protect state and territory revenues following the 1997 High Court decision, which severely curtailed the states' capacity to raise revenues through business franchise fees.The bill will amend the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994. The existing act covers the provision of financial assistance for 1998-99, with interim arrangements for the continuation of payments for a maximum of six months. The bill extends for a further 12 months the provisions of the act relating to the payment of financial assistance grants and state and territory entitlements to payments under the safety net arrangements.The general revenue assistance to be appropriated by this bill is about $17.7 billion, or around 11.3 per cent of estimated Commonwealth expenses in 1999-2000. Accordingly, these payments constitute a significant element of the Commonwealth budget and have an important bearing on the spending and borrowing of the public sector as a whole. The states and territories are able to allocate the funds provided by the Commonwealth under this act according to their own budgetary priorities.In addition, revenue replacement payments to the states under the safety net arrangements are estimated to be $6.8 billion in 1999-2000. The safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth.I turn now to the elements of the bill which give effect to the Commonwealth's funding commitments to the states and territories. The major part of the assistance provided under this bill is the payment to each state and territory of a share of the pool of financial assistance grants, which is estimated to be about $17.3 billion in 1999-2000. The distribution of financial assistance grants will be in accordance with the five-year per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The bill updates the per capita relativities accordingly.The states and territories will be provided with real per capita growth in financial assistance grants in 1999-2000. The per capita element of the real per capita guarantee is conditional on states meeting the terms of the Agreement to Implement the National Competition Policy and Related Reforms. This agreement also provides for up to $439.1 million in competition payments to the states and territories in 1999-2000. The views of the National Competition Council will be taken into consideration by the Commonwealth in deciding whether a state or territory should receive the payments provided under the National Competition Policy Agreement in 1999-2000.The Australian Capital Territory will also receive $13.2 million from the Commonwealth in 1999-2000 in the form of transitional allowances and special fiscal needs. This payment is outside the scope of this bill and has been included in the appropriation bills for the 1999-2000 budget.I turn now to the elements of the bill which relate to the safety net arrangements. The safety net measures introduced by the Commonwealth protect state and territory revenues following the High Court's 5 August 1997 decision on state business franchise fees. The Commonwealth is using its tax powers to collect the revenue that the states and territories previously collected by way of business franchise fees on petroleum products, tobacco and alcoholic beverages. The states and territories acknowledge that this represents a state tax imposed and collected by the Commonwealth at their unanimous request and on their behalf.The proposed amendments provide authority for the Commonwealth to pay the states and territories the revenue it collects under the safety net arrangements in 1999-2000. These payments are estimated to be $6.8 billion in 1999-2000. A new `per stick' excise regime for tobacco will be introduced from 1 November 1999. However, state safety net shares of tobacco excise will continue to be calculated on the existing excise arrangements. Accord ingly, the bill includes a further amendment to the act so that any variation in the method of calculating duty on petroleum, tobacco and alcohol products will leave the states' entitlement to customs or excise duty, under the safety net arrangements, the same as that due prior to the amendment.The bill also includes provisions which return to the states and territories any tax revenues the Commonwealth might receive under the Franchise Fees Windfall Tax (Collection) Act 1997. This will ensure that state and territory finances are protected from claims for refunds, on grounds of constitutional invalidity, of past payments of business franchise fees.As noted earlier, the safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth. Revenue replacement payments will simply return to the states and territories amounts raised by the Commonwealth on their behalf, after allowing for Commonwealth administrative costs. I present the explanatory memorandum for the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Kerr) adjourned.Bills6666r7476666Debate resumed from 9 June, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Kelvin Thomson moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:(1) the proposals as originally introduced have already been modified because of the actions of Labor in referring them to the Senate;(2) the construction and infrastructure industries are still concerned about the potential impact of the legislation on their industries;(3) the legislation needs further consultation with relevant stakeholders;(4) the government has not achieved real tax reform in Australia, it has merely agreed to introduce an unfair GST; (5) the new Howard/Lees GST will involve a massive tax mix switch which will hurt families, which is directly contrary to the balloted policy of the Australian Democrats;(6) the Howard/Lees deal will actually increase the tax on food in Australia;(7) hardworking people will now face a GST on top of state indirect taxes on bank accounts; and(8) the amended tax package is still unfair and will also damage the environment".10:35:006666Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I rise to speak to the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Wills to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 . That amendment deals with the government's GST package. This morning we witnessed a very disappointing response from the government to an attempt by my colleague the member for Hunter, the shadow minister for small business, to bring on a debate about the impact of the goods and services tax on the small business sector. The government did not want that debate to occur and it used its numbers to prevent it. In speaking to this amendment, I am taking the opportunity to deal with, amongst a number of other matters, the adverse impacts of the goods and services tax on small business.I have spoken on this topic on a number of occasions. Having provided a great deal of evidence about the adverse impacts of the GST package, not only on the economy but on fairness in our society, I want to bring that together today and synthesise it into a summary. I wish to make the following statement, which I will establish during what I have to say: the government's tax package is not tax reform. I will go, one by one, through the various claims that have been made by the government for the goods and services tax package. I will demonstrate that each and every one of those claims is wrong.Firstly, on the purported economic benefits of the package, the government claimed before, during and after the election that the GST package will create jobs. In fact, Treasury did no modelling to substantiate that claim; it was merely an assertion by the government. Work commissioned by the Senate GST inquiry—done by some of Australia's best economic modellers— revealed that under the most optimistic scenario, on the most optimistic assumptions in the short term, the package as a whole may be able to generate 30,000 jobs. But the key point here is that any jobs that are created in the short term as a result of the package will be due entirely to the fiscal stimulus associated with spending a large part of the budget surplus. Not one job in the short term will be created by the goods and services tax itself.Those results were under the most optimistic assumptions. Let us start relaxing those assumptions. It is assumed by modellers initially that every cent of the savings from abolishing the wholesale sales tax will be passed on to consumers on Saturday, 1 July 2000. Obviously, that is a completely unrealistic assumption, so the modellers looked at the case where there was some delay, even a moderate delay, in the passing on of some of those savings from indirect tax reductions. The result obtained is that, rather than achieving job creation through the entire package of 30,000 jobs, there would be job losses of 15,000, a very realistic scenario indeed. But it gets worse: if wages follow the increase in prices associated with the GST, there would be an adverse impact on jobs of about 100,000 jobs lost. Again, this is a realistic scenario because wage and salary earners will seek to recoup at least some of the increased costs of living associated with the GST, a very reasonable thing for them to do. As a result of that, the modellers predict job losses in the order of 100,000.Let us have a look at the impact of the Howard-Lees package and the impact of the partial exemption of food. The economic modellers in those circumstances forecast job losses of up to 68,000. So, far from the GST creating jobs, we heard evidence at the Senate inquiry that the GST would be `job destroying'. Even the Prime Minister's preferred modeller could find absolutely no jobs being created by the goods and services tax itself. In the long run, no jobs were identified at all by any of the modellers from the GST package. There is the first assertion from the government—that the GST package would create jobs—completely and utterly refuted by independent modelling commissioned by the Senate GST inquiry.The next assertion of the government is that the GST package is good for Australia's trade balance. This is a new tax that taxes tourism and education exports. The impact of that is that there will be an adverse terms of trade effect. There will be an adverse turnaround in the price of our exports and imports. So, again, claims that this package is going to be good for Australia's trade balance have been refuted by independent analysis commissioned by the Senate GST inquiry. Once again, this demonstrates that this is not tax reform.The next claim is that the GST package is good for economic growth. This is a claim that the Prime Minister and Treasurer have repeated often. The modelling has shown negligible impacts on economic growth, but the relevant question is whether it is good for Australian living standards and, on this matter, a lot of modelling has been done. The Prime Minister's preferred modeller again has forecast—even under the most optimistic scenario—that there could be, after six to 10 years, an increase in average living standards in Australia equivalent to 65c per person per week. That assumes no compliance costs whatsoever. It also assumes no transition costs. All of the disruption that has been predicted and forecast by economists of short-term job losses are just completely assumed away by Mr Murphy.Professor Dixon from Monash University also modelled the impact of the goods and services tax package on average Australian living standards. He came up with the result of a reduction in average Australian living standards. The reason for that is that the impact of the GST package on our labour intensive exports, namely tourism and education exports, will be adverse, but there could be a favourable impact on mining. Well, where are the jobs? Where are the current improvements in living standards? They are coming from those sectors that are labour intensive and expanding.The world prices of tourism and education exports are rising, and the world prices of our mineral exports are falling. That is why we get the adverse terms of trade effect and that is why we get in the modelling a forecast of a reduction in Australian average living standards. How could this be described as tax reform when we have results showing that the tax package will reduce average Australian living standards?The next claim is that the GST package is more efficient, as if that is an objective in its own right separate from its effects on living standards.We were told before the election that the GST itself was going to replace 10 so-called inefficient taxes—but it has emerged, following the Howard-Democrat amendments, that only four of those 10 taxes are going: the wholesale sales tax, one stamp duty, financial institutions duty and minor bed taxes. But six are staying. A debits tax is staying at least until 1 July 2005—and there is no mechanism whatsoever to get rid of it in any agreement—and another five stamp duties are staying indefinitely.The GST is not an efficient tax. Certainly, the one that is being proposed by the government is now riddled with exemptions and special rates. It has the following rates: zero, 10 per cent, a rate associated with input taxing, a special rate for tobacco and a special rate for luxury cars. The result of all this is going to be a $5 billion increase in the indirect taxes that are regarded by the government as inefficient.Access Economics have done some work on the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and they find that the deadweight losses to the community from the wholesale sales tax are less than 10 cents in the dollar, very comparable with their estimates of the losses from the GST—so no efficiency improvements there whatsoever. That is why we will not get any improvement in living standards.On compliance costs, at present under the wholesale sales tax 75,000 businesses pay the tax. It is collected at 75,000 tax collection points. Under the GST, 1,600,000 small businesses will be caught in the GST net. That is why we really do have, under this proposal, a nightmare on Main Street. This is not tax reform. I draw your attention to the evidence provided in a speech by the Commissioner of Taxation to the Taxation Institute of Australia convention in Hobart on 24 March 1999. Amongst many examples, he pointed to fish and chip shops in the United Kingdom, where fresh fish is GST free but cooked fish bears the GST. In the United Kingdom, the Treasury has identified the prospect of large-scale evasion because the fish and chip shop proprietors are understating the amount of cooked fish that they sell and overstating the amount of fresh fish. He says, in going through this:At one level you can get a laugh out of the overseas examples. But the costs to business and the community in the form of our additional administration costs are not quite so funny.However, there is perhaps a subtle but potentially more dangerous cost to all this.Ask yourself this question. What do you think will be the impact on attitudes to compliance with the GST, and perhaps other taxes, of introducing rules that inevitably will be subject to ridicule and that almost encourage people to become comfortable with entering into arrangements to exploit them?They are very poignant remarks by the taxation commissioner, and a clear warning by him to avoid the Howard-Democrat deal to partially exempt food. Today in the Australian Financial Review we have found evidence that has been given of the new revenue sharing agreement that is being imposed by the Commonwealth on the states. It says:The Federal Government's revised GST deal will raise progressively less revenue than the original estimates, possibly reflecting the impact of tax avoidance driven by the food exemption . . . That was revealed in the new intergovernmental agreement that has been developed by the Commonwealth and imposed on the states, where the Prime Minister of Australia has said that he is not interested in another Premiers Conference and that this is the deal.In fact, the intergovernmental agreement reveals that in the first year, 2000-01, the GST would raise $24.2 billion under the Howard-Lees deal, which is $3 billion less than the original estimates. By 2002-03, the latest year for which figures are available, the government would raise just $29.2 billion, compared with $32.8 million originally, before the Howard-Lees deal. That is a difference of $3.6 billion, which indicates that the gap has grown by 20 per cent in just two years.Furthermore, the intergovernmental agreement shows that, in the first year, administration costs will blow out by $120 million to a massive $820 million, whereas the government has only revealed higher costs of $60 million. They are the problems with compliance with this new shemozzle that has been created in the Howard-Lees deal. Again it is quite clear that this is not tax reform.On the question of fairness, the top 20 per cent of income earners will, under this package, get around half of all the tax cuts. The switch in the tax system away from progressive income tax towards regressive indirect taxes is going to be greater than $15 billion—very much greater than the $2.75 billion claimed by Senator Lees in her press release the other day. Is this fair?The GST taxes the essentials of life. At least one-third of the food that is consumed by low income households will still be subject to the GST. The following items will be taxed by the GST, all or most of them for the first time: clothing, housing, electricity and gas supplies, haircuts, public transport, used cars, home and contents insurance, car insurance, home repairs. I have listed a range of services—that is the `S' in GST, and people need to understand the extent of the reach of this tax on essential services in Australia.Interestingly, the only proposal for the wholesale sales tax to tax the essentials of life—at present, the wholesale sales tax avoids taxing the essentials of life—has been from none other than the current Prime Minister. I draw your attention to remarks in Inside Canberra on 4 June this year, just the other day:The only time an attempt was made to apply the WST on the necessities of life was in the August 1981 Budget which proposed, as well as increases in the four existing rates, a new 2.5 per cent WST on clothing and footwear. And the Treasurer at the time? Why, none other than John Howard. He proposed this increase on a necessity of life without offering compensation. Senator Brian Harradine led the charge against the Howard tax and, with the Democrats, defeated the measure. The Democrats defeated that measure back in 1981 but this time they have rolled over. It goes on:So determined were the Fraser Government and Treasurer John Howard to tax footwear and clothing, the Bill was put forward as one of the double dissolution triggers which gave Fraser his (disastrous) 1983 double dissolution election.This can hardly constitute tax reform. It is supposed to be fairer under the Democrat amendments, but I draw your attention to a statement by my colleague the member for Lilley and the shadow minister for family and community services, in which he has analysed the claims of the Democrats. As a result of that analysis we find that a single pensioner would get at best an extra 70c a week. This is a great victory, according to the Democrats. The poorest single person at best would get $1.62 a week—a great victory by the Democrats. And the poorest family with two children would get an extra 99c a week.Just today ACOSS has revealed its analysis of these Democrat claims. It is pointed out that the Democrats have relied on flawed assumptions and exaggerated gains for low income households by deliberately not taking into account the increased prices of housing and tobacco. In today's Age ACOSS is reported as follows:The President of ACOSS, Mr Michael Raper, said the Democrats ignored the regressive retention of the bank accounts debits tax and the new package should be independently modelled.We agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. In conclusion, on 1 July 2000, all of the untied grants to the states will be abolished. After the transition period, the government is able to declare open season on the tied grants. These are payments to the states for vital services such as literacy and numeracy, government schools, youth suicide prevention, homeless youth programs and public housing. It is inevitable that these tied grants will be cut by the Commonwealth over time under a conservative government. I hope and fully expect that there will not be a conservative government at that time. But without an education our children have no future. And that is where we are headed with this unfair regressive tax. It is a tax on learning. It is a tax on the lifetime prospects of our young people. It is not tax reform. The GST tax package is regressive. It is bad for the economy and it is bad for small business. The Howard government and the Democrats stand condemned for seeking to impose this unfair regressive tax on the Australian people.10:55:006670Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise today to speak on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 . This bill makes amendments to the sales tax law to correct a deficiency relating to the exemption for goods incorporated into property owned by or leased to always exempt persons or the government of a foreign country. Access to this exemption will now be restricted only to those who own a property that is occupied principally by an always exempt person or the government of a foreign country or where the property is used principally for the provision of services to an always exempt person or again government of a foreign country. It will apply after 2 April 1998.The financial impact of this is quite substantial. The gain in revenue in 1998-99 will be $40 million; 1999-2000, $50 million; 2000-01, $50 million again; and 2001-02, $50 million; and so on thereafter. The compliance cost is estimated to be in the order of $1 million per annum. So there is a considerable rise in revenue and it is a sound initiative from the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation.I would like to move now to a recent parliamentary report entitled Taxable income and tax paid in Commonwealth electoral divisions, 1996-97. This provided an insightful snapshot of the average taxable incomes and average tax paid in all 148 federal electorates. The data presented was based upon personal income tax collections that financial year by the Australian Taxation Office and, of course, excludes other taxes paid, including state or territory imposts.It was interesting to look at my own electorate of Dawson, where there were 56,923 people paying income tax in 1996-97. They had an average taxable income—after all deductions—of $29,748 and, per head of taxpayers, paid an average effective $6,912. Some caution needs to be used in interpreting these figures. For instance, in 1996-97 a taxpayer with a taxable income of $29,748 would have paid a total of $5,967.68 on the existing tax scale, which required—and still requires—a payment of $3,060 for income up to $20,701 and 34 cents in the dollar for every dollar up to and including $38,001. According to this analysis, Dawson was placed at 75 on the list of 148 electorates in terms of its average taxable income and at 77 in terms of its annual average income tax payment.As I said, there were 56,923 people in Dawson that year paying income tax, and they paid a total of $1,693 million. In terms of the number of taxpayers and the amount they paid, Dawson ranked No. 61 on the list of all 148 electorates. On average in 1996-97, a Dawson taxpayer with a taxable income of $29,748 earned $496 more than the average Queensland taxpayer and paid $96 more in income tax. Of the 27 Queensland federal electorates, only 10 had higher average taxable incomes than Dawson. However, the average Dawson taxable income was $2,093 lower than the national average of $31,345 and our average income tax of $6,912 was $788 lower than the national average.All of these figures are presented to show that Dawson, while not affluent, was about average in the Queensland context, although it was somewhat below in terms of the national context. There will be any number of Dawson taxpayers that will tell me quite rightly that they did not earn anywhere near $30,000 a year in 1996-97 and do not earn anywhere near that today, for that matter. But these are only statistical averages. On the evidence that I see every day in my electorate, where many are doing it extremely tough, I can only surmise that in 1996-97 a small number of people must have been earning considerably more for the average to be set so much higher. I can only surmise what the average annual taxable income is now in Dawson for 1999-2000, but I suspect that there has been little real growth, if any, given that the sugar industry, which is the principal financial base for the local economy, had a very disappointing last season and will have an even worse return this season due to bad weather and the collapse in the international sugar price.Undeniably, the great majority of Dawson residents would not just have had a lower taxable income of $29,252 in 1996-97; they would not be getting anywhere near that now. As I said earlier, that average Dawson taxpayer paid $5,967.68 in income tax in 1996-97. I notice that the member for Rankin had a great deal to say about the government's new tax package. Let us have a look at what it means for average folk around rural and regional Australia. I am using my own electorate as an example. Under the government's new tax package, an income of $29,252 will mean an income tax payment of $5,155.60, or a saving of $812.08. Under the new income tax scales, the tax free threshold will increase from the existing $5,400 to $6,000. Under current rates, the next $15,300 is taxed at 20 cents in the dollar, while every dollar earned between $20,701 and $38,000 is taxed at 34 cents in the dollar. Under the new rates, income from $6,001 to $20,000 is taxed at 17 cents in the dollar and income from $20,000 to $50,000 at 30 cents in the dollar.If we assume, for the sake of the argument, that the average taxpayer in Dawson who was on $29,252 in 1996-97 will earn, say, an extra $2,000 a year net taxable income by the time the new income tax scales apply, that taxpayer would have been liable for a further $680 in income tax on the current scales at that rate of 34 cents in the dollar that we inherited from the Labor Party. Under our new tax scales, the extra income tax on that $2,000 will be $600, because the rate will be only 30 cents in the dollar. Of course, there is always the insidious effect of bracket creep, and it will not take many years for Dawson taxpayers earning just slightly more than the 1996-97 average of $29,252 to earn more than $38,000. At that rate, under Labor's income tax scales, every dollar earned will be taxed at a crippling 43 cents in the dollar. Under the government's package, a taxpayer would be able to earn up to $50,000 before the next highest tax rate of 40 cents in the dollar applied on income above that level.Therefore, for average folk and struggling families in my electorate, the new income tax scales will mean very significant benefits for the overwhelming majority of people. While I recognise that it may be a long time before many of them could hope to earn above $50,000, they are reassured in the knowledge that, should they choose to take on overtime, additional work or perhaps a second job, when they do by hard work and application lift their incomes above the average they will not be penalised with the existing high rates of tax for incomes above $38,000. The savings for lower income earners in my electorate will also be significant.For Labor to argue against the tax reform package is to argue against the aspirations and the hopes of ordinary, decent working Australians. Tax reform means more than just having more money in your pocket, although that in itself is significant. It means more competitive prices. In the Weekend Australian of 5-6 June, Professor Ann Harding of the highly regarded National Centre of Economic and Social Modelling presented her analysis of the tax reform package as it now applies. Professor Harding was quoted as saying:For a taxpayer earning $30,000 a year, the new deal looks twice as good.This $30,000 figure is a handy one because it is about the average taxable income in Dawson. It relates pretty much to the average battling family in my electorate. Professor Harding estimates that the overall impact of the reform package, after taking into account tax cuts and the other measures including the abolition of wholesale sales tax, a raft of other taxes and the imposition of the goods and services tax, will provide an extra $423.80 or so a year for that $30,000 income earner. This amount is perhaps the school fees for a child for a whole year in one of the more modest schools in my electorate. It could well be the opportunity for a family to take an additional few days holiday at Christmas. It will certainly pay for the school shoes for a family of three. It is a considerable advantage.Professor Harding goes on to say that there is a net gain after taking into account the cost of living. I might add that Professor Harding is cited as an expert by the Labor Party, amongst others. That same edition of the Weekend Australian did a room by room comparison of what the cost of a large range of household items will be after the new tax reform package is applied. Overwhelmingly, the cost of most items is shown to have actually fallen. Of 24 items in the bathroom, 23 fell and only one, the toothbrush, increased in price. One item, Panadol, stayed the same. In the kitchen, the costs of 34 items were assessed and, of these, only two—beer and wine—showed a small increase. Thirteen standard food items remained the same in price, while 19 items fell in price. In the living room, only the cost of an atlas as a coffee table book rose slightly, while the cost of every other single item fell.These are not government figures; they are not the scare campaign from the opposite side of the House; they cannot be dismissed as having a partisan view. They come from a respected expert. I commend the analysis to all honourable members because it provides an immediate and impressive explanation and robust defence of the new tax system. While these cost estimates are impressive, I presume that they were calculated in either the Sydney or Melbourne markets and, therefore, reflect a very considerable mass market with strong competition and low freight rates. In my electorate of Dawson practically everything we buy—and certainly everything we sell—has to be transported by road or rail. The cost of transport, which is passed onto the consumer, is undeniably high. The tax reform package has preserved the huge benefits of the original tax package insofar as regional and rural Australia is concerned. This is not just wonderful news for our exporters but wonderful news for every consumer who can expect further relief from rising prices when the diesel fuel rebates begin to apply.In a speech I made in the Main Committee the other day I mentioned two transport companies in my electorate. One uses 2.5 million litres of fuel a year and transports most of the cane, raw and refined sugar in my electorate. It is going to save over $575,000 a year on excise alone. That is one company. There are many such transport companies in Dawson that will be passing on these benefits to farmers, to small business people, to consumers and to families. It is the first opportunity to tilt the balance in favour of rural and regional Australia. I know it is very close to your heart, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, that there be justice and fairness and an opportunity to promote the advantages of decentralisation which definitely come and flow from this tax reform package. So for the battlers, for the exporters, for the small businesses, for all of those low to medium income earners and for our hard-pressed exporters, again, in the sugar industry in Dawson, this new tax reform package is a win-win situation.I am delighted that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services have worked so hard to achieve such a sound outcome for all of those in rural and regional Australia. It could have been achieved, of course, only with the cooperation of the Australian Democrats' leader, Senator Meg Lees, who with her colleagues in the often delicate negotiations recognised the special needs of rural and regional Australia in a number of practical ways. I commend the tax reform package and wish to thank the minister, Mr Hockey, for the current bill before us.11:10:006672Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—At the outset, the government appreciates the participation of the honourable members for Wills, Mitchell, Rankin and Dawson in this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 . This bill corrects a deficiency in the sales tax legislation relating to the exemption for goods incorporated into property owned by or leased to always exempt persons or to the government of a foreign country. The principal opposition speaker—the honourable member for Wills—claimed wrongly that there was an adverse impact flowing from proposals on private infrastructure projects. It ought to be recognised that the reason we need the amendments before the chamber is that Labor's 1991 legislation actually created this anomaly because it was drafted too broadly. He also suggested that the proposals ought to be referred, once again, to a Senate committee. This matter has previously been to a Senate committee and, because of the calling of the election last year, the bill lapsed and the committee was not able to hand down its report.The government, however, as you would expect, closely examined the submissions made by stakeholders. There were a number of meetings between the government and industry representatives and between departmental officials and those industry representatives. As a result, the limited recourse debt measure, as reintroduced, contains a number of measures which address the concerns of the stakeholders. One change that resulted is that refinancing on an arms-length basis will not generally trigger an adjustment. Another change addresses concerns over the definition of limited recourse debt. The government considers that these changes, in addition to some minor technical alterations, address the concerns of stakeholders in the infrastructure industry. We also, as a result, reject the criticism made by the honourable member for Wills.An amendment has also been made to the sales tax measure. This will ensure that the sales tax exemption continues to apply for goods purchased before 2 April 1998 even where those goods are not incorporated into a building until after that date. Again, in this circumstance the government has consulted extensively and has made changes to address legitimate concerns. Because of the previous Senate committee process and the subsequent ongoing consultation, the government sees no need at all for the matter to be referred to a Senate committee again. It ought also to be recognised that, with the introduction of a new tax system, Labor's sales tax will be abolished, and this legislation is designed to cover the situation up until the new tax system is introduced to provide a better future for all Australians.The honourable member for Wills also claimed that Labor supports the principles being addressed in this legislation, but he claims that the government has not got it quite right. He also professes to believe that the bill is a poorly drafted bill that will generate what he referred to as `collateral damage on industry'. Then he proceeded to fight the coming Victorian election campaign by talking about Citylink in Victoria at great length, which of course has only peripheral connection with the subject matter of this bill. Again, I want to reiterate that the drafting of Labor's original legislation in 1991 has caused the anomaly and has caused the need for this bill to come back before the chamber. The government consulted, as I said. We have listened to their views. We have made changes, and the amendments which we are proposing are amendments which are fair and reasonable.The honourable member for Wills is often a credible person, but when he expressed concern about the environmental impact of our legislation he surely could not have been serious. This government, as I said the other day, is the greenest government in Australia's history. It has a real and meaningful commitment to the environment. We all know about the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust, which will preserve the future of Australia for future generations. Also included in the tax plan is an extra $1 billion of initiatives specifically for the environment, particularly in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and cleaner air. We are protecting the environment in a way that the previous Labor government simply failed to do.The honourable member for Rankin, being a new member, claimed that the GST would have an adverse impact on jobs. The Labor Party is the last party which ought to talk about jobs and the jobless. We all remember the million long dole queues and the recession we had to have. This government is proud that it has brought the unemployment rate down to 7.5 per cent, which is the lowest rate for some nine years. It is still too high, of course, but we have put the policies in place which will continue to improve the employment outlook for Australians. The honourable member for Rankin also pretended to state that the GST would be bad for trade. The GST will remove over $4,000 million from costs to exporters. Far from being bad for trade, the policies which the government is bringing in will be very positive for trade.The Labor Party is the party of the wholesale sales tax. It claims that our GST will have compliance costs in excess of the compliance costs under its wholesale sales tax. What we are proposing with A New Tax System is infinite improvement on the tax system which we inherited. The member for Rankin suggested that the wholesale sales tax does not tax the necessities of life. They might not have been his words, but that was the import. I have a list here, and some of these items are clearly necessities of life: flavoured milk and fruit juice with at least 25 per cent juice content are taxed at 12 per cent; dishwashing liquid, 22 per cent; household cleaning products, 22 per cent; other fruit juice, cordials and soft drink, 22 per cent; razors and shaving cream, 22 per cent; toilet paper, 22 per cent; toothpaste, 22 per cent; and the list goes on.Time does not permit me to outline the six different rates—seven if you include the zero rate—which apply to goods. The compliance costs of the wholesale sales tax are very high. It is an irrational tax. The Labor Party continued to hike it. They are the last people to suggest that this government has not brought in a system which is infinitely simpler than the system which they passed on to us upon our election to government.The member for Dawson made a very competent contribution. She dismissed and dispelled many of the myths which Labor continues to perpetuate and peddle in the Australian electorate. She pointed out the benefits to the transport sector and the assistance for families. She also emphasised the effect of the wholesale sales tax throughout the home and the supermarket. At the present time under Labor's wholesale sales tax regime, wholesale sales tax is embedded in the cost of every food item and in the cost of every item sold. When you look at a food item which might technically be exempt at the supermarket, you see that you have the cost of wholesale sales tax built in to the cost of transport, the cost of printing the packaging and the cost of packaging. So wholesale sales tax is in fact right through everything which is sold in Australia, even those items which are technically exempt. The member for Mitchell highlighted the inconsistencies of Labor's wholesale sales tax. He also emphasised, as if anyone could forget, Labor's high tax obsession.Sales tax in Australia generally applies to goods which are manufactured in this country or imported into this country for use in Australia. The Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 provides that dealings with assessable goods are subject to sales tax unless an exemption applies. Item 192 in schedule 2 of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1992 provides a sales tax exemption for goods purchased for incorporation into any building or property owned by or leased to an always exempt person. This provision has been inappropriately exploited in a way which is not consistent with the original intention of the legislation. It has allowed unintended access to exemption for certain goods attached to properties owned or leased by always exempt persons but not used by always exempt persons or not related to their purposes. There has in fact been some publicity about its inappropriate use in certain private sector projects.This government believes that deficiency in the law—particularly a law which we inherited from the Labor Party—should be corrected as soon as possible. From now on, the exemption will be available only where the property is occupied or used principally by an always exempt person or by the government of a foreign country. This will have the effect of removing unfair competitive advantages certain private sector operators have had in relation to certain projects—advantages which have arisen only because of the unintended exploitation of tax exemption provisions.Developers should not be able to exploit this exemption to obtain a significant cost advantage over developers who have correctly paid sales tax on goods used in a development. The types of property the amendments will specifically exclude from the exemption include shops and shopping centres, the fit-out of major hotels and casinos, private residential apartment blocks, any property similar to these and properties prescribed by regulation. Hence, as a result of the amendment, an always exempt person will not be exempt from sales tax in all situations. The amendment applies to dealings after 2 April 1998 unless the goods concerned were acquired on or before that date.The bill also includes amendments which were previously introduced and debated as part of the Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998, which lapsed. Capital allowances under the income tax law are based on the initial cost of an asset or specified capital expenditure but do not take into account any non-payment through default under related finance transactions. Therefore, if capital expenditure or the initial cost of an asset is financed by hire purchase or limited recourse debt, a taxpayer can currently obtain deductions greater than actual outlays if the hire purchase or debt arrangement is not fully paid out and the creditor cannot obtain full redress—for example, where the relevant asset can be repossessed but no further payment can be demanded. This is a tax avoidance technique which is used to inflate a taxpayer's cost base for capital allowance purposes by writing off part of the debt used by the taxpayer to acquire an asset. Excessive tax benefits should not be able to be obtained in such situations.Following an extensive consultation phase, technical changes were made to the legislation. I have previously outlined those. The measure was originally announced in the 1997-98 budget and will prevent taxpayers obtaining deduction for capital expenditure in excess of their actual outlays. This is an appropriate and equitable reform which reduces the unnecessarily broad scope of the exemption to be consistent with its original intention. Taxpayers who finance equipment purchases or other capital expenditure by a limited recourse debt or higher purchase ought not to be entitled to full deductions if they do not pay all of the debt. Under the present law, they are more favourably treated than taxpayers who are fully at risk in the repayment of their borrowings. The legislation before the chamber improves the law as it presently exists, and I am happy to commend the bill to the chamber.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.6675Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills6675r823Billsr817Bills6675Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.11:25:006675Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Manufacturing in bond is the subject of the Import Processing Charges Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 and the Customs Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 . Manufacturing in bond is a practice whereby Australian companies can establish arrangements with Customs to import component parts and to manufacture in Australia on the same basis as other countries establish free trade zones. So, for the purposes of manufacturing, when you establish a manufacturing in bond warehouse that is essentially treated as if it were foreign territory. Imports that are brought into the warehouse and that are made there but which enter Australia into domestic consumption obviously have to attract duty and they incur sales tax and duty liabilities at the time they leave the warehouse for sale in the Australian domestic market.The idea of a manufacturing in bond scheme is not new. It existed in Australia until 1988 and was abolished as a result of the Industry Commission's 1987 report. It was suggested for reintroduction by the Australian iron and steel industry, in its report to the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, and by the parliamentary committee inquiring into the steel industry, chaired by David Hawker. In December 1997, the government announced that it would be introducing measures to facilitate manufacturing in bond. The objectives of manufacturing in bond are quite sound. We want to attract into Australia manufacturing capacity that would otherwise go to other regions and where Australia would benefit from our ability to have manufacturing in this country, for export, of goods that would not otherwise have been made here.Arrangements exist in other jurisdictions: free trade zones and similar manufacturing in bond arrangements. Australia, to be able to compete effectively to attract manufacturing industry, needs to be able to look to measures of these kinds. What we want to do, of course, is to generate net additional economic activity and employment in Australia. One of the key objectives of manufacturing in bond is to facilitate trading operations by streamlining the administration of imports which are subsequently re-exported, whether in processed or in their original form. Obviously, if there are significant red tape or costs associated with bringing components and those parts of manufacture which are consumed in the manufacture of other goods into Australia, the cost advantage that should flow from manufacturing in bond in Australia becomes insignificant.Indeed, that is the problem we have had with the government's arrangements to date. They have not worked effectively because there has been too great a set of transaction costs associated with the proposal. Although manufacturing in bond was introduced in December 1997, the restrictions within the scheme have prevented it from being fully taken up. The most important problem so far has been the cost recovery arrangements that have been applied by Customs. A cost recovery charge of $22.80 was applied by Customs on each and every imported component; so, for example, a manufacturer of a product who imported 100 components would face an additional cost of $2,280 from this cost recovery package.That has attracted considerable criticism. I note sitting opposite me Peter Slipper, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, who commented:. . . up until now, operators of MIB warehouses were subject to import processing charges and fees that were introduced in 1997 to recover the costs incurred in processing what are known as `customs entries'.Currently, a charge applies to entries lodged to allow imported goods to be moved into, and, if goods go into Australian commerce, out of warehouses.Mr Slipper noted:Industry has claimed these charges and fees make the operation of MIB warehouses uneconomic, and serve as obstacles to attracting international manufacturing and investment to Australia.Those observations are absolutely right. Although the government did establish manufacturing in bond, basically there has been limited to no take-up of it. That means that we are missing out on the opportunity of building in this country manufacturing arrangements which will enable us to build employment and economic activity focused principally on re-export, allowing us to compete with areas of commerce right around the world which have cheaper and better facilitated arrangements for free trade zones. The government responded to the reports and the criticisms.Senator Vanstone announced on 29 April this year that the changes were in response to industry representations that removing the processing charges on imports entering manufacturing and bond facilities would improve the ability of the scheme to attract international manufacturing and investment to Australia. Minister Nick Minchin said:Removing these charges on the manufacturing in bond facilities will improve Australia's attractiveness as a regional manufacturing and warehousing site by exempting exporters from customs duties and sales tax on imported goods subsequently re-exported or used as inputs to exports.The first question we would ask is why it took so long to do what is so obvious. If you are going to set up a scheme which facilitates Australia competing to attract international and domestic capital to establish manufacturing capacity in this country—competing so that we do not have transaction costs at the border, allowing people to bring product into Australia, transform it here and sell it again into the international market without additional substantial costs—I would have thought it would be pretty obvious that, if each particu lar import transaction attracted a fee of $22.80, the operation of the scheme was bound to fail. In other words, the transaction costs associated with it would doom it to failure from the outset.The government must have been aware of this problem ever since the inception of the scheme. Certainly the opposition has been made aware of the concerns of industry that this was an impractical arrangement, and one in which the overwhelming desire of Customs to operate in a mandated cost recovery environment was in conflict with the government's stated objectives of creating some flexibility in manufacturing in Australia so we can compete against overseas free trade zones. Not only was the government made aware of this; colleagues on the opposition side have been quite vocal in this area. My parliamentary colleague the member for Newcastle, Allan Morris, has for a long time been quite vocal in his representations in the hope that the Newcastle region will benefit from investment and activity facilitated through the manufacturing in bond system. The member for Newcastle has said to me—and, I think, to members of the government—that the government has significantly underestimated the economic opportunities that could flow from developments of this kind. Our criticism is that the government has taken a very long time to wake up to the fact that, if you are going to set up a scheme like this, you do not handcuff it and put manacles around it so that essentially it cannot work.The framework of the scheme is actually quite a sound one. It avoids some of the difficulties that were involved in the theoretical construction of physical free trade zones. If we were to establish physical free trade zones, there would no doubt be argument as to which parts of Australia would be entitled to the benefit of those zones. For example, Tasmania would certainly like to be favoured by being named as Australia's free trade zone. But I fear that I would then come into competition with my colleague the member for Newcastle—and with, no doubt, other members on both sides of the House—who wished for their regions to be the beneficiaries of the increased economic activity that could be attracted to the physical location of such free trade zones.Manufacturing in bond as an idea is quite good because it frees us from those debates about which areas will be favoured by the allocation of a free trade zone. It says, essentially, that if you provide the proper information to the government, to Customs, so that they are assured that you are a sound and credible operator and that you operate a business that is focused on increasing its exports overseas and will monitor and report those transactions in a sound way, then wherever you are in Australia you can set up in a sense a virtual free trade zone. That is an excellent idea because it means that enterprises seeking to increase their penetration of overseas markets will be able to do so, and they will be able to operate in an environment which parallels the environments in which a lot of manufacturing occurs; places like Ireland and many of the Asian countries where free trade zones or similar manufacturing in bond arrangements have been established.But of course you cannot do that if, at the same time that you set the scheme up, you cripple it by putting charges on the system so that you make it uneconomic—and that has been the problem. There is simply no justification in terms of the fundamental underlying principle of trying to build economic activity in Australia and to provide our local industry—and those who would seek employment in it—a competitive playing field with overseas countries. You cannot do that unless you also provide a fees regime which is competitive. So the first question we ask, and the first criticism we make, is about the inordinate delay from the time of introduction of this to this bill coming before the House. There were obvious problems—the scheme was never going to work as it was proposed—and this bill seeks to do something to rectify some of those problems.The explanation for the failure of the government to do anything about it until now was set out in the Bulletin magazine in January this year in a report by Fred Brenchley, where the article says:Despite meetings and pressure from then industry minister John Moore's office through 1998, Customs refused to budge. Cost recovery had been foisted on it by the Finance Department and was a major source of the agency's own revenues.So what we really find is essentially that the government had two conflicting policy agendas. On the one hand, it said it wanted to establish a scheme in Australia whereby manufacturing in Australia would be facilitated on a level playing field with free trade zones in other countries for products principally focused on overseas markets. On the other hand, we had Customs burdened by a Finance decision that whatever it did it had to have full cost recovery. Of course, in a situation of that kind, were Customs not to impose full cost recovery in the manner in which it did, it would simply not have funds available to undertake its functions. So the government had conflicting priorities and, unfortunately, those conflicting priorities were resolved in favour of the tax man or those who want to facilitate additional costs on Australian industry.This bill is a recognition that you cannot have the cake and eat it too. You cannot set up a scheme in Australia which builds larger economic performance over the complete range of industries that could be advantaged in this way and, at the same time, impose fees and costs on the system which make it uncompetitive and uneconomic. Former industry minister John Moore has known of this since it was introduced, so too did the minister for customs and the government as a whole. But the government has gone through the farce of pretending that it is offering an opportunity for Australian and international investors to build a free trade related sector in Australia without actually putting in place measures which would facilitate that. Our criticisms go beyond simply this timing issue because the measures that have been put forward in this bill do not go to what industry really wants.Manufacturing in bond representatives, who have been pressing the government on this issue, have been arguing that a manufacturing in bond facility should be treated as an export destination for Australian domestic manufacturers and suppliers, so that it would allow domestic suppliers to compete equally with suppliers from overseas. They are particularly concerned about the introduction of a goods and services tax, which we are led to believe will see these treated as duty free imported goods. As things stand, domestic supplies will be disadvantaged by 10 per cent when compared to imported products, although the GST is refundable if the goods are exported. By allowing the duty and GST to be refunded on entry to a manufacturing in bond facility, business cash flows would be improved.They want to encourage small businesses to expand, using manufacturing in bond facilities as a halfway stop to full exportation, and they want to be able to facilitate job growth in Australia. They want to see the removal of duty paid on consumables used in the production process. And they are particularly anxious to see a system which would allow a single licence to cover multiple user applications, so that you could have multiple tenants serviced in one bonded warehouse and the process controlled by a software system so that goods could travel under bond between production lines and stores. The government does not seem to be particularly concerned or even aware of these issues. Representatives of those who would seek to take up these opportunities have not had the opportunity of meetings at a senior level with the government, despite pressure from those industries and representations from members on this side of the House.One of the key issues that applies to manufacturing in bond is: how do you deal with those aspects of production which do not go into the export markets? The whole idea of course of manufacturing in bond is to facilitate a duty free arrangement which enables us to build an export orientated sector. But there is a subsidiary question because, once you have manufacturing in bond in Australia, some of that will come into the Australian domestic market. So how, for example, do you deal with a computer? Let us assume you bring all the componentry required to make a computer into this country and then most of those sales proceed overseas but some goods are sold into the Australian market. How do you properly deal with those transfers into the domestic market? This bill and the regulations that will be associated with it deal with the matter on the basis that, when an item enters the Australian domestic market after being produced in a manufacturing in bond facility, duty is taxed on all the imported components as if they themselves had been imported into Australia, not on the finished computer.The economic impact of this will differ with particular goods. But take the computer example for a good discussion point. This means that a manufacturing in bond producer is disadvantaged because each of the components individually attracts duty which in aggregate would be substantially more than any duty applicable on the manufacture in Australia of a completed computer or on the entry into Australia of a fully imported computer. So essentially there is a significant economic disadvantage for somebody seeking to establish a manufacturing in bond facility to make computers here.That is a very sad thing because we do not have a particularly strong computer manufacturing facility in Australia. We have encouraged it—for example, the former government entered into partnership arrangements with IBM to build some hardware manufacturing capacity in this country. But members on both sides of the House would have to acknowledge that we have not thus far really attracted a significant computer manufacturing capacity to this country. If you look at our trade figures for physical imports you will see that one of the real reasons we have such a high deficit in the terms of trade is that we import so much of this computer material—peripherals, computers and the whole physical set-up that goes with the information age. Most of it is imported from overseas. The way the manufacturing in bond proposal is structured will do nothing about that at all. It does not give a way of encouraging local industry to build computer manufacturing facilities or to get a regime in terms of its economic circumstances which would facilitate it filling that gap.That is not to say that we do not recognise that there are some competing considerations. There certainly are concerns that we would have to balance the economic interests of new entrants in manufacturing in bond facilities against Australian domestic suppliers that are already in place. In different industry sectors that circumstance may be something of some significance. But the government does not seem to have addressed these significant economic issues at all. Again it is going to mean that we have a half measure that purports to give us an opportunity to attract big investment and to grow Australian export related industries but which handicaps them in the way in which they will operate.Labor's response is to recognise that to be competitive and innovative in the international global economy, ideas such as manufacturing in bond need to be developed, but they have to be developed correctly. The government has managed to completely stuff up a potentially good idea and has wasted nearly 1½ years of its potential at the same time. We will support this bill's passage through the House, but we will be looking at it very closely in the Senate. We will be discussing these matters with the minor parties to look at whether we can make amendments to it which can make it more effective in doing the task that it is intended to achieve.The Labor Party is way out in front of the government when it comes to understanding the issues involved in the manufacturing in bond facilities. We have been talking to business and seeking to gain an understanding of their concerns regarding this issue. We want to listen, consult and learn from all affected groups. That is a process that involves listening to those who are affected. That is why, when this bill comes before the Senate, we will be seeking to have a committee closely examine it. We want the Senate to look at various aspects of this issue. Firstly, there is the duty paid on consumables before the production process. Consumables are those products that are used up in the manufacturing process, such as petroleum, machine tools or solder. Currently it is required to pay duty on them before they are used in manufacturing in bond. Does it make sense to treat in this way components and items which are fully consumed before a fully manufactured product is made?Secondly, there is the duty paid on capital equipment. Imported capital also carries a duty with it into manufacture in bond. However, capital as a fixed investment may well require an approach different from that taken with consumable imports. We want the Senate to examine those costs imposed in this process by Customs and the best methods required to reduce them to the smallest possible level. We want to look at the present high cost of obtaining a manufacturing in bond licence. We want to look at the current requirement that manufacturing in bond licences go to those who can demonstrate an almost exclusive export benefit. There may be some significant potential benefits for on-selling to the Australian market products made through manufacture in bond particularly where there is not already a strong manufacturing sector in this country. It may well be the case that in some sectors where we already have well-established, efficient local manufacturing we need not explore this. But where we do not make a product in Australia or where we do not have strengths in a product, does it not defy our national interest not to examine whether manufacturing in bond may be a measure to entice investors to build facilities here which enable those products to be made in this country—products which would otherwise be wholly imported from manufacturers offshore? We want the Senate to look at that issue.We want the Senate to look at the effects that manufacturing in bond licences have on the competitive ability of those domestic producers who do not have manufacturing in bond licences—the balancing consideration. We want it to look at making manufacturing in bond non-location specific in the licence agreement so that you can have multiple sites under one licence through a licence multiple user model. We want it to look at per item accounting of manufacturing in bond through virtual bond stores rather than through warehouse specific manufacturing in bond to allow production through any facility at any location in Australia. We want to play a constructive part in this debate but we believe the government has not grasped an issue which has great potential for this country.We know that there are still significant unresolved issues. For example, the govern ment has said, in relation to the arrangements that it wishes to put in place, that there will be a single administrative charge for the charging of duty on components that are brought in for domestic manufacture. But that is not in this legislation, and there needs to be some clarification and reassurance that that in fact will be the case. Otherwise, industry will again be unwilling to commit to a scheme which places high overheads and red tape on their operations.We want to play a positive role in this debate and not look for simple or quick fix solutions. We understand that the minister has set a date on which these proposals are intended to come into effect and we understand the anxiety of the government to facilitate changes to make some sense of a scheme which has thus far failed. We want to facilitate that also. So we do not intend, insofar as it is within our control, to hold these processes up in the Senate. But we do want to open up the process so that these significant issues that industry has been battering on the door of the government to have addressed and to have listened to do have an airing and so that we can have the opportunity of setting on track a process to make sure that the opportunities that should exist to grow jobs and to grow economic impetus in Australia are not missed. That is where we stand in relation to these measures. We want to be constructive, we want to see that these reductions in charges are brought into effect, but we want to make certain that all the other issues that stand in the way of making manufacturing in bond a growth sector for Australia are dealt with also.I have mentioned my colleague who will be speaking later in this debate, and of course our industry spokesperson will be speaking further in this debate at a later stage. We say to the government: we would welcome your input into how that Senate process can be facilitated. We do not want to delay the matter but, on the other hand, we do not wish to give a tick to a process that only half deals with a deficiency that the government itself has identified and which has been the subject of continual representations by industry. (Time expired)11:55:006681Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I am pleased to be able to stand today and support the government's bills, the Import Processing Charges Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 and the related bill. I congratulate the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Customs in terms of their roles. It is undoubtedly another significant move in making Australia more competitive in export markets. I was particularly interested to follow the member for Denison and to hear him say that the ALP were well ahead of the game. If ever there was a great degree of irony in a statement I have heard from the member for Denison it was in that. They are behind the eight ball in every aspect of this legislation. It was their government which when in power actually removed the provision for manufacture in bond in 1990. We have not had anything to replace it until the present government brought in the manufacture in bond initiative and the government's 1997 `Investing for Growth Industries' statement. It was because of that that the plans were implemented for manufacturing in bond.Clearly some changes need to be made, because there have been some charges made in the processing of the documents on recovering the user-charges involved. Because of this bill that will no longer be the case, as there will be a charge only when the goods are brought into the country for domestic use. So it is a clear nonsense to say they were ahead of the game. They were behind the game, because when they were in government they did not have that provision at all. Certainly there have been some changes made, and we hear the comments that the member has made. But his example of computers, that those who wanted to assemble computers in the country would be disadvantaged because of the charges that would be made on the individual components for computers, is a bad one, because components for computers are brought in duty free and computers themselves are brought in duty free. It is fairly typical that the ALP do not get their facts right when they come into this chamber and claim they are ahead of the game. They are well behind the game, having abolished the scheme in 1990. Secondly, there was no record of their having raised before their concerns about how this would operate. Finally, they raise problems in terms of the mythical computer case which has no validity.The question of the GST again is a nonsense, because through this bill people will have to pay none of the normal duties on goods brought into the country and re-exported. It removes that requirement. If you want to talk exports, that is one of the great strengths of the GST. Instead of manufacturers in this country having a whole range of wholesale taxes—you know the range of them—all of that is removed and they can compete very effectively in the export marketplace without that tax impost. In my former life I was a Trade Commissioner, and I see that this would be an extremely important element. When you are overseas, you are often aware of the very fine margins that are involved for Australian products to actually be successful. Australian manufacturers and Australian mineral producers are extremely enthusiastic because they know what will happen as a result of instituting the GST scheme and how competitive it will make them. There are billions of dollars of tax reductions for our manufacturers and for our mineral producers in the export market because of the GST proposals.So one huge furphy raised by the member for Denison, amongst the number of furphies he raised, is the question of the GST. This is the great strength in putting us in a viable and competitive position in relation to exports. It means that manufacturers will be able to produce goods in this arrangement. They will no longer be required to pay a processing charge. They will not have to pay the normal duties that apply. As long as items are brought into the country, assembled under this proposal of manufacturing in bond and then re-exported, no charges will be levied and the previous processing charges will be removed by virtue of this bill. It is only bringing it into the country that attracts the charges.I think that is a great situation. It is fairly modest at the moment. I was interested in the proposal from the member for Denison, who suggested that the whole of Tasmania should be turned into a manufacturing bond island. Good try, but that is not quite appropriate. It is modest at the moment. DHL is involved at the moment. It is predominantly a freight forwarding company and obviously wants to get into the market. BHP has shown an interest. Undoubtedly, honourable members opposite have been briefed by BHP, and it is appropriate that they should be in terms of their concerns with some of the logistics.Some concern has been raised about what this would mean for the minority of product which ends up in the domestic market and whether it would be taxed under the old regulation that was part of the legislation, where you paid the tax on either the components or the whole price of the product, depending on which was the cheaper. Even though the whole manufacturing in bond legislation was removed in 1990, the regulation continued. It was removed in 1998 as a result of this scheme being introduced.We now have a situation where it is simply done on the components involved. It has not been proven that this will present a disadvantage. The member for Denison used the example of computers. That is not a valid example. I am sure the minister will keep her eye on it to see whether any changes are needed to finetune it. Some things are very clear. Firstly, this is a great scheme developed by this government. It is aimed at establishing Australia as a hub for manufacturing in bond here and then re-exporting. One of the hallmarks of this government—led, in particular, by the Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer—has been a very strong emphasis on our trade potential. This legislation is part of establishing this country as a hub for the region, bringing product in, manufacturing it and sending it out to other areas.Secondly, it creates potential for the future in encouraging more companies to establish and to operate under this scheme. If further requirements need to be changed, I am sure the government will look at that, but there is no doubt that it provides greater flexibility and removes some of the rigidity that was previously there. It removes the charges that were creating problems and making it unviable to establish such a manufacturing in bond requirement.I believe the government and the ministers should be congratulated. The comments made by the opposition do not have a great deal of validity. The opposition should be congratulating the government on these changes rather than talking to the minor party upstairs to see what further trouble they can create. This has been called for by the companies involved. The government is acting. Some issues which are very much at the margin have been called to our attention by the member for Denison and I am sure the government will look at them.However, overall, it is a great piece of legislation which highlights the government's strong commitment to export growth and to creating Australia as a centre for trade development for the region. It again highlights where we stand at the moment in the South-East Asian situation. This is the boom economy in South-East Asia. We talked in the past about the tiger economies of South-East Asia. Australia is now the tiger economy because the actions of this government have changed things so dramatically.12:05:006682Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I suggest that the member for Cook stay for a moment and I will explain what he misunderstood about what was said by the member for Denison about these warehouse bills—or he may want to read what I say in Hansard . He is a respected ex-minister of a state parliament and I would like to explain this while he is still here. The processing charge that is currently applicable, and which will still be applicable for imports to the domestic market, needs to be better understood. Clearly, from the member for Cook's comments, the government does not yet understand what issues are at stake.I will go through it. There are two big benefits of MiB in Australia: our low transport costs into Asia and the fact that we are the second biggest domestic market in the region after Japan. Therefore, exports into our domestic market from a manufacturing in bond area are quite critical. When we look at charging $22.80 per customs entry for goods going into the domestic economy, we need to understand what that means. I will explain why the case of the computers that the mem ber for Denison spoke about is such a critical issue.A computer has literally hundreds of components. The entry through Customs charge is $22.80, plus 20c per line after 10. In other words, you are allowed 10 lines per entry, even though one line may have 10 transistors on it. If we then apply the processing charge on the entry into the domestic economy as if they were coming in as components, rather than having one line of 50 computers at $22.80 for the entry, we literally have hundreds of entries for each computer at $22.80. Even though each entry may have a number of components per line, the importer of the made-up computer is paying only the $22.80 on an entry about computers, not about components. That is the first point to understand.With the margin on computers being very narrow, we will not have a hope in hell of attracting that kind of investment because any of those burdens will be unreasonable. What is more, it is not fair. Why should an importer pay a processing charge at one rate when a manufacturer is paying at a much greater rate, simply because he is being forced to pay out on components? I am sure the member for Cook is listening and that he will look at what he has said and at what I am saying. This is not a question of being critical; it is a question of saying it is a complicated point of logistics that is not commonly discussed in this parliament or even in the community. I can understand the government not getting in on it.There are a number of goods where the raw material is dutiable but the finished product is not. I am not going to go through all of the different customs tariffs and duties that exist in this country but let me tell you that they were all designed for other reasons, for other ages. What we are trying to do here, and have been trying to do for 2½ years, is modernise our customs and manufacturing processes. The red tape is horrendous and the obstacles are quite serious. If we are genuine about attracting investment in modern manufacturing, we have to rethink it a lot more than we have. MiB came about not because the government had a bright idea but because in 1996 BHP, as part of their Steel River project in Newcastle, did a lot of work towards attracting investment to a very large piece of industrial land. They found that one of the impediments was our customs regime. They went to look at America where there are about 550 foreign trade zones that operate as if they are offshore. They are not duty free in the sense of avoiding duty. They are zones that are designed around industries—for instance, with the car industry in America most of the car components are made in foreign trade zones. They enter the American market as if they have come offshore, which makes them equal to importers of the same products.BHP put forward in late 1996 a substantial proposal to the government recommending foreign trade zones. I was not aware of this, but I understand that DHL, a transport company mentioned by the member for Cook, was also putting forward similar proposals at about the same time, for other reasons, particularly around their business operations. Shortly after that submission went forward, the minister for industry established a committee of parliamentarians, chaired by the member for Wannon, to examine steel. As part of our investigations into steel and BHP, the committee received the submissions that BHP had previously put forward. The New South Wales government and the parliamentarians in the Hunter region supported those submissions and had recommended that BHP submit them to the committee. That committee recommended to the government—unanimously and in a bipartisan way—the adoption of the foreign trade zone concept.There then ensued a debate for many months within the parties on both sides and within the department. In October 1997, the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech in Sydney at a Labor Party conference on the October Labour Day weekend, publicly supported the foreign trade zone concept and gave the Labor Party's support to the government for such a proposal. In December 1997, the government announced in its `Investing for Growth' statement the manufacturing in bond concept. We all supported it. It has not been a political issue, and most of our discussions have essentially been private. I have discussed it with the member for Wannon on a number of occasions, particularly in recent months.We have been trying to achieve a consensus without it becoming polarised, because we know that investors and future manufacturers would not appreciate it if we made it some kind of political football. I have bitten my tongue on a number of occasions when trying to get these changes understood and supported. It is therefore disappointing that we are at the stage we are at now. I am urging government members and the department to try to understand the opportunity they have. They were given a policy concept which, quite frankly, came out of nowhere back in 1996. Most of us were sceptical of it because of the free trade zone implications, which most of us think do not work in the way the Australian customs system works.Manufacturing in bond is a licensing system where a licence holder would guarantee the duty would be paid for those companies within their stable—the people they represent. We have been arguing for it to not be a physical zone but a virtual zone, a virtual bond store, which would mean that existing companies manufacturing in Australia could become absorbed by a licence holder where it suited them. They would be encouraged to export and also to examine their import costs. Quite frankly, a lot of companies who import goods and then either export them or go domestic do not try to get their tariffs back. The tariffs are often very small, the paperwork involved is cumbersome and most of them do not have customs expertise.I have talked to a number of companies about that, particularly companies that make products in the chemical field. One company with substantial exports said, `We really cannot be bothered. It is too complicated. We would rather pay the duty and be done with it and shave our margins.' That has been the approach. We never saw ourselves as exporters. We have basically been a domestic manufacturer for domestic consumption. If we are going to move into the bigger markets in the export field, we have to understand that.So the manufacturing in bond is a licensing system which means that the government is protected because the licence holder would guarantee the duties would be paid if the companies within that zone, within their stable, do not perform or go broke. Because the revenue is guaranteed, it is not a risky scheme in that sense. Secondly, it means existing manufacturers can be absorbed into it; if it is a virtual bond store, it is non-location specific. So a company with locations all over Australia could have all of those companies in a manufacturing in bond store, in that sense. The parameters of the store would be the stock control system of the licence holder, and that is quite straightforward. I get frustrated with my colleagues at times when they boast about their lack of computer literacy. I hear that more often than I want to. For parliamentarians to boast about that these days is disgraceful.The fact is that the concept involved here is actually quite straightforward: a virtual bond store, where a stock control system—which is run by a licence holder and which Customs can scrutinise and audit as they wish—would mean that the old days of a physical store with padlocks and bars on the windows has long gone. But we still think the same idea. In fact, in the regulations that are now here, Customs say that the company will be required to keep its domestic inputs and its import inputs separate. So we are still in the physical store approach, still into physical barriers, which was the historic Customs role: if you crossed the barrier, you paid the duty. In the modern world where people work now, their components are floating around the world. They can be on an aeroplane, in a truck on a highway, in a train or in a ship: they know where they are and that they are coming together at a final manufacturing point. We need to move forward so that we can actually get in tune with that—because, if we do not, we will be left behind. We are being left behind already.A month ago I was in Ireland, particularly looking at foreign trade zones at Shannon Airport. There are 20,000 jobs there—20,000 jobs developed through a foreign trade zone which is less sophisticated than what we are putting forward here. Those jobs are not low wage jobs. They are good jobs. They are jobs for the skilled, with high wages. Ireland is not a country of low wages. They are a small, highly skilled country with a good standard of living, on the edge of a small market—just like us. They learned years ago what was needed to make them viable and to attract investment, and they have got it in bucketloads.Dell Computers make their computers in Ireland. They announced when I was there that they are moving a lot of their design capacity to be next to their manufacturing because, when you have got the assembly of goods, normally you get the product testing and eventually the design work as well—the very things that we want in this country. But we have to fit their system, we have to fit their requirements. This does not mean giving them some welfare or concession; it is actually saying, `Why would you want to charge somebody to tell us that they are bringing something into the country and then taking it out again—which is what actually happens now?'Back in 1997 when the government made that announcement, and following that in July 1998, Customs and the department of industry produced a paper on manufacturing in bond which did two really quite serious things. Firstly, it actually specified the processing charges that would be applicable, and so we were telling prospective investors that they were going to be charged for bringing stuff in and sending it out. It is not a tariff and it is not a duty; it is a processing charge—and in many cases, given the value of some of the components, a very high charge, very much greater than tariffs. Secondly, it also told them about the dutiable content for goods coming into the country. The point raised by the member for Denison about how you eventually levy the duty is actually quite a critical one. We are trying to suggest here that the MiB concept is saying to our manufacturers, `You can set up a manufacturing facility onshore and pay the same duty on your input to the economy as any other importer, so that you are not burdened with any other cost.'If one goes back to the regulations—and the member for Cook referred to those, and particularly to 72 and 72.2, which had been the regulations until they were changed only last year—the duty will be charged at the lower rate of either the components or the finished product. The government is really saying that something made in a manufacturing in bond context is not a product but a bundle of components, and the supplier has to keep tracking through all the components, pay the processing charge on the entries effectively as components and pay the duty on the components, if dutiable, as well. Well, we have just killed it. It defeats the whole purpose.What happened post 1997 was, as Fred Brenchley said in the Bulletin in January, that Sir Humphrey took over. Customs and Treasury took over this system and saw it as a revenue system. This stuff was changed for revenue purposes and for no other reason. Logic says that, if you were trying to attract investment, you would apply duty at the lower rate. You would make it a level playing field so that a manufacturer in bond was no worse off than an importer. These things were in the regulations before. Today the government wants to put into legislation, into the law, the fact that your duty would be charged at the component level—no choice, no either/or; it must be at the component level. Why would you do that? My question to government members is: what is the point? It defeats the whole purpose.These regulations have been in the system for decades. Why rip them out? At the same time as the government was talking in `Investing in Growth' about attracting investment to make manufacturing in Australia more competitive than it had been and make us more comparable with other countries—a measure which we supported and have given absolute support to for a year and a half—why would you suddenly introduce this and say, `By the way, we will levy a charge on the stuff being used and, secondly, we will now change the laws so that the duty is being paid at the maximum component level. Furthermore, when you report this stuff coming into the economy, you will be reporting it as com ponents'? Why would you do that? It is against all the comments, against all the speeches, against all the government's policies.Was Fred Brenchley right? Did Sir Humphrey take over? Did Customs or Treasury see it as a side revenue source? I honestly do not know—and I do not think the members of the government know either. When I raise this question, I am raising it in a genuine sense. There is a need to understand. Look at the Irish experience and see how they succeeded in attracting all those companies. There were 120 companies located at Shannon, with 20,000 jobs. How did it happen? They really made their customs system much more in tune with manufacturing needs than with revenue raising needs. They turned themselves inside out. Manufacturing in bond is a start in that process, but each time something happens we go one step forward and two backwards. That is what is happening now.The regulations that were there until last year—particularly 72.2—should still be there. All the government needs to do is to let it go back to what it was—the `either/or' where the duty is charged at the component rate or at the finished product rate. From discussions with BHP and with DHL, the only two companies in the field at the moment—and we want more in the field—there are a lot of people interested in what we do. We offer some massive advantages: a stable social environment, a stable political environment, a high skilled work force, a large market in relative terms and excellent education systems. There are a whole range of factors which make us very attractive.We have one major impediment, and it dates back to the Rum Corps days, to our system of excise and duty—a system which was originally a government revenue system. The revenues we are forgoing by making it so difficult are vastly greater than the revenues we gain in this system. Getting those investments and those jobs in Australia is worth squillions to us. It is not just that; it is worth our future. There is a massive future in modern manufacturing if we understand it. And if we do not understand it, it is at our own peril. Our best chance of switching from resource based, low value added, low skilled exports to being a more high skilled exporter of manufactured goods lies in rethinking why we do things the way we do.I would have preferred a foreign trade zone—the way we put forward at the start. But people saw that as being too complicated in legislation. MiB was a halfway house. The government is now saying Tradex is going to fix it, but Tradex is just as bad. It has all the same problems and will not fix it at all. If the government thinks that, it is being misled. So I am urging those on the other side in both houses to look at what has been said over the last year and a half since Investing for Growth. Go back, if you like, and ask BHP for their submission to the government. Ask DHL for their submission to the government. Look at what they are saying. Look at what the government has said in its speeches in response. The government has supported the thrust of all of these things. Then we got to the legislation and it went backwards. The question is: why? I hope that in the Senate the government will actually answer some of those questions and accept that what we are trying to do is to get a workable system. We are not looking for some phrase or some slogan; we are looking for a workable system that will attract investment. What we are doing at the moment still does not do what is required. I urge this House to understand that, because the future of this country is much more in these things than in most things we ever debate.12:25:006686Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I thank the member for Newcastle for his thoughtful, positive and supportive contribution to the debate. I am interested in the one impediment to the growth in our country that he did refer to in the latter part of his speech. There is another impediment, of course, and that is that the country desperately needs a new tax system. The government is certainly proceeding along those lines.The Import Processing Charges Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 is part of the Investing for Growth strategy that the government has implemented, a strategy that has provided an additional $1.26 billion over four years to encourage business innovation, boost investment, improve our trade performance and enhance our competitiveness in key sectors, including information technology and financial services.The major initiatives in the Investing for Growth strategy are fourfold: a substantial increase in support for innovation, with $1 billion to encourage increased business research and development over the next four years; the establishment of a new agency, Invest Australia, to more actively promote Australia as an investment location and to identify strategic new investment opportunities; extending the Export Market Development Grants program, at a cost of about $150 million a year in 2000-01 and 2001-02; and introducing a new system—the fourth initiative is what this bill is all about—of manufacturing in bond to allow firms to use Australia as a regional hub for operations without incurring duty liability on goods for re-export or for use as inputs to exports.There are a number of other measures involved in the Investing for Growth strategy, but I would like to continue in relation to this bill. The bill provides a legislative base for MiB and ensures that regulations that will be made will be lawful. The government has a policy of attracting international investment for export related industries. This bill gives effect to this policy.For manufacturing in bond sites, there will be no import processing charges, customs duties or sales taxes. The bill takes effect as of 29 April 1999 and provides interested businesses with a certainty of charges from that date. There is already one approved manufacturing in bond warehouse in Brisbane. I think in the area of the member for Newcastle there is some interest in the Steel River concept. This now makes that a viable possibility.For my own region there are certainly some very great opportunities for Townsville to use what is in this bill to further our city and to further the development, growth and prosperity in the region. Townsville has one of the best ports in Australia. It is the third largest port in Queensland, but its facilities and its closeness to the South Pacific and Asia underline the opportunities we have as a regional city. Townsville is also Australia's largest tropical city. Most people, when asked that question, would nominate Cairns. Cairns is actually a small village about 400 kilometres north of Townsville.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—With or without Thuringowa?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—With Thuringowa. Or they would nominate Darwin. But Darwin is considerably smaller than Townsville. So here we have an opportunity for a manufacturing in bond process to establish—probably in the port area, as the land is available. But, more than that, we have an established international airport in Townsville. And product coming into the MiB process could come through the international airport.I would like to see businesses in my city seize the opportunities that are now provided by this bill and look closely at how there is now another business opportunity to do well. We would build on the resources available in the near Asian countries and in the South Pacific. We should not overlook countries like the Solomon Islands, for example, which would not normally be considered. There is an easy link between Townsville and the Solomon Islands. We should not overlook New Guinea. But equally so, we should not overlook what is in the hinterland behind Townsville and the metal refineries that are in Townsville that could contribute to the operation of the MiB process. Townsville supports the largest mineral region in the world. The north-west minerals province in western Queensland has the most potential and the most readily available mineral product that exists in the world today. We have copper, lead, zinc, gold and so on. That is all available to be used as part of this particular process.Those wishing to take advantage of this legislation should approach the Department of Industry, Science and Resources with their business plan. The department will check out that business plan and, if it is in accordance with the operation of this particular legislation, the department will then recommend and pass that on to the customs department, which will then issue a bonded warehouse licence. It is a very simple process. It is something that is easy to do, and there is no reason why local businesses in the Townsville- Thuringowa region should not now be able to take advantage of that.As I have moved around Australia I have seen many cluster operations begin. I saw one very recently in Sydney at North Ryde, around the CSIRO facility there, which has turned into an information technology type cluster.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—That is the Prime Minister's electorate, is it?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—It is; it is the member for Bennelong's electorate. I think there is an opportunity to get a cluster system involved in this particular process as well. It is not only information technology, it is also biotechnology. Biotechnology is rapidly overtaking the major advances and importance of information technology. This bill provides for a manufacturing in bond process which further underlines and underscores the strength that we can have in our Australian economy. I recommend the bill to the House. I am pleased to see that there is support from the opposition in relation to this bill.12:33:006688McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The opposition's position on the Import Processing Charges Amendment (Warehouses) Bill has been outlined comprehensively by the shadow minister for customs, who has had principal responsibility for dealing with this matter, and supported by the member for Newcastle, who has been an active advocate of development in this issue for some time but particularly since the steel industry crisis in Newcastle, which led to the establishment of a House of Representatives committee to look into issues relating to the iron and steel industry. This became a central point in the recommendations concerning a possible response to the steel industry crisis. The member for Newcastle was a leading participant in that and a leading advocate of this policy within the committee, in the public debate and inside the Labor Party.It has now become more than a response to the Newcastle crisis. It is becoming an opportunity for Australia to play an enhanced role in the regional warehousing and manufacturing business for the whole of the western Pacific. It is in that capacity and as shadow minister for industry that I want to say a few things about potential, and why this legislation, even though it needs some scrutiny, should proceed. It is a step in the right direction. I still do not think the government has got it right. There is a lot of talk about this being new. It is in fact a very old idea—an idea that has been implemented in Australia before and that was wound up on the basis of an Industry Commission report.Historians will judge whether the criticisms that were made at the time of the way that scheme was running were correct or not. It may well be that either the time was wrong or the model was wrong. At the moment it is a judgment I cannot make. Looking back, there was not much controversy about the decision at the time—I do not remember it being a hard-fought matter; I think it was pretty well shared—that for some reason or other it was not working. Perhaps it is the advancement of globalisation that has created the circumstance where now there are new opportunities for this. That is one of the things I want to talk about—the fact that perhaps we can go beyond the old concept of manufacturing in bond and the image it has of fenced off areas, like big free trade zones, and look a bit more imaginatively at how manufacturing in bond might be allied with modern technology. We can look at what I think the member for Newcastle referred to as `virtual bond stores' and make it possible for smaller companies to participate to open up some new possibilities.However we proceed, the element in this measure that goes to removing the processing charges is a necessary part of the process. It is one step along the road to making Australia active as a regional manufacturing and warehousing site. The government announced it was going to do this some time ago. There was a substantial amount of concern and apprehension between December 1997 and April, when the policy with regard to the processing charge—the cost recovery charge—was announced, which has been reflected in this legislation. That caused a lot of consternation and the process did not go anywhere—we were not making any significant progress.Industry still is expressing to me apprehension that there is a long way to go before we maximise the potential of the initiative. This is a broadly bipartisan initiative. I do not know of any significant resistance to the principle in the broader Australian community. There may be some dissidents, but they have not made themselves known to me. I have not seen it reported—neither in the parliament nor in the public debate. But there is debate about the detail, about how Australian participants in this scheme become domestic suppliers. I know it is possible—the rules are there—but there is debate about whether the playing field is level both for them vis-a-vis overseas suppliers and vis-a-vis Australian domestic producers, although of course it is possible for Australian domestic producers to become domestic MiB suppliers if they think that is an advantage to them.But we do have to make sure that domestic suppliers under MiB are able to compete equally with suppliers from overseas, because—and this goes to the treatment of components, the treatment of consumables—we will have to look at the application of the GST regime in this area is well. That does not go to the merits or otherwise of the GST—which is a debate for another time and which probably most Australians think we have had enough of, although I regret to tell them there is a lot more to come—but, if it happens, we have to make sure that its application in MiB circumstances do not create, at least in cash flow terms, a relative disadvantage for domestic suppliers. That is an issue to be addressed. I do not expect this bill, of course, to address that matter, because we are not at the point of doing that, but it is a matter that the government will have to address.There is the consumption of production consumables, the things that you buy that you use up within the manufacturing enterprise on which duty is paid. How is that matter to be dealt with for competition with domestic supply? There is the question of what I think the member for Newcastle referred to in his speech as the `single licence, multiple user option' and the virtual bond store concept. These are important issues, and they also overlap with the question of the licence fees to establish a MiB operation. All of these are issues that I, on behalf of the opposition, want to say we will be focusing a lot of attention on. We want to give this proposal more scrutiny. We do not want to interfere with what seems, on the face of it, to be a step forward in improving the operation of the existing scheme. If it gives one more company the chance to participate effectively, it is a plus. But if it does not take us as far as we should go, it is a wasted opportunity. That is the balance we are trying to strike here, and that is the balance we will try to strike in the Senate consideration of this matter.The circumstance we face today is we know we have a general consensus about the direction in which we want to go with this issue. But we are inching forward very cautiously. The government is inching forward very cautiously and, on behalf of the opposition, I say that we do not have the resources to leap from where we are to a new policy position. We will closely monitor what the government does and, if we are not satisfied with what it is doing, we will go to the next election with a policy designed to facilitate and enhance the operation of this manufacturing in bond scheme as it evolves over the next two years. We will be reviewing it. We will be closely liaising with the industry participants, ensuring that we proceed as fast as we can on the scheme that the government has, and developing an alternative scheme so that we achieve the maximum economic benefit for the Australian industry and position Australia most effectively to be an effective participant in the emerging global economy.This is not the answer to Australia's participation; this is a small piece in the mosaic of initiatives we have to take to establish Australia as a successful manufacturing participant in the global economy, which we need to be because manufacturing remains the fastest growing area of world trade. Australia needs to participate more effectively in that rapidly growing area if we are to create wealth and to be able to distribute that wealth successfully. This is a step. We do not wish to impede its progress, so we will happily cooperate in its passage through the House. We will give it some extra scrutiny in the Senate, and we will be working to develop better and more comprehensive alternatives in the lead-up to the next election.12:43:006690Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—The manufacturing in bond scheme, which is the subject of the Import Processing Charges Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 and the Customs Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 , is potentially an important one in terms of its overall impact not only on Australian manufacturing but on the contribution that can be made by Australian manufacturing to Australia's overall international export performance. When we look at the MiB scheme and its potential for utilisation in Australia, we see that until now the utilisation has been relatively limited. An MiB scheme was utilised in Australia by a limited number of manufacturers until 1988. It was abolished as a result of the IC's 1987 report. It was suggested for reintroduction by the Australian iron and steel industry report to the then Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism and by the parliamentary committee inquiring into the steel industry under the chairmanship of David Hawker in September 1997. In December 1997 the government announced the Investing for Growth strategy that contained both the MiB and Tradex initiatives.Manufacturing in bond is a provision to allow the manufacturing of goods in a Customs licensed warehouse. A firm with MiB approval will be able to import dutiable goods into a licensed warehouse free of duty and sales tax. If these goods are subsequently re-exported, in either their original or their manufactured form, no duty or sales tax liability is incurred. Imports brought into the warehouse and subsequently entered for home consumption—that is, sold into the domestic market—incur a duty and sales tax liability at the time they leave the warehouse.Benefits to manufacturers under this scheme are potentially similar to those of free trade zones, such as the deferral of duty until products are sold into the domestic market, duty payable on goods released into the domestic market being the lesser of the amount payable on the input goods to that applying to the finished product, and duties not being payable on imports imported into the zone and then re-exported without the domestic market. The immediate objective of the MiB is to facilitate trading operations by streamlining the administration of imports which are subsequently re-exported whether processed or in their original form. The broader objective is to generate net additional economic activity in employment in Australia.Our view is that, to be competitive and innovative and to be part of the global economy, ideas such as the MiB need to be developed. But, as the shadow minister who has just spoken has pointed out, they need to be developed in a correct manner. To date, the government has not demonstrated a great degree of competence in its handling of what is potentially a good idea. To date, we have seen nearly a year and a half of useful time wasted in the development of this proposal, yet find it developed in a manner which still does not meet the industry's requirements.The opposition will support the passage of this bill through the House, but we need to look at it carefully in the Senate, along with the minor parties, and make appropriate amendments to it. The opposition has for a long time been considerably out in front of the government when it comes to its understanding, its comprehension and its support for initiatives such as MiB.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—We're in front all the time.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—As the honourable member for Bowman has interjected, generally in terms of its approach to initiatives in support of Australian exporters and initiatives in support of the economic development of this country, the Labor Party has a proud history of internationalising the economy and encouraging and assisting Australian businesses to take the lead in furthering our interests in the global economy.The Labor Party, unlike the government, intends to listen to and to consult with all industry groups affected. In formulating our approach to be adopted in the Senate, we will take our position from those consultations. This is an overall process that will involve an examination of issues in their technical detail and meshing that with appropriate consulta tion with all industry groups and individual firms affected. Unfortunately, the same spirit of consultation has not been evident in the approach taken by the government.There are a number of specific issues which we in the opposition wish to see further examined in this overall proposal. First, we are concerned about the duty paid on consumables before the production process. Consumables are those products that are consumed in the manufacturing process, such as petroleum, machine tools or solder. Imported consumables currently require duty to be paid before they are used in manufacture in bond. Second, there is the duty to be paid on capital equipment. Imported capital also carries a duty with it into manufacture in bond. However, capital as a fixed investment may well require a different approach than that which is taken with consumable inputs.Third, we need to look at those costs imposed on this process by Customs and the best methods required to reduce them to the smallest possible level for the service to be delivered. Fourth, there is the current high cost of obtaining a manufacture in bond licence. Fifth, there is the current requirement that MiBs go to those who can demonstrate an almost exclusive export benefit. Sixth, we need to examine the potential benefits for on-selling to the Australian market products made through the manufacture in bond process. Seventh, we need to examine the effects that the MiB licences have on the competitive ability of those domestic producers who at present do not have a MiB licence.Eighth, we need to look at making MiBs non-location specific in the licence agreement; that is, to look at allowing production at multiple sites under one licence through the use of a one-licence multiple user model. Finally, we need to look at per item accounting for MiBs through virtual bond store rather than warehouse specific MiBs, to allow production through any facility at any location in Australia. These are all important aspects of this overall proposal which need to be examined when the Senate goes through this bill in detail.The overall proposal for MiBs, as I said in my initial remarks, is particularly important in terms of its contribution to Australia's export performance. It is on that question that I would like to address a few additional remarks. Australia's export performance in the last six to nine months has been spiralling downwards. We have repeated pronouncements by ministers sitting on the front bench opposite that, due to the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, the export performance of this country is going through the roof. If we look at the cold, hard, statistical reality, we find that in fact the reverse is the case. Month by month we are generating balance of trade numbers for this country which this country has not seen before.When the Treasurer of the Commonwealth stands and proclaims the fact—as he would see it—that Australia is an economic miracle in Asia-Pacific economic terms, given the downturn of the last year and a half, his remarks are completely out of order when you look at the actual reality of declining export performance. There is a large locomotive coming down the train tracks towards fortress economic Australia at the moment called the balance of trade deficit, which in turn is fuelling an exploding current account deficit.It is arguable, when you look at the analysis in terms of Australia's current performance on the export front, as to when we are likely to hit the wall, when the current account numbers become such that the international market reaction becomes unsustainable. We have had repeated warnings that, once this country breaks through the threshold of a six per cent of GDP current account deficit number, international financial markets will begin to react negatively to the Australian dollar. We are on or about six per cent now. Six per cent was the figure where the current account deficit stood when the banana republic statement was made more than a decade ago.Most market analysts now would say that the elasticity within financial markets lies somewhere between six and seven per cent. Their view of this economy—and this is based on what the analysts with whom I have spoken have said—is that if the export performance of this economy continues to dete riorate and domestic consumption continues to explode—reinforcing a parallel increase in imports—then it is not inconceivable that within the next 12 months we will see the current account deficit figure rise from somewhere in the vicinity of six per cent to seven per cent. If that occurs, I think we are beginning to enter into extremely dangerous territory.The great and unstated risk this national economy faces at present is the reaction of the international markets to an unsustainable level of Australian debt. If that occurs, and we see the selling down of the Australian dollar, the consequences it will have across the cycle in terms of interest rates, economic activity and employment will be most serious. It will be interesting to match the rhetoric which will be used to defend the economy's performance at that time by the government which occupies the treasury bench at present, against the triumphalist rhetoric that is currently being used by the government in describing the economy's performance today.I place on record today, in this parliament and in the Hansard, that we are facing a major potential current account crisis. The export performance of the country is not contributing anything at this stage to the amelioration of that potential crisis. The export nonperformance of this economy at present is in fact exacerbating that emerging difficulty. Furthermore, when we look at the explosion in domestic consumption and the fact that consumption is the single factor which is driving growth in this economy at present and not investment, the prognosis becomes quite gloomy. The sort of triumphalism we hear opposite is, I think, within 12 months, likely to be extremely misplaced against the cold, hard economic reality we are likely to face at that time.The government always uses the excuse of the East Asian economic downturn to justify the problems we currently encounter on the export front. However, it was the same government during the unfolding of this crisis that said repeatedly that, while the crisis had hit East Asia, the policy management of this economy had been such that we had been fireproofed and ring-fenced—that we had somehow been immunised from the effect of this crisis on the Australian domestic economy. If we look at the tonality of the comments of the Treasurer and other economic spokesmen on this question over the last two to three months, I think it is fair to say that that tonality has changed. We have moved from capital `t' Triumphalism to small `t' triumphalism, the reason being that even the Treasurer, and certainly his advisers in the Treasury and those who provide economic advice to the Prime Minister, would see that this train is rumbling down the tracks towards us. And, when it arrives, the impact on the domestic health of this economy will be something that we will all watch with grave concern.The comments I have just made relate to the problems of this economy's external account, problems which are not being addressed by the current raft of policy put forward by the government. If you look at the potential impact of the tax package the government has initiated, its single impact through its fiscal stimulus will be to suck in more imports to the economy and lead to a further deterioration in the trade and current accounts. Furthermore, when we start to see economic activity heading in reverse and negative numbers emerging on the economic growth front that a budget surplus is necessary to be drawn upon to cope with the sort of social security requirements and other government outlays that inevitably arise at a time of economic downturn—when the social burden increases.Our grave concern with the fiscal planning for the government's current tax package is that, when the time arises to draw on those fiscal resources of government, that surplus will not be there. It will have been flushed down the drain in executing the transaction that the government has sought to pull off with the Democrats over the last couple of weeks. We are frittering away what would otherwise be a substantial surplus to be drawn upon for future requirements when the overall pattern of economic activity heads south.I make those remarks in a broader context as well and it relates not just to the problems we face on exports and international econom ic competitiveness but more broadly to this government's overall approach to its international engagements—economic and otherwise. I have just returned from a period in Indonesia and prior to that I spent some time in China. I think it is interesting to note, each time one comes back from the region, the residual impact that this government's management of its international posture over the last two or three years has had. What you find in each capital across the region is still a level of scepticism and cynicism about the sincerity of this government's commitment to continued integration with the economies of the region and, more broadly, with the Asia-Pacific region.It is my melancholy duty to report to the House that the residual influence of Hansonism in terms of the region's perception of Australia is still very large. When you explain to the region and to its principal political and economic players that, in fact, the member for Oxley, as she was then, has since been voted out of the legislature they say that is not so much the complaint. The complaint is about the manner in which the government dealt with Hansonism when it existed and existed in particular strength during the time when Pauline Hanson was the member for Oxley.The reaction that we have had and that we hear across the region is that this government was not nearly strong enough in its response to the Hanson challenge when it existed. All governments and senior corporate executives in the region said that when they saw evidence of the rise of One Nation and the set of political sentiments associated with it they could accept and understand that this was a phenomenon which does occur elsewhere in the world. They looked at the rise of extreme right wing parties in Germany, France and elsewhere. However, what they find inexplicable and incapable of finding justification for was the government's failure at the time to provide a robust refutation of what Hansonism stood for. What sticks most clearly in the minds of government and political leaders across the region was the silence of the Prime Minister for such a long period. What sticks in their minds was his use of the Voltairean defence of Ms Hanson: that is, he may not agree with what she said but would defend her right to say it.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was listening to the thoughtful contribution by the member for Griffith but, as we are debating the Customs Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 and the Import Processing Charges Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 , the impact of Hansonism is very remote from the topic of the bills that we are discussing. I would ask you to bring the honourable member back to the question before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—The honourable member will return to the question before the House.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—When we look at the contents of the legislation before the House and the particular role which MiB plays in the prosecution of Australian exports and the enhancement of Australia's balance of trade and current account circumstances, I think it is inappropriate for the parliamentary secretary at the table to somehow conclude that exports and Australia's international economic activity can be clinically separated from the way in which the region and the world—both as markets and economies—view us. These are not clinically distinct commodities; they interrelate. The decisions by entrepreneurs and businessmen across the region, in particular, about whether they do business with Australian companies, about whether they buy Australian products, and about whether, in fact, it is worth while investing here in the first place are anchored in a series of perceptions about this country of which the Hanson phenomenon is a large part. It is not only the Hanson phenomenon that is a large part of it but also the government's handling of the Hanson phenomenon. They are wrapped together.What we are looking at is a challenge to the current account, a challenge to the balance of trade and a challenge to this government's policy credentials. (Time expired)13:03:006693Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—in reply—I am pleased that the honourable members for Denison, Herbert, Newcastle, Cook, Fraser and Griffith participated in this debate. It is reassuring to see that there is broad general support for this very important policy initiative being implemented as a result of the bills currently before the House.In December 1997, the government announced in its `Investment for Growth' industry statement that it proposed to introduce schemes designed to make Australia more attractive as a site for regional manufacturing and warehousing. Honourable members opposite suggested that the government has dragged the chain, that it has delayed and that it has lost 18 months in implementing what is an initiative which shares bipartisan support. It should be remembered, of course, that the former Labor government, acting on a Productivity Commission report, chose to do away with the previous manufacturing in bond scheme which was then operational. This government ought to be commended for implementing this scheme as a result of the `Investment for Growth' industry statement.In 1998, the government announced that this scheme would be introduced. The aim of this initiative is designed to remove all duties for goods brought into and subsequently re-exported from what are known as MiB warehouses. In announcing this policy on 20 March 1998, the then Minister for Industry, Science and Technology—my good friend and parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Ryan—said that MiB will help businesses use Australia as a base for operating in the Asia-Pacific region without incurring customs duties or sales tax on products intended for re-export. MiB will provide more streamlined administration of imports intended for re-export in either their original or manufactured form.Earlier debate has seen that DHL and BHP have expressed interest in this concept. However it is clear, and it ought to be recognised, that operators of MiB warehouses have been subject to import processing charges and fees that were introduced in 1997 to recover the costs incurred in processing what are known as `customs entries'. Currently a charge applies to entries lodged to allow imported goods to be moved into and, where those goods go into Australian commerce, out of warehouses.Industry has claimed that these charges and fees make the operation of MiB warehouses uneconomic and serve as obstacles to attracting international manufacturing and investment to Australia. Therefore, the government has responded to representations by industry, and it is addressing the problems through the proposed amendments to these bills. However, goods entering the domestic market will attract the same fees and charges as goods imported into Australia through a general warehouse, as well as, of course, the relevant customs duty and sales tax ordinarily payable on the imported goods. The bills provide that goods exported from a MiB warehouse do not have to pay these charges.While keeping the maximum amount payable for processing various types of entries in the act itself, the amendments proposed in these bills will also allow the regulations to make changes to customs charges providing flexibility in meeting emerging industry requirements. This flexibility will remove the rigidity in the current structure and enable cost recovery charges to be adapted more easily in the future to meet government initiatives and other changed circumstances.These changes in the bill will commence from 29 April 1999, the date the government announced this initiative. There is some inconsistency on the part of those honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Denison claimed that the government was in fact very slow in introducing this amendment, but the honourable member for Fraser, admitting that there is a general consensus on this issue, suggests that it is more appropriate to inch along cautiously. He also said that he wanted to scrutinise the bills further in the Senate, as was mentioned by other honourable members representing the opposition.The honourable member for Newcastle, obviously speaking from the heart, given the fact that he is one of the representatives from the Hunter Valley, clearly was interested in the concept of a free trade zone. I must say that all of us individually would like a free trade zone in our own electorate. But the MiB scheme, which is being implemented by these bills, is, as was conceded by the honourable member for Denison, a much more appropriate way to proceed, because it means that, effectively, provided the circumstances are met, we can have these free trade zones in all parts of the country. The honourable member for Newcastle referred to regulation 72 and suggested that it ought to be reinstated or ought to have been left in the provisions.I want to place on record that regulation 72 related to the MiB arrangements which were abolished by the former Labor government in 1990 and was therefore redundant. The MiB initiative is aimed at attracting investment for export but, where goods enter the domestic market from MiB, they are treated in exactly the same way as a local manufacturer who imports components to manufacture a final product. Both MiB and local manufacturers compete equally with a direct import of a final product.The honourable member for Denison, who has returned to the chamber, and the honourable member for Newcastle, suggested that each and every component will attract a $22.80 charge on import. Import entries do attract a charge of $22.80 but these apply to all components included in the entry. There was an example given of 100 components. They would attract, so I am advised, a charge of only $22.80 if included in one entry and not $2,280.The honourable member for Newcastle also spoke about what happened following the difficulties of the steel industry in that region. The honourable member for Denison, in addition to claiming that the whole of Tasmania ought to be made some sort of free trade zone, indicated his lack of understanding of the way in which computer components are treated on import. As was pointed out by my colleague the honourable member for Cook, these are largely not subject to duty.Mr Kerr interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It really is important to recognise that this is a very important piece of legislation. The government is implementing the strategy which was announced because we see that, in view of the position in which Australia now finds itself, having a very strong economy in a weak region, there are very real opportunities that we have as a nation to boost our export performance. Honourable members representing the opposition referred adversely to the new tax system which will be implemented and suggested that the GST would in some way negatively impact on Australia's exports. It is a simple fact that there will be a tremendous boost to Australia's exports as a result of the implementation of A New Tax System. We are certainly not going to apologise for that because we believe that A New Tax System is what Australia needs. The people of Australia, at the election last year, voted very strongly to give us a mandate, and we are seeking to implement our promise.The honourable member for Denison also suggested that there had not been opportunity for industry to meet with senior levels of government. This is simply not correct. This government is a consultative government—Mr Kerr interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—We are regularly available to talk with people. The honourable member for Denison should listen; he ought to know what I am about to say. Industry has had numerous meetings with both senior staff of the Australian Customs Service and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources as well as the officers of several ministers in the government. There has been a wide consultation. People who wanted to put forward a point of view have certainly had the opportunity to do so.The honourable member for Herbert outlined the wonderful opportunities available to the Townsville region and also the benefits which would flow to his area. The debate was largely bipartisan until the belated entry of the honourable member for Griffith who, most inappropriately in my view, sought to criticise the Prime Minister and the government for our approach to the Hanson phenomenon of last year. The Prime Minister's approach was absolutely right. We are a nation where, as a free society, people do have the opportunity to express their views. The government indicated that we did not agree with the views of Ms Hanson. The government at the federal election put the One Nation Party last by way of preferences, and in Queensland we did put One Nation last. We took certain personal and political risks in doing so, but we stood up for principle, the Prime Minister stood up for principle, and he was rewarded with the very strong support of the Australian people who gave the Howard government a mandate to be the government of this country as we move to the next millennium.This is, as I said at the outset, one of those pieces of legislation which does broadly enjoy bipartisan support. The debate and the argument has largely been at the margins. I personally was interested in the suggestion that there ought to be, as we move into this technological age, `virtual' warehouses and locations and that maybe we ought not look at the physical location of these particular places. This is something which certainly could be considered for the future. I thank honourable members for their contributions and commend these two bills to the House of Representatives.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.6696Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills6696r8176696Consideration resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.6696Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time. Bills6696r8316696Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.13:17:006696Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—It is rare in this parliament for a bill to have the characteristics of being controversial and inconsequential at the same time, but that really is the nature of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 . The controversial aspect of its background simply lies in the quite unfounded claims that were made in the second reading speech regarding the history of the establishment of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act and the way in which, as the minister at the table suggested, this measure would in some way be a major improvement in the way the legislation would operate.The facts are rather more pedestrian. The facts are that the legislation was established many years ago, during the term of the former Labor government, and the legislation has been of use to protect and to prevent the export from Australia of some items which would otherwise have left this country for purchasers abroad. The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, in introducing the bill, instanced some of the kinds of matters that could be subject to such protection, from art works to fossils, historic manuscripts to steam engines, Aboriginal sacred/secret material to Sir Donald Bradman's cricket bat. So far so good.What the government really claims as its major new addition to the legislative framework is a proposal to change the financial provisions relating to the fund or the trust that is established under the legislation and to shift it to operate in the same terms as other accounts under the Financial Management and Accountability Act. This is a matter of such inconsequence that one really is puzzled that any claim of merit is attached to it. The previous legislation established financial mechanisms which allowed for the establishment of a fund to purchase back in some instances property which would otherwise have been prevented from leaving this country but where a private owner might have possession of it, if it was thought appropriate. Successive governments have not thought it necessary to provide funding of any standing nature for those arrangements. That is not to say that the act has not been used to prevent the export of movable cultural property items—it has. But there has been no pressure from either the former Labor governments or, indeed, the Howard government during its first term in office in relation to the provisions relating to the fund which was established by legislation but not utilised hitherto.Now the government comes forward and says that it is going to provide a whopping $0.5 million to go into that fund on a rolling basis. There we are, a whopping $0.5 million, to protect Australia's movable cultural heritage. When an order is made preventing the export, for example, of Sir Donald Bradman's bat or of some important cultural treasure—an artwork of some substance by one of Australia's early colonial painters or, indeed, by Arthur Boyd, or a work by some artist that has contemporary significance—there will come the government to say to the person who would have otherwise sold to the international market and whose present options are to sell only to an Australian domestic purchaser, `We will make certain that you are not financially disadvantaged in any way, and here we have this whopping $0.5 million to do it.'Forgive me a little moment's cynicism, but the way things are going with items of some historic and cultural significance, I reckon you could subtitle this bill `The Plugger's Ball Trust Fund', because it is about the sort of fund level that would be appropriate for securing for Australia one Bradman cricket bat and one Plugger ball. And on the other provisions in the bill which facilitate and encourage private donations towards this fund, I have to say to you that I am not so sure that there will be a huge return on that. The private sector, which is being encouraged, quite properly, to make contributions to the arts, might well say there are better places to put their money in terms of protection of Australia's cultural property because the bill itself can provide an effective framework for refusing export permits in relation to that property.One might have thought that those who were of a philanthropic mind might prefer to direct their energies to some other areas rather than towards securing the financial wellbeing of the propertied and moneyed classes in Australia who have the financial wherewithal to sell items of this nature.That is not to say that there will be some instances where this legislation does not have some importance. There may be some instances where, for example, as is I think the case with a couple of our Olympians, illness or some personal tragedy strikes, they are not particularly well off financially and wish to be able to sell something they treasure—a medal or something of that kind—and the Australian domestic marketplace cannot provide an adequate return for that property. But I suspect those cases are quite rare. Indeed, I would think that in most instances where items of particularly Australian interest were on the market there would be an Australian purchasing market rather than an international one, particularly for things like war medals and Olympic gold medals and the like.I am not seeking to entirely trivialise what the government is wishing to do in relation to this measure but to put it in some kind of context. This is not groundbreaking legislation. This simply changes one set of financial arrangements which have been in place for a decade but which have not been utilised by previous governments—Labor governments or, indeed, the Howard government during its first term—and sets up a new financial and accountability framework for the management of that fund, which has hitherto not been utilised, under the arrangements which now apply for the management of government held funds. Fine. Good. We have no objections to it, and we wish this bill speedy passage through the House.On the other hand, we would point to the irony of a circumstance where we are talking about the protection of our cultural heritage at the same time as the government is doing its level best not to facilitate us having a future cultural heritage. We have got a government with eyes fixed on the past. If it is the Bradman bat, if we see it in sepia tones, if it is the old documents—6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—The 1950s; Mr Howard's 1950s.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Not just the 1950s. It goes back to well before then. It is the dreams of the Howard childhood, I suspect, that we are thinking of here. If those items are sought to be removed from Australia, the act will come into place to prevent their export. Again, we set that legislation up. They were sensible measures. The fund, such as it is, the half a million dollars, will be there to make certain that people who are placed in that position, at least in some instances, will be able to assert that they have suffered some loss and detriment, and the fund may be used to make good any private loss they have suffered.But what about our future cultural heritage? The Australia Council, which is the government's principal adviser in relation to arts and cultural matters, provided evidence to the Senate inquiry into the goods and services tax to the effect that the impact of the goods and services tax on the arts sector would be devastating. That evidence was uncontradicted. There was no suggestion at all through the proceedings by any person—Treasury or any of the other witnesses—that evidence given by the Australia Council, research that was privately commissioned through KPMG and verified by Econtech that the arts sector would be peculiarly disadvantaged by a goods and services tax, was other than a strictly accurate account of what would be the impact of the introduction of a goods and services tax.What we are likely to see, if we look through it, is a savage impact on our capacity to grow a cultural sector for the future. The sepia tones, we are happy to look after; and really, when we look at what we are talking about—the Bradman bat and the Plugger ball—I am not so sure that that really represents the totality of what we might encompass in what we could be proud of as a nation. I think there are many other aspects that we are entitled to be proud of. What we are entitled to be proud of now are some of the most exciting things that are happening in the visual arts, in dance, in literature and across the range of cultural industries. We are entitled to be proud of those. But what is going to happen to those very activities?Let us look at something like dance. What if you apply a goods and services tax to dance? Take the Australian Ballet, which is doing something very exciting with its latest program—which I think is called Trilogy—by putting on a joint enterprise with the Bangara Dance Theatre, our premier indigenous Aboriginal based dance company. There are virtually no inputs in theatre production or dance production which can be rebatable. That essentially means that the whole impact of the goods and services tax has to apply to the ticket price—there is nothing rebatable. The estimates of the consequence of that vary, but the lowest estimate of the increase in prices on tickets in the theatre sector is five per cent. The greatest estimate is 18 per cent. Somewhere between five and 18 per cent, the number will fall out, and I suppose it depends on how exactly the arrangements are implemented and what it is possible to rebate in some circumstances. But whatever is the case, the cost of an already expensive activity goes up.Let us look at some of the smaller and mid-range companies: community arts activities that are conducted in every member's electorate by organisations which struggle through on shoestrings, which provide opportunities for local potters, for amateur theatre companies, and for those who are engaged in things like eisteddfods and a whole range of activities of that kind.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—The Savoyards in my electorate.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The shadow minister for immigration makes an absolutely accurate point: there would not be a member in this House who could not name some community cultural activity that would be damaged substantially by the imposition of a goods and services tax because, straight off, they must apply that tax to the ticket price. How do they rebate it? They cannot, because they do not have the inputs.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What about the wholesale sales tax?6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—They don't charge wholesale sales tax; there are no inputs.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Look at the impact in the visual arts, in photography and in painting. In photography and the visual arts artists are exempted from any payment of tax—totally rebatable under the wholesale sales tax. They do not pay it. Under the system proposed by the government, they pay the tax of 10 per cent. Their margins will be decreased and their effective capacity to earn a living in the marketplace gets reduced.The government has also agreed to apply this goods and services tax to books—another area where we have had a flourishing and growing international and national industry. What can we expect? What we can logically expect is pressure on Australian book writers and retailers from online services, which are in direct competition. It is expected that many of those sales transacted in foreign jurisdictions will effectively escape any GST imposition and will undercut substantially the market for Australian produced products. So we are going to face a substantial reduction in the strength and vitality of the Australian publishing industry and the income coming to Australian authors.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to be as tolerant as possible in this debate. However, the legislation before the House is very narrow in its scope. It is introducing a $500,000 fund in a way that the Labor Party never did for 10 years. The member has had ample time. Our tolerance has been pushed to breaking point in addressing the issues of the bill. Instead, we have been subjected to almost 15 minutes of irrelevancies.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—The member for Denison, I am sure, will return to the question.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand the minister's sensitivity. He is the only arts minister in Australia who has presided over the destruction of the sector for which he is responsible, so the minister's nervousness is to be expected. But it is plainly within the realm of this debate. We are talking about a bill which provides a framework for the protection of movable cultural heritage. The government, in defence of its measures, says that this will make a substantial difference to our cultural heritage. What we have said in relation to that is that when we look back to the sepia days of—XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not entirely clear whether the honourable member is addressing my point of order before you rule on it or whether he is continuing his irrelevant discussion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Denison, you are reverting to the question?RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that I have ever moved away from the question. The question before the House is measures to protect Australia's movable cultural heritage which the government, in the second reading speech, acclaims as a substantial improvement. It says:Australia's heritage comprising more than our built or natural environment . . . It is also the objects we create, we value and we collect . . . This might include anything from artworks to fossils, historic manuscripts to steam engines, Aboriginal sacred/secret material to Sir Donald Bradman's cricket bat.I would have thought that what I was saying was entirely in line with what the minister has said. I said at the beginning that this is an odd situation where we have both an inconsequential and controversial piece of legislation. Why the minister, in introducing this legislation, thought fit to take some pot shots at the record of the former Labor governments in terms of protection of this important movable cultural heritage is beyond me. If any governments had a reputation for building, supporting and maintaining a commitment to our cultural industries, they were the Hawke and Keating governments. Those governments put in place these frameworks. I am contrasting what I see to be a trivial and quite inconsequential change to the financial arrangements in relation to this legislation—XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Trivial!RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—A trivial and quite inconsequential change to the financial arrangements. All this bill does is change a provision in the previous bill which set up a financial system of administration which neither my predecessor government nor yours sought to put any money into. Now you come forward and say, `Whoopy-do, Australian community! It's here, the new millennium.' We are giving $0.5 million to protect Australia's movable cultural heritage when at the same time we are introducing a GST which will decimate the arts and when at the same time this minister seeks to avoid the issue by sitting me down and moving me away from a bill which is plainly and squarely on this subject. This minister has abrogated his responsibility to speak up for the very sector that he now asserts this $0.5 million does something for, at a time when those tax changes will rip millions and millions out of the income of Australian artists, performers, theatre directors, dancers, those who are involved in the book production industry and the like. The minister really ought to retreat to his office where he was before he came down here and actually take the opportunity to study the Hansard and to engage in some serious dialogue with representatives of the industry associations.I have had people like the National Institute of Visual Arts come to see me. They are the people who create much of what we will have in the future as our cultural movable property. They have said that the GST is going to absolutely decimate the income capacity and the employment base of those who work in the visual arts.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I return to the issue of relevance. The occasional throwing in of the title of the bill does not entitle the honourable shadow minister to range so completely away from the intent of the bill. This is a specific, narrow piece of legislation which creates a fund of $500,000 for the purchase of cultural items.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask the member for Denison to revert to the question.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I would be grateful for a ruling on this matter. I submit that everything I have said is directly material. What the minister is seeking to do is prevent the opposition from contrasting what it says is a trivial response to the issues facing the Australian cultural community with what the government is imposing in its GST legislation, which the Australia Council, in undisputed evidence before the Senate committee, has said will decimate the arts. We are not in an area of any substantial dispute as to that impact. If the minister for the arts, who is in the chamber, wishes to suggest that the Australia Council's evidence before the Senate was wrong, he has had ample opportunity to do so. He has not. We have a sleepy interjection from the minister assisting—what is your title?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—I am not going to help you.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I know you are not going to help me. Joe Hockey—we have a sleepy Joe Hockey at the table.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask the member for Denison to use the minister's title.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I do not know his title; I asked him, and he did not assist me. A sleepy Joe Hockey.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The Minister for Financial Services and Deregulation?DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—No—regulation.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Regulation! But whatever he may be—and he obviously did not know for a moment because he was unable to assist me; it slipped his mind—he says that I am wrong, that the member for Denison is in error. But the minister for the arts and his portfolio minister, Senator Alston, have never made any suggestion at all that the evidence given by the Australia Council was in error. And yesterday in Senate estimates some of the more serious issues which have been raised by the arts community were again agitated. We had the confession, for example, that the GST will apply to grants made to arts bodies.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—On a point of order, I return to the issue of relevance. If it would assist the honourable member, I am happy to explain for him the intent of this legislation, which he has not read. I fear he does not have the faintest idea what we are talking about in the bill before the house.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Denison will resume his comments.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I well understand the minister's embarrassment. In fact, this is one of the odd occasions that I am able to. He came to see me last night. We were both at the opening of the Monet to Moore exhibition dressed up in our bow ties and looking resplendent. It was a great evening; very enjoyable. We both lamented the fact that we did not have too many opportunities for that kind of exchange. But, of course, when we do actually gain an opportunity for a substantial exchange on arts policy, what does the minister seek to do? He seeks to say, `This bill is only about the narrowest, tiniest, littlest aspect. We do not want you to identify the serious issues about which I, as minister for the arts, have been derelict in my responsibilities. We do not want you to be able to range more broadly than the narrowest compass of this bill.' But what the minister did do by setting up what I thought was an extremely contentious second reading speech, which itself ranged widely in relation to these matters—XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—I do not think so.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Minister, you talk about all the sorts of things that your government is seeking to do about these valuable cultural properties and the like—XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—The fund.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—You take this very straightforwardly: if we are to protect Australia's cultural heritage, we must not only protect its past but also its future. This country does not live with rear-view mirrors alone. This government is in the business of destroying the financial viability of an arts sector which provides not only enjoyment, entertainment and pleasure but also employment for many thousands of Australians. The total number of people employed in the arts and associated industries is in the tens of thousands, if not in the hundreds of thousands.Mr McMullan, when he was in the position of the now minister, published a report on the economic significance of the arts sector. One of the interesting things it showed was the importance of the arts sector to the national economic infrastructure. In my own state of Tasmania, for example, the Premier, who was the minister for the arts, noted in conversation with me that if the cultural activities were aggregated they would be the single largest employer in the state. That is an extraordinary situation. It involves all the people who are involved in the arts, the tourism sector that draws on it, the people who are involved in theatre—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Tourism isn't part of the arts.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The minister at the table says that tourism is not part of the arts. In my state cultural tourism is one of the most important aspects. People come to Tasmania in order to go to places like Salamanca Place, the market which is an outlet for art workers. People go to see our fixed cultural heritage, like Port Arthur; they go to see part of our movable cultural heritage in the museums. In every state there are so many people who are actually engaged in creative pursuits and in the representation and display of historical cultural activities that to deny their importance would be a big mistake.Here we have a minister for financial services who believes everything can be reduced in value to a computer transaction by some screen jockeys. We have our debates about these things; we think these are important issues. But Australia's spiritual component, its cultural and artistic future, is not something to be tossed aside as dross. That is essentially what has happened in this debate: the government has tossed aside as dross the arts sector because they are going to be peculiarly disadvantaged by the impact of a goods and services tax.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—No they're not.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—`No they're not,' he says. The minister at the table does not say that because the minister obviously knows—the minister's prime advisory body has told him so. He does not dispute it. All we have are the silly arguments from people who know nothing about what they are talking about, who are peripheral to the debate, who defend what the government is doing on a basis of absolutely zero knowledge. Minister, what I say to you—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No, you will address your remarks through the chair, not directly to the minister.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted you have joined me in this chamber. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the minister: you will be remembered in Australia not for providing $0.5 million to protect Australia's historic cultural movable property because this bill does not do that. It does not protect it; it simply means that those who are not allowed to export their property from this country can be compensated if they suffer a personal loss. You will not be remembered for that.You will be remembered if you can achieve some amelioration and a removal of the impact of a goods and services tax on Australia's living cultural industries, on the people who make art and who are performing, who are engaged in the enterprise that built Australia as a successful creative nation that is engaged in an industry that has hitherto been part of the great growth we have had in film, in literature, in dance, in the visual arts. Minister, you may be quite happy to simply leave this debate as it stands and claim the credit for this bill as if that discharges your responsibility. It does not. Minister, your responsibility—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, no, no. Are you deliberately defying the chair?RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I was not. It was an oversight.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Not deliberately. Order! The honourable member's time has expired.13:47:006702Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The member for Denison described the bill before the House at the moment, the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 , as trivial and inconsequential. I cannot help but want to draw on all sorts of RSPCA analogies in as far as, thank heavens, his time finally expired, he was put out of his misery. He also talked about creative pursuits. I suspect for the last half an hour the people of Australia who have tuned in to the broadcast of proceedings here in parliament, and those who are joining us in the gallery, as well as all members present, were themselves exposed to one of the most creative pursuits in the Hansard . There is no doubt about it.As far as the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, the member for Gippsland, the Hon. Peter McGauran, is concerned, I submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he will be remembered well in this nation because of his stewardship of the centenary of our Federation. He will be remembered extremely well for highlighting, in these years as we head towards the centenary of that Federation, the importance of remembering who it was that helped create this country and for the discussion that we have seen in ads that the minister himself has organised, challenging people: `Who was the first Prime Minister?' Those ads are very good and I know that Minister McGauran had more than a small hand in that. So I think Minister McGauran is doing a great job as far as the arts are concerned. Because of the matters that have been raised by the member for Denison, it is important for me to address a couple of them before addressing the absolute tenets of the bill.The Australian Labor Party really have typified themselves in these last three and a bit years they have been in opposition: their simple philosophy is more equals less. Every time they talk about something going up, in reality it has gone down. They talked about a surplus existing when they left office when in fact we all know it was a ten and a bit billion dollar deficit. Whatever you hear from the dispatch box opposite, day in, day out, in this place tends to be the exact opposite in reality. As far as arts and taxation reform is concerned, it is important to point out yet again to the House that, as a result of the government's tax system that was endorsed by the people of Australia in October last year at the general election, average workers, people on a pension, people on fixed incomes because they are self-funded retirees—read: all Australians—will in fact have more money in their pockets to be able to pursue those sorts of things they want to do instead of simply being able to just afford the things they have to do.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This may be a wide-ranging debate but, just as people were taking points on the honourable member of Denison, I think the honourable member for Moreton will agree that what he is saying has no relevance to the bill.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No, you are debating the issue. You were talking about relevance.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Yes, relevance to the bill now being debated.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you very much. Resume your seat. The honourable member for Moreton will continue but, of course, he will be relevant to the bill.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Always, Mr Deputy Speaker. Reflecting upon the debate thus far, it was important to restate in the Hansard and for the record of all Australians that more money in the hands of average Australians will mean decisions about personal expenditure in relation to the arts will become a far easier thing to facilitate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Like the Bellingen Jazz Festival.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The Bellingen Jazz Festival I would of course love to attend, but I spend so much time in the festivals in the electorate of Moreton, Mr Deputy Speaker, I doubt I would find the time. The bill before us today is yet another thing the Australian Labor Party lamentably left undone. They might have had legislation in place for 10 years—in fact, it is the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 that we are amending today—but for 10 years the Australian Labor Party did not put any money towards it.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—How long?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—For 10 years. The minister wanted to know for how long, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fact, it is yet another promise that has been kept by the coalition government, a promise that was made in the 1998 election campaign delivered: $0.5 million is the government's contribution to a fund which will attract others to put money in because of the tax advantages that come from putting money into that fund to assist in the purchase of cultural items, items that are important to our nation's contemporary history, our future history and, of course, respecting our present and our past. It is important that this fund exists and that people are able to gain a tax deduction for contributing towards the maintenance of those items in this country.In order to qualify for that tax deduction, there has to be a register of items that are identified as being of importance in a cultural heritage sense. That is also what this bill is providing for. It is yet again the keeping of faith with the people of Australia that we have before us today. There is nothing trivial and inconsequential in the fact that the major political parties in this country keep faith with the people of Australia. At least the Liberal and National parties have a track record in government of doing what they said they were going to do prior to an election, of delivering in full, as we are today.If you reflect back to a long time ago, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl—and I hope those opposite do not want to take a point of order on this—it is an absolute fact that, when in the 1880s the head of Yagan, an Aboriginal warrior from Western Australia, was smoked cured and taken to Britain as a curio in 1883—it was buried in 1964 when it began to decompose and only almost two years ago finally returned to Australia—had this sort of demand of the people of Australia been met by this kind of legislation we would not have seen those sorts of unfortunate events unfolding.While the head of Yagan stands perhaps at one extreme, at the other there could be all sorts of untold important cultural heritage items literally sitting in the roofs of people's garages these days. I suspect the challenge for people in my electorate, particularly in the older suburbs like Annerley, Fairfield, Moorooka and Greenslopes where there are some longer term houses and older constituents and where people have a real sense of history, as we come to the centenary of our Federation, is for them to start liberating some of that cultural heritage that might be lying around in their garages, in their back sheds or in their top cupboards. It is very important that people do start to reflect upon what it is they have got. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure, like me, you have seen over the years a lot of very interesting collections that people have put aside, and perhaps they have grown their own museums in their lounge rooms—everything from an amazing collection of beer cans, right through to some immaculate motor vehicles or farm machinery and those sorts of things.It would be an absolute tragedy if that kind of curio cultural heritage were to ever be bought by somebody from another country and taken offshore. Even down to that kind of level, this bill is addressing a real need. It is very much aware that people may be attracted to sell some of those items offshore to a broader market. There is a great deal of interest in Australia and its cultural heritage, both since European settlement and earlier, and it is important that the government support those who want to make a contribution to the fund by putting this half million dollars in.In the 10 years or so that this legislation was operated by this Australian Labor Party, they did not put one cent into it. That was the level of investment that they wanted to put into Australia's cultural heritage. I suspect that while they are concentrating on what they call the `sepia tones' of Australian history—Bradman's bats and things like that—they are in fact, I think, ridiculing the aspirations of average Australians. I believe the average Australian is interested in matters such as Bradman's bat, or Plugger's ball. I think that the member for Denison wanted to try to attach some historic curiosity to Plugger's recent efforts—I do not really understand the code, Mr Deputy Speaker—but I find it amusing that he decided to ascribe that to some ancient history when it happened only a few days ago. It just goes to show you the real conflict the Australian Labor Party has with reality—more equals less, yesterday is today, and last week might be the day before yesterday. The matter that the government is addressing is keeping faith with the people of Australia. This is an important bill.Look at the sort of indigenous culture that we have to consider when we start talking about some of the movable cultural heritage that may be under threat if we do not act on this. There are all sorts of literary and artistic works. There are all sorts of symbols, designs, narratives and poetry. There is scientific, agricultural, technical and ecological knowledge that may, in fact, be subject to purchase from overseas unless this fund is given the depth and width to survive.We have already talked about human remains—Yagan's head from the 1880s. There are sacred sites, the burial sites of historical significance, the documents of indigenous people's heritage, including films and photographs, video and audio recordings and archival collections. All of these matters are moveable cultural items. All of these particular items are always going to be subject to the competition of international funds trying to take these items out of this country. Unless we find the necessary funds to support the maintenance of these items here in Australia, what are we going to lose? We are going to lose our identity as a nation, our understanding of the past, and the legacy that we should leave to our children.It is not just a matter of museums being the keepers of all of our cultural heritage and that is the end of the argument. It is a matter, as the government is showing in the lead that it is providing in this legislation, of looking for and challenging the people of Australia on the matters of cultural heritage items that they may have in their possession.It is important that people understand the sense of real value that some of those items they may have in their possession could have to others. Some of us may have all sorts of accumulated historical artefacts and just think of them as junk. This bill before us and the creation of this fund may, in fact, make people look inside themselves, as well as inside their garages and their back sheds, to try to provide to the people of Australia in the broad sense some of the items that may be of great interest to so many others right around the country.It is not good enough for the member for Denison to talk about things as being trivial and inconsequential. This government does not bring matters that are trivial or inconsequential for consideration into this place. This government is working very hard on a wide range of aspects to ensure that the people of Australia have a good today and a better tomorrow. Even in the area of the arts, where the member for Denison claims the Australian Labor Party has some absolute ultimate right to be the keeper of all things artistic and cultural, this government has yet again shown that it has gone one better than the Australian Labor Party ever did.For 10 years the Labor Party sat on their hands. For 10 years they had an act in place. They did not bother to fund or provide any of the wherewithal that would be needed to ensure that the real potential of the act that they introduced in 1986 could be realised. This government, with just half a million dollars a year, allocated as promised in the 1998 election campaign, will exceed the Labor Party yet again. I commend the bill to the House.Debate interrupted.Ministerial Arrangements67056705Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care is absent from question time today. He is attending a Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy meeting in Sydney. In his absence, the Minister for Aged Care will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice670567056705Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall informing the House yesterday that Mr Entsch's company Cape York Concrete had won the `tender' from the defence department in relation to work at RAAF Scherger and had put in `the best bid'? Isn't it true that, according to defence department officials, there was no tender process? Are you now aware that this contract was awarded to Cape York Concrete after only a verbal quote was received and that neither of the two possible competitors for the contract, McCosker Contracting Pty Ltd and Boral Concrete, was invited to bid? Are you aware of new evidence reported today that, in awarding this contract, the RAAF ignored the advice of its project managers, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, to get three quotes? Prime Minister, isn't it true that there was no tender and there were no bids? Didn't you mislead parliament yesterday?6705Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I did not mislead the parliament. The situation is that, as attested to by the Department of Defence, the correct purchasing procedures were followed. It is also the case that the honourable member for Leichhardt was not aware of the contract until after it had been entered into with the defence department. The core of this issue is the alleged impropriety of the member for Leichhardt. There has been no impropriety. If a contract is entered into before you know about it, how on earth can you have behaved improperly?67056705Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House of any further developments in the government's campaign to stop the United States imposing restrictions on Australia's lamb exports?6705Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Hume for that question. I can inform him that the government continues to be extremely concerned about the possible action to be taken by the United States that will restrict Australia's lamb exports. There has been no decision yet from the United States on recommendations from its trade commission which are aimed at restricting Australia's lamb exports. There are reports which suggest that even harsher restrictions are being sought by members of Congress compared with those recommended by the trade commission. It remains our position that no justification exists for any restrictions at all; that this has been a deservedly well and hard-won market for very competitive Australian exporters. It would be a travesty of the principles of freer and open trade if the Australian exporters were to be punished by the imposition of American restrictions.The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade has, as always, been particularly active on behalf of Australian exporters. He has spoken not only to Charlene Barchevsky, the American special trade representative; he has spoken to the United States Ambassador. Tonight he will be attending, with the member for Hume, a public meeting at Harden abattoirs, organised by the National Farmers Federation and lamb producers, to protest the Australian case.In addition, I can inform the House that this morning I spoke directly on the telephone to President Clinton to convey the concern of the Australian government about possible United States action. I indicated during the conversation with the President that, if this action were taken, it would be regarded more seriously than any other restrictive trade action taken by the United States during recent years. I pointed out to the President that the market that had been won by the Australian exporters had been won fairly; that if in fact the Americans imposed restrictions, it would send a deplorable signal to those other countries around the world that are less committed to freer and more open trade, particularly for agriculture.He is aware, and I took the opportunity of emphasising the point, that it is in Australia's interest to have a freer trading environment for agriculture, and that if a nation such as the United States which espouses the principles of freer trade practises the opposite that provides an excuse and a reason why countries which do not espouse the cause of freer trade are unwilling to take the steps that are necessary. I think as the result of the conversation the United States government, in the person of its President, is under no doubt as to the deep concern felt in this country as to the possibility of any negative action being taken by the United States authorities.I also took the opportunity during our telephone conversation to briefly receive from him a report on the latest steps towards a settlement of the military action in the former Yugoslavia. The President expressed great optimism about the prospects of the deal that is now being concluded actually sticking and actually working, and he sounded very enthusiastic about the prospects of it being durable and effective on this occasion. I took the opportunity to express the appreciation of the Australian government for the leadership role that has been taken by the United States as the principal power in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.During the conversation I also reminded the President of the great concern entertained by all Australians about the fate of the two aid workers, the two CARE workers—Mr Pratt and Mr Wallace. I asked that, consistent of course with his other responsibilities and the other responsibilities of the United States administration, every effort be made on our behalf to press the case for the immediate release of Pratt and Wallace—two men who were on humanitarian work in the former Yugoslavia, two men who were not spies, two men who should be united with their families as soon as possible.67066706Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Prime Minister, my question follows the one I previously asked. Did you say yesterday that there was a tender and did you say that Cape York Concrete had submitted the best bid? Were your statements of yesterday accurate?6706Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—What I said yesterday is plain and apparent.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is plain and apparent what I said yesterday. It is also plain and apparent that at no stage have I set out to mislead the parliament.67066706Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, the Australian Bureau of Statistics this morning released the labour force data for May. Could you inform the House of the figures? What further reform must be undertaken to ensure that the scourge of unemployment which was left by the Labor Party is repaired, and what are the impediments to this continuing reform process?6707Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Kooyong for his excellent question. There is some encouraging news in the figures released this morning. I can tell the House that the teenage unemployment rate is down to its lowest since 1991. The actual number of teenage unemployed is at its lowest since records were first kept in 1978. I can tell the House that only 5.3 per cent of the total population of 15- to 19-year-old people are unemployed. That is the good news.The less encouraging news is that, despite creating over 400,000 jobs since March 1996, despite the fact that this government has now created more jobs than the Leader of the Opposition destroyed in Labor's recession, total unemployment is still 7.5 per cent. This government has always tried to bring unemployment down. There is no magic wand. What government needs to do is create a climate in which jobs will grow. Thanks to the government's policies, confidence is high, economic growth is strong, inflation is low and interest rates are at their lowest in 30 years. So we have created the best possible climate in which unemployment can fall.I have been asked about impediments to further falls in unemployment. If the member for Batman is serious about driving the politically correct trendies out of the Australian Labor Party, he will tell his colleagues to pass the government's legislative program, particularly the junior wage bill.67076707McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Can the minister confirm that Defence procedures for works under $250,000 include a requirement to `make effective use of competition in the marketplace'? Is the minister aware that, according to the letter of 14 January from the project managers, GHD, to the defence department, there were three possible sources of supply, two of which were contractors—McCosker and Dinkum, a trading name for Mr Entsch's partner—and one supplier, Boral? Is it true that no bid was sought from McCosker and no bid was sought from Boral? Isn't it further true that the line put out by your spokesmen today, that McCosker was not invited to bid because it was a contractor, is a load of nonsense given that Dinkum is also listed by GHD as a contractor and the only supplier listed is Boral? How can the minister possibly maintain that this procurement was undertaken in accordance with the defence department's procurement policies?6707Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I am advised that the procedures undertaken are in accordance—Opposition members interjecting—EI4Mr MOORE—I am advised that the procedures undertaken by the defence department are totally in accordance with the requirements. So, relating to the letter of 14 January, this letter was written by the project manager, GHD, for the Air Force at the base, Scherger.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Do you know where it is?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It is not Cape Canaveral!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne and the member for Banks! The minister has the call.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my left, including the member for Prospect, who occupies this chair from time to time, will exercise a little more restraint. Members on my left will exercise more restraint. The minister has the call.EI4Mr MOORE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The letter is written by GHD to the Department of Defence representing their position as the project manager. In this the RAAF had sought from them the specifications for reinforcement concrete, joining material, timber and other parts for minor work. They advised in that letter that there were three potential contractors: McCosker, Dinkum and Boral. The department then, in accordance with the chronological order that I have got here—Opposition members interjecting—EI4Mr MOORE—Chronological—I don't know what you are talking about. On 14 January the letter was received; on 27 January the specifications and drawings of the works to headquarters of Air Force Command including the list of local suppliers; on 9 March the office rang Boral and Cape York Concrete—and I am advised this—to ascertain costs and availability of concrete. On 12 March Cape York Concrete provided written quotes. In March 1999 the office received a copy of the Boral concrete price list.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—From whom?EI4Mr MOORE—On 30 March Defence project—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is answering the question.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, he is not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who will not defy the chair. The minister has the call.EI4Mr MOORE—Defence project delivered branch to raise a purchase order to action their request. On 31 March the office rang the staff of Cape York Concrete for a revised quote. Cape York Concrete provided the written quote. The whole procedure is, as the Prime Minister said, totally in order with the proceedings.MG4LEEMr Lee—What about Boral?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call. If any other persons wish to ask questions the opportunity will exist during question time.EI4Mr MOORE—The opposition has no concept of contracting. It is quite clear that orders under $250,000 do not have to have written tenders. Under that quote the work was sought on that basis. I am advised that RAAF wanted to do this work itself and it sought concrete from the people who provide concrete, not the contracting work of engineers. As a result of that, the two people who make the concrete were approached.67086708Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of comments concerning the requirement for an additional $100 million appropriation to fund waterfront reform? Could the minister inform the House of the true state of affairs regarding waterfront reform?6708Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I appreciate that he is showing interest in a matter of policy importance. I have indeed seen reports that the opposition, either through ignorance or ideological bias, intends to hold up the passage of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 through the Senate. It might be worthwhile explaining to the House why it is in the interests of the broader Australian community as well as stevedoring employees that this be passed expeditiously.The government established the Maritime Industry Finance Company, MIFCo, to ensure that stevedoring reform would be undertaken at no cost to the Australian taxpayer. MIFCo borrows funds on the commercial market. It then provides them to stevedoring companies to pay for qualifying redundancies which meet the government's reform objectives. Funds are then appropriated to MIFCo to enable it to repay its borrowings, and the government recoups the appropriation through the stevedoring industry levy.Originally, when we established the reform program we expected that $250 million would be sufficient. But the success of reform, the higher than anticipated demand for redundancies—DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This item was debated yesterday in this chamber, and the minister did not even come into the chamber. So I do not see why he is making a speech now.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Throsby will resume his seat. There is no point of order.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Tell us about the crane rates.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I have been challenged to tell you about the crane rates, and I will in a moment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would prefer that the minister came to the question.Opposition member interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes, it was. Your side is circulating misinformation, so you may be interested in the facts.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Why didn't you speak yesterday? You should have debated it yesterday; not today!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Throsby.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The higher than anticipated demand for redundancies means that an extra allocation is needed. For the information of the House, the original $250 million appropriation was expected to be spent in the following way: $148 million for redundancy packages, $50 million for interest, $2 million for administration, $10 million to provide that stevedoring workers receiving redundancies from the WA government receive packages at the industry standard and $40 million for non-redundancy reform such as occupational health and safety programs, training programs, new technology and improvement of wharf facilities.The higher than expected demand means that we now need to look at $195 million for redundancy packages, $105 million for interest, $6 million for administration, $4 million for WA redundancies, $30 million for non-redundancy reforms and $10 million for contingencies in case MIFCo's interest or redundancy estimates are exceeded.It needs to be said that MIFCo is in the process of negotiating these arrangements with its lenders. They will not be able to borrow sufficient funds without this legislation being in place to meet the government's objectives and the legitimate expectations of the stevedoring employees. Let us be quite clear on this: MIFCo does not currently have the resources to meet the expected redundancy claims. The main parties which suffer from the opposition's decision to delay the legislation will be those who are taking voluntary redundancies and expect to be able to access redundancy funds provided through MIFCo. Alternatively, it may be that the stevedoring companies are forced to either delay reform or bear unnecessary costs. Members of stevedoring unions will know where to look when they want support for their objectives in this reform process.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—What about the reforms?4K4Mr ANDERSON—I have been challenged to say something about the reform process. It is worth noting that if you look at Patricks' Melbourne terminal—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—What about the five-port average?4K4Mr ANDERSON—They do not want to hear. It is very interesting. They do not want to know about it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will direct his remarks through the chair.4K4Mr ANDERSON—All right, Mr Speaker, I will come back to the point. The point is that Patricks has reported, in relation to its Melbourne terminal, that it is moving 20 per cent more containers than last year with a work force half the size. Here is the one those opposite really don't like—the average crane rate has improved from 19 to 26 moves per hour and rates of 30 to 35 are being reported on a regular basis, not only exceeding what we requested in our benchmarks but also exceeding what the Labor Party's representative said was possible in this country as they talked down the capacity of Australian workers. Patricks expects comparable performances at its Sydney terminal following completion of an equipment upgrade. The recent survey of Melbourne ports by the Victorian employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry showed very improved levels of confidence and acceptance of performance amongst port users. This legislation should not be delayed; it ought to be moved through quickly.67096709Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that Mr Entsch has stated on radio 4QY this morning that `the defence department contacted Boral and they asked Boral—and this advice—I got this advice yesterday from the defence department that they did contact Boral'? Are you aware that, according to the relevant officials at RAAF Scherger, Boral Concrete was not asked to tender for the concrete for the project and that, according to Boral Concrete themselves, they were not contacted by the RAAF for a quote?EI4MOOREMr Moore—That is what I said.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—No, you did not say that, Minister; not at all. In fact, it made a complaint to base staff about this very fact. Doesn't your code require ministers and parliamentary secretaries to be honest in their public dealings? If misleading you and the parliamentary register is not enough for him to be sacked, what about misleading the public?6710Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not read the transcript of that interview.DT4CREANMr Crean—What have you read?ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have long learnt, particularly in relation to the bloke who just interjected, that you never take on face value a representation of what somebody on this side said when it comes from the other side. I have read a minute from Mr Rod Corey, the Head of Defence Estate, dated 8 June addressed to the Minister for Defence. Let us just understand the practicality and the realism of this situation. You are dealing here with decisions that are taken in a relatively remote part of Australia. You are dealing with decisions that are taken by delegates of the Secretary to the Department of Defence. The idea that the minister or the head of the department should be involved in a local decision in relation to the awarding of a relatively minor piece of work in relation to some concrete for RAAF Scherger—the idea that he should be involved in it—is plainly ludicrous. It illustrates the total lack of commercial reality that exists on the other side of the parliament.I read simply one paragraph from Mr Corey, the Head of Defence Estate. This is out of the minute that was addressed to the Minister for Defence.5. The delegate was satisfied that CYC clearly provided the best value for money to the Commonwealth.Let me say that again: CYC clearly provided the best value for money to the Commonwealth. It continued:A purchase order was raised and concrete delivered by CYC and laid by the RAAF personnel. That was the view of Mr Corey. That was the advice that was provided to the Minister for Defence.I would make the further point that, on all the information that has come to me—and nothing has been presented to this parliament or to the public to suggest otherwise—the member for Leichhardt did not know about this contract between CYC and the Defence Department until after the company had been given the contract and after the commencement of the work. That is the advice that has been given. In the absence of any evidence that countermands that, how on earth can anybody—let us strip aside all the references to other procedures and go to the simple proposition: was he or was he not involved in anything improper? The answer is clearly no.This parliament and the Australian public are interested in issues of propriety. If he had brought undue influence to bear, if he had used his position to win this contract for the company, you would be entitled to blame him. If you are able to produce evidence that he nobbled somebody at RAAF Scherger, you would be entitled to blame him. But so far the evidence clearly is that he had absolutely no knowledge of this contract until after it had been let, and indeed, as I am advised, after the work had been commenced. That is the single unassailable fact on the information currently available to the parliament. You can rant on about other things; nothing alters the fact that this man knew nothing about this contract until after it had been let.That is the evidence that has so far been produced. I have been given no information to suggest that that is not the case. I have satisfied myself, on inquiry to the member, that that is the case. In those circumstances, I stand by the assertion I made yesterday, and I repeat today, that there has been no allegation of impropriety established against the member for Leichhardt. The member for Leichhardt was in error, as other members have been in error, in completing his pecuniary interests form, but he disclosed his financial interest in the company. He made no attempt to disguise his financial interest in the company. He did not try to interfere in the process that led to the awarding of the con tract, because he did not know about it. In those circumstances, I think the Australian public wants the opposition to get back to real issues.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I ask that the Prime Minister table the minute from which he was quoting.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Well, it is marked confidential.67116711Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration representing the Treasurer. Can the minister advise the House of any recent information about the performance of the Australian economy? What does this demonstrate about its continuing strength under the policies of the Howard government?6711Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the member for Curtin for her question of substance and one of real interest to the Australian people. I also acknowledge the work and the interest that she shows in the economic matters of government. I am pleased to advise the House that the Australian economy continues to perform well against the backdrop of international economic turmoil. Today's labour force release shows that the unemployment rate remains at decade lows of 7.5 per cent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What is the participation rate?HQ5Mr FAHEY—This, of course, stands in stark contrast to the unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent in December 1992 when the Leader of the Opposition was then the minister for employment. In fact, it has taken some eight years to recover from the effects of Labor's recession that we had to have. The main precursor to employment growth is strong activity growth, and the economy is leading the world in growth, growing by some 4.8 per cent through the year to the March quarter 1999. Over 400,000 jobs have in fact been created under this government, and the ANZ job ads remain supportive of further employment growth, rising by 1.3 per cent in May. The ANZ chief economist, Saul Eslake, stated: The continued strength in job advertising is consistent with other evidence of buoyant business confidence and robust growth in economic activity.The Productivity Commission report that was released yesterday, and which was referred to by the Prime Minister in this House yesterday, reviewed Australia's productivity performance. It found that Australia's productivity performance is now at an all-time high and that the productivity acceleration over recent years is due to very strong growth in output and did not come from a reduction in labour.The ACCI Westpac survey of industrial trends for the June quarter, which was released on Tuesday of this week, shows that the Australian economy is continuing to perform strongly. Mr Bill Evans, Westpac General Manager of Economics, stated:This survey confirms our view that the Australian economy remains robust, with no sign of the much anticipated slowdown. Indeed, the activity measures indicate that growth is accelerating and expectations are the most buoyant that we have seen since the mid-1990s.The National Australia Bank monthly business survey for May, which was also released last Tuesday, shows that business conditions remain at around the highest level since 1997 when the monthly survey commenced. The NAB's Chief Economist, Alan Oster, commented:Overall, the national survey points to another very strong performance by the non-farm business sector in May, with few signs of any slowdown in domestic activity during the June quarter.It is the achievements of this government that have resulted in strong growth, low inflation, mortgage interest rates that are at their lowest for a generation, the third budget surplus in a row, and the prospect of completely eliminating Commonwealth net debt. This shows that the policies of this government for the past three years have made a significant contribution to the strong economy which Australia is experiencing. The policies of this government will maintain that growth in the future. This stands in stark contrast to Labor's policies. Labor's policies are simply to oppose. Distinguished Visitors671210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association study tour. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our guests. I would like to indicate to them that as members of parliaments of near Pacific neighbours of ours, we want them to feel particularly welcome in our country and in our parliament. We are pleased to have you with us.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice671267126712Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall yesterday that the member for Leichhardt described the $1.2 million cattle station—DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—Where's the tax debate?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—We have asked you 55 questions on tax so far, Tim, so I think we might get onto another piece of accountability. Prime Minister, do you recall that yesterday the member for Leichhardt described the $1.2 million cattle station, Hurricane, owned by Vervale Pty Ltd, in these terms:The property has been sitting with a caretaker for the last three years . . . It has not been operating . . . That is the only interest that Vervale has. There has been no active trading, no active business whatsoever in Vervale.Prime Minister, if the property is the only interest that Vervale has, why did Mr Entsch tell the Courier-Mail on 25 February 1999:The property has four houses, heavy machinery, and a large cattle herd, any one of which, if sold, would meet the overdraft.Prime Minister, hasn't Mr Entsch misled the parliament when the property has clearly been operating a commercial cattle herd, or has Mr Entsch been running a large cattle herd for the fun of it?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No, no!GK6KELLYMiss Jackie Kelly—No! That is ridiculous!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Sport and Tourism is warned.6712Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I think there are a lot of members on this side of the House who would like to take the Leader of the Opposition on a tour of rural areas, and he would learn the meaning of the expression `asset rich and income poor'. He would learn that it is quite possible for something to be making no money even though it maintains assets. As to the context of the remarks made by the member for Leichhardt, as he demonstrated yesterday, he is perfectly capable—and very effectively so—of speaking for and answering for himself.I state the general proposition that there is nothing inconsistent with an assertion that you are not making any money out of something even though that something has a great number of assets that you are trying to dispose of—which I understand to be the position in relation to Vervale.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair has had quite enough of the cross-parliamentary exchange that has gone on in the latter part of this question time and I will not tolerate any more of it.67126712Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of union sponsored action today on funding for government schools? Can you inform the House of the funding the government provides to government schools? What is the minister's response to comments that have been made on the government schools funding policies?6712Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Makin for her question. I am aware that the Australian Education Union and its fellow travellers are today co-hosting an event at which they will no doubt continue to make untrue and misleading statements about school funding. For its own ideological reasons, the Australian Education Union and its mouthpiece in this place, the member for Dobell, continue to run a divisive campaign of untruths about government school funding.The Australian Education Union keeps on running down government schools at every opportunity. It keeps telling people in this country that government schools are being run down. It keeps damaging the government schools sector and it does so in the interests of a cynical campaign based on the politics of envy. It hopes to mislead parents in the community about what is actually happening as a result of the government's policy to provide quality education for every young Australian. Today I have seen a press release announcing this activity from the Australian Education Union and so-called parents bodies which contains the following statement: `The 1999-2000 budget is an attack on public schools.'This is so ludicrous that you have to speculate about the motives of people who would make a statement of this kind. This is a statement about a budget which this year is committing to government schools 20 per cent more funding directly through the Commonwealth budget than the Labor Party committed in 1996. This is a budget which will deliver over the next four-year funding period almost $1 billion more to government schools than they will receive during the current funding period, and this is despite the fact that the Commonwealth government provides only 15 per cent of direct funding to government schools.What these people do not like is the fact that the government set out in this budget to address the gross inequities suffered by low income working-class parents who wanted to exercise educational choice. They do not like parents having the right to choose their school. As Mr Peter Crimmins, the Executive Officer of the Australian Association of Christian Schools, said on the budget, `Choice in schooling is now a reality for working-class Australian families.' This government is committed to choice and quality of education for every young Australian and it is time the Labor Party and its union backers stopped trying to talk down the government system in this country and recognised the right of all parents to accurate information and educational choice.67136713Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, doesn't your code specifically state, `Ministers and parliamentary secretaries must not engage in the daily work of any business'? Prime Minister, have you personally reviewed the evidence regarding the member for Leichhardt's business, Vervale Pty Ltd, including reports on ABC PM last night and in the Courier-Mail that show he is an active and regular participant in the operations of the company? Prime Minister, wasn't this exactly what Geoff Prosser went for? Why don't you have the courage to sack Mr Entsch now?6713Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—With the greatest respect to the ABC PM program and also to the Courier-Mail , I do not normally rely exclusively on either of those news outlets for information relating to the activities of any of my colleagues. I have sought advice from the member for Leichhardt and I am satisfied on the advice that he has given me that he is not involved in the day-to-day activities of Vervale. I am also satisfied on the information he has given me that there are not many activities of Vervale, for the reasons that have already been outlined by the member for Leichhardt.It is true that it is an obligation of ministers and parliamentary secretaries to devote their energies and their time to their duties. It is also the case that it has long been recognised on—I thought until now—both sides of the House that, when people entered the ministry or became a parliamentary secretary, it was possible for them to retain the assets that they had and the company arrangements they had, provided there were not conflicts between their private interests and their public duty. That takes me back to a challenge I threw out earlier in question time, and that is that, if this is about propriety, then where is the evidence of impropriety by the member for Leichhardt? It is true—MG4LEEMr Lee—What about a false declaration?ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is very interesting that as soon as you—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You are shifting your ground.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I am not shifting the ground, I am addressing the ground. This is all about honourable conduct. There is no evidence that this man has behaved dishonourably. There is evidence that he was careless in completing his pecuniary interests form, but it would be a very brave Leader of the Opposition who got up and asserted that no person on his side of the House had ever been careless in completing his or her pecuniary interests form, a very brave opposition leader indeed! Let me say on this side of the House that in the words of the opposition leader—in an interview he had with Glenn Milne a couple of years ago—`inadvertent slips happen all of time'. Of course they do, and the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged that. I agree with him that from time to time that can occur.What we are looking for here is evidence of bad faith. What we are looking for here is evidence of a minister who abused his position. There is no evidence that Warren Entsch abused his position, none whatsoever. There is no evidence that he has broken the code in relation to the day-to-day conduct of his business. I have satisfied myself on the information that he has provided to me that he has not breached that part of the code and I therefore reject the charge made by the Leader of the Opposition.67146714Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—You are staying right where you are, Warren.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will ask his question.HK6Mr LINDSAY—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House of the benefits for jobs growth that have flowed from the Howard government's policies in relation to rural industries?6714Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question and his continued interest in the rural workers in his electorate of Herbert, and also the adjoining electorates of Dawson and Kennedy, who have benefited greatly from the policies of this government over the past three or four years: policies that have delivered sound economic management, that have delivered strong growth, that have delivered lower interest rates and lower inflation—something the Labor Party could not do in 13 years in office. We have delivered—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—What are you going on about? What low inflation did you give to us? 11 per cent. We gave you two! You cannot be that stupid.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat. I warn the member for Corio. He has been a persistent interjector throughout question time. The minister has the call.SU5Mr VAILE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to inform the House of some very positive improvements in employment in rural industries in Australia. In the rural sector, under Labor, the last statistic was 404,000 people employed. Under the coalition government, that has moved up to 437,000 people employed. That is an increase of 33,000 jobs in rural industries—or eight per cent—during the time that this government has been managing the affairs of this nation. It is through those economic policies that have delivered $540 million worth of interest rate cuts per annum to rural Australia—the lowest interest rates in 30 years in this country—through policy settings that have delivered an increase in exports of food products to Asia in the first quarter of this year by 14 per cent, and through policies that have delivered much more flexible workplace relations in this country, particularly in rural Australia, that we have delivered those benefits and those policy settings that have provided the framework and the opportunity for employment growth, particularly in rural industries in Australia—and that needs to be recognised.Contrast that position with the position of the Labor Party and its fellow travellers. I instance a particular circumstance at the moment where the Labor Party's fellow traveller, mate and key underwriter, the AWU, is denying pay increases to rural workers and their families this year, this month. The latest behaviour of the Australian Workers Union, in its refusal to sign off on a more flexible working arrangement in their award for pastoral workers, is denying pay increases to rural workers and their families. This typical pig-headedness of the AWU means that thousands of rural workers in the bush will miss out on pay rises on 1 July. This is the typical attitude of the unions and the Labor Party. They are not prepared to move forward, not prepared to embrace change and not prepared to embrace improvements in the way that the structures in this country work. They just want to continually oppose beneficial arrangements that are going to flow to all Australians. We are about putting together a strong economic structure in which rural Australia can operate in this country. We are proposing a tax reform package which unashamedly benefits rural Australia. Out of that tax reform package there will be reduced input costs, for the average farm, of $7,500. That goes all the way towards improving employment prospects in rural Australia. Our $12 million income tax cuts will directly benefit workers in rural Australia. We are working with Australia's rural industries to create a much stronger economic environment and we will deliver more jobs growth from that much better working environment—unlike the Labor Party and the AWU.67156715McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Mr Speaker—DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—Tax?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister—Mr Downer interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Barton will resume his seat. I warn the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have asked members on the front bench to stop the front-bench interchange and I expect it to stop. The member for Barton has the call.JK6Mr McCLELLAND—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to your decision to excuse the member for Leichhardt's failure to disclose that he is a director and company secretary of Cape York Concrete Pty Ltd on the basis that he plays no part in the day-to-day running of the company. Are you aware that under the Corporations Law Mr Entsch, as company secretary of that company and Vervale, has a legal duty to `exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person in like position in a corporation would exercise'? Are you also aware that he must notify the Australian Securities Commission of the details of officers of the company, lodge the annual returns of the company, lodge the annual financial statements and report, and attend and report to any meetings of creditors of the company? Prime Minister, if Mr Entsch is fulfilling those obligations, is he a sleeping company secretary who can read and write in his sleep?6715Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In response to the member for Barton's question, I have taken the view that I ought not require the resignation of the member for Leichhardt, because his failure to record his directorship—and, in the case of one of the companies, his secretaryship—was not as part of a pattern of behaviour designed to deny to the Australian public knowledge of his financial and pecuniary interests in those companies. The honourable member whose responsibilities for law in the opposition would, I am sure, instruct him to understand that what really matters in relation to a company is your financial stake. Once you have a financial stake in a company, your interest in the fortunes of that company tend to accelerate.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Barton asked me a serious and thoughtful question, and I am endeavouring to answer it in a constructive fashion and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is helping his colleague by interjecting. What really matters in relation to the disclosure of pecuniary interests in this place is what light they shed on potential conflicts of interests. The reason why I am sticking by the member for Leichhardt is that he did not seek to camouflage his pecuniary and financial interests in the company. I am also sticking by him because there is no evidence that he abused his position as a member of parliament or as a parliamentary secretary.I am also sticking by him because, on the evidence available to me, in a practical day-to-day commonsense understanding of the word and the terms and the activities in the commercial operations of companies, he was not involved in the day-to-day operation of the company. And that is the evidence that has been presented. I am adopting a practical, commonsense approach. I appeal to those opposite who are interested in having sensible, workable guidelines of ministerial behaviour and not an intricate cobweb of legal rules. I would warn those who gloat on the opposition front benches that, if we ever in this country get to a situation where you are out if you commit a technical breach where there is no evidence of corruption, no evidence of malevolence, no evidence of abuse of power and no evidence of personal greed or personal enrichment, we will reduce this place to an arena where few people of ability, talent and aspiration would want to enter.There is a lot at stake in this. If you can produce any evidence that this man has been corrupt, if you can produce any evidence that he has abused his position or sought to unduly influence members of the Australian Public Service, then you might have a case. But, until you do that, I do not think you get to first base.67166716Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Could the minister outline to the House what steps the government is taking to help Gulf War veterans in their claims for `war caused' disabilities and injuries?6716Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question because it gives me the opportunity to remind the House of the veterans' entitlements that are available to veterans of war and conflicts. I remind the House that Gulf War veterans are also entitled to medical and financial support in the same way as veterans of any other conflict. In fact, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has already received applications from 213 veterans of the Gulf War with a range of conditions since the cessation of that conflict. Approximately 140 claimants with a range of different illnesses and injuries have been successful, which proves that the current system is working. If Gulf War veterans prove that the injuries or the illnesses they suffer are a direct result of Gulf War service, they may be entitled to a range of benefits, including a white or gold health treatment card to cover their health costs. They may also be eligible for a disability pension. I also advise the House that the government also meets the costs of diagnosis and treatment of a veteran's illness if it is war caused.There has been speculation regarding the existence of Gulf War syndrome. The Department of Defence and my department are in touch with the United States and the United Kingdom which had substantially larger numbers than we did involved in the Gulf War. There is as yet no internationally accepted medical or scientific consensus of a Gulf War syndrome. But we do acknowledge that most conflicts and the Gulf War resulted in veterans with illnesses and injuries from that service. I repeat that 140 veterans of the 1,650 who served in the Gulf War have been successful with claims that they say are—and that have been proven to be—the result of their service in the Gulf War. In fact, we are also studying the health of 213 veterans who have made claims against the department.Critics can play semantics about whether or not the government recognises a syndrome. What we are concentrating on is giving veterans with war caused illnesses the care that they deserve. One hundred and forty veterans of the Gulf War are receiving that from my department, which demonstrates that the system works. It works for Gulf War veterans just as it has for veterans of other conflicts and other wars. I encourage veterans who feel that they have a claim to contact the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The good news is that since we came to government there are another 70 agencies or over the counter shopfronts of the Department of Veterans' Affairs through Centrelink or through state government agencies where veterans can make those claims. That is the other good news.67176717Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given your last answer about the financial interests that are associated with company shareholdings, do you now agree that as a half owner of Cape York Concrete the member for Leichhardt could stand to make a financial benefit from the company in ways other than directors' or other fees or payments from Cape York Concrete?DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider whether that was simply asking for an opinion and, as such, whether it is in order as it was framed.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On the point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call. I am happy to respond to the point of order, but if he wishes to add to the point of order I will hear him.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The point is that it is not a question of a legal opinion; it is simply a question about fact. There are obviously other ways a person can benefit than simply by dividends. A capital gain might be considered, for example.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and not add to the question. I am conscious of the Deputy Prime Minister's point that an opinion was sought, but that is not extraordinary to questions. I think it reasonable for the question to stand and I call the Prime Minister.6717Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The question of whether there is a financial gain would depend—MG4LEEMr Lee—A capital gain, for example.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Well, it is still a gain.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There is no law in this country or there is no code in relation to ministers or parliamentary secretaries that asserts that you cannot have an income stream separate from your parliamentary remuneration. MG4LEEMr Lee—What about capital gains?ZD4Mr HOWARD—There is no law that says you cannot do that either. Are you seriously saying that when somebody becomes a minister or a parliamentary secretary they are forever forbidden from having any kind of pecuniary gain from any other source? Is that your argument? That is the basis of the question, and it is a plainly ludicrous one.MG4LEEMr Lee—You are labouring, John.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Dobell. He seems to feel that he has a right to persistently interject and ask questions in addition to the question he has asked. I have asked members on both front benches to restrain from that sort of behaviour.67176717Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. The government has announced that next month pensioners can choose the day when they actually receive their benefits. Have any pensioners already chosen a different day to receive their pension?6717Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It is true that in the past every second Thursday was pension day but, from the beginning of next month, pensioners will be able to choose the day on which they receive their pension payments. Pension day can be any day. Centrelink has already provided information to pensioners about their new options and a significant number of people—in fact, around 60,000 pensioners—have already indicated that they want to be paid on a different day. They are choosing Wednesdays, Fridays—all sorts of days that suit their particular needs.Some Commonwealth Bank and St George Bank customers have another issue that they may wish to consider when choosing when their pension should be paid. In the past, the Commonwealth Bank and St George have adopted the practice of making the pension payments available a day earlier than they actually received the money from the government. Even though they received the funds on a Thursday, they allowed pensioners to access that money on a Wednesday. The new payment cycles project is dependent upon faster processing of data. That is going to mean that there will be more accurate payments and people will be paid for every day for which they are entitled, rather than having to wait for the first payment date before they receive any benefits. So there are real benefits to pensioners from these new proposals.However, because the data will be processed much more quickly in the future, it will no longer really be practical for the banks to advance the money a day early, nor would it be fair to other pensioners who get paid on a different day if funds were provided just to those who were paid on a Thursday. Many pensioners who want to receive their money on a Wednesday may like to change their pension day for that purpose. Instead of receiving their money on a Thursday, they may like to get it on a Wednesday or, for that matter, on any other day. If they elect to make that change, there will naturally be one payment which will be adjusted to take account of the shorter period. After that, all payments will be made on the anniversary of that day.I would like to thank particularly the Commonwealth Bank and St George Bank for the cooperation that they are providing in introducing these changes. They are helping with the education campaign for their customers to ensure that there are no unpleasant surprises. Those who will be affected by the Commonwealth Bank arrangements received a letter from Centrelink around a month ago. There has been follow-up publicity. Any one of the Commonwealth Bank customers who would like to get their pension on a Wednesday, as has been possible in the past, should just phone Centrelink and arrange for that change to be made. This new arrangement will provide greater flexibility and real benefits to all pensioners. We encourage those who would like to be paid on a day other than Thursday to notify Centrelink so that their payments can be processed appropriately.67186718Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1975 the then Liberal opposition supported the reference of the Webster case to the High Court? Does the Prime Minister recall the words of Senator Withers on behalf of the opposition on that occasion. He said:If someone is accused of breaking the Constitution, the most important law in the land, that should be clarified. If it is not clarified, the whole parliament will be demeaned.Given that the legal advice which the Australian Labor Party has now obtained, which I now seek leave to table, concludes that the reasoning of the decision of Chief Justice Barwick is ripe for reconsideration—and it seemed to be the implication of your own adviser as well—will you now agree to support a motion referring the member for Leichhardt's qualification to sit as a member for consideration by the High Court?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Prime Minister, is leave granted for the tabling of information?Leave not granted.6718Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will no doubt have an opportunity outside of the parliament to peruse the legal advice that the opposition has rustled up from Labor lawyers. I dealt with this matter yesterday when I tabled the legal advice from Mr Henry Burmester, who is the Acting Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth. The Acting Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth has advised us in terms that are as strong and compelling as you can possibly get in relation to these matters that, in his opinion and based on the existing law, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any doubt about the position of Mr Entsch. In those circumstances, we have no intention on the government's side of supporting such a motion.67186718Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Australia has a reputation for sustainable fisheries management. Can the minister please advise the House of recent developments in the management of southern bluefin tuna? What action will the government take against Japan's unilateral experimental fishing program for southern bluefin tuna?6719Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question. Obviously this is a very serious issue, particularly for those members in South Australia who represent the tuna fishing industry there. The southern bluefin tuna industry is worth $170 million in exports annually and 3,000 jobs in regional Australia. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna was established in 1994 to better manage stocks of southern bluefin tuna. Australia is a party to the trilateral agreement with Japan and New Zealand.I inform the House that, on 1 June this year, Japan announced that it would begin its second year of unilateral experimental fishing. In 1998, without the agreement of Australia or New Zealand, Japan conducted a unilateral experimental fishing program in which it caught 1,464 tonnes of southern bluefin tuna above its agreed allocation under the commission. This is equivalent to a 25 per cent above quota catch or $60 million worth of extra tuna. Japan is in breach of its obligations under the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna and under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Japan's decision follows months of intense negotiation by the members of the commission on a joint experimental fishing program. Australia offered up a proposal for a joint scientific program, which was rejected by Japan.Australia has joined with New Zealand in calling on Japan to cease its experimental fishing program immediately. This government will not agree to a program that adds to the risk of stock reduction, or to a program that does not add significantly to existing assessments of southern bluefin tuna stock or improve the management of southern bluefin tuna. Australia takes its international obligations for sustainable fishing of southern bluefin tuna very seriously. Unmeasured practices on the high seas can have a detrimental impact on fishing stocks in our zone. All bans for port access and access for our fishing zone will remain in place indefinitely.The government has decided to commence proceedings against Japan under international law immediately. These options are currently being assessed. Australia and our government will continue to take strong measures to ensure the conservation of the southern bluefin tuna stock and protect the interests of the Australian fishing industry. I should note that the Prime Minister is actually going to Japan and is going to take up this issue. Also, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken up this issue with the Japanese Ambassador. We will continue, as a government, to stand by and protect the interests of the Australian industry.67196719Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it true that the Acting Solicitor-General's opinion to you never stated that he agreed with the decision in re Webster, rather that he was only prepared to state that it should be accepted as governing authority given that, in his very highly qualified alleged clearance of your particular member, he repeatedly referred to challenges to that particular authority and a shift of legal opinion in that regard? Given the fact that it is undoubtedly true that leading constitutional experts Professor Tony Blackshield and George Williams have stated that, even if the decision in re Webster cannot be distinguished from the facts, and that decision is highly susceptible to legal challenge—3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question contravenes both standing orders 142 and 144, requiring interpretation of domestic law and expression of legal opinion, and it should be ruled out of order.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, I have not asked for—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know that he has some trouble being heard until I recognise him. The Leader of the Opposition.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I have not asked for a legal opinion at all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will rule on the point of order. After yesterday's experience in which I was listening carefully to the member for Barton's question, I agree that in this case the Leader of the Opposition has not asked for a legal opinion. I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Further, isn't it also true that the 1981 bipartisan report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs cited numerous expert legal criticisms of the judgment in re Webster? Prime Minister, in all those circumstances, and in the light of the legal opinion that we and you have received, will you now facilitate a motion in this House to refer this matter to the High Court?6720Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Beazley CJ seems to have completely overlooked the fact that, if you give advice on the state of the law, you normally pay some regard to cases that have been decided on that point of law. Therefore, it is barely surprising that the late Chief Justice of Australia Sir Garfield Barwick is a person whom the Labor Party continues to pursue with its unforgiving tribal hatred, but nonetheless he is one of the greatest lawyers that this country has ever produced, without any doubt, and I will back Barwick against Blackshield any day, even though I was at law school with Blackshield. On this particular occasion I will back Barwick against Blackshield. In fact, I will back Burmester against Blackshield on this occasion. The Acting Solicitor-General has given a very strong opinion. It is very clear on the case law and, therefore, we have no intention of playing the legal and political game of the Australian Labor Party. Let them go elsewhere for Labor justice. We will not support any such motion.Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous672015:11:006720Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I wish to move that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith: that the following question be referred—XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Mr Speaker—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—You don't know what it is yet. ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Yes, he does.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on both sides of the House seem to be forgetting my earlier comments.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Mr Speaker, we will take the motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Acting Leader of the House has offered to take the motion. Is the Leader of the Opposition therefore happy to seek to—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Absolutely.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—One moment. Is the Leader of the Opposition therefore happy to seek leave to enable it to be moved without the requirement for the suspension to occur?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I seek leave, yes.Leave granted.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I thank the House. I move:That the following question be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns for determination, pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 :Whether the place of the honourable Member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch) has become vacant pursuant to the provisions of section 44(v) of the Constitution.They are, of course, three matters in dispute in this entire sorry saga as far as the member for Leichhardt is concerned. All three matters are serious enough to merit the consideration of this parliament, and all three of them have to be dealt with at question time and at all the other opportunities that arise for us, either by motion or directly by question. Those three elements are distinct in their different characteristics, and all of them ought to raise alarm in the mind of an honourable member of the public looking at the requirement for his or her representatives to be accountable.These are the three things before us. The first is whether or not the member for Leichhardt has breached the code of conduct. The mere fact that there is breach of the code of conduct, of course, does not necessarily go to his fitness for holding a seat in parliament. What we have seen as far as that breach of the code of conduct is concerned is the excoriation of the Prime Minister's expediency in his absolute refusal to give any cre dence, any credibility, to his code of conduct at all. We saw in question time today his slipsliding around every single point that was made to him. Every time he was asked a specific question he erected a straw man and then addressed the straw man—every single question he was asked. He evaded every single question yesterday. He has, fortunately for accountability in this place, set himself a number of traps—a number of contradictions—to which we will have opportunity to return at a later stage. That is one of the elements that this parliament has before it for consideration, and a sorry tale that element is indeed.The second thing before us is the probity of the contract. We went to a consideration of that during question time today. What we discern from that is that the Minister for Defence does not know what he is talking about, and the propositions that he put before the parliament misled the parliament in a number of key areas as to whether or not the advice of relevant persons had been sought.Indeed, we have a document that points out that the flight sergeant on whom he relies pointed out to his superiors that Boral had marched in to complain to him that they had not been properly consulted and not been given the same opportunity to tender for the work as that given to the particular company in question here—Cape York Concrete. To their mind, the opportunity presented to that company was not presented to a respectable operation like Boral. And, apparently, there is another aggrieved party, we discover from the documentation, identified as a suitable tenderer whose views were not sought, whose business opportunity was not sought, despite clear instructions in the guidance manual to delegates that anybody who has a capacity to put in a competitive bid ought to be given the opportunity to do so.That, of course, leads us onto the circumstances of the third problem that we are considering here today, and that is whether or not the parliamentary secretary has a sufficient pecuniary interest in all of this to run foul of the legal requirements contained in section 44(v) of the Constitution. Those legal requirements state that:Any person who—. . . . . . . . .(v) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.The effect of section 45(i) of the Constitution is that if a senator or member of the House of Representatives becomes subject to a disability referred to in section 44(v) his place shall thereupon become vacant.The question arises as to whether a direct contract with the Commonwealth from a company that consists of two persons—well fewer than 25—a contract established directly with not an agency acting on behalf of the contract (in other words, in a subcontractual relationship) but a direct contractual relationship with a department puts one in a position of vulnerability. A commonsense interpretation of that particular clause would say precisely that.These are the circumstances in which the member for Leichhardt finds himself. He has been trying—and the Prime Minister has been aiding and abetting—every twist to get himself off that particular hook in all the questions that have been answered, or attempted to be answered, by them in this place in the course of the last couple of days. We have heard from the Prime Minister that it was all right for him not to declare his relationship as the company secretary or his relationship as a director, that clearly he was just a sleeping person as far as those requirements were concerned, and merely establishing the relationship was sufficient. Then they go on to say that there was not a pecuniary interest because he did not receive a payment in relation to that.I would have thought that commonsense—and the Prime Minister, strangely enough, despite having dismissed this as a possibility yesterday acknowledged it in answer to the honourable member for Dobell as a probability today—would show that there is another form by which one might gain from a contractual arrangement, and that is if that increased the capital value of a company and a capital gain was made: a commonsense interpretation by the Prime Minister today, dismissed by the Prime Minister yesterday as a matter that ought to concern us about these matters.I have an apology to deliver in this place. I actually slandered poor old Henry yesterday. I said—by implication at least—that what poor old Henry Burmester had produced was a quick and dirty proposition and of course you would expect the Acting Solicitor-General just to dance out there for the characters who pay him, and I discovered I was wrong. He produced a quick response, but he did not produce a dirty one. As Laurie Oakes pointed out last night on Channel 9, anybody reading this particular document sees it replete with qualification. This is a Solicitor-General trying to twist out from under two sets of circumstances: (1) he is very unclear as to the actual pecuniary interest and vulnerability of the member as far as this is concerned and qualifies himself repeatedly with `the facts as stated to me' through this particular proposition; and (2) he qualifies himself to the nth degree as to whether or not Webster is truly relevant or whether or not in fact a reasonable person might arrive at a different interpretation than Barwick CJ.Just in case we missed the point on that, he went into quite some detail in the course of his remarks as to the challenges that have been put down to that interpretation, the narrowness of that interpretation and the fact that other decisions, though not directly related to that clause, indicated that the High Court might well choose to take a different view if those matters were expressed to it. Indeed, he went on to note in section 10 on page 4 that the Webster judgment has been criticised for taking an unduly narrow view of the commercial relationship required. On page 5, section 11, he notes that Barwick has been criticised for taking a narrow view of the definition of pecuniary interest. On page 5, section 12, he qualifies clearance of Entsch's pecuniary interests with the words `if being a shareholder does not create an indirect interest in the agreement'. On page 6, section 13, he notes that the High Court in Sykes v. Cleary was not as willing to read section 44(v) as narrowly as did Barwick.I have noted five separate occasions where the Burmester opinion makes mention of criticisms of Barwick's judgment—remarkable frequency in a document with only 10 paragraphs of consideration of the legal issues. In other words, he covers himself in every second paragraph of his opinion. I have heard of two-handed lawyers, but that is a very two-handed judgment as far as these particular matters are concerned.That brings me to the reason we have some confidence in moving this particular proposition, and that is the legal opinion available to us. It is a legal opinion provided by a lawyer of considerable distinction—one of the up-and-coming members of the bar with a very good reputation on constitutional matters. The Prime Minister felt it was pretty easy to dismiss one or two others who have been seen as people with a very considerable capacity academically as far as constitutional law is concerned. None of them were the people advising us. One Stephen Gageler was the person providing that opinion, and he provides an opinion very carefully couched. I go first to the summary of his views:I consider that:. on the material with which I have been briefed it is unclear whether Mr Entsch would be found to have come under the disability referred to in section 44(v) of the Constitution if the approach in Barwick CJ in re Webster were adopted;. there is a substantial prospect that the approach of Barwick CJ in re Webster would not be adopted if the matter were to come before the High Court; and. on the better construction of section 44(v) Mr Entsch would be found to have come under the disability for which the section provides and his seat will have been vacated.In the reasoning that he puts down for these particular propositions, there are one or two points that I want to go to. The first point is that Barwick arrived at a very narrow interpretation of this particular clause in relation to who held responsibility or who was likely to be placing pressure on a member of parliament. While it had some legal precedence, it was not in fact the way in which it was commonly regarded at the point of time the Constitution was formed. It went to the argument that the only question at issue was whether the executive could utilise, via a contractual arrangement, a capacity to pressure a member of parliament.One can think of pecuniary interest in far broader terms than that and, indeed, as was pointed out in this opinion, that is precisely what occurred at the Constitutional Convention. A far broader look was taken at the issue of pecuniary interest. It was seen more in terms of local government situations—as a result of their direct experiences at the time—and of course, in those local government situations, their concern was people making contracts associated with their local authority or arriving at decisions associated with land zonings and the like which would place them in a conflict of interest. Indeed, at the Constitutional Convention that was the issue being looked at most intensely. That broader interpretation might well be the view that comes to be looked at in this particular instance.But even so, there are other areas—apart from the breadth or otherwise of the interpretation of what pecuniary interests means—that this legal opinion goes to. That was whether the very narrow interpretation placed upon the particular commercial transactions associated with Webster would be the circumstances that would govern an interpretation of the affairs of the member for Leichhardt. In effect—to put it in layman's terms, which are the terms I must put it in—Chief Justice Barwick, sitting solely on this particular case, effectively placed Webster in the context of a hardware shop owner. Basically, all that was being transacted here was an application for a particular set of logs or pieces of wood—as you would go into a hardware store and say, `I want 10 of them,' and walk out. Therefore, the duration of the transaction did not involve an ongoing relationship, but was such that it could be described—as it was described at the time—as casual or transient.But is this the case here, in the circumstances in which Mr Entsch's company finds itself? The answer is no. It is not simply a contract related to the bits and pieces that one might purchase to make up concrete. It is a transaction that took place, or required actions, over a period of at least a month—or at least that is what we have been able to get out of the defence department, so far. Those transactions involved a service as well as a product, namely the mixing of the concrete. This creates a very substantial difference in the position related to Mr Entsch and the position related to the circumstances in which Barwick chose to find Webster. Since then, there has been an absolute load of opinion on this—and it is bipartisan opinion, I should point out. For example, the Senate Select Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in 1981, in its report entitled The constitutional qualifications of members of parliament, challenged that narrow interpretation that I referred to earlier. As the legal opinion says to us:The thrust of that criticism was that the construction was contrary to the intention of the framers of the section as expressed in the Convention Debates and was contrary to the language of the section.He goes on to find other interesting cases and points out, for example, in the case of Sykes v. Cleary:. . . a majority of the High Court held that a person employed as a teacher in a State teaching service and who was at the relevant time on leave without pay was incapable of being elected to the House of Representatives because he held an `office of profit under the Crown' within the meaning of section 44(iii).That is a much broader interpretation of that particular section, and if the High Court were to follow its reasoning in this particular instance it might well produce a very different decision about the circumstances of the member for Leichhardt. This individual was not receiving an immediate pecuniary interest, which was part of the fig leaf defence for the member for Leichhardt—a defence we do not accept, of course. As you will recollect, I referred to the possibility of a capital gain but, assuming that there was not the possibility of a capital gain and he was not receiving directors fees or any other form of remuneration from the company, we should recall the circumstances in which Mr Cleary found himself in this place. As many of us remember, the mere fact he stayed on the rolls as a teacher, though not practising and receiving no remuneration, was sufficient to see his situation discarded. Of course, we also have—and this legal opinion refers to this—a number of other cases which bear very directly on those conclusions.Finally, I quote the opinion of the barrister who has advised us and that led to the conclusions that I indicated at the outset. He said:In the result, there is in my opinion a substantial prospect that the High Court would, if it were called upon to consider the matter, depart from the construction of section 44(v) adopted by Barwick CJ in In Re Webster in favour of a construction which:. treats the word "agreement" as encompassing any contract whether executory or executed within a short period of time and whether or not it is capable of leading to executive influence over a member of Parliament;. treats a senator or member of Parliament as having a "direct or indirect pecuniary interest" in an agreement where the senator or member has a real (as distinct from remote) expectation of making some monetary gain or avoiding some monetary loss as a result of the performance or non-performance of the agreement; and. includes within the expression "direct or indirect pecuniary interest" the interest of a shareholder as shareholder.I think that, as you read through those opinions and you read through Henry Burmester's escape clauses, what you see would be a common judgment amongst the legal profession today—that is, the member for Leichhardt is in deep shtook. To put it in layman's terms, the member for Leichhardt finds himself in a set of circumstances which are severely problematic for him.It is the duty of those on both sides of the House in this place when somebody finds themselves in that situation to find it and clarify it. Even as robust a character as Reg Withers could find it that way as far as Webster was concerned when it was last raised in this place with this level of seriousness. But, as standards have declined so much since then, so standards decline now and the government refuses consideration of this sensitive matter. (Time expired)JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:32:006724Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:The House determines that the member for Leichhardt does not have any direct or indirect pecuniary interest with the Public Service of the Commonwealth within the meaning of section 44(v) of the Constitution by reason of any contract entered into by Cape York Concrete Pty Ltd since 3 October 1998, and the member for Leichhardt—Mr Kerr interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison will resume his seat!RH4KERRMr Kerr—It is a disgrace, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is warned.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—Mr Speaker, I will start again. I move:That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:The House determines that the member for Leichhardt does not have any direct or indirect pecuniary interest with the Public Service of the Commonwealth within the meaning of section 44(v) of the Constitution by reason of any contract entered into by Cape York Concrete Pty Ltd since 3 October 1998, and the member for Leichhardt is therefore not incapable of sitting as a member of this House.In the light of all the hysteria that seems to be emanating from the other side, I would like to put this issue into perspective. Section 44(v) of the Constitution provides:Any person who—. . . . . . . . .(v) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.As is evident from the public debate on this issue and the debate in this House, there is not very much learning on this from courts. In fact, there is only one recent Australian case relating to the Constitution itself, which is the case of Webster. It was decided by Sir Garfield Barwick, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, in 1975. The effect of what Sir Garfield decided is that the words of paragraph (v) cannot be read literally. That is a view with which the Leader of the Opposition does not agree. The Leader of the Opposition is reported, in the Australian of 9 June, as saying:The Constitution clearly requires any member of parliament not to have a pecuniary interest in direct links with the Commonwealth. These are direct dealings.If one contemplates that for a minute, one can see what nonsense it is. If one buys a stamp, one has a direct dealing with the Commonwealth. If one buys a ticket on a Commonwealth train, one has a direct dealing with the Commonwealth.Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons! The Leader of the Opposition was heard in relative silence, and we will extend the same courtesy to the Attorney-General.Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson is warned!7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—In view of the effect of the literal interpretation there has to be a reading down of the provision, and that is exactly what Sir Garfield Barwick did in his judgment. He held that it cannot cover any agreement between a member or senator or a company of which they are a shareholder and the Commonwealth or the Public Service of the Commonwealth; it must mean something less than that.What he decided was that, to be an agreement within paragraph (v) it must be one which has currency for a substantial period of time, and must be one under which the Crown could conceivably influence the contractor in relation to parliamentary affairs by the very existence of the agreement. He went on:. . . or by something done or refrained from being done in relation to the contract or to its subject matter, whether or not that act or omission is within the terms of the contract.He also decided that the interests must be pecuniary in the sense that, through the possibility of financial gain by the existence or performance of the agreement, the person who is said to be disqualified could conceivably be influenced by the Crown in relation to parliamentary affairs. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, the original purpose of the progenitors of this particular provision was exactly that. The provision has its first origin in 1696. It has its more immediate origin in a provision in English legislation in 1782. It was, as the Leader of the Opposition asserted, debated at the convention debates and, obviously, they were relying upon the English precedent in order to formulate the constitutional provision. And it is to the cases on the English provisions that Sir Garfield Barwick has gone to derive the interpretation that he has relied upon. In no sense has anything that the Leader of the Opposition said denied the original rationale for the provision. The original rationale was to prevent the executive having influence in parliamentary affairs.The opinion of the Acting Solicitor-General has been criticised. It has been criticised on the basis that there are inbuilt qualifications in it. I am unable to see any qualification in it, although at the end he does say that he relies expressly on the Webster case—and if, like the Leader of the Opposition, you do not want to accept the Webster case, then obviously you have an immediate point of criticism. There has been some consideration of the Webster case in the 1981 joint committee report and there was some criticism of the interpretation put on it by Sir Garfield Barwick. But, in order to criticise effectively, one has to point to the respects in which Sir Garfield Barwick was wrong and, in order to be effective in the criticism, one must be able to point to an alternative interpretation and one must be able to say what there is other than the literal interpretation.There is further writing on this subject. Interestingly, it was a paper written prior to the hearing of the case in re Webster. Interestingly, it was published after the decision in re Webster was given but it does not make mention of it. In it the author says, speaking at 1975:At first sight s. 44 (v) seems extremely far-reaching, capable—if read strictly literally—of disqualifying members for engaging in quite trivial or everyday transactions with government depart ments. The examples are familiar—buying stamps, renting a telephone, subscribing to a Commonwealth loan, settling a compensation claim, leasing small plots of Crown land or residential premises and so on.The author says that the provision has never been subjected to any direct judicial interpretation. That is now no longer correct. The writer's view is that section 44(v) is `capable of relatively precise, narrow and acceptable application'. Now there is a positive suggestion. Let me then turn to what the writer suggests the limitations could be. Having analysed the provisions, the writer goes on to say:The preceding paragraphs have listed six ways in which, to a greater or lesser extent, the courts might reasonably be expected to limit the scope of agreements caught by s. 44 (v); namely, there must be an agreement, the agreement must have been entered into directly with the member or potential member in question, the agreement must be executory, the member must have some knowledge of its terms, the transaction must have been more than simply casual or transient, and it must be of public service character.They are six qualifications asserted by this writer as relevant to a proper interpretation of section 44(v). If one takes each of those in turn and looks at the circumstances of the member for Leichhardt in relation to the contract between Cape York Concrete Pty Ltd and the Department of Defence, we can see that some are satisfied and others are definitely not.First, there must have been an agreement—well, there was an agreement relating to the provision of concrete. The agreement must have been entered into directly with the member or potential member in question—that is doubtful; it is certainly not the opinion of the Acting Solicitor-General. The agreement must be executory—the agreement was not executory when the member for Leichhardt first found out about it. The member must have some knowledge of its terms—that was not true; the member did not know anything about it at the time it was entered into. The transaction must have been more than simply casual or transient—that was not true; it was just a short-term contract for the provision of concrete. It must have been of a public service character—I accept that one is satisfied. So, on several bases, the contract does not satisfy the requirements suggested by the writer.I have been referring to `the writer' without mentioning the name of the writer. The name of the writer is the same as the name of the person who, on a bipartisan basis, is being nominated by the government as the Director-General of UNESCO. It was written by a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Melbourne by the name of Mr Gareth Evans.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Oh!7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—Let me remind you of what he said. It is the writer's view that section 44(v) is `capable of relatively precise, narrow and acceptable application.' He did point out that the original rationale for disqualifying government contractors was the need to limit the influence of the executive over parliament. But the second factor that he suggested that might be relevant in a consideration of the proper interpretation was that there could be a concern primarily with members using their position to their personal profit or advantage. In the circumstances where the member knows nothing about the contract being entered into, it is hardly a situation where the second rationale suggested by the member for Holt could be applicable.The Leader of the Opposition suggested in his address yesterday that he had slandered the acting Solicitor-General. In my respectful view, that is literally true. I have seen an AAP item, which I assume was the result of a doorstop or something similar outside parliament, in which the Leader of the Opposition asserts in respect of Mr Burmester:I suggest he has a client and the client clearly has a preference for a particular course of action.He goes on to say:I think always a Solicitor-General tries to give advice that is of comfort to the government.If the Leader of the Opposition had said that of a lawyer in private practice—and there is more of what he said in the AAP wire—he would undoubtedly have been very promptly in receipt of a writ for defamation. It is not appropriate that, just because a lawyer is offering advice to government and happens to be in the Public Service, that person be subjected to slander of that sort. Mr Burmester QC is a person of high integrity and high legal skills and he has, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, served successive governments of different colours with great distinction. To shoot the messenger in that manner is a despicable act by the Leader of the Opposition. He should apologise.The circumstances in which the member for Leichhardt has found himself do not involve any suggestion of impropriety. There is no suggestion that he was in any way concerned in the entry into the contract. There is no suggestion that he had any role in relation to it at all. He is merely a part shareholder in a company that did enter into a contract without his knowledge. It was let in circumstances under which the defence department procedures were precisely followed. In the circumstances all the invective that is being thrown at him is totally inappropriate, wrong and should stop. (Time expired)15:47:006727McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Having heard the Attorney-General and having given him the benefit of presenting his argument, I must ask you for a formal ruling that the amendment moved by the Attorney-General is indeed out of order. It is out of order because it is unconstitutional. It is asking the House of Representatives to act as a judicial body by making a finding of fact and a finding of law—complex questions of law.As the Speaker would be aware, our Constitution specifies in chapter I the powers of the parliament.Government member interjecting—JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—There has just been a comment by some learned speaker that his constituents may want to see that chapter I of the Constitution does not specify the powers of the parliament. I can assure the member that, if he would like to get a copy from the Table Office, it will show precisely that.Chapter II sets out the powers of the executive. Chapter III sets out the powers of the judiciary. Of course, those powers are separated on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers, which is the heart of our Westminster system. It is the heart of a system that thousands of men and women have died face down in the mud to defend—and here is the primary law officer of this nation wanting to fundamentally breach our Constitution in its most significant and most important respect.It is quite clearly unconstitutional. Moreover, even if that point is wrong, the legislation of this House clearly prescribes a means whereby this issue can be disposed of. In particular, section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act provides one means whereby it can be determined, and that is by way of the House referring it. The other action is by way of an individual application under the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975. But the only way that this House can become involved in the issue is through the operation of law as prescribed by section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The parliament has no power to act in any way, shape or form as a court of law in a fundamental respect construing, in particular, another section of the Constitution. In that respect I must formally ask for a ruling on that point of order.7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is true, as the member for Barton says, that under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 a House in which a question arises, in this case the House of Representatives, could refer a question to the Court of Disputed Returns, which is the High Court. This is in fact the procedure that was followed in the Webster case. However, if one analyses the Electoral Act there is no suggestion within it that this House has prevented itself from utilising the procedure set out in section 47 of the Constitution, which provides:Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.Mr Melham interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have no choice but to warn the member for Banks.7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—By providing one procedure there is no exclusion of another. That is the simple point in this case.RH4KERRMr Kerr—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, the Attorney seeks to conflate two things. It is perfectly plain that this House has given, through the Commonwealth Electoral Act, an exclusive jurisdiction to the High Court to determine these matters. This House cannot determine the matter that the Attorney has sought to place before it, to exclude the capacity of the High Court to resolve judicially a matter that can be properly brought before it through procedures like the common informers procedure and other procedures. It is an abuse of the procedures of this House, and you should rule accordingly.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, the Attorney-General has quoted section 47 of the Constitution, and I repeat that to you. It says:Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.The point I make to you, Mr Speaker, is that in that section of the Constitution it talks about `until the parliament otherwise provides'. We have provided. It is called the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That means that, since the enactment of that act and the other act that we are talking about, this parliament is now disqualified from determining on the qualification of its members.The further point in relation to Webster's case is that the Attorney-General, or his representative, appeared in that case amicus curiae. In furtherance of my point of order, because the Attorney-General has moved this amendment, he now disqualifies himself or his representative from appearing in the High Court to assist the High Court. That is further evidence, I would put to you, Mr Speaker, because he is determining the question which will disqualify him or his representative from appearing in the High Court when this matter eventually goes to it. I say to you that this is a serious point, because the parliament has otherwise provided. It is the Electoral Act and the other matter raised in Mr Gageler's opinion, the Common Informers Act, that now disqualifies this parliament from determining on its members.7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—Mr Speaker—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—The standing orders say that he can't speak twice to the same matter.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—He can't speak twice to the same point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There are some courtesies that really ought to be extended, and the first is the right of every member to determine first why he rises. I do not even know why the Attorney-General has risen.7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—I rise on the point of order simply to respond briefly on the point made by the member for Banks.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Can he speak twice?7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—I just want to comment, without adding to what I said before, that the point made by the member for Banks relating to the Attorney-General appearing as an amicus curiae in the re Webster case has got nothing to do with this at all. It is entirely irrelevant to the point of order.6728Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The question before the chair is for the chair to determine whether or not it is appropriate for this matter to proceed and whether it in any way impinges on the right of the Attorney-General, were he so to choose, to appear in any future case. There is no sense in which I as the Speaker ever make determinations that influence the outcome of constitutional decisions. This debate, it seems to me, is about whether or not the House is the master of its own destiny and as such has the right to proceed.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I think that commonsense here would suggest that, as a serious point of order has been raised, this matter be adjourned so that you actually have time to deliberate on it in consultation with the clerks. I think this is pretty serious. I think you had better deal with it. So I suggest that this debate should be adjourned and the Deputy Leader of the House ought to adjourn it. This is a bit more than the Rafferty's rules this place usually operates on.6729Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I agree that this is a serious matter. It is not being dealt with with any levity or shallowness by the chair. The advice that I have is that it is entirely appropriate for the House to proceed because it is the master of its own destiny. The honourable member for Barton.JK6Mr SPEAKERMr McCLELLAND—Members opposite do not have the opportunity of seeing the advice of Mr Stephen Gageler, but I should indicate that he is a very experienced junior counsel. I will briefly go through his advice, but first I will contrast the approach taken by this House with what happened in 1975. In that case Sir Reginald Withers said that the matter needed to go to the High Court because it would be a travesty and it would condemn the reputation of the Senate for the Senate to decide those issues. Quite clearly, a tough Liberal Party senator in that case was more of a parliamentarian than anyone opposite is.The advice of Mr Gageler that has been discussed by the Leader of the Opposition clearly says that there is a substantial issue to be dealt with. He notes, on the facts presented to him, that these are matters to be determined by the court, but there is at least a significant difference between the case of the member for Leichhardt and Webster's case. We heard yesterday, for instance, indications that it was likely that a mobile plant cement mixer was used in the contract. I would say the probabilities are that that piece of equipment was in use for the five-week duration of the contract, and it fundamentally distinguishes the situation from that presented by the Attorney-General of someone buying a stamp or a train ticket over the counter. We are in an entirely different class involving $175,000.Mr Gageler goes through a number of different reasons why it is unlikely that the High Court would follow Webster's case. He notes the interpretation of the Sykes matter. As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, in that case Mr Cleary as a teacher was on leave, with no possibility of being influenced for that period by the Commonwealth, one would perhaps argue, but nonetheless he was found ineligible to nominate by the High Court. Why should a lesser standard be provided to a person in a $175,000 business contract than a teacher on unpaid leave?In his advice, Stephen Gageler has gone through the concept of pecuniary interest and he has gone through the constitutional debates. He notes that what was very much in the forefront of the minds of our constitutional founders was the definition of pecuniary interest that had grown up in local government cases. He said that the standard in those cases—and he refers to a number of cases since—was that `pecuniary interest' has been determined as including a shareholding in a company that benefits from a contract with the local government. I ask: why should this House, the highest law making body in the land, apply lower standards to itself than local government? It should not. It should be applying the standards; it should be setting the standards.There are very significant reasons. This is not academic. I do not have enough time available to go through the issues of our advice, but I will draw out the practicalities. We have seen the instance of Boral. Boral is clearly very concerned about the nature of this contract. Things not only must be done properly, but they must be seen to be done properly. Clearly, a significant company—a company that has added considerably to the wealth of this nation—has the perception, in a practical and a real sense, that things have not been done properly.Where do you stop it? One commentator this morning said, `If you give them an Entsch, you give them a mile.' In reality, that is true. You are starting the escalation. The economies of South-East Asia have been devastated because of institutionalised corruption. On seeing these events, what will Boral and other companies say to themselves? They may well say, `If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If we perceive that a member of parliament has influenced the Australian Public Service, we better start thinking about exerting our own influence.' If you allow this to happen, it is the thin end of the wedge.Section 44(v) of the Constitution has a purpose. Its purpose is to avoid perceived conflicts of interest so the public can have complete and utter confidence in the administration of this parliament. They cannot have that confidence when members have the potential to receive pecuniary advantage, directly or indirectly, from contracts that their companies enter into with the Commonwealth. There are practical considerations. The practical considerations have been demonstrated by the facts. They have been demonstrated by the fact that a significant corporate body in this country has complained about what has happened. Around the nation, all the editorial comment—bar none—is saying that the public does not like to see this sort of thing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Barton's time has expired.JK6Mr SPEAKERMr McCLELLAND—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave not granted.JK6Mr SPEAKERMr McCLELLAND—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the debate being adjourned.Question put.The House divided. [4.07 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is that the amendment be agreed to.16:12:006730Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—We had earlier this week the member for Batman describing the Labor Party as `having been captured by a bunch of politically correct, middle-class, blow-in trendies.' I have to say the spectacle of frontbenchers opposite gathered like a coven of lawyers arguing over this issue would have confirmed the member for Batman's point. The fact is this House some years ago expelled a member. The fact is this House in the 1950s sentenced someone to gaol. I know legislation has changed but the fact is we are simply expressing an opinion and we are perfectly entitled to do it.I do not want to pick on the shadow Attorney-General, because the shadow Attorney-General has already been treated ill by his colleagues who have completely destroyed the case he was trying to make by taking endless points of order on him, but the fact is the shadow Attorney-General is a consultant to a law firm. That is a fact. I would be quite confident that that law firm, Turner Freeman, has done Crown work either here or in New South Wales—JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before any member of the House makes any statement they must do so on a reasonable basis. I ask the speaker to declare the basis upon which he has made such a false assertion.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I have a matter on which to rule. I in fact owe the member for Barton an apology because I was, as he would have witnessed, in conversation with the member for Denison and did not hear the latter remarks of the Minister for Employment Services. I will however listen closely to what he has to say and require him to not, in any way, impugn the character of anyone in the House or in the judiciary.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—I am trying to indicate that if the opposition go down the track that they are proposing with their motion this afternoon there will be many members of this House who are in jeopardy. That is what the opposition is proposing to do; they are proposing to place many members of this House in jeopardy by their proposal to send this off to the High Court. What we are doing today is simply supporting the opinion of Burmester QC. The opinion of Burmester QC is quite simple:. . . the agreement made between CYC and the Department of Defence is not the type of agreement that falls within section 44(v) and no pecuniary interest in the agreement arises from his financial exposure to the company or as a shareholder.That is the essential point of the Burmester agreement. That point is not qualified. It is a simple point. It is made clearly, conclusively, unambiguously by Burmester QC, and that is why the government opposes the resolution put forward by the opposition and has proposed an appropriate amendment. What we have seen this afternoon, in the opposition's attempt to send this matter off to the High Court, is that they do not have any new information. That is the essential point. The opposition do not have any additional information.The truth about this is that the Commonwealth got the best price it could for concrete delivery and, yes, that concrete happened to be delivered by a company that was part-owned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. The parliamentary secretary should have disclosed his directorship and he regrets the fact that he did not. But the government did not know it was dealing with the politician, and the politician did not know he was dealing with the government. On this point, the parliamentary secretary exercised no decision making power. He sought to exercise no influence and, as far as we are aware, probably made no profit on the deal. So the essential point is that nothing ethically or morally wrong has been done. There has been no abuse of power. There has been no impropriety.The opposition has been trying over the last couple of days to say that the government should sack the parliamentary secretary because of a technical, inadvertent breach of the conflict of interest rules—a technical, inadvertent failure to fully disclose what should have been disclosed under the rules. It is not hard to make a mistake. It is not hard. The parliamentary secretary declared his shareholding but not his directorship. He was inadvertently in technical breach of the disclosure requirements. It is pretty easy to make these kinds of mistakes. It really is not so surprising that someone might make these sorts of mistakes.Funnily enough, the parliamentary secretary is not the only one who has done it. We may turn to the declaration of the member for Maribyrnong, who happens to be deputy chairman of the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities, the Deputy Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives and a voting member of various other caucus committees. The member for Maribyrnong, in his 1998 declaration, declared that he was a director of Ronacar Pty Ltd. He did not declare that he held shares in Ronacar Pty Ltd. He declared that he had an interest in 26-28 Dalgety Street Pty Ltd. He did not declare that he was a director of 26-28 Dalgety Street Pty Ltd. In 1996 he got these matters right, I am advised, but in 1998 he did not. The simple truth is that it is easy to make these kinds of mistakes.The member for Melbourne Ports is a fine man with a distinguished record—he also happens to be the Secretary of the ALP national security and trade caucus committee. He declared a beneficial interest in Roosevelt Nominees. Well, good on him for declaring that, but what he forgot to declare was that he is a director and shareholder—again, a technical and, I presume, inadvertent breach of the disclosure requirements. We go to the member for Bass, who is also a member of various ALP committees. She declared that her spouse was a director of a company called AUZA. She failed to declare that her husband also had a shareholding. These are minor breaches. I am not suggesting for a second that any of the members opposite should be sacked from the positions they hold at the grace and favour of the Leader of the Opposition. I am not suggesting that these people should be sacked—the fact is that they made inadvertent, technical breaches.But the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the parliamentary secretary should be sacked because of his inadvertent and technical breach. If the Leader of the Opposition is to have any consistency and any honour in this matter, he has got to apply the same standards to his side as he expects the Prime Minister to apply to ours. That is the simple truth, and what is revealed here is a monumental case of double standards on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.I do not think the member for Melbourne Ports, the member for Maribyrnong or the member for Bass should be sacked from their positions, but the fact is that the Leader of the Opposition does apparently believe that these inadvertent and technical breaches require sacking, so he must immediately, if he is to be consistent, sack those people from the positions they hold at his behest. We all know what the Leader of the Opposition's real attitude to these honest and inadvertent mistakes is, because he has told us.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that I would ask you to bring the member back to the motion. I do not think he is speaking to the motion. If he has substantive matters in relation to other members of parliament, then he should move them. I do not mind them being used to illustrate a point, but I believe he has gone beyond that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In fact, the Minister for Employment Services is dealing with an amendment, as the member for Banks would be aware, and the amendment is to an original motion which dealt with the whole question of members' pecuniary interests. I thought that he was consistent with that.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect, it is in relation to the referral. That is why I say it is going beyond that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I hear the member for Banks's point of order. I will invite the minister to come to the amendment. I do not rule him out of order but I invite him to keep the debate focused on the amendment.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—Certainly, Mr Speaker, but let me simply say that we know what the Leader of the Opposition's real belief is about these inadvertent and technical breaches. He has told us what that belief is and he should apply the same belief to our side that he applies to his own side. It is as simple as that.What we really have here today is an opposition attack on the parliamentary secretary which has run into the sand. They have no new facts and so they are moving this referral to the High Court to mask the fact that they do not have anything new to say. What is also going on here is that the Leader of the Opposition is displaying a side of his own character that previously had not been suspected. Previously, the Leader of the Opposition had been regarded as a decent, amiable and honourable man. But if the Leader of the Opposition was all of those things, why did he accuse the parliamentary secretary of rorting the system and of exercising improper—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Because he did.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—This is just appalling. This is a man who once prided himself on standards and on honour, and he is now bandying around the most serious charges against the parliamentary secretary for which he has no evidence whatsoever. But it is not just the parliamentary secretary who is suddenly being blackguarded by the Leader of the Opposition. Anyone who does not agree with the Leader of the Opposition on this matter is at risk of being branded in the most contemptible terms. Today we had him attack the RAAF officials at Scherger. He attacked the senior officials of the defence department. All over the airwaves he has been slandering the Acting Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. What we are really seeing is the moral decline of a decent man who cannot handle the pressure of leadership. That is what is really happening this afternoon. We are witnessing the decline of a man who is incapable of handling the pressure of leadership and can do nothing now but attack people for attacking's sake.What is going on today is very interesting. What we are seeing is the eruption into this parliament of the new class struggle of Australia. What we are seeing is the born-to-rule son of a cabinet minister tackling a working-class battler made good—one of the few working-class battlers in this parliament, because the Labor Party has ratted on the working class and the Labor Party is now the creature of the new class apparatchiks running the union movement. Is there anyone at all in the opposition who has actually worked with his or her hands—apart perhaps from the Leader of the Opposition, who spent two months working as a gravedigger so he could get his Municipal Workers Union ticket so he could then spend the rest of his life as an ALP apparatchik? The fact is that on this side of the House we have many working-class people, and the great thing is that these days the true working class is in the Liberal Party. If an engine driver is ever again to become the Prime Minister of this country, that engine driver will be a member of the Liberal Party, because no engine driver could ever become a union official and therefore be on the ALP side of parliament.This debate is not about the Prime Minister's standards; it is about the Leader of the Opposition's hypocrisy. It has revealed the Leader of the Opposition as a weak leader, as a policy cripple and as a moral coward. If members opposite want this matter to go to the High Court, they should pay for it, because the fact is that the taxpayers of Australia should not pay for what is nothing but a cheap political stunt. It is cheap witch-hunting and it is cheap grandstanding.Question put: That the amendment (Mr Williams's) be agreed to. The House divided. [4.32 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's), as amended, be agreed to. The House divided. [4.38 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.16:39:006733Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the House rescinding at this sitting the decisions of the House on the proposed reference to the Court of Disputed Returns of the question of the place of the member for Leichhardt and the purported amendment moved by the Attorney-General.At least the Attorney-General had the decency to blush. He blushed through his speech, and he blushed through his performance.Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [4.44 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.16:48:006733McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I second the motion. This Attorney has disgraced his office, and this government has much to hide.Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member be not further heard.The bells being rung—Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made a point of order that has some validity. As he knows, he should have had his head covered for the process, but it has been the past practice, when as little exchange as that has occurred, for the one minute bell to be engaged, and that is why I have taken that action.The House divided. [4.49 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.16:51:006734Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, I support the motion. The government are covering up. They have a lot to hide.Motion (by Mr McGauran) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. [4.52 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The House divided. [4.55 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.Censure Motion6734673417:00:006734Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving that this House censures the Attorney-General for usurping the role of the High Court in its capacity to act as the Court of Disputed Returns as provided for by the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Attorney-General is supposed to defend the Constitution, not usurp it. What he has been doing here today is precisely that.Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [5.04 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.17:08:006734McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, they have a—Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [5.10 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question now is that the motion be agreed to. I thank the Clerk for his intervention. All of those of that opinion say aye, the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Is a division required? Division required. Ring the bells.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Has the suspension motion been put?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, this is the motion that the motion be agreed to.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—You said, `Yes, the ayes have it,' and we agreed.MG4LEEMr Lee—We will call off the division if you say the motion is carried.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will check the Hansard , but I said that the last motion had been carried in the affirmative—that the member for Fraser be no longer heard.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As far as the Speaker is aware, the motion was that the motion be put.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Did we put that? The Speaker will seek clarification. I can now say the question before the chair—the question which seems to be in dispute—is that the motion be put.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the minister at the table did not move that the question be put; therefore that cannot be the question. The question was the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Which has just been carried.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I accept the honourable member for Dobell's intervention. I cannot honestly say whether I recall the minister putting that or not. I now call the Acting Leader of the House.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Mr Speaker, I did rise in my place but you did move on to a vote. But I am happy to clear up any ambiguities by moving that the question be now put.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—To get us out of this shambles, can I just suggest, Mr Speaker, that you put the motion again. Don't worry about this. Put the motion again.Government members interjecting—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I am trying to help you. You don't want any assistance.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. He is in fact endeavouring, I would have thought, to assist the House and I invite him to respond.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I am happy to withdraw the offer if the government would prefer, but we are prepared to allow you to put the motion again to resolve the problem.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [5.19 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous673517:23:006735Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—by leave—I move:That this House:(1) notes the detention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of two Australian aid workers, Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace;(2) notes that both aid workers were engaged in the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Yugoslavia;(3) acknowledges the efforts of the Australian Government, the Government's special envoy, Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser, CARE Australia and a wide range of international leaders to secure the release of the aid workers; and(4) urges the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to release Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace forthwith.I move this motion as an expression of the views of the House of Representatives and, more than that, as an expression of the views of the Australian people. There is no doubt that over the last few weeks, indeed months, the plight of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace has become a matter of increasing concern to the Australian community.I want to make two or three very brief points in support of this motion, which I know the opposition is going to support. The first is this: Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace are both aid workers. They are both humanitarian aid workers. They went to Yugoslavia in order to assist the people of that country, be they Kosovars or Serbs or people from any other ethnic group within Yugoslavia. They went with the best of humanitarian intentions and they ended up incarcerated in Yugoslavia. From our perspective, and I think the perspective of the parliament, we would like President Milosevic to treat Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace with the same humanity that Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace have shown towards the people of Serbia and the people of other parts of Yugoslavia. These people were not spies. These people were not engaged in espionage for foreign governments. These people were simply humanitarian aid workers.The second point I would make is that Australia is not involved and has not been involved in the bombing of Yugoslavia. The NATO countries are engaged in the bombing of Yugoslavia. Yet I think it has been observed, and observed with concern, that three American soldiers were released—we were pleased that they were released—but our two aid workers were not released. The three American soldiers came from a country which is leading the bombing of Yugoslavia; our aid workers come from a country which is not bombing Yugoslavia. I think that point has been very much noted here in this country. We do not for a minute begrudge the release of the American soldiers, but we make the point, as a country which is a non-combatant in the war in Yugoslavia, that we want our people released.Many Australians and others have made an enormous effort to try to achieve the release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. Many members of this parliament have made a very good effort, as indeed have members of other parliaments. The Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, who has been the government's special envoy, has, as you would expect of Malcolm Fraser, worked tirelessly in this cause in order to secure the release of the two Australians. The officials at CARE Australia, Charles Tapp and others, have also worked tirelessly on this case.As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, can I also say that we very much appreciate the enormous support we have received from leaders of international organisations and other governments. It is a long list and I will not be comprehensive, and I hope no-one will be offended if I have left them off the list, but I think specifically I should mention the efforts of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of United Nations, President Nelson Mandela, both the Greek and the Cypriot governments, a number of United Nations agencies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and others. Most recently President Ahtisaari of Finland, as the EU special negotiator on these matters, has been very active, as indeed has former Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin.Let me say in conclusion that we are delighted to see a more peaceful environment descending upon Yugoslavia. We hope that now at long last the peace will be secured. But we do not want our two aid workers, at this moment of peace, to be forgotten. This morning the Prime Minister spoke to President Clinton and made that point to the President. I have written to Madeleine Albright and to Robin Cook, my counterparts in the United States and Britain, and I have had a very warm letter from Madeleine Albright and an assurance that they would not forget our aid workers. We as a government will continue to work tirelessly to secure the release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. I know the parliament as a whole would want us to. I know other members of the parliament will do the same thing.Before I finish, in the spirit of bipartisanship I mention that the idea for this motion came from the member for Chifley, who asked a question yesterday. I noted this and thought it was a great idea, so we have proceeded to do that. I would like to acknowledge the thoughts that came from the member for Chifley. We in this House of Representatives, we in the Australian parliament, we Australians want Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace released. This motion adds the great force of our democratic parliament to that campaign.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.17:30:006736Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly to the motion moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Today's news from Kosovo is more encouraging than it has been for some time. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and NATO have signed an agreement which provides for the withdrawal of Serbian troops from Kosovo. The Yugoslav foreign minister says that they will start pulling out later today. One Yugoslav officer attending the military talks on the Yugoslav-Macedonian border has been quoted by CNN this morning as saying, `The war is over.' Not quite yet, I think, but once there is confirmation that Serb forces have begun to withdraw, NATO will suspend its air offensive. The way will then be open to deploy the peacekeeping force, which should eventually allow the hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanian refugees to return to their homes and to rebuild their communities.Against this background of hope, today's motion records the grim reality that the two CARE Australia workers, Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace, continue to languish in a Yugoslav prison more than two months after they were seized. The fate of these two humanitarian workers, so unjustly taken as political hostages by a foreign government, is a matter of deep concern to all members of this parliament—and, indeed, to the whole Australian community.Today's motion is couched in very cautious and diplomatic language. It notes the detention of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. It notes that both aid workers were engaged in humanitarian work. It acknowledges the efforts made to secure the release of the two Australians. And it urges the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to release them forthwith.Both the government and the opposition have used much stronger language in relation to this matter on previous occasions. The foreign minister said it was `incomprehensible' when Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace were convicted on charges relating to the collection and dissemination of secret information to foreign organisations and countries. The minister has repeatedly declared that Mr Pratt and Mr Wallace are completely innocent. It would not have been inappropriate, I think, for there to have been a more emphatic declaration in today's motion of our conviction that both men are completely innocent. Reference could also have been made to Branco Jelen, the Yugoslav CARE worker who has also been convicted and sentenced for alleged espionage. Though not an Australian citizen, he should not have been forgotten.The words in today's motion are the government's, but the opposition does not propose to argue with them. From the very beginning of this matter, we have taken the view that there is no place for partisan politics when the welfare of two Australians is at stake. We have consistently given bipartisan support to the government on this difficult issue, including direct support by the Leader of the Opposition for the Prime Minister's representations to President Milosevic. In addition, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to British Prime Minister Blair urging him to ensure that the release of the three aid workers was not lost sight of in the broader efforts to secure peace in Kosovo.This is not to say that we have not had some reservations about aspects of the government's handling of this matter, especially the degree to which the government differentiated the circumstances of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace from those three American servicemen seized by the Yugoslav military. While it is true that the Americans were not charged with espionage, it is equally true that they were all political hostages. The Americans were released thanks to the efforts of the Reverend Jesse Jackson more than a month ago. The two Australians still languish in prison.Serb forces are hopefully about to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia will hopefully soon stop. But the war will not be over for Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace until they are free and united with their families. The government has made much of Australia's support for NATO, but it has not secured the freedom of the Australian aid workers as part of the Kosovo cease-fire deal. Instead, Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace are still in prison, held as political bargaining chips for President Milosevic's Kosovo endgame.There must be no let-up in Australia's efforts to secure the release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. Today's motion is an appropriate part of this campaign. It should be forwarded without delay to Belgrade as a state ment of the determination of all sides of Australian politics not to let this matter drop until Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace are free and able to return to their families. The government must leave no stone unturned in Australia's efforts to secure the freedom of Pratt and Wallace. In that, they will continue to have wholehearted bipartisan support from Labor. I commend the motion to the House.17:34:006738Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—It is day 71 of the detention of our Australian CARE workers Peter Wallace and Steve Pratt by Yugoslavian authorities. Their arrest was greeted with disbelief that two fine Australians could be caught as pawns in a European war so far from Australia. To be charitable to the Yugoslav authorities, it seems that this miscarriage of justice can only be the result of a misunderstanding of the duties and responsibilities of humanitarian aid workers.Peter Wallace's family lives in Mackay in my electorate of Dawson. Ross and Judy Wallace are widely respected and esteemed by all Mackay residents for their selfless devotion and service to the community. This esteem and regard extends to Peter Wallace, who is well-known for his humanitarian work. The courage and forbearance of Mr and Mrs Wallace during this long and distressing ordeal has been an inspiration to us all. Our local newspaper, the Daily Mercury, galvanised the feeling of outrage in our local community by organising firstly a petition and now a letter-writing campaign to the Yugoslav Ambassador to Australia.The petition called for the release of Peter Wallace and his colleague and it was signed by over 6½ thousand people in Mackay—a heartening testimony to the respect so deservedly earned by the Wallace family. That petition was circulated to members and senators. To my parliamentary colleagues who signed it, I thank you most sincerely. Your thoughtfulness in signing the petition has given great heart to the Wallace family, and to the family of Mr Pratt as well. The petition was presented by Mr and Mrs Wallace and me to His Excellency the Yugoslav Ambassador. His Excellency received us most sympathetically and courteously. He was much distressed by the terrible events engulfing his country and, as a parent, he empathised with the anguish of the families of our aid workers.I would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer. I know that the families of Peter Wallace and Steve Pratt, their friends and the residents of Mackay appreciate Mr Downer's calm, compassionate and commonsense approach to negotiating the freedom of our CARE workers. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister. Mr Howard met Mr and Mrs Wallace when they were down here some weeks ago. I know he has done his utmost to intervene to try to secure their freedom. I was particularly touched that, when he met Mr and Mrs Wallace, you could see that he was visibly moved by their quiet courage.Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer also deserves our thanks for meeting and speaking with the Wallace family and assuring them that no effort would be spared to have Peter Wallace and Steve Pratt freed.On behalf of the people of Mackay, I would also like to thank Mr Malcolm Fraser for his tireless efforts, as well as CARE Australia and so many others including Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson, Jesse Jackson and thousands of Australians of goodwill who have sent messages of support. I know you will all share my sentiments and pray that soon they will be home.17:38:006738Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Motions of this nature before the House require bipartisan support. The reason they do is that, when Australian governments and Australian non-government organisations send abroad voluntary workers to assist in the humanitarian disasters around this world, they are deserving of our support, irrespective of the difficulties in which they find themselves. The war in Kosovo has been an ugly conflict. We have all seen it on television; we have seen the enormous cost to human life which has already occurred. We in this country owe a great debt to aid workers of whatever nationality who put their lives at risk in order to assist those in need. Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace are two such individuals. We need to reflect on basic human qualities under these circumstances, qualities of human courage. When you are working in a war zone, and when you are dealing with the complexities and difficulties associated with conflict, it requires courage in order to do the task properly, and courage is something that has been in evidence in these two men's lives.When we look at the work done by international aid agencies around the world, including by CARE Australia, we as a nation owe such organisations a debt of gratitude. In areas where governments themselves cannot extend their reach in order to provide that assistance, non-government organisations such as CARE Australia are left to fill the breach. I take this opportunity to express on behalf of our side of this parliament our solidarity with the families who have gone through extraordinary anxiety during this period. It is difficult to imagine what it would be like to have loved ones who, already removed from us because of the work in which they are engaged in providing humanitarian assistance, find themselves in the circumstances in which Mr Pratt and Mr Wallace now find themselves.As for the actions of the government of Slobodan Milosevic and the actions of the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, our view is that these gentlemen have been engaged in humanitarian work and the accusations which have been made against them are unfounded. Therefore, we would call for the government of Yugoslavia to undertake appropriate action. The spirit of compromise and of resolution to this conflict is now in the air. We see movement at the United Nations. We see movement at NATO. We see movement in the various councils of Europe. It is time also to see movement in relation to the release of these two gentlemen. Their work has been entirely of a humanitarian nature, and it is time for the government in Serbia to release them and to release them back to their families.On behalf of the opposition, I second and support the sentiments which have already been expressed by the shadow minister for foreign affairs in relation to this motion and would hope that the government in Belgrade will take early steps towards the release of Mr Pratt and Mr Wallace so they may be returned to their families and so that this difficult and sad saga may be put behind us.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations673917:41:006739Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Maribyrnong claim to have been misrepresented?QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—Indeed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You may proceed.QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—During earlier debate today, the Minister for Employment Services made the claim that I had not completely fulfilled my obligations with respect to the register of members' interests. As I understand the claim made by the minister, he was not querying the return that has been prepared for this parliament—where it is as clear as day, even to the minister, that I have declared that I am a director of a company, Ronacar Pty Ltd—but the return declared for the previous parliament.I have checked my records and the minister is wrong. Certainly, at the commencement of the parliament, when I was not a director of that company, I did not declare the directorship because I was not a director. On 16 May 1996 I made a declaration, under notification of alterations of interests, in the following terms: Ronacar Pty Ltd, spouse and self, directors. That declaration is quite clear. This is an example of the slipshod way in which the minister handles information to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Maribyrnong knows that a personal explanation to the House allows him to indicate where he has been personally misrepresented and not then to proceed to take it any further.QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—Indeed, and I believe he should apologise to me for the claims he has made.Auditor-General's Reports674067406740Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 46 of 1998-99 entitled Performance audit—Redress of grievances in the Australian Defence Force.Ordered that the report be printed.Special Adjournment6740Motion (by Mr McGauran)—by leave—agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 21 June 1999, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Adjournment6740Motion (by Mr McGauran) agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent debate on the question that the House do now adjourn continuing at this sitting until a period not exceeding 6.10 p.m.Motion (by Mr McGauran) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.674017:44:006740Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—When a serious matter involving the eligibility of Senator Webster was raised before the parliament, Senator Withers, leading for the then opposition in the Senate, indicated that the opposition would support a reference to the High Court, sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns, to determine that matter because it was of the utmost and paramount importance that such issues be resolved judicially and that to do otherwise would reflect discredit on the parliamentary system. That is not the manner in which the motion that has been proposed today by the Leader of the Opposition has been dealt with.Instead, the Attorney-General has moved a proposal to amend that motion, to determine in fact that the House finds that the member for Leichhardt does not have a direct pecuniary interest with the Public Service and is not ineligible to sit by virtue of section 44(v) of the Constitution. By doing so, he has elevated an issue affecting the interests of one member's eligibility, which was significant but appropriate for determination by a court, to a constitutional crisis.More so, the Attorney has set this House on a constitutional conflict with the judicial system and has acted in a way that shows that he has no basic understanding of the separation of powers. A former Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, was reviled throughout Australia for not understanding that fundamental distinction. It is an extraordinary fact that the Attorney seems to be in a like position. He asserts that, despite the passage of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, this House has the power to clear any member of a constitutional act of omission or commission, and that that is a jurisdiction that exists alongside that which is given both by the Constitution and by the Electoral Act to the High Court of Australia. This is not an acceptable position.The Attorney says that the Electoral Act still leaves space for this House to make such a determination. Of course it does not. It is a provision expressed until the parliament otherwise determines, and the parliament has otherwise determined clearly and explicitly by the Electoral Act. It is a like situation to that affecting the privileges of this House, where the Constitution provided that, until otherwise declared, they would be the same as for the House of Commons. When we passed the Parliamentary Privileges Act, those former privileges ceased to exist.The real thrust and the real problem of what has happened today is that the Attorney, as first law officer of the Crown, will not facilitate this matter going before the High Court in order to have an honourable determination in a dispute where plainly there is divided legal opinion. Whatever else one says, the position of the member for Leichhardt's eligibility to this House is a matter of substantial contest. The Attorney will not facilitate that to be resolved in the forum where it is appropriate to be resolved, in the court. Indeed, what he seeks to do is immunise the member against the sins that are known to exist, and prevent any finding by the court to be made. I do not believe that to be constitutional but, more importantly, I do not believe it to be proper. The Attorney-General has disgraced his high office by acting in such a way.This parliament has given up its powers to pass bills of attainder. It cannot make convictions. It cannot act in a way to convict a person. It cannot imprison them, save in accordance with the Parliamentary Privileges Act. It does not have the power either to excuse a person as a single individual from criminal liability or to convict an individual on criminal liability. The fact that a member's eligibility which is contested can be challenged by a proceeding known as a common informer's proceeding shows that at least it is a quasi-criminal jurisdiction that is being exercised. And the fact that penalties apply to members who sit in this House in breach of their constitutional obligations also shows that. For the Attorney to seek to have this House declare to exclude the jurisdiction of the court is, firstly, impermissible and, secondly, an abuse of the gravest order. This Attorney should be in shame for what he has done to disgrace this House, placing it in conflict with the courts and avoiding the principles of the separation of powers. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I want to place on record that, in a spirit of a certain level of cooperation, I allowed the member for Denison to participate in that debate. It is always difficult to say in adjournment whether one ought to intervene or not. It is fair to say that a question could have been posed as to whether the member was revisiting a debate on which the House has recently voted, and there is therefore a question of the propriety of what he did. In the spirit of the adjournment debate, I allowed him to continue but, having so done, I would not want to create a precedent. The member for Kalgoorlie has the call.674117:50:006741Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—The war against drugs in Australia has never been so desperate. In the current debate on drug strategies a lot of the emphasis has been on new controversial programs to address youth drug abuse and I, like the Prime Minister, do not believe that so-called shooting galleries are the answer. They would send entirely the wrong message to the young people we want to discourage from the path of drug use.I wish to draw the House's attention to Teen Challenge. Teen Challenge is an organisation which started caring for troubled youth in New York City in 1958. The program now has over 300 autonomous locations in 50 countries, including at Esperance in my electorate. WA Teen Challenge's focus is on the whole person, not just addressing substance abuse. People resort to drugs because something is lacking in their lives. Often they come to Teen Challenge with a history of being unwanted, left out and forgotten. By filling this void with an emphasis on family relationships, work attitudes, self-image, peer pressure, temptation, community relationships and a variety of other life skills, Teen Challenge has an outstanding 86 per cent success rate.As such, Teen Challenge is regarded as one of the most successful drug rehabilitation programs in the world, catering to single males and females between 16 and 35, mothers with children and families. WA Teen Challenge is a one-year residential program that has been helping young people in Western Australia since 1985. The program's centre in Esperance provides treatment for drug users through rehabilitation and offers academic programs focusing on character, integrity, spiritual growth and work ethic.Experience reveals that it takes a full year to establish new lifestyle habits and patterns of thinking which enable individuals to live a drug-free life, helping them to become mentally stable, emotionally balanced, socially adjusted, physically well and spiritually alive, with TAFE courses also incorporated into the residential training program.Teen Challenge's success rate is quite possibly the highest in the world at 86 per cent, and I believe the program's all encompassing approach to the wellbeing of the individual as a person, not just a drug addict, is the key to this success. Effective treatment, like that offered at WA Teen Challenge, is a genuine answer to the war against drugs, where the casualties are young lives. Yes, this is, indeed, a real war.But only 20 per cent of hard-core addicts can get the treatment they need to fight their own addiction. A comprehensive study of drug treatment in California found that treatment is the most cost-effective form of drug control intervention. The study showed a real saving to taxpayers of $7 in crime and health costs for every dollar invested in drug treatment.WA Teen Challenge offers both prevention and treatment to anyone in need as long as there is the availability of space. As always, prevention is preferable to treatment. WA Teen Challenge's Reaching for the S.T.A.R.S program—or students taking a right stand—is a prevention teaching program specifically designed for Western Australian schools. S.T.A.R.S is a series of 40-minute innovative presentations developed for a high school environment to assist students to deal effectively with lifestyle issues, decision making, consequences of action and self-esteem. The aim is to encourage honest and thought-provoking consideration of themes such as running away, suicide, drugs, character and success.Teen Challenge has also developed family enrichment seminars designed to give people enough quality information to be effective parents and family members. With 80 per cent of all people who come to Teen Challenge coming from broken homes, the aim is prevention. Life's Turning Points and Solutions are two more prevention programs. Life's Turning Points is formatted on small group dynamics, while Solutions is structured as a three-part seminar.Currently, WA Teen Challenge is catering for 25 young people, with the expectation to grow to 35 in the coming weeks, and a waiting list for entry into the program of several months. Young Western Australians with drug and alcohol problems are in danger of becoming future statistics of drug related illness and death.This program, led by Reverend Malcolm Smith—ably assisted by Adam Davey, Peter Farrell, Stan Perron, Kari Rummukainen, Toby Carboni and David Newman—is making a significant difference in the Esperance area. To continue Teen Challenge's outstanding work they need funding. I was greatly distressed to learn that Teen Challenge, despite the organisation's unprecedented success rate, failed to secure funding under the Tough on Drugs strategy. However, I am buoyed by the announcement in this year's federal budget that we can expect another round of funding in the foreseeable future. I have asked WA Teen Challenge to provide me with a submission, which I will be only too happy to promote to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.674217:55:006742Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I am mindful of your earlier ruling, Mr Speaker, but I do feel it is incumbent on me in the adjournment debate to raise some concerns that I have about procedures that took place in the House this evening. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, and I would ask the Attorney-General, in the non-sitting period, in the quiet cold two weeks that we have, to reflect on the decisions that have been made, to get a considered opinion in relation to this. It is my view that the House committed a grave error in relation to the amendment—not in relation to defeating a motion that the opposition moved. It is my view that a considered reading of section 47 of the Constitution—and considered advice taken—would show that the House is precluded from determining in relation to individual members; that what we have done is give up that power to other acts of parliament: to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and to the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualification) Act of 1975.I am concerned not to take political points but that this House needs to set an example, that it needs to abide by the Constitution and that it needs to abide by valid acts of the Commonwealth parliament. The Attorney-General is the first law officer of the Crown. His oath is to act as a defender of the laws of the Commonwealth as first law officer of the Crown. He is not just another minister; he is not just another politician. I happen to like the Attorney-General on a personal level. I have served on a parliamentary committee with him. I do not say that what he did was deliberate. Today the proceedings happened very quickly. I know that there was a conversation with the Prime Minister and I know he was under great pressure in relation to tactics. But I say to you, Mr Speaker, that it is my considered view that we were in error today and we need to revisit it—outside of politics because, if we were in error, if you find and if the Attorney-General finds on reflection that the House was wrong in passing that motion, we should reconsider it.There is an alibi in terms of the heat of the moment, but there will be no alibi as two weeks pass, as a considered opinion is looked at, because advice will be sought. I know and I am mindful of the fact that you can go to any lawyer and you can achieve any advice. What we are talking about is forms and procedures of this House. One day the boot will be on the other foot. People are looking to us. The obligation of the Attorney-General is to sometimes take on his Prime Minister and the other ministers and say, `You can't do this. This is in breach of the Constitution. This is in breach of valid acts of the Commonwealth parliament.'I say to you most sincerely, Mr Speaker, and to the Attorney-General that I believe a grave error was made today. It needs to be revisited. I supported the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that a period of reflection be allowed. Politics is one thing but, at the end of the day, we have to account. That is okay—the government has the numbers and they could have voted against the motion that was moved by the opposition. It is the amendment and the voting on the amendment that concern me. I ask you to consider it and I say to the Attorney-General: `I think the House has been grievously misled—not deliberately but in the heat of the moment.'We need to establish some precedents, because I think this House would be assisted by a determination of the High Court in this matter. I can remember—and it was a challenge we did not take at the time—that the government did offer to fund a legal test case in relation to the native title case when we were arguing the constitutionality of that. But this is in relation to the qualifications of members of this House to sit here. The pecuniary interests register has a couple of things to it: not only is it there to show conflicts of interests; it is there to show real or perceived influence on members of parliament and real benefit if benefits accrue.As far as I am concerned, Mr Entsch has real problems, and time will take care of those and they will be revealed, because an action before the High Court cannot be stopped. As Mr Gageler says in his opinion, another way of doing it is an action in the original jurisdiction of the High Court under the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act of 1975.It is not good enough for the government to have the numbers. There are some motions that come before this House that are above politics. If I am wrong in relation to the position I am putting to the House today, and if I take considered advice from counsel to that effect, I am happy to put my hand up and say so. I know there are better people than me. Mr Gageler, for instance, is well regarded at the bar. He has never been a member of any political party, and he has never been a member of Labor Lawyers. He gives his view honestly. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that I believe in my heart of hearts that that amendment and the advice that the Attorney gave today were wrong. If I am right, we need to reconsider it. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As the member for Banks understands, he was accommodated without the Speaker wanting to create a precedent but in the spirit in which he delivered that speech.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I appreciate that, Mr Speaker. I thank you for that courtesy.674318:01:006743Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today I would like to draw the attention of the House to a community that, for most of the world, seems to consist of one person. This person regularly appears on the front pages of serious newspapers and magazines around the globe, although not so much lately. The various trials and tribulations of this community of one are often highlighted in the media and sometimes sensationalised for increased sales. Yet this one person community offers us a glimmer of hope. In the midst of grinding adversity, her community demonstrates balance, patience, compassion, strength of purpose and love. Aung San Suu Kyi alone is not the Burmese community, although from the Western media, you would be forgiven for thinking so. Although she has been off the front pages lately, let me assure you, Mr Speaker, that she and her community are still there, still focusing on their purpose and still paying the price. In fact, the price often rises as fame or newsworthiness fades for, out of the limelight, things can and do happen in the darkness.I am trying to make it clear that, although we are not hearing about it, the people of Burma, epitomised by Aung San Suu Kyi, are still suffering. As the human face of the Burmese struggle for recognition and political freedom, Aung San Suu Kyi becomes a target not only for our attention but for the attention of others less interested in her health—and her health is suffering. After months of intense political and psychological pressure on top of very difficult personal circumstances, Aung San Suu Kyi's physical being has succumbed.Again, we are tempted to offer to her the attention that we are not constantly offering to her people—people who, on a daily basis, self-select as targets for oppression by visiting her, listening to her, attending her meetings and being her friends. Not only do they risk themselves and their livelihoods but also those of their friends and families. This is normal life now in Burma, but we Westerners like to concentrate on the one face. We hold ego in terms of the self or the being above the actions. That is the reason we celebrate our birthdays, as if it is important how long we have been on this planet. In Burma, it is not how many years you have lasted but what you have done with your time that is important. Also important is the focus on the effort, not the person.I ask you all here in this House and across Australia to make the effort to actively think about Burma and the positive options that you might have to offer. Keep Burma's people in your conscious minds and send them your thoughts. As a person of Karuna, or compassionate giving, I hope Aung San Suu Kyi will allow me to also wish her a happy birthday next week on Saturday 19 June, 1999—my thoughts, and those of many of my constituents, are with you and your people, actively supporting and encouraging the lifetime of effort that you and they are expending.Question resolved in the affirmative.18:04:006744House adjourned at 6.04 p.m.Notices6744The following notice was given:Mr Mossfield to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the importance of the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital Road System to the economic and social development of Western Sydney;(2) acknowledges the importance of road transport access that diminishes interference with road users in local communities;(3) recognises that in heavily developed regions such as Western Sydney, the speedy access by road transport to local business developments is vital in assisting productivity and business growth;(4) nots the policy commitment of successive governments to build the Western Sydney Orbital Road System;(5) acknowledges that only minimum funding has ever been set aside for the building of the Western Sydney Orbital Road System and that conditions of construction have included the building of a second airport at Badgerys Creek; and(6) calls on the federal Government to listen to and act upon the many calls from affected residents, business groups, business development committees, local government spokespersons and other interested parties in Western Sydney and urgently provide sufficient funding to enable the NSW Government to combine in partnership with the Commonwealth to commence immediate construction of the whole Western Sydney Orbital Road System.1999-06-10Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.55 a.m.Statements by Members674567456745Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Today I would like to share with members the story of a young man that I have known for six years. His name is Troy Puttergill. He is a young man who was diagnosed as having autism at the age of four years. I met him six years ago. In actual fact, I helped him get his first job and he was very excited about that. It has been wonderful watching this young man develop.He is now 23 years old, and 12 months ago he took up swimming. He joined The Valentine Torpedoes Swimming Club in the Shortland electorate and he has shown quite a talent for swimming. This year, he went to the Australian National Titles where he performed very well, particularly in the 50 metres butterfly where he won a gold medal for intellectually disabled swimmers. He was selected in a special team to go to Germany and England. In Germany his performance was outstanding. He obtained a gold medal in the 50 metres freestyle, a bronze medal in the 100 metres freestyle, and he took one second off his personal best time. He received a silver medal in the 50 metres freestyle and a bronze medal in the 100 metres freestyle. He was part of a gold medal winning relay team in the 100 metres and they broke the world record. He was also part of a gold medal winning team in the medley relay.Unfortunately, Troy became ill when he went to England and his performance there was nowhere near as good as his performance in Germany. The Australian team, though, won the Five Nations Award in England. He arrived home last Tuesday and I spoke to his mother this morning. She said, `He is still sleeping.' Troy is a young man who really shows what you can achieve if you put your mind to it. At four, as I said, he was diagnosed as having autism but he has never let this get on top of him. Troy's mother, Diane, has been behind him all the way. She has always put in the effort and fought to see that Troy got the best opportunities in life. He is a role model for other young men and women who have been diagnosed as having autism, showing just what you can achieve. Troy is a young man with a big future and I wish him all the best in that future. (Time expired)67456745Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—The dairy industry is of enormous economic and social significance in this country. It is worth over $3 billion nationally. At the moment it is facing perhaps one of the biggest challenges in its history, which goes back some 150 years. What we have is a double deregulation issue, in a sense. There is a coincidence of the Domestic Market Support Scheme sunsetting and, at the same time, each of the dairying states considering their market milk arrangements.We now have a window of opportunity where we should be asking what other issues should be considered, other than a compensation package of $1.2 billion, should the industry become totally deregulated. We need to be asking: how can we ensure that this industry will be more competitive should a double deregulation occur? I think we should be looking at a number of issues, not just a compensation package alone. That includes, of course, how we are going to help the whole of our dairy industry to become more competitive. How is its R&D effort going to be improved? How are the skills in the industry going to be better than they are right now? That includes things like our apprenticeship systems; it is a fact that we have huge skill shortages across the industry. How are we going to tackle the market access issues which are problematic right now, and the seasonality of supply, where we have dairy manufacturers mostly supplying milk in Victoria during the summer season, which means that we have capital investment in the factories to meet those peaks of operation and not enough milk in the off-season to keep the factories at full capacity? We have problems of lack of rationalisation of milk pick-up, costing farms and suppliers millions of dollars. Our road infrastructure is damaged, with the gravel and sealed roads being disturbed by the multiple milk tankers tearing up and down them. (Time expired)UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The main committee will now consider government business.Bills6746r8076746Debate resumed from 9 June, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:006746Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Thank you and good morning, Mr Speaker—Mr Acting Speaker; sorry.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Deputy. The Speaker is still in Australia. I am only Acting Speaker when he is outside Australia.849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Excellent, thank you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are most welcome.849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—I cast my mind back to the recent political history of my electorate and the dramatic swing to Labor in Braddon at the last federal election. Indeed, it is no coincidence. The electoral successes of the major parties in north-west Tasmania have been inexorably linked to one thing. That thing is the GST. In the 1993 election the federal vote in Braddon saw a swing of around five per cent to Labor. Remember, a GST was being proffered by the then Liberal opposition. In 1996 the resulting 2.8 per cent margin held by the Liberals went out again to, unfortunately, over five per cent, but I suggest not a significant swing considering that the bells of change were ringing for Paul Keating after 13 years of Labor government. I am pleased to say that in the federal election last year there was a 10 per cent swing to the Labor Party in Braddon—one of the biggest swings across the country against an incumbent member. Of course, the GST was back on the coalition's agenda.Although I would like to think that the fact that I was a candidate might have had a part to play in that, I don't believe it was the major deciding factor. It is true that the sitting member's time had come, but the goods and services tax—those dreaded words—was the underlying reason. It must be remembered that Braddon had long been thought of as a safe seat for the Liberals. The GST, therefore, is a key factor to understanding the shift in political fortunes in my electorate. In both the 1993 and 1998 federal elections, when the GST was on the drawing board, the electors did not believe it would be beneficial. The business community and the people of Braddon overwhelmingly rejected it. The GST was seen by them not only as a regressive and unfair tax but they didn't believe it to be beneficial, appropriate or relevant. They voted against the GST and, judging by the subsequent confusion and chaos, they were right. Yet this regurgitated and reworked tax reform, complete with the Howard government's dubious deal with the Australian Democrats, remains the troublesome centrepiece of this government's budget.Just for starters, on the new GST menu, take the dilemma now facing small business. One of the major unanswered questions for small business in the current debate is how it will be compensated for the cost of complying with the tax. The impost will fall disproportionately on the thousands of small businesses around Australia, not the least being the small business people of my electorate. Even those who supported a GST in theory now question whether it can work in practice. The nightmare will be even worse for the thousands of smaller food retailers in this `some food in and some food out' tax. What foods are in and what foods are out still hasn't been properly explained. But not only that—they now also have to worry about how they are going to comply with the tax collection. Larger food retailers will be able to cope better with the GST, but smaller business will suffer relatively bigger compliance costs. Consider this: I have been told by Tasmanian Independent Wholesalers that to put in the cheapest bar coding scanning system to handle the complexity of the tax will cost between $7,000 and $9,000. It is easy to see why small business, particular food retailers, are shaking at the knees.I was recently contacted by a small businessman from Devonport, desperate for answers on how the GST will affect him and uncertain of how he will cope. So what has the government done to his and the many other concerns of small business? Well, it has set aside $500 million nationally to compensate small business for compliance costs. This will go nowhere near what it will cost to properly compensate them. It is a pittance by comparison. I noticed in the Financial Review yesterday that Treasury executive director Greg Smith said that the additional impact of compliance costs on businesses from the hybrid food exemption would influence negatively the GST's inflationary outcome. Jeff Kennett is right, I believe, to warn:It's going to be a nightmare and the compliance costs are going to be extraordinary.The Managing Director of Coles supermarkets was reported as saying:We see the GST as very, very high risk. We have been viewing it as being as critical as Y2K.It is the same for Coles Myer. Dennis Eck claimed it would cost them something like $54 million for the compliance side. I quote from the Financial Review of Wednesday, 9 June:Business and consumers face the imposition of state taxes worth $2.6 billion a year indefinitely after the revised tax package, with the government yesterday unable to give a new timetable for their abolition. As more details on the revised tax package emerged, Victoria's Premier Jeff Kennett renewed his attack on the GST deal, claiming it would be a nightmare for small business. Citing what he said would be extraordinary compliance costs from the hybrid food model, Mr Kennett said, `The people who will pay the price are the small business men and women of Australia.'It has been estimated by small business organisations that business owners will face a $1 billion bill alone to set up accounting systems for the GST. But there is no accounting for the confusion and anxiety this will cause people in small business. They will find that they are not only de facto tax collectors but collectors in a far more complex system than ever imagined. Who is going to police it? And how is it going to be policed? We don't know. I recall reading in the newspaper this morning that the Prices Surveillance Commission won't be doing it; it will be left up to industry to do the policing. So we don't know who is doing what. It will be very interesting to find out, if we ever find out.The questions are endless. So far there have been few answers. The Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Carmody, has warned that partially exempting food from the GST will create a culture of tax evasion. He asks:What do you think will be the impact on attitudes to compliance with the GST, and perhaps other taxes, of introducing rules that inevitably will be the subject of ridicule and that will almost encourage people to become comfortable with entering into arrangements to exploit them? It should be a matter of grave concern that many of the smallest businesses will be hit with the greatest level of complexity.The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia says that at least one million firms will have to introduce new systems to handle the vagaries of the GST. It says further that, based on the New Zealand experience when the GST was introduced, the costs will average about $1,000 a firm. This is an impost small business can ill afford.But it gets worse. The Howard government plans to spend many millions of dollars more promoting the new look GST—shamefully, more millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to sell a tax that threatens the very viability of their businesses. Everyone will know about the GST, very few understand it, but the majority of small businesses won't be able to afford to comply with it. Wouldn't it be money better spent on helping compensate small business, particularly in regional areas like my own? Remember, the government spent about $20 million promoting the GST during the last election campaign and it was still rejected. The money it now intends spending to sell the GST should be directed to those who will need it most—those in small business.But I am sorry to say that directing money to where it is needed most does not appear to have been a major priority in this budget. Take, for example, education. What this government did to education in its budget, particularly the ramifications for regional centres like my own, is anything but clever.In this budget the worst fears of students living in regional and isolated areas hoping to go to university have been realised. The Howard government's decision to abolish the Merit Based Equity Scholarships Scheme was a blow, particularly for students from Tasmania's west and north-west coast communities. This decision defies logic and exposes the Howard government's so-called commitment to education in regional Australia.Students living outside metropolitan areas deserve a fairer and more equitable share of the education dollar, but in this budget they have missed out. Axing the scholarship scheme will save the government $10 million a year, but that is small change in the context of the forecast $5.4 billion surplus that the government is boasting about. This budget has thwarted the dream of going to university of a number of students from low income families living in places like the relatively isolated Queenstown and Circular Head.Since the scheme was introduced in 1996, almost 70 students from rural and remote areas around the state have won scholarships to go to the University of Tasmania. More than half of the scholarships allocated went to students from the west and north-west coasts. One of the main aims of the scholarships was to improve tertiary participation rates among students from low income families in regional areas. Unfortunately, in both senior secondary and tertiary education, my area has some of the lowest retention rates in Australia—and we need all the help we can get to improve that.I believe that this is a cruel, mean-spirited approach—and this government stands condemned for it. There remain more disincentives than incentives for students outside of metropolitan areas to go on to higher education; it still costs between $10,000 and $12,000 more for students outside metropolitan areas compared with what it costs those living in capital cities. I call on this government to show a real commitment and not just talk about equality for `the bush'—as they now affectionately refer to regional Australia. Actions speak louder than words. All this government's talk about helping the bush is nothing more than the same old rhetoric that regional Australia has come to expect from this government. It makes a joke of the government's claim of making Australia a clever country.The dilemma facing Tasmanian university students—indeed, students living in regional areas around Australia—was no more evident than when this government recently gagged debate on its controversial voluntary student unionism legislation; it exposed the common thread of this government. After coming to power, the government quickly gained a reputation for picking a target, taking aim and ruthlessly pursuing its prey. It is also a hallmark of this government that, almost without exception, students have been perceived to be easy targets—as have been the underprivileged and less fortunate, our youth, the unemployed, the elderly and, as we all know, unions.This government—or, more particularly, the hard-core right-wing element of the Liberal Party—is obsessed with anti-unionism. These people are so obsessed by the ideological bent that, to them, unionism must be crushed at all costs, whatever the cost. The government's attack on student unionism is another example of what it sees as an easy target. The government found it easy to target funding for universities in the budget, and it has declared war on university students around Australia by its moves to abolish student unionism. This is another calculated assault on the welfare of students, typical of this government's heavy-handed approach.One must ask: why isn't this government working as hard on important social issues as it is on attacking students? I can tell you why. It is because students are an easy target. It comes as no surprise that the GST will hit services for students and further force up the high cost of education. Furthermore, the lack of funding to the public education system in the budget compared with the amount going to non-government schools was a double whammy for regional areas. The government has promised to deliver an extra $210 per head per year to students in the private system, while 70 per cent of students in public schools will actually receive less than $10 more a year. While I acknowledge this government's recognition in the budget of the need for assistance to the more needy private schools, especially those in the Catholic school sector, this assistance should be complementary rather than in competition with necessary increases in public education funding.I would like to draw attention to a letter to the editor in my local paper. I think this bears out some of the reaction that has been felt in my electorate in connection with this government's attitude to funding. I quote:The Hellyer College council—a senior secondary college—is concerned at the Federal Government's decision to support the independent school system with an additional $1 billion while continuing to cut funding to the state system.Under Federal Education Minister David Kemp's leadership—if we can use that word—we have now seen an orchestrated and cynical attack on state education in successive Budgets. The council does not repudiate the need to support the independent system. Clearly the country cannot afford for it to collapse. What arouses our anger is that the state system has received no matching resource support. This Government supports education policies that are designed to increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and which attack the underlying principles of social justice and equity that the state system is built upon.Colleagues on this side of the House work on the principle that everyone deserves a fair go. Unfortunately that, I believe, cannot be said for women as a result of this budget; I am very concerned about its lack of initiatives for women. Social and economic analysts conclude that women are not sharing equally in the benefits of economic growth, and they and their families are under increasing pressure. There was no serious attempt to address issues affecting women in the budget. In fact, what was in it for them could be best described as `tokenism'. Soon they will be confronted head on by a GST and the confusion surrounding it. Too many women are still locked out of the work force by high child-care fees and falling employment opportunities, while those who combine work and family responsibilities find it a continual, difficult balancing act.This year's budget was an opportunity for the Howard government to redeem itself in the eyes of Australian women. But, apart from a few minor gains, it failed. Minister Newman's rhetoric was not matched with any substantial gains. Any society that prides itself on providing equal opportunities for men and women has good reason to be concerned. The alarm bells started ringing following John Howard's election in 1996. He immediately slashed funding to the Office of the Status of Women and is presiding over its demise. Little wonder that at the last election a majority of Australian women voted Labor. Why was this? It really comes as no surprise when you also consider that it is women who will come face to face with the GST.The Senate inquiry into the GST heard evidence that the impact of the tax package will fall more heavily and inequitably on women because women in Australia earn less than men and so will get fewer benefits; women are poorer than men and will therefore be hit harder by the GST; and, finally, women are more likely to purchase goods and services for the household and will have to bear the costs of the GST. Evidence suggests that not only are women failing to share in the benefits of a relatively buoyant economy but that the GST will swallow up any of the small gains they have made. In gender terms, the tax cuts will overwhelmingly go to high income males, while the proposed costs of the GST will be borne disproportionately by low income women.Women's access to legal justice is another major issue, and I was concerned to see a further $1.3 million cut in the budget. This is a community service that goes to the heart of the wellbeing of the most disadvantaged of Australia's women and children. The budget provided little extra for child care and, despite strong wages growth, it is estimated that women are now earning $243 a week less than men. Funding for women's health was also inadequate. They benefited from a few welcome initiatives, but overall the scope of these is very limited.Speaking of health, I must say in broader terms that this government has also failed Australia's public system while blatantly attempting to prop up the private health sector. On top of the carrot offered with the $1.7 billion, 30 per cent rebate, we have now before us the stick to join private health funds in the form of Lifetime Health Cover. Its potential to further undermine Medicare needs careful monitoring, along with its impact on funding of public health initiatives and hospitals.The public health system in Tasmania, for example, is in crisis, and it is people in regional areas like the north-west coast and the people of my electorate who are bearing the brunt. More than 7,500 Tasmanians are still awaiting elective surgery at the state's three major public hospitals. More than 600 disabled Tasmanians are going without proper services because of budget shortfalls. Health professionals tell us that it will take years to reduce the backlog.Clearly the health care needs of many Tasmanians have been ignored. This budget does nothing to offer them hope. What it has offered is $1.5 billion in incentives for people to sign up for private health and a massive advertising budget to sell Lifetime Health Cover. I might add that the take-up rates for private health insurance have fallen well below expectations, notwithstanding though that $1.5 billion, if channelled into public hospitals, would have gone a long way to helping cure the health care ills that currently exist in the public sector, especially in terms of reducing elective surgery lists. (Time expired)10:20:006751Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—In addressing Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 , I am pleased to be able to comment not only on this year's budget but also on the whole budgetary direction of the government since its election in 1996. Much has been made of the waste of the budget surplus on the government's tax reform package and the plethora of problems created by the GST, and I intend to add my voice to the debate yet again.I thought government was about governing, about ensuring a safety net for those in our society who are in need and about providing services through the collection and use of taxes. But, since I have been in this place as a member of the federal parliament, I have come to realise government is all about giving tax cuts to those not in need by sacrificing the government services provided to all, particularly those most in need.Before I begin my look at the government's great tax adventure, I would like to address three issues that have come across my desk in the past few months that are prime examples of this government's wanton neglect of areas that are critical to the maintenance of Australia as a fair and just society. The first of these issues pertains to the availability of legal aid. The budget papers show that the Howard government's legal aid budget has been cut by $1.3 million in actual terms for the next financial year. Labor's shadow Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, has pointed out that, when this is adjusted for inflation, the cut in real terms is closer to $3.36 million. It is inconceivable that, despite a $5.4 billion surplus, the government cannot find more money for our legal aid system. The human cost of this neglect is being felt in my electorate.At a recent community forum I held in Mount Waverley, I heard stories of people on low incomes being denied access to legal aid. One horror story was about a family's battle with the state trustee, which has cost the family in excess of $200,000. This was not to secure financial benefit for themselves but to ensure that their disabled sister would be cared for as their parents had passed away. None of this was covered by legal aid, even though this family could ill afford the bill they incurred. There are also young people who are unable to be represented in first-time criminal offences and, of course, numerous Family Court matters.One of the local papers in my electorate recently carried the story of abused women in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne being denied legal help because of funding cuts. Two-thirds of the 350 women who used the Eastern Domestic Violence Outreach Service last year needed legal aid. Legal aid in the Family Court in Victoria is capped at $10,000. The cap is the Victorian method of coping with the savage cuts to the legal aid budget by this government.This may seem like a reasonable sum of money, but those who have been involved in Family Court matters know it is not, particularly for acrimonious family law cases which drag on. These can drag on for many various reasons—directions hearings and others. Once the funds dry up, both, and often just one, of the applicants are left unrepresented. A recent report titled Trial by legal aid has found that the legal aid system is inflexible and inconsistent and sets up a threat to these women for continuing violence. Women in difficult, violent situations are selling out their rights in order to secure safety for their children.Many women denied legal aid or given inadequate funding are choosing to settle at all costs to be out of abusive situations, and are choosing to short-change themselves and often their children so as to not have to face the prospect of representing themselves in court and cross-examining their abusive partners. One can only imagine the intimidation a woman, the victim of an abusive relationship, will feel if she is forced to negotiate with her former partner without representation.Many of these women caught in the cycle of an abusive relationship are barely managing to make ends meet and raise a family. Having to hire a lawyer to represent them when legal aid funding runs out or is not given is just not an option. This example illustrates the real effect of the government's dereliction of one of its primary duties: to provide for those most in need. Article 14(1) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights provides that:All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law . . . Yet again we see the government's flagrant flouting not only of its international obligation but also of its moral obligation by denying access to adequate legal representation to people in need.Speaking of people in need, I would also like to touch upon a matter I raised in the House last week—that is, the lack of services for citizens with a non-English speaking background. Some of our most major public services do not provide literature about their services in a multitude of languages. As I come from such a multicultural city as Melbourne, this astounds me. The recent booklet put out by the Victorian Human Services Department entitled Guide to your Local Health Services did not provide sufficient information in common community languages such as Chinese, Vietnamese, Greek, Italian, Polish, Spanish and Turkish. It provided an index in multiple languages, when what was needed was a separate booklet. I note that the Victorian state government has established a multilingual web site, which is at least an attempt to rectify the situation, but it assumes most migrants have Internet access, which is clearly not the case.One of the most repeated comments made to me by groups which provide services to help migrants settle in and adjust to our country is that there is still a basic lack of language services for newly arrived migrants. This is being acutely felt in my electorate, particularly within the Vietnamese community at this time. Unfortunately, in my electorate ethnic communities are suffering a further blow with the impending close of the Box Hill immigration office. Migrants will now have to travel into the city to have any face-to-face service.In a recent tour of the Centrelink office in Box Hill, we were told of the problems of the phone based service. Clients can ring the interpreter's number and are given a number of languages they can choose from for an explanation of the Centrelink service and procedures. The only catch is that the person is asked in English which language they wish to nominate. This anomaly has been remedied in some respects by my Centrelink office by their providing makeshift signs and their utilising their many bilingual staff—of course at no additional pay to these people.The current use of phone based services is something I have spoken about in this House, and it is something we need to address significantly, particularly for people who do not have English as their first language. Dealing with someone over the phone when you do not have English as a first language is not a fantastic experience, especially when it is one of those voice interactive messages that says, `Press 1 now'—hopefully you will know what `one' is in the language to get you through the system. It is just astounding that we are taking away personal interaction from our community.Another issue confronting ethnic communities is the move to a user-pays basis for the translation and interpreting services. Whilst migrant resource centres can make some calls on behalf of a client for free, they are charged on a fee-for-service basis after a certain number of free calls. This is just another example of the inequity produced by this government's budget cuts since it took power. Nowhere in this budget is there a significant commitment to funding language services for migrants. I call on all governments, state and federal, to accord this a much higher priority in the future.The third area that requires more targeted money is the area of programs for the disabled. This budget was a do-nothing budget for people with disabilities and their carers. Unmet need in the area of disabilities is estimated to be around $300 million, and this budget allocates only $20 million over four years. The major problems appear to be with the provision of respite care for families, in particular day programs, and the provision of nursing home care for the growing elderly disabled population. Anyone who has looked after a person with a disability knows it is a draining experience, and respite care enables the carer the break they need to continue to provide care and support to their loved one. Sadly, I see these cases in my office regularly.Within my electorate of Chisholm there is the Oakleigh Centre, a fantastic institution that provides a loving and caring environment for people with disabilities to access services on a daily basis or to live in a residential area. They have numerous problems. A recent letter written to me by the director of the centre says:3. There appears to be a lack of nursing home type beds within the system. There is an increasing elderly cohort of clients/residents within the disability sector and the only 24 hour nursing care available is within the aged care nursing home (and hostel) system. This is satisfactory only to a minor degree and it would be better to create a disability specific nursing home more relevant to the special needs of this group with suitably trained professional staff.4. Associated with the comments above, but as a separate issue, is the increasing care needs in general of residents/clients. Even though nursing home level care may not be required, over time care needs of an individual increase and it is not clear how these are addressed within the current system.. . . . . . . . .5. There is a lack of respite beds within the system. The Oakleigh Centre operates a minimum of three respite beds and cycles a number of residents through them. The families of these residents are able to cope because they do get a period of respite. If the respite beds were not offered, many families who are currently coping would be required to seek permanent placement for their son or daughter. This fact is well acknowledged in the aged care system where service providers are indeed required to operate a minimum number of respite beds, rather than being discouraged from doing so.. . . . . . . . . 7. Ageing from a care perspective has already been mentioned, but it also impacts from a retirement perspective as well. It would benefit many clients if they were to "retire" from either the Workshop or the ATSS, but retire to what? It is important to identify real alternative options outside of the structure of the Workshop or ATSS, other than condemning the clients to sitting at home looking at the walls.These are many of the numerous situations coming through my office at the moment. Others come from parents who have children in Kew Cottages. Kew Cottages came to prominence some time back when there was a tragic fire and many of the residents were killed. There have been some improvements in the situation there but not enough. There still are not sufficient staff to manage the numbers of people in residential care there, and many people are spending hours locked in their rooms because there are no other alternatives for them. This is a tragedy.One of the other areas of disability services not receiving the credit it deserves is the area of employment services. The government has withdrawn funding to the More Intensive and Flexible Services Pilot Program that is currently assisting people with disabilities to enter and re-enter the work force. I have received representations from a local employment provider that is at the cutting edge of employment services for people with disabilities, and I would like to read from that letter:The recent decision to withdraw funding from the MIFS program raises the issue of access and equity for a significant number of people with a disability wanting to enter/re-enter employment.Prior to the MIFS program, people with a disability assessed by employment services as not being job ready i.e. requiring further pre-vocational work, had to be turned away, with little chance of gaining any assistance towards their goal of entering employment.For many of the participants the gains in their personal life and in their employment potential has been enormous. Overall participant and community satisfaction has been overwhelmingly positive with few participants failing to complete the program.The MIFS program filled the void for these people, giving them the opportunity of achieving their hopes and desires. Without the program there will be no hope.There is a need that must be addressed in the community, especially when one considers the responsibility that a government and society must assume to accompany the advancements brought about through the de-institutionalisation process.Strong consideration therefore should be given for the re-instatement of the program . . . So whilst my focus today has been on the neglect of funding allocated to disability services, legal aid and translation and migrant settlement, I would now like to add some comments to the debate on the government's tax deal with the Democrats. I doubt there has been a speech in this round of appropriation bills that has not touched upon the vexing issue of the GST. As Labor has said consistently, the 1999-2000 budget squandered the surplus. The initial GST package raised the surplus by $5 million to $7.5 million per year, and this has been increased by at least another $3 billion under the Howard-Democrat deal. The irresponsibility of the government pursuing a GST to the neglect of pursuing policies aimed at restoring employment and investment has also led Treasury to predict that the GST will cause an increase in interest rates.But today I would like to focus on three aspects of the GST that have a profound impact on my constituents in Chisholm. The effect of the GST on the low and middle income earners was discussed on Tuesday in the MPI raised by the member for Lilley. Pensioners are of course often amongst the poorest people in our community. I find it amazing that, despite the rhetoric spouted by the Australian Democrats, they managed to negotiate a deal worse for pensioners than the concessions sought by Senator Harradine. Senator Harradine rejected a five per cent pension increase linked to male average weekly earnings and other compensation measures worth around $1.5 billion to $2 billion per annum.Earlier this year, the Democrats referred to the offer to Senator Harradine as a `paltry, inadequate sum'. They also claimed they would be looking for much more from the government after Senator Harradine made his intentions clear. In the end, the Democrats have settled for a four per cent pension increase that is not linked to average weekly earnings. The additional compensation offered to pensioners amounts to just $6 a week, so people who have paid taxes all their life will now be a paltry $6 per week better off under the deal. But they are not actually better off, because this was a compensation measure for the actual impact that the GST is going to be having on these people.This comes on top of the revelation on examination of ABS expenditure data that 75 per cent of the total weekly budgets of families will be hit by the GST. This is bad news for my electorate, which houses an ageing population. My office has been inundated by residents concerned that their pensions or part pensions will simply not stretch far enough to meet the additional costs of the GST. In suburbs such as Box Hill, Burwood, Ashwood, Oakleigh and Clayton, those on pensions will be the people who will suffer the consequences of this government's obsession with tax.Another group who has much to fear with the introduction of the GST is self-funded retirees. As most members will concede, self-funded retirees have not traditionally been seen as Labor supporters. Many of them probably voted for the GST. But as this mess has started to unfold, they have become worried. Most self-funded retirees are not wealthy. They have saved all their lives to provide their families with a secure income in their twilight years. Many self-funded retirees say that, despite the fact they have saved through their working lives, they can see that their retirement income will not go far enough. All in this place cry how fantastic the decline in interest rates has been. This is true for the majority but not so self-funded retirees, who know their investments are not returning enough for them to survive on.You can imagine how concerned they are now knowing that many of the basics in life—electricity bills, phone bills, public transport, clothes and of course the huge array of food—will be subject to the GST and knowing the effect that will have on their lives. It amazes me that the government-Democrats deal has managed to offend so many sections of the Australian community—yet according to the Prime Minister it has been embraced by all; it is their mandate!—whether it be pensioners, self-funded retirees, St Vincent de Paul, the four major banks and Coles Myer in relation to compliance costs and of course the well-renowned commentator on life, the universe and everything, the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett. All of these groups have been offended by the government's GST deal with the Democrats.The other group of residents that have surprised me in their attitude to the renegotiated tax package have been small business. Whilst many small business people will admit they were concerned about the compliance cost before the election, they felt, as members of the broader business community, they were honour bound to support it, but that is no longer the case. Small business people in my electorate are saying that they fear the unwieldy application of the tax will drown them in a sea of paperwork. The mess of some food in, some food out and temperature tests is a nightmare, particularly for businesses engaged in small business retail trade. These people, on the whole, have never experienced wholesale sales tax compliance and this is a nightmare they are just waiting to encounter. So saying that the wholesale sales tax comes off for them is just irrelevant.The Howard-Democrats deal has attempted to stich bandaids on an already messy package. As more and more small businesses wake up to the logistic nightmare that is the GST, we will see them desert the coalition in droves. Small licensed grocers in my electorate, already under siege from a recent change in the Victorian liquor licensing laws, are concerned that the GST will be the end of them. The system will be a nightmare for them to administer—things in and out, too confusing—and they can only see an increase in prices and no hope of competing with larger retailers.Labor's position on the GST has been unwavering and consistent. We rigorously opposed the GST in 1993 and 1996 and we continue to oppose it in all its various permutations. It is an unnecessary impost on business. It is a job destroyer. It does nothing about investment or innovation. However, by far the most compelling reason for opposing the GST rests in this one point: it will further the gap between the rich and those less fortunate. Whilst the lion's share of tax cuts goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners, groups in need—such as those needing legal aid, language and disability services—will go begging. This budget is about a tax adventure, not securing the living standards of all Australians.10:38:006756Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I, like all honourable members, am pleased to be able to rise in this place to speak on the appropriation bills, the last for the first century of this federal parliament. These bills give us all the opportunity to raise issues on the impact this budget will have on our constituents. Disappointingly, most of the appropriation speeches can be categorised into the `them and us' speeches. I can understand members opposite using the opportunity to have a go at us and our budgetary mismanagement back in 1996, but to keep on harping about the hole after 3½ years in government, in my mind, shows a really pathetic streak. It was interesting to note the comments of the member for Deakin in his speech, where he stated:No longer does Labor make any contribution to the political debate. They moan, they point fingers, they feign concern, but in here, where they have the chance, they contribute very little . . . they are `stunt driven, not substance driven' . . .The member for Parramatta said:As you wander around Parliament House you see the posters and slogans that members put on the windows of their offices from time to time; posters which are emblematic of their philosophy. One of the most popular posters among those who are drawn from the left of Australian politics seems to include this expression: `We live in a society, not an economy'. This expression is a glib one that rolls off the tongue with comparative ease and sets the maker of the expression up as being a person with a beating heart full of the milk of human kindness and compassion.These comments and the outburst of the honourable member for Leichhardt yesterday, who did a real Hingis when he said, `Unlike the Australian Labor Party—whose only membership requirement, it would seem, is to be a complete and utter failure in every other facet of life outside of politics,' in my mind do little to enhance the debate about these appropriation bills. I would have thought that, given the opportunity to ramble on for 20 minutes with no real restrictions, members would have used this time to perhaps reflect on what has passed and where we might be going in the new century. But one can dream.Being one of the last group of speakers in this debate you get the chance to listen to and/or read speeches of previous speakers. Being a member of the Speaker's panel like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I also get to sit through quite a few. In putting this speech together, I thought about the constituents I represent and tried to figure out what some of them would make of these bills. What would really grab their attention, make them sit up and think: `At last they've recognised my needs and funded that program,' or `You little beauty, our roads are finally going to be upgraded and there'll be fewer fatal accidents on that stretch of road near my place'?Like most electorates, mine has a cross-section of Australian society, although with less of an ethnic percentage than many mainland seats. Unless you are a party member or someone who has a real interest in politics, the budget build-up, the broadcasts and newspaper coverage bore most people witless. Most of our punters give it all a cursory glance, try to figure out what immediate benefits they will receive and then switch over to Friends, Dawson's Creek or NYPD Blue. They are not fools. They know from past experience that governments usually take 12 months to implement most new programs. So by the time they receive any tangible benefit they have forgotten the reason for its creation in the first place.Our constituents have simple needs. Our elderly want real choices in their lives. Most of them have simple pleasures—being able to pop down the street to purchase their groceries, visit the chemist, catch up with friends, withdraw some of their savings from the bank and perhaps buy some new clothes. Most of our elderly, those 70 years of age and over, have done it tough. They have sacrificed a lot to ensure that their children and grandchildren will want for nothing. All these people want is access to transport when they are unable to walk up the street. When they become too frail to do the housework themselves, they want to have someone drop in and clean their home to the cleanliness standard that they have kept up for decades. And they want the security of knowing that they are safe once night falls.They are pretty simple needs, but look around your electorate and see how poorly we have met these needs. We have let them down very badly. Too many of our elderly live in fear. Their homes are vulnerable and the services they require are few and far between. On limited incomes they are expected to pay from their meagre savings to have some of these services delivered—keeping their once immaculate garden shipshape, cleaning out their gutters prior to the onset of winter, getting in a winter supply of firewood: tasks now beyond them.Getting around my electorate door knocking as I do to meet people and hear their concerns as we chat on the front doorstep, I often come across just how troubled so many of our elderly people are and just how difficult it is to assist them. Prior to the last election, I came across a state housing group of residents who lived in a five-unit complex—four elderly people in their eighties and one disabled young person. Unfortunately, they had been seen as vulnerable by the antisocial element in the neighbourhood, and over a period of time they had been broken into during the early hours of the morning. Imagine the fear experienced by these frail aged people and this disabled young person as they cringed in their beds as the thieves, waving torches around, ransacked their units. Assistance from the housing services? You've got to be joking. It is not their responsibility to place security locks on windows or install a security door at the front of their unit. Of course these citizens have heaps of money lying around, so why can't they get the job done themselves? My staff, to their credit, decided to give housing services a hard time. Bolt by bolt, window by window, they secured for all these people a secure home—it only took six months! But now these people are safe in their own homes.As a society, do we really give a toss? No, not unless it is our mother or grandmother. We are like the people in the parable in Luke's gospel, the story of the Good Samaritan. Too many of us cross over to the other side of the road and neglect to render assistance. The poor fools who do assist are so isolated that, like the two men recently who offered their assistance, they are usually killed—glorified in the tabloids and then forgotten by everyone except their immediate families.I would like to move on to the needs of our young people. Where do we start? A loving, caring, stable family who is able to provide them with a proper foundation would be a great start. We are not fools and we know that families in this age are not coping. Do governments have a role in this process? If so, how and why? How do we ensure that this bureaucratic madness that is government is simplified and organised enough, is caring and benevolent enough, to enable those in need to dip their buckets and draw from their well?Assuming children have survived intact so far and now enter our school system, what perils do they face? A state system starved for money, administered now by bureaucrats whose understanding of the joys of learning is non-existent. Maintenance of buildings is a joke, class sizes defy belief and many regional superintendents are eunuchs unable or unwilling to tackle `the system' and rectify the obvious deficiencies. The foundation is all important. Yet we hear ad nauseam the platitudes concerning numeracy and literacy standards espoused by academics cast as ministers. I would like to endorse the honourable member for Braddon's comments on the funding of state schools in this federal budget.It is a responsibility of both levels of government, state and federal. In my mind, only by nominating class sizes to a prescriptive 15 until grade 1, 20 until grade 3, and no more than 25 in grade 6 and only by providing each school over 150 with a full-time librarian, music teacher, phys. ed. and special education teachers will we be able to truthfully say that we are giving each child, irrespective of their socioeconomic background, irrespective of their academic potential, the opportunity to realise their full potential. We have the whole process back to front. We can somehow find bags of money for remedial and interventionist activities when the problems manifest themselves so blatantly in the teenage years when we see kids lying around in the streets, yet when teachers in early childhood classes seek assistance to lessen class sizes, obtain remedial and guidance officers or have other specialist teachers there to provide necessary aid for their children, their demands are met with stony silence from the bureaucrats.It is interesting to note that I was swamped by calls last week by those involved in the provision of services for those at risk at the sharp end—those dealing with the youths on the street—because I dared to highlight the crazy ways that we as a society are going about trying to deal with this whole problem. It is interesting to note that early intervention is now becoming flavour of the month. I notice with interest Bob Carr's press release of 21 May 1999 entitled `Families first—a new way to help parents' where he states on page 2:Based on overseas experience, every dollar spent on supporting young families now will save the community seven dollars down the track in policing, health and welfare.Others facing this dilemma of inadequate funding at the sharp end are obviously people with disabilities and their carers and the carers of frail aged people in our communities. To charge those with disabilities a fee to have someone come in to get them out of bed, something those of us with all our faculties take as an ordinary daily task, is to me a real indictment of our society. Carers payments, despite the increases in this budget, are appallingly inadequate and do not adequately reflect the tireless dedication and compassion of those who undertake this amazing work. During my former life I worked mainly in disadvantaged schools. I can tell you that early intervention backed up by a complete range of expert services when and where you need them was so obviously the most efficient way to go.I can show you groups of parents throughout my electorate who have decided to take direct action. They are sick and tired of seeing no-one caring about the unmet needs of their children—their children failing to stay in the mainstream, their children isolated and marginalised. It is all too difficult for our current education system and our current education minister. But governments will tell you that, through their many departments, they are providing moneys to strengthen families by providing services to address and alleviate their needs and that the responsibility is also one shared by the states. In my mind, all the glancing through the various budget papers does little to alleviate my concerns that both tiers of government are not responsive to the general needs and aspirations of the people in my electorate. Once again, we see money not being spent at the right place. Carers suffer and those requiring their care are forced to be placed in care, which costs even more to our society's financial bill.As the previous speaker in this debate mentioned in her speech, people in my electorate are also suffering from the inadequate funding of legal aid in the state of Tasmania. I am fortunate to have a community legal centre across from my office in our shopping centre at Cove Hill and am very much aware of the tremendous work it does to ensure that people in my electorate are fully aware of their legal rights and that they are not painted into a legal corner without adequate options being accorded to them because of their low socioeconomic status.Like the honourable member for Braddon, who is sitting in the House today, the issue of roads is a very real concern for many in my electorate, especially in the Huon, Channel and Eastern Shore. Unlike the honourable member for Braddon, I do not have Highway No. 1 crossing my electorate, a road that appears to have access to a never ending bag of money. Roads in the Huon and Channel are used to transport export crops—apples, pears and aquacultural products—that contribute greatly to our nation's exports.We always hear the cry in this place, especially from the mainland states, about the need for infrastructure development, but this cry is usually only seen in light of major economic projects—the big ones, the projects doing so much for our country. In my mind, the regional areas are completely neglected. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Mallee raise the issue the other week of the need for infrastructure in his electorate. Many of his needs are exactly the same as mine.I have one real problem in my electorate—the South Arm Highway. Deaths on this road occur with a regularity that defies belief, yet our state and federal governments of all persuasions have failed for years to provide a long-term plan and adequate funding to rectify this deathtrap. I am glad to see an increased allocation of road funding to my state in this budget. I would like to hope that my state Labor colleagues, whom I occasionally give a hard time to, do focus on this issue, not as a pork-barrelling issue and one that enables them to retain government but one that is allocated electorate by electorate to come up with the necessary moneys to start rectifying this highway.Unlike a lot of speakers, I would like to congratulate the government for many of the positive things that are in this budget, especially in the area of rural health. Quite a deal of my electorate has real needs in the provision of services of GPs and country hospitals, as does the electorate of the member for Braddon. So, in relation to the issue of rural GPs and rural health, I would like to congratulate the government for the way they are tackling that. As a member of the House of Representatives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee, I would also like to congratulate the government for the increase in funding that has taken place in this budget for Aboriginal health and housing.Finally, I would like to think that the punters, as I call them in my electorate, do get a real benefit from this budget. I can assure those opposite that I will, over the next couple of years, see that there is some implementation from the mass of budget papers we are bombarded with and that the electors of my electorate do benefit from the many programs that are in these appropriation bills.10:55:006760Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—The 1999-2000 federal budget has been described as a budget in two parts—a budget with a bitter aftertaste, the introduction of a 10 per cent GST on almost everything. On budget night the government attempted to deliver all the good news—a budget surplus, no new taxes. We all sat through the Treasurer's fairly smug performance. We have heard his rhetoric many times. There is no doubt that the budget trumpets some initiatives, but I believe it manifestly fails to deliver the services and income support that many Australians need. In fact, a significant amount of what was announced in the budget is nothing more than a partial restoration of the funding that the Howard government had savagely removed over the past three years.In the education area, the budget is short-sighted, unbalanced and unfair. It is short-sighted because, despite the research initiatives in this budget, the Commonwealth's investment in research and innovation will be lower in 1999-2000 than it was in Labor's last year of office. It is unbalanced because the schools initiatives in this budget deliver an extra $210 a year to students in private schools but less than $10 a year to the 70 per cent of children in government schools. While any increase in schools funding is welcomed, it should be done in a fair way and not at the cost of one sector against another.I am sure that I do not need to remind the government that public schools are the first choice of the majority of Australians and should be adequately funded. I would like to endorse the comments of the previous speaker in his knowledge and past experience in the education area. I fully endorse the comments he made, particularly in relation to the areas of schooling that require additional funding in those early years. The budget is unfair also because it scraps the government's own university equity scholarships. The question my constituents are asking is this: how can we create a clever country when John Howard makes it even harder for the smartest kids from the country and from low income families to get to university? The budget also fails because there is less money for university teaching and no growth in funding for TAFE.But let us look also at child care, another area of concern to many in my community. The government has provided nothing for child care in this budget. A recent Senate report on child-care funding has found that affordability of care was the biggest problem facing the child-care sector. High fees are driving women out of the work force and increasing pressure on families with young children, yet the budget provides nothing extra to assist families.Another area of concern to me is the area of disability services, one very close to my heart and to many in this place. The amount of assistance offered by the Commonwealth to people with disabilities is disappointing and only serves to highlight how uncaring and indifferent the Commonwealth feels towards some of those most vulnerable members of our community. By continuing to neglect the needs of people with disabilities, the government is placing these families under extreme pressure and placing heavy financial burdens on a system that obviously cannot cope.These families deserve to receive the care and the support required. I say at this point in my speech on the appropriation debate that the thing that upsets me the most about government—and, I have to say, any government—delivery of service to those with disability is quite simple: when a family has the misfortune to have a child or someone in their family born or affected by a disability at a later date, they then find themselves having to become an absolute expert in how to weave their way through complicated systems—systems with little or no money, systems where they go for help and find time and time again that they are told, `I'm sorry, but we just can't afford it this year. We may try and get a budget allocation for next year.'All we need to do is to put ourselves in the places of those people; alternatively, all we need to do is think about how we as a society wish to be seen when we consider the care of these people. My own opinion is that you should not have to go bashing down doors; doors should in fact be opened for you when you are facing a disability yourself or you have a family member who is facing a disability. I implore this government, in fact any government, including one that I would belong to in the future, to really have a far more compassionate way of considering and handling the problems that face people and families who are afflicted with disabilities of any kind.I would like to now talk about the effect of this budget as I see it on the women in our community. Despite the budget surplus and earlier budget cuts to child care, labour market programs and education, the burden of which falls disproportionately onto women, there are only token initiatives for women in this budget. This budget was an opportunity for the government to redress its earlier mistakes, but it has chosen not to take that opportunity. The available evidence suggests that women are not sharing equally in the benefits of higher economic growth. The result is diminishing employment opportunities, wages falling further behind those of men and declining participation in higher education.I am concerned that many women are locked out of the work force by high child-care fees and falling employment opportunities. There are many examples in my electorate of women trying to balance their work and family responsibilities but finding their wages significantly diminished after they deduct child-care fees and lose their social security payments. This is an area that must be addressed by government as a matter of urgency. The answer to this is not to brag that there may be more work opportunities, flexible though they may be—that is, part time or casual. That can sometimes be far less economically viable for a family than something secure and permanent.As I am the member for Canberra, another area of concern to me is the level of confidence in the national capital, both as the national capital and as a community in which many people live. I was very disappointed to note that there was no real sign—no real, heavy sign—of strong confidence in the Canberra community in this budget. After the extraordinary attack on Canberra over the past three budgets, this government has not offered any direct assistance, despite the overflowing coffers of which they boast. Most of the capital works programs included in this budget have already been announced—and I welcome the announcements that are there—or are merely rehashed refurbishments. Maintenance of building stock does not constitute major capital works programs. In fact, much of this work began under the previous government. There are many programs currently under way in this town—refurbishment of older buildings—that actually began their progress through the refurbishment phase under the previous Labor government. I add, almost with boring repetition, that the Prime Minister's decision not to live in the Lodge still continues to be noted by the members of this community.Looking at funding for the Public Service, I note that Centrelink has been hit with further massive funding cuts, bringing the running total of cuts to $1,084 million in just four years. It is such a big figure, it is almost hard to read it. These cuts have already resulted in a service crisis, with Centrelink's own information showing that 81 per cent of callers do not get through on the telephone, that there are delays of up to three weeks at some offices to get appointments, that customer aggression has unfortunately been measured at a 160 per cent increase and that staff stress has increased by a massive 230 per cent.In the next financial year, Centrelink will suffer the second biggest staff cut of any federal government agency or department—in total, an extra 872 staff are to go. With further cuts of over $200 million each year for the next four years, I think that, unfortunately, we can expect further reductions in service. Can I say here, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my sympathies in this regard go in equal parts to two sections: (1) the client base of Centrelink; (2) the staff of Centrelink, who are attempting under the most difficult circumstances to do the best they can with reduced numbers, increased pressures and, in some cases, very complicated policy by this government in terms of decisions to deliver to their client base. I plead with the ministers concerned with this area: please do not continue to try to shoot the messenger, and please remember that the community is very good at letting you know what it thinks about the decisions you are taking. You really should hear those messages loud and clear.I said earlier that the GST was a bitter pill that Australians are expected to swallow. The deal announced between the Howard government and the Australian Democrats over the GST does not make that pill any easier to swallow; in fact, it removes any sugar coating that may have been on it. The GST is still bad news for fairness and equity in the Australian taxation system. The Democrats have been hoodwinked into agreeing to a deal that falls well short of the undertakings they gave to the Australian public at the last election. As a colleague of mine said recently, the Democrats went into those discussions with a handful of aces and came out with a pair of twos—how short they sold themselves and the Australian community.Unfortunately, low and middle income Australians will pay for the Democrats' surrender as they face a new, regressive 10 per cent tax on many of the essentials of life, except for some items of food. Australia did not have to have this tax. We do not need it and a majority of Australians overwhelmingly still do not want it. I am a little alarmed to see some of the predictions in the press over the last few days of the amount of money that the government may now be considering expending to sell this deal to the community over the next year or so. That money would be much better spent on some of those items I have just addressed.It is interesting to note that the Senate committees established to inquire into the GST found: (1) the GST would make the poor poorer, hurting families, the elderly and people with disabilities; (2) supposedly GST-free areas like health and child care would in fact face higher costs; (3) the proposed compensation was inadequate because Treasury had relied too much on averages and had failed to consider the real-life spending patterns of low and middle income Australians. The Senate committees also demonstrated enormous gaps in the information presented to the public before the election. They proved each of the three contentions put by Labor—the GST is bad for the economy, bad for jobs and basically unfair.There has been an abundance of evidence confirming all of these propositions. The Howard-Lees GST requires the same level of scrutiny that the original package received. In many ways, this new tax package is more confusing and inequitable than the original one. Families, pensioners, small businesses, students and superannuants are fully entitled to ask questions about how the new package is going to affect them, and it is fair for them to expect answers to those questions.Labor would have taken a different approach to framing the budget. We have consistently stated that our success in the global economy demands investment in the future. We believe that nothing short of a quantum leap in the education levels, skills and training of the Australian work force and national resources devoted to new industries will see Australia join the emerging global prosperity. What we need from government is a strategy for a nation making its way in the world and an understanding of the challenge before us and how, together, we can rise to it. Government must also show a commitment to fairness, a belief that none of our fellow citizens will be left behind in our economic progress. Both of these ideas—fairness and progress—demand the same thing. They demand a commitment to a high wage, high skill future and an opportunity for all Australians to share in that future.I wish to highlight two recent decisions by the government that fail this test. They are at two extremes, but I am sure they illustrate exactly what I am talking about. The first is the decision to cut 15 per cent from the Australian Geological Survey Organisation. I see in today's press that the cuts may be even larger in dollar terms than first thought. AGSO, which is located in an award-winning building, is going to have to take in tenants to help cover the costs of the operations they now have to undertake. This is just ridiculous. AGSO creates jobs for Australians and wealth for this country, supporting our mineral and petroleum export industries, which are worth in excess of $41 billion a year. The decision the government has taken in this budget—a decision, I might add, that was fairly well hidden in those budget papers—will mean the loss of up to 100 jobs, largely scientific jobs of people who are well regarded internationally in the area of geological survey. These are the people who stand to lose their positions in AGSO because of this decision. I cannot understand the government's thinking about this at all.The second instance I want to touch on is one that I have previously talked about—that is, the Centrelink situation. These billion-dollar cuts have had a destructive effect on service delivery to our community. The government must take responsibility for what I consider to now be a crisis in the area of Centrelink service delivery and provide it with the resources to ensure it can deliver the necessary services in a timely manner to those who depend on that organisation for assistance. The two examples I have given are, at one end of the scale, export possibility—growth in our innovative country; at the other end of the scale is how we see ourselves as a society—how we service those in the society in which we live who may need that hand-up in their time of need. I think they are two very good examples to illustrate the point.Looking at the record of the government over a number of major policy areas, it is clear that they have a total disregard for the human reality of their decisions. Is the economy there for the community or is the community there for the economy? Are we talking about a balance sheet dominated only by figures or are we talking about a balance sheet which on the other side has the human element—the impact in human social terms of the decisions taken to give you those lovely big black figures on that numbered sheet? Surpluses are worth nothing if they are done without regard to the cost of the human impact on our society. I have a great deal of difficulty coming to grips with this closed mind: as long as we have black figures on a balance sheet with a big surplus, we boast. We do not worry about the disability of people or the education of people or the cuts to scientific organisations. We do not worry about that. I think somehow the balance is wrong.Very briefly, I would like to take some of the time remaining to make some observations on a few aspects of the government's education agenda. I have already touched on the government's failure to invest in research and innovation and their obsession with the private school system, but I would like to speak a little on the government's higher education policy, in particular their desire to introduce voluntary student unionism. As many members are aware, the universal collection of services and amenities fees and universal membership rights of student organisations have been features of university life for many years. The government have rammed legislation through the House to remove this universal collection.This legislation has severe financial implications for student organisations. The average compulsory amenities and services fee imposed by state and territory higher education institutions in 1999 is $264. All students benefit from the provision of services and facilities, and I do not believe that the Australian parliament should be encouraging free riding on Australian campuses. I trust that the Senate will review the VSU legislation carefully and come to the decision that it should not be supported.It is interesting that the government have raised the VSU legislation at this time. There is a view that they are doing it only to divert attention away from their failure to increase higher education funding in this budget, after three years of cuts. There is also a view that this budget was an attempt to divert attention away from the GST. Well, it worked but it only worked for less than 24 hours. It did not take the community or the commentators long to get through the gloss and the glamour and get down to the basic line of this budget. But that 24 hours is longer than it took for the gloss on the GST deal with the Democrats to come off—that actually took about half a day.Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this budget. As the member who spoke before me said, there are some initiatives in this budget that we applaud. I am currently involved in an inquiry to do with Aboriginal health through one of the committees in this place. As I have seen the plight of that situation around the country through the period of that inquiry I have to say that the announcements that have been made in that area particularly have been pleasing to me, but I do encourage the government to start thinking about something more than dollars and black numbers and to start saying to the community that it does understand the pressures and the stresses that family members, individuals and organisations now find themselves under. I sincerely ask the government to think seriously about the social human element of running an economy and not just the economics of it.11:14:006764McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—It is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, who always makes an excellent contribution in this chamber. My interest is specifically in the area of the Attorney-General's portfolio, but by way of introduction I note that speaker after speaker for the government spoke of our strong economic position. Indeed, there were numerous boasts of a $5.4 billion surplus. Those speakers—as, I suppose, government members are wont to do—overlooked the years of massive structural change undertaken by the Hawke and Keating governments, which literally opened Australia's borders to the international community. There was massive structural change in the workplace, with the wages accords and the development of enterprise negotiations—albeit through a supervised system through the Industrial Relations Commission, which specifically had the power to enforce good faith bargaining but nonetheless created a situation where, more often than not, trade union leaders were themselves going to various employers and suggesting ways that efficiencies could be achieved.All these things have created a significant increase in the productivity of the Australian work force. The Prime Minister has stood up in the House and spoken of productivity in recent years. But that increase in productivity does not happen overnight. The benefits we are now seeing with improved structural change in the workplace are the result of the concerted effort of employers, employees, employer organisations and employee organisations over a long period of time. Indeed, the Prime Minister upon obtaining office acknowledged—not in the House but before businessmen—that when he came to power he took over an economy that was structurally sound. Be that as it may, what is the use of having a sound economy if we do not have a just society? A society can only exist as a just society to the extent to which each and every citizen has access to justice, no matter how unpopular their cause, no matter how heinous their crime and no matter how desperate their financial means. If we as a people want to live in a just society, everyone must have equal access to justice.Despite running up this $5.4 billion surplus, there is no more money in this budget for our struggling legal aid system. That is in the context of a cut by this government over the past four years of something in the order of $230 million from our system. It is much more if you look at the cuts to the human rights area, which also is an advocate for those who are the most vulnerable in our society. In fact, the budget papers show that the Howard government has cut $1.3 million from the legal aid budget in actual terms next financial year. When that is adjusted for inflation, the cut in real terms is closer to $3.36 million. That $3.36 million will see about another 1,680 Australians deprived of access to justice in this financial year. It is not just figures on a balance sheet; we are talking about literally scores of Australians—1,680 Australians—who will be deprived of access to justice. At a time of a large surplus, when this government is prepared to give tax relief for high-roller gamblers, it is disgraceful that we cannot find a bit extra for this important area of financing access to justice for ordinary Australians.The legal aid cuts are reducing the amount of legal aid for Commonwealth matters, particular matters arising under family law. Recent figures show that more than 2,000 people will miss out on legal aid for a family matter in New South Wales in this year alone. In 1997-98, 9,191 family law applications were approved in New South Wales. This year it is expected that only 7,125 applications will be approved, so we are going backward as the world is going forward into the 21st century. The Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, promised that legal aid cuts would not see a reduction in the number of family law cases funded, and those figures prove that the promise has been broken. Tragically it is occurring even in areas where the court is recommending that children involved in family law proceedings have separate representation. There is now a situation where, despite a judge recommending such representation, it is not occurring because of the absence of legal aid funding. Those figures show that the government has consistently underestimated the need for legal aid generally but specifically in the family law area, which has been most acutely hit.In 1997-98, for instance, the Howard government provided $13.8 million to New South Wales for family law matters. However, in that year the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales ended up spending something like $18.9 million on those types of cases. Despite evidence of this additional demand, the Howard government in the following year, 1998-99, provided only $16.98 million. Government figures show that $12.2 million had already been spent by 31 January 1999. If that trend continues, we are going to be looking at something between $20 million and $23 million being spent when only $16.9 million has been provided. If that rate of expenditure continues—which on all accounts it will—then this already deplorable situation is going to get much worse.But the Attorney-General's Department has admitted in the Senate estimates process that there will be no more money for legal aid in the next four years. In the Senate estimates process the Attorney-General's Department admitted that negotiations on the next triennial funding arrangements for legal aid, which commence on 1 July 2000, would be predicated on there being no overall increase in legal aid funding. As a result, the only discussions will be how to divide up the ever diminishing legal aid dollar between the states and the territories.Worse still, the officers advised the committee that the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, proposed to re-establish the expensive criminal cases scheme, but that will have to be funded from the legal aid commissions' own budgets. That scheme is desperately necessary because of the cost of major criminal cases. For instance, just one criminal case in the ACT is occupying something like a quarter of the entire ACT legal aid budget. In New South Wales, the arrest last year of 16 people charged with smuggling drugs is going to present a massive drain on the legal aid system. Some people may say, `Well, if they have been accused of smuggling drugs, and indeed they are foreign nationals, why should they be entitled to legal aid?' But if we apply that principle to, for instance, the two CARE Australia workers arrested in Yugoslavia they would be without justice. We of course say that they, having been charged with criminal offences by Yugoslavia, are entitled to the principles of natural justice. After all, they are principles that soldiers—men and women—from Australia have gone into battle for. If we do not provide access to justice for anyone who faces a significant penalty, we are letting ourselves down as a civilised society.There are numerous other instances where there is not the emotion of foreign nationals being charged, where Australian citizens have been charged with significant crimes. The directives from the government to the legal aid commissions is to focus priority on those cases to avoid what is being called the Dietrich occurrence. Dietrich was a High Court case. Because Dietrich was unable to obtain access to funding to present his case and there was a significant delay, the High Court determined that the case could not proceed because Dietrich was not able to receive justice. To avoid that occurring the directive has been issued that legal aid commissions must focus upon those criminal case areas. This has diminished the availability of funds for all other areas. The Attorney-General has said, `You have to establish this expensive cases scheme but it is going to have to come out of your overall budget.'It is also noted from the estimates process that the Attorney-General's Department admitted that the budget papers did include the cut in legal aid funding that we, the Labor Party, have publicly stated has occurred. The admission is quite contrary to denials made at the time by the Attorney-General's office. They should get their act in order to see precisely what has occurred in the area.There is further evidence that delays in the Family Court system are starting to get out of control. Recent figures obtained by the Labor Party show that at two registries, Brisbane and Parramatta, delays have blown out and are almost completely out of control. In Brisbane, standard track children's matters are now taking an average of more than 142 weeks, that is 2¾ years, from the date of filing to hearing. That is 99 weeks—almost two years—longer than they should and 52 weeks—one year—longer than they did as at 30 June 1998. The position is getting worse, not better. Standard track financial matters have not fared much better. They are now taking 130 weeks—about 2½ years—from the date of filing to hearing. That is 82 weeks longer than they should and 43 weeks longer than they did as at 30 June 1998.The Parramatta registry in Sydney has also seen dramatic blow-outs in delays. Standard track children's matters are now taking 101 weeks—almost two years—from the date of filing to hearing. That is 58 weeks—over one year—longer than they should and 31 weeks longer than they did as at 30 June 1998. Again, the situation is becoming much worse much more rapidly. Likewise, standard track financial matters in Parramatta are now taking 115 weeks—over two years—from the date of filing to hearing. That is 67 weeks—about 1¼ years—longer than they should and 46 weeks—almost one year—longer than they did as at 30 June 1998.That is a situation in crisis and delays of this order are simply deplorable. They are a direct consequence of the Howard government's decision to cut legal aid and the resourcing of the Family Court. These delays directly impact on families in crisis, increasing tensions within relationships, leaving issues unresolved and increasing the risk of domestic violence.The Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, has continued to delay the filling of Family Court vacancies, which has greatly exacerbated this situation. Since taking up office the Attorney-General has been consistently tardy in respect of these vacancies. He has delayed filling every one of the 11 vacancies which have arisen. In total Mr Williams has delayed filling these vacancies for a staggering 60 months. The most recent appointment delayed by Mr Williams saw the vacancy created by the Hon. Justice Eric Baker of the Parramatta registry of the Family Court not filled from 19 January 1999 to 17 May 1999, a delay of almost four months. According to the estimates previously provided by the Law Council of Australia, the delay in filling these vacancies of 60 months has added 587 cases to the Family Court's waiting lists. To simply clear that backlog it would take more than five extra judges sitting for a whole year. That is a delay which could easily have been avoided by the Attorney-General acting as soon as he received notices of intended resignations. With two more vacancies due in the middle of July and at the beginning of August, Mr Williams will have another opportunity to do his job properly but, given the track record of the delay in appointments, I regret that is most unlikely to occur.The next area of concern is in respect of the government's only attempt to remedy this massive crisis in the Family Court system. They are proposing the creation of a new federal magistrates service. It appears that that service is going to be too cumbersome and too complex. The federal magistrates service will have its own administrative structure which, on our estimates, will cost $8.3 million over the first four years of its operation. If the magistracy had been incorporated into the existing structures of the Family Court and Federal Court that money could have provided for as many as six additional magistrates or five additional judges. It is also clear that not enough magistrates will be appointed to cover the judicial work currently performed by the various types of registrars in the Family Court and Federal Court. A minimum of 35 magistrates would be needed for that to occur.As a result, we may see people having substantially similar matters heard in different manners and with differing rights of appeal, simply because one case is heard by a magistrate and the other is heard by a registrar. The proposal appears to do little to assist those in rural and regional Australia who are often underserviced by the courts. For these areas, the Labor Party has proposed that a much more efficient and effective approach may be to give those state and territory magistrates who are appropriately qualified and experienced any additional training to ensure that they have the ability to handle federal matters on a joint commission basis.Of more concern is the revelation that the 16 new federal magistrates will replace the 19 SES Band 2 registrars working in the Family Court. They are senior public servants and these magistrates will be expected to pick up all of their workload—that is, 16 individuals picking up the workload of 19 existing registrars. In addition, the 16 magistrates will be expected to pick up the work of the Federal Court relating to bankruptcies, actions under part IV of the Trade Practices Act, matters under the Workplace Relations Act, less complex administrative law cases, the whole range of the human rights and discrimination jurisdiction that is going to be referred to the Federal Court as a result of Brandy's case, less complex appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and, indeed, other Family Court and Federal Court matters. So these 16 magistrates are going to be expected to do the work of 19 SES Band 2 registrars and then some more—these new powers that they will be enforcing and deliberating upon in the Federal Court area.This will result in a net loss of resources for family law matters, increasing the already massive delays occurring in the Family Court. Further, obviously there are going to be three fewer actual persons hearing Family Court and Federal Court matters but at a staggering cost to the taxpayer of $27.9 million over four years. The whole exercise is a sham that will further deplete the ability of our court system to deliver justice in a timely fashion to ordinary Australians.The irrationality of this proposal—the irrationality of establishing this entirely new federal magistracy structure—makes one question the motives of the government. Clearly, there have been some vocal interest groups who have been quite vicious in their attacks on the Family Court because they have not been satisfied with the outcomes of their cases, whether in relation to property or child custody. One wonders whether the establishment of this federal magistracy is a sop to those vocal interest groups to say, `You do not have to worry about the Family Court because we have established this different magistracy that you can go to.' But in providing what appears to be a sop to those interest groups, the government has actually reduced the resourcing in the Family Court area. It is going to increase the delays, the tensions and the prospects for domestic violence. In this whole area, the government's approach has been one which can be characterised as penny-wise and pound-foolish, with some significant warning lights as to its motives in establishing this federal magistracy rather than properly resourcing the legal aid system and the court structure. (Time expired)11:34:006767Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—The Howard government regularly tries to pass itself off as a friend to the workers and communities that depend upon the forest and the forest products sector. But it enters into this pretence cynically, knowing that none of its policy prescriptions will bring the job security and value adding that is so desperately needed by the industry. This government parades itself as pro-forestry worker while at the same time introducing regressive industrial relations measures that threaten the job security and working conditions of thousands of forest industry employees. How about a bit of honesty from the government and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation? You are no friend of workers in the forestry sector, Wilson, and you never have been. You just do not have it in you.The minister has been keen of late to talk about the CFMEU and to parade himself as a good mate of union members in the forest and forest products sector. This represents truly breathtaking deception on his part. This is what Wilson Tuckey really thinks about the working people who make up our trade unions; this is what Wilson Tuckey, the great friend of the trade union movement, said about the waterfront dispute and the government's role in trying to destroy the MUA and put 1,400 workers onto the scrap heap:We have come up with a pretty simple proposition: maybe someone else should have a go. The farmers say, `We're prepared to do it.' When it came to loading live sheep and the wharfies got involved in a dispute on behalf of the meatworkers, and the farmers said, `We'll go down there and load the sheep,' the first thing that was noticeable was that they loaded the sheep in about a third of the time, if not less.And the minister, once again displaying his legendary compassion for the sacked waterside workers in his own electorate, had this to say on 8 April last year:A journalist rang me up and said, `What about the 20 jobs involved?' I said, `Well, what about the million unemployed? What is the social issue?'The social issue, Minister, is workers being sacked for no other reason than that they belonged to a trade union. Obviously you do not care as much about trade union members as you make out you do, not even those in your own electorate.Of course, if you take Wilson's dazzling logic about replacing wharfies with farmers to its logical end, if I can call it that, then maybe we could have a huge pool of farm workers available and on stand-by to lower wages and conditions in all sectors of the Australian economy. What utter nonsense!The minister for forestry's statement is typical of this government's contempt for workers. In previous enlightened statements, the minister has referred to `BLF goons', has described the MUA as `a mob of gangsters', has referred to `a whole period of domination of the Australian industrial scene by unionists' and, in relation to superannuation, said, `The reality is that nobody needs the protection of an award in this matter.' This does not sound like CFMEU policy to me, and it does not seem consistent with the general views of the trade union movement, especially given that the Construction and Building Union Superannuation fund, C+BUS, is the product of the good work done by the former BWIU in obtaining compulsory employer superannuation contributions for its members, and also given that the CFMEU was one of the strongest supporters of the MUA during the bitter waterfront dispute last year. So the Minister for Forestry and Conservation talks about his great support for trade unionists in the forest industry while having been, for a lifetime, an ardent advocate of the destruction of the trade union movement. What a hypocrite!The forest sector is a hard industry. It is an industry in which occupational health and safety issues need to be taken seriously. It is an industry in which many men and women are injured or killed every year in industrial accidents. Often the only protection that workers in this industry get comes via the CFMEU—a union which I am proud to be a member of and a union which my father was proud to be a member of.I acknowledge that the CFMEU is crucial to maintaining a safe environment for forest industry workers, but this government targets the CFMEU and aims to destroy it. The CFMEU has been targeted by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The CFMEU is not the sort of union that this government wants around, and it plans on using all of the legislative mechanisms available to it to undermine the work of that trade union. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has mounted repeated attacks on that union, variously describing its actions as `industrial thuggery', claiming in parliament that `the CFMEU is out of touch with reality', and saying that subcontractors needed to be protected from `the ravages of the CFMEU'. This is all part of a very deliberate campaign by the government to destroy the CFMEU, and that campaign will have a very significant impact indeed on those small mills in regional Australia that rely on a strong union to maintain occupational health and safety at acceptable levels.So while the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is sharpening the knife against the CFMEU, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation pretends to be a friend to the union, patting it on the back as he looks for the right place to stick the knife in.The government's view about forest industry workers has been made very clear. We need look no further than the comments made by the Minister for Community Services in June last year. When asked about the closure of the Burnie pulp mill in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Braddon, the minister referred to how management had tried to `improve work practices and to get some of the rorts that were put in place and remained in place under the Labor government out of the system'. The Minister for Community Services then went on to say:Indeed some of the things that were going on in that plant made the MUA look like a work gang.What a disgusting remark. One hundred and fifty workers lost their jobs at that plant in a region of already high unemployment and this is how the government responds. This type of remark reveals much about the way in which this government views workers in the forestry sector. So no-one should be in any doubt at all about the Howard government's attitude towards trade unions and the workers who belong to them. There should be no doubt about the hatred this government has for the CFMEU in particular.I can just imagine how many laughs the pretence of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation about his great relationship with the CFMEU gets him in the coalition party room—a party room dominated by members of the New Right and past and present members of the H.R. Nicholls Society, who boil and stew in their hatred of trade unions and workers every minute of every day. I imagine that Wilson's little pro-worker act would be the subject of quite a few jokes amongst his colleagues as they sit around the Melbourne Club or the Adelaide Club discussing new ways to water down industrial relations protection for workers with the likes of Ron Walker and Tony Staley. But if they think they have pulled the wool over the eyes of workers in the forest and forest products sector, then they are sadly mistaken. Workers won't forget who took all the services out of the country towns in which they live. Come the next election, workers won't forget who imposed a 10 per cent GST on so many essentials in their lives.Workers in the sector know that if the Howard government was serious about the forest and forest products sector it would be doing a lot more about industry policy. Everyone, except obviously this government, understands that if you want to grow the forest sector then you need to invest in it. I don't know why the government has such a passionate hatred of industry plans. In government, Labor produced important plans for a number of key industries, including the dairy and automotive industries, which were great successes. I just wish we had a minister who understood how important it is to produce a forest and forest products industry plan so that in 10 or 15 years time our forest and forest products sector would be significantly larger and much more focused on downstream processing. Instead, all he does is refer ad nauseam to the RFA process. I accept that the RFA process is important, but the RFA process by itself should not constitute the government's entire commitment to this very important sector. There is at best only a limited future for the forestry sector unless this government invests in the sector's potential by working with the industry to devise a sensible industry package that will maximise downstream processing opportunities for the industry in Australia.Wilson Tuckey wants us all to believe that just by signing off on the RFAs all will be well in the sector and jobs will flow. This bloke is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. He has been hanging around with the likes of Meg Lees and Andrew Murray for way too long. He has actually become one of the fairies at the bottom of the garden. RFAs are not a panacea for the forest and forest products sector. Everyone with half a brain—and that excludes the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, of course—understands this very well. Indeed, this has been made very plain in the Gippsland region over the last few months with the closure of the Swifts Creek timber mill and the resultant loss of 22 jobs and the future of an entire community now in doubt.The Swifts Creek mill employed 22 workers in a town of just 150 people in the Tambo Valley in East Gippsland. The minister during question time earlier this week sought to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I have been working with the community in Swifts Creek to try to get the government to intervene and require the company, Neville Smith Timber Industries, to process the resource that it takes from the Tambo Valley in the Tambo Valley. It is my very strong belief that the people who live in the Swifts Creek community deserve to get some benefit from the logging of the resource in their own backyard.The minister, I think, was about to question why I would be involved in helping this community when it is outside of my electorate. Swifts Creek is more than 3½ hours drive east of the eastern boundary of my electorate of McMillan, but it still is in the Gippsland region that my electorate is a part of. While Mr Tuckey might find this a difficult concept to grasp, I actually care enough about forestry workers not to care about whether they happen to be in my electorate or not. These workers and their community need assistance and, if nobody else will give it to them, then I will.The Swifts Creek mill closure is a perfect example of why the minister's mantra that RFAs solve every problem relating to the forest and forest products sector is so wrong. This is what the BairnsdaleAdvertiser wrote last month about the closure of the Swifts Creek mill. Under the heading `State support call', the BairnsdaleAdvertiser reports as follows:The Swift's Creek community held the meeting to discuss closure of Neville Smith Timber Industries' sawmill in the town. The meeting aimed at discussing the economic and social impact the closure will have . . . The report said that between 100 and 150 people were in attendance, which is nearly the entire population of that town. It went on:Vince Hurley, representing Neville Smith Timber Industries, said the decision to close the mill was an economic one by the company and did not consider the social and economic impact on the Swift's Creek community.On the next page the BairnsdaleAdvertiser writes as follows:One statement from the floor that reflected the feeling of those present at the meeting was `if timber doesn't benefit the local community and economy, then let's turn it to National Park'.Local electrical contractor, Stephen Richardson, said the closure of the mill has had a dramatic effect in his business as part of his business was spent on a regular basis at the mill—this has now gone forever.And further down in the story:The people of Swift's Creek find it difficult to find comfort looking at the stark face of reality, when in February 1997, in the BairnsdaleAdvertiser , Federal member for Gippsland, Mr Peter McGauran, is quoted as saying, `RFAs restore much needed certainty to the East Gippsland timber industry and provide the basis for new investment and jobs' and `this certainty will also have significant flow-on benefits for East Gippsland communities and other local industries.'Premier Kennett and Prime Minister John Howard are also quoted in the BairnsdaleAdvertiser on Monday, 3 February 1997 as saying that the RFA will `give greater certainty of access to timber resources providing the basis for investment in the timber industry and the creation of new jobs'. The truth is that regional forestry agreements by themselves do not deliver job security. The workers at Swifts Creek and the community they live in have found that out the hard way. We need to support this sector with more than just shrill rantings made at the dispatch box. The minister is obviously way out of his depth on these substantial industry development issues. What we need is less hysteria and more serious discussion about the type of industry policy that will most benefit value adding in the forestry sector.Senate estimates hearings last week revealed quite a bit about the government's commitment to industry policy in the forestry sector. This is an exchange between Labor Senator Shayne Murphy and Mr Rawson from the department:Mr Rawson: The Wood and Paper Industry Strategy (WAPIS) money terminates in June 2000.He goes on to state:It was in order of $26 million over a four year period, so it has been around $6 million per year for the four years and 1999-2000 is the last year of that WAPIS funding.Note here that the money provided for the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy was provided by the Labor government in 1996. Senator Murphy then asks:Did I understand you to say that this is the last of the WAPIS money?Mr Rawson responds:Yes.Senator Murphy asks:And that is the end of that? No more money after that?Mr Rawson replies:Not at this stage unless the government comes up with a new program.Well, Mr Rawson, I suppose we all live in hope.Many of us are still waiting for the government to get on with creating a fair dinkum wood and paper industry council—and it seems as though this government is determined to avoid doing that at all costs. The simple message here is that Labor was prepared to commit to the wood and paper industry strategy, but this government is not; Labor was prepared to invest in value adding, but this government refuses to do so. On 9 February this year, the shadow minister for forestry and conservation, the honourable member for Reid, placed the following question on the Notice Paper:(1) On what dates and at what locations has the Wood and Paper Industry Forum met since 1 October 1997?On 31 March, Mr Tuckey—revealing his true level of commitment to the development of an industry plan for the sector—responded:(1) The Wood and Paper Industry Forum has met twice since its establishment was announced on 1 October 1997. The first meeting was held on 30 October 1997 at Parliament House in Canberra. The second was held on 26 February 1998 in Melbourne. It has met only twice; the Wood and Paper Industry Forum, which the minister trumpets as his vehicle for developing industry policy, has met only twice. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to tell you that this does not sound like a very high level of productivity—two meetings in 20 months. I think what we might have to do here is take Wilson's own advice. In March last year, in relation to the government's view that waterfront workers were not efficient enough, this minister said, `Maybe someone else should have a go.' I reckon those wharfies would be a damn sight more efficient than this so-called forum, which has met only twice in 20 months. I am not being critical of anyone involved in the forum; I am sure that they are probably good people. But I am making the point that, if the minister were serious about value adding and industry development, he would get on with establishing a wood and paper industry council, as supported by the CFMEU and the Labor Party.On the matter of the establishment of this council, the minister need not only take my advice and that of the CFMEU; he should also listen to the advice provided by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, chaired by his Liberal colleague from Western Australia Senator Winston Crane. On 25 February this year, under the heading of `Wood and Paper Industry Council', the conclusions and recommendations document of that committee stated:The Committee heard evidence on the desirability for the establishment of the proposed Wood and Paper Industry Council.The Committee considers that the Council would be an advantage in promoting better forest management and developing value adding industry.The Committee concluded that the Government should establish the proposed Wood and Paper Industry Council.The minister's response to the committee's findings was typically dismissive and within it the suggestion for the development of a wood and paper industry council is non-existent. The minister's media statement that was released on the same day as the Senate report was presented states at the very bottom of the document:Noting the recommendation that the Government establish the Wood and Paper Industry Council, Mr Tuckey said that the Government supported the establishment of an appropriate and representative consultative body. The final form would be considered by the Government in the context of the Industry Action Agenda that has been initiated with the wood and paper products industry sector . . . This was in February, and we are now in June. Where is the wood and paper industry council? Has it been established yet? I think not.The minister's refusal to develop a comprehensive industry plan for the forest and forest products sector demonstrates his contempt for the workers in this sector and shows that, for all his rhetoric, the minister really has not done anything much at all for the sector. The truth, unfortunately, I fear, is that the Minister for Forestry and Conservation would not know what industry policy was if it reared up in front of him and hit him in the face with an iron bar. This means that workers in the forest and forest products sector face an uncertain future—a future in which, at best, mill closures will continue. And, unfortunately for workers in the sector, opportunities for industry expansion and investment in downstream processing, using new high technology pulp and paper processing and timber manufacturing plants, will be lost. This will mean fewer forestry jobs in regional areas.I only hope that the minister sees the error of his ways. In the matter of the closure of the Swifts Creek mill, I hope that he has the guts to get in there and do something to help that community. It is not too late, and decisive action taken by the minister could prevent the death of that town. (Time expired)11:54:006774Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—In rising to speak in the appropriation debate, I will just make a few general comments about the government's budget and strategy and its skiting, if you like, arising from its pride in being able to say that it has a large surplus of something like $5.4 billion. It is all right to be able to say that you have that sort of money in terms of a surplus. But the reality is: at what cost does that surplus come? What has the government cut to get to that situation?We know that from 1996, when first arriving in this place as a government, those opposite have been cutting virtually everything they could, whether in the area of welfare, education, social services or the Public Service—and the list goes on and on. Eventually they have ended up with this big surplus and they think, `Well, aren't we fantastic; we're not only able to manage the economy but we're also able to accumulate this big surplus.'Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that that surplus has been achieved only on the backs of ordinary Australian men and women. It has been achieved with cuts in just about every sector of government service. There are stories all around the nation of offices closing down, of there not being sufficient staff, of big long queues when trying to get on to Centrelink and so on. It is just absolutely atrocious and, frankly, disgraceful. But it seems as though, to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, all this great surplus represents is a reason to skite and boast; it seems as though that is all there is to it for them.I put it to those in the government that, in fact, if they were to go out and speak to the ordinary person on the street and say, `What do you think about the fact that we have $5.4 million in surplus?' the response would be, `Well, how come it's still tough for us to pay our mortgage, to put food on the table for our kids and send them to school, to give them an education and everything else that one needs to survive?' I think in the end these so-called surpluses can be very illusory and sometimes they are used as straight-out political tools.What concerns me the most about this budget is that the whole of it is predicated on the introduction of a goods and services tax. We hear about Australia being one of the only nations in the Western world not to have a goods and services tax. Let us have a look at some of the countries that do have a goods and services tax.When this was first mooted back in 1993, I remember that New Zealand was heralded as the great example of where the goods and services tax had proved so successful. The reality is that the New Zealand economy at the moment is not exactly choofing along as well as would be expected. The goods and services tax has done nothing for that country; in fact, if anything, it has made it go backwards.We now have the European Commission being most concerned at the effect the value added tax—or whatever they call it over there—on services is having in that it is causing reductions in employment. They are talking about the possibility of winding back the rate of their goods and services tax. We know that in Canada, once this tax had been introduced, the public did not like it. It cost the seats of a lot of the people in that government. In fact, I remember that only a couple of the members of the government in power at the time got back in.The reality is that it is an outdated and inequitable tax; and I cannot for the life of me understand how this government can be so naive as to want to bring it in at any cost. I think the Australian public is giving the government the message. For the Prime Minister to say that he had a mandate is just ridiculous. The fact is that over 50 per cent of the people voted for the Labor Party. There are probably many reasons as to why the government was able to be returned, albeit with a slender majority, but I certainly do not think one of them was that people wanted the goods and services tax.One of the, if you like, silent points about the GST has not even been brought out that much yet. I know that the government continues to say that the goods and services tax simply only replaces the wholesale sales tax, and it then goes on to mention a lot of other taxes. But what the government does not say is that, as from 1 July 2000, when this tax will come in, for the first time in this country's history services will be taxed. There is no wholesale sales tax on services; there are no taxes on services at the moment. It seems to me that, when people's minds are focused on the fact that every time they go to a picture show, the movies, the football, or they get a plumber or someone to come in and repair a washing machine it will cost them 10 per cent more, we will find the Australian public even more against this tax than they are at the moment.I do not think the question of how much the black economy will be affected by all this has been discussed enough since 1993, when I was in parliament before my short sabbatical for a couple of years. We all know that the black economy is there. We all know that there are people who do things for cash. We all know that there are some businesses—I do not know of any personally—that have a few sets of books. At the moment it might be two sets of books—that is, what the business actually takes and what it shows. From now on there will be three sets of books because, as well as evading income tax, their pet hobby will be to evade the goods and services tax.UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—Arthur Daley.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Exactly. For example, let us say that a householder needs to have some renovations done to their house. They get a renovator in and he says, `It's going to cost you $5,000 to do that job.' Are we naive to suggest that now, because of this goods and services tax, the incentive will not be there for an exchange like this to hypothetically take place: tradesman to consumer, `Madam, it is going to cost you $5,000, but you have to pay an extra $500 on top of that because of the goods and services tax.' Says that householder, `That's pretty heavy, isn't it—an extra $500 just to pay this tax?' `Yes,' says the tradesman, `but I'll tell you what, if you give me $4,500 in cash, you don't pay the extra $500, you save $500 and I don't have to pay income tax on the $4,500.'Anyone who tells you that these sorts of things are not going to happen all the time is either stupid or naive or both, because it is going to happen. What is going to happen in this country in that area is that tax receipts will not be collected to the extent that they think they are going to collect them. In the end it will be a disgusting situation because tax avoidance will become a national sport. Somebody mentioned the Minder, Arthur Daley. We are importing Arthur Daleys from the Minder series into Australia.I want to raise today in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 some of anomalies and some of the bad things that happen as a result of our federal bankruptcy regulations. I would like to share with this chamber the unfortunate story of my constituents Frank and Gina Curcio, whose salutary experience indicates just how crazy our present bankruptcy system is. I am proud to represent the Curcios in this chamber. They are fine, upstanding citizens and decent, warm-hearted people. Frank and Gina have never had a bad debt in their lives. They have worked hard for everything they have today, which makes the story you are about to hear even more amazing and our system even more in urgent need of reform.The crux of the story is this: Frank and Gina Curcio were declared bankrupt by a court that they had never attended on the basis of a petition that they had never seen which was lodged by a company that they had never dealt with for a debt that they had never incurred in a state where they did not live because Mr Curcio happens, coincidently, to share his name with someone he had never met and to whom he is not related, and no-one involved bothered to check out which Frank Curcio was which. I suppose you could be thoroughly confused at this stage. Now you can start to imagine the torment that the Curcios have been going through for the past 10 months.It all started when Gina and Frank went to their letterbox on 11 August last year. Amidst the usual letters and brochures was a great wad of papers from the Brisbane chartered accountant firm of Clout and Associates—let me repeat that name for you: Clout and Associates. Amongst these documents was one notifying the Curcios that the Federal Court of Australia had issued a sequestration order against them on 22 July and all their assets had been frozen. It was further demanded that they complete a 21-page statement of affairs—this is it here; it is just unbelievable—or face criminal prosecution. You need to be a lawyer to understand it. That is the first thing. I am a lawyer and I find it—no, I do understand it. I will quote Mrs Gina Curcio from an article that appeared on the front page and page 4 of the Sunday Mail newspaper in Brisbane on 18 April. She said:The papers were just left in the letterbox . . . When we opened them up we were stunned. Our accountant said he had never seen anything like this in his life and we had better get legal advice.I am also a lawyer, as I have just mentioned, and I returned to that trade in 1996 after I was sent to the sin bin for a period by the Australian public in my electorate—and I am pleased to be back. But even I, as a lawyer, find this very hard to swallow. Heaven knows what the Curcios went through.Mr Deputy Speaker, imagine for a moment that you are Frank Curcio of Ormiston in the electorate of Bowman. Without any warning you are faced with a bundle of documents which includes the following threats and demands:You must take particular note of the restrictions placed upon you now that you are a bankrupt and the penalties for breaches of the Act. You have a duty under the Bankruptcy Act to cooperate with your Trustee in the administration of your estate.Charming, isn't it? I quote again from the documents:You should not sell or deal with any of your assets or items of value. Only your Trustee or a secured creditor is able to do so. "Assets" include anything of value belonging to you at the date of bankruptcy, together with those obtained by you, or which are given to you before your discharge.Mr Deputy Speaker, if you were still puzzled, perhaps this would grab your attention:Failure to provide information [about your income] when requested can result in your bankruptcy being extended for a further five years.How would you like trying to answer some of these questions:- List other names you have used in the last seven years;- When did you begin having difficulty meeting your debts;- Why are you sure that this is the right date;- List all court actions in which you are currently involved. Mrs Curcio said in the Sunday Mail article:It has made my hair go white . . . We were so upset we could not sleep. We have had an impeccable credit rating all our lives. I was greatly humiliated. I have never heard of anything like it.It took the Curcio's solicitor three days to sort out the mess. The bankruptcy involved another Frank Curcio who owed $100,000 in Melbourne. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you want to know how the other Frank Curcio had incurred the debt? He had purchased a luxury yacht and sailed away into the sunset. My Frank Curcio, the Bowman Frank Curcio, would love a luxury yacht, but he does not have one. He has never had one and, unless his lotto numbers come up soon, he will never have one. Mr Frank Curcio of Bowman is a 61-year-old pensioner whose sole income following a work injury some eight or nine years ago is an invalid pension—hardly enough for a luxury yacht.Like me, the Curcios are proud Australians of Italian heritage. Unlike me, they do not possess any legal training. For them to receive such a demand was an awful experience. With threats made against all their assets, Frank Curcio naturally contacted his bank, the local National Australia Bank, where he had been a customer for years. Even they assumed the worst of the Curcios. I will quote Mrs Curcio once more:I rang the bank and they said we had been declared bankrupt. I thought our house was going to be sold from under us.The bank manager said my husband would have to prove it was not him. Frank has suffered a heart attack in March and I was worried the stress would cause another one.The Curcio's bank accounts were under threat of being frozen so that only one James Taplin of Clout and Associates could release the funds which consisted wholly and entirely of Mr Curcio's invalid pension—hardly a princely sum but, nevertheless, Frank's sole income. In such a crisis, surely a man could expect his own bank manager to support him—I suppose in the old days you could, but you certainly do not seem to be able to get anything out of the banks nowadays, particularly the big four—but not in this case. The Federal Court had everybody bluffed, even though it had nothing to do with Mr Frank Curcio of Bowman.I hear you ask: how did Clout and Associates send him these papers? This is where the tragic tale of human error descends rapidly into an ugly farce. When the finance company behind the Melbourne Frank Curcio decided to call in their bad debt, they realised they could not find the luxury yacht owner. What did they do? According to Lorraine Smith of Clout and Associates, they adopted a `scattergun' approach—sending it to every Frank Curcio they could find, including two listed on the Internet.According to Mr John Park of Clout and Associates, as quoted on page 4 of the Sunday Mail newspaper on 18 April this year, `I don't think it was anything that should cause them too much grief.' Mr Park went on to say:. . . his firm was too busy to send someone out to check the identity of people it targeted and it was standard industry practice to use a `scattergun' approach.I have to agree with the Sunday Mail editorial of the same date, which says:In cases where there is no fixed address, trustees are apparently accustomed to serving papers on several people of the same name, assuming that the ensuing reaction of outrage from innocent people will eventually identify the correct target. This approach is unacceptable and needs to be urgently reviewed.Clout and Associates sent Frank Curcio a letter of apology last August. Given the circumstances, you would think it would be gracious; it was anything but that. I quote its conclusion:Given his discussions with [your solicitor], Mr Taplin gave the instructions that [your] account was not to be frozen. I apologise for any inconvenience that my previous correspondence has caused. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr John Park or Ms Lorraine Smith of this office.Yours faithfully,F Curcio (A Bankrupt)DL CloutTrusteeEven in the letter of apology saying he is not a bankrupt, they still refer to him as `F Curcio (A Bankrupt); DL Clout, Trustee'. It is just unbelievable.Those few words encapsulate Frank and Gina Curcio's problems. They needed to engage a solicitor to take on Clout and Associates. The National Australia Bank was prepared to freeze their accounts without question, despite their years of loyalty. Loyalty counts for nothing nowadays with banks; all my colleagues in the chamber would probably agree with me on that one.It was inconvenient that this incident had occurred, nothing more. And the sting is in the tail: D.L. Clout might be a trustee but F. Curcio is a bankrupt by order of the Federal Court. Nothing Clout and Associates have done removes that mark against their name, that stain upon their character. Clout and Associates have finally agreed to pay the Curcios' minor legal fees after three pages of howling condemnation in the Sunday Mail. This is far too little far too late. Had anyone ever tried to contact the Curcios before they were declared bankrupt? Had anyone done that? No.Gina finally remembered that an investigator had called at their house many months before, possibly a year, inquiring about a payment for a boat. Mr Curcio had shown the investigator his beloved tinny, which he had purchased many, many years before. The investigator also had a photo of the Frank Curcio he was seeking, who looked nothing like my constituent.One investigator's visit, a tinny instead of a $100,000 yacht, a 61-year-old invalid pensioner instead of a con man whose photo they had—on this alone, the Federal Court was happy to grant a sequestration order against my constituent; on this alone, Clout and Associates demanded control of his life and his assets; and on this alone, the National Australia Bank was prepared to freeze his pension account.Where stood the burden of proof in the case of Frank Curcio? In case you were still wondering, they finally caught up with the other Frank Curcio, the one with the luxury yacht. But my constituent received a letter of apology from the people who did this to him branding him `F Curcio (A Bankrupt)'. Nothing will take that away. He cannot afford the legal fees to fight to clear his name, as it deserves to be cleared. Let me read from another perspective, that of Michael Petrohilos:They were both in a state of extreme distress and agitation and remained so while they desperately tried to have the matter sorted out. . . Luckily there were no adverse cardiac outcomes but there is no doubt Mr and Mrs Curcio suffered greatly as a result of these distressing events.I place more weight on Michael Petrohilos's opinion of the Curcios' condition than I do on the opinion of John Park of Clout and Associates because, you see, Dr Petrohilos is the Curcios' family physician.When they came to see me, I spoke to them and I was impressed by their candour, but I was also very emotionally moved by the way this had affected them. Lovely people, both of them. They asked me what they could do. As a lawyer, I told them there was not a lot they could do. They did not have a lot of money to fight and sue anyone, but I told them one thing. I said, `The only thing I can do as your member is to bring this up and name these people in the house of parliament where I represent you.' I told them I was going to do that, and today I have done it. I have kept my promise to them. I will make sure that in future, when these sorts of matters come up, I will keep a close eye on them and see if we can reform the position. (Time expired)12:14:006779Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The GST has been, since day one, a flawed tax. The underlying rationale and support for the introduction of the original GST package is based on flawed economic thinking and mistaken value judgments by the coalition and now also by the Democrats. The economic reality of the old GST package was that at its core it was a job destroyer. The forecast for jobs under the GST regime ranged depending on the economic model you go by. Figures from Treasury's own economic modelling seem to indicate that job growth from the GST will be insubstantial, if at all, and that the jobs created will not be as a result of the GST but more as a result of the budget surplus and the fiscal injection into the economy. This, however, is the most optimistic of all credible forecasts.Other economists have argued that the GST will cost jobs—thousands of jobs, in fact. Jobs will be lost in the tourism industry, in the service industry and, in particular, in the bush and in regional Australia, not to mention the jobs that will be lost in Queensland and Tasmania. Therefore, the best assertion the government can make is that, if all goes well and they are right and the economic modelling is right, this tax will not help jobs growth. However, if they are wrong or the other experts are right or even if the government are slightly out in their forecast and estimates, then this tax package will destroy jobs. I know there are a lot of backbenchers on this side who can explain to the Prime Minister how relaxed and comfortable people feel when their job depends on whether the government's economic forecaster got it right! But the quantums really tell very little of the whole story.The big dilemma with this tax is job shifting—the scenario that means jobs will shrink in certain industries while in other industries they will grow. Were this to occur, the statistical analysis can be viewed as a zero sum equation. But the human factor, as is so often the case, spoils the statistics. The reality will be that most of the people who lose their jobs as a result of this tax will not be automatically employable in the industries that are likely to increase intake as a result of the GST. Might I also add that it would not be in equivalent proportions in any case. Jobs will be lost in a majority of employment sectors, including transport, retail, the electrical industry and tourism, but are likely to be increased in automotive and electrical equipment industries. Therefore, for example, workers at KFC who will get the chop simply because their chickens are chopped will be okay as long as they also have qualifications in electronics, which of course most of them do not.Might I also add a ticket to another state. This tax is going to hit hardest outside the core manufacturing zone in Australia's south-east. States like Queensland that rely heavily on tourism for jobs will be devastated by this tax. I understand that none of this information is new. I realise that all these facts are well understood by the entire community. It was certainly understood by the Democrats.The Democrats also understood that this tax is highly regressive, that the GST is a massive slug on low and middle income earners and that the extra revenue raised from this slug is being used to pass on tax cuts to the rich—and passed on at a disproportionate rate. The Democrats knew also that the tax fails to exempt those areas that the government claimed to be exempt. In particular, the Democrats knew that this was a tax on reading and a tax on education. They understood this. They also understood that these flaws are the fundamental faults of the GST.The Democrats knew all this before they began their negotiations with the government but, instead of going into negotiations with the government determined to support fair and workable tax reform, they went in determined to have a GST. At any cost, they negotiated away the concerns of community, of their party membership and, ultimately, of the senators themselves. What paltry changes the Democrats did receive will mean nothing. Removing fresh, unprocessed food from the GST will go no further towards the desired outcome of this tax from the Democrats' perspective. These changes take none of the pain of the GST away from middle and low income earners. They do nothing to prevent a ridiculous tax imposition on literacy and learning in Australia. These changes will see this package skewed unfairly towards breaks at the top end of town, and they will still see families hurting.What has changed is the compliance headache for businesses dealing with a billion dollar distraction and the Democrats masquerading as big-time party players and policy makers. The small business migraine will come on every time there is a new product or fresh litigation in the never ending attempt to clarify exemptions. Whilst others in the House have illustrated very effectively the economic impact of these exemptions, it is worth noting that an exemption on fresh, unprocessed food falls well short of the Democrats' promise of the widest possible definition of food. As a result of this, the Democrats have provided very little GST shelter for the household food budget from the GST. Up to one-third of the food budget in low income households will still be GST taxable under the Democrats' amendments and food is one-third of general household expenses.A submission to the Senate Select Committee on a New Tax System has shown overall levels of food consumption are not greatly affected by rising or falling prices, particularly the food budgets of lower and middle income families. This shows that, inasmuch as the Democrats' amendments were supposed to shield low income earners from the GST and put a little more of the revenue burden on high income earners, it has failed. So then we are left to ask: why exempt food? Why exempt certain types of food? The Democrats had a belief that exempting food would soften the impact of the GST. Well, that has not happened. Also the Democrats have chosen food exemption when other compensation measures would have proven more effective, based on the fact that the Democrats were always determined to have a GST anyway.It appears the Democrats' policy to exempt certain types of foods was based on some very misguided and out of touch value judgments about the community and the foods people purchase. The Democrats, it seems, believe in taxing processed foods because they are either fast food or a luxury item, or perhaps both. But this is plainly not true. Processed and prepared foods are not junk foods. It remains to be proven by the Democrats or the coalition that the products they have exempted from the GST are nutritionally superior to the many alternative products they have hit with the tax.I refer most particularly to the situation in which canned foods are GST exempt. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for having already highlighted the ridiculous situation where canned soup is tax free but carton soup is slugged. Think also of salads, such as three-bean mix and the ever popular potato salad: if they are prepared and sold to you in a salad bar set-up, you pay a GST; if you buy them in a can, then they are tax free. The same product, the same food, but wait—the packaging is different, therefore it is taxed. But what is the effect? What is the real difference?One difference is that the salad bar salads are fresh, therefore they are generally made locally with local ingredients. Tinned food, on the other hand, lasts a long time, time enough in fact to be shipped to Australia from overseas. While at the moment it is the case that most tinned foods contain local product, it is also true that nearly 100 per cent of fresh processed foods are local product, except they cop a GST, while tinned processed foods can be imported from overseas and do not get taxed. Thus the Democrat-Howard GST will prove beneficial for food importers at the expense of local producers.Who is hurt in this tax madness? The consumer—they have choices taken away from them because they are penalised with tax for choosing the fresh salad option. Neither can it be sustained that they are being encouraged to purchase a product of superior nutritional value. Under a GST, `fresh is best' will be replaced with `fresh is taxed'.Australia's largest seller of ready to eat fresh products is Mrs Crocket's. It is a Queensland company that employs over 500 staff throughout the eastern coast, including regional Australia. Over 75 per cent of the products it uses are purchased under contract from Australian farms. This company supplies food whole, processed and partly processed. It sells ready to use, ready to heat and ready to eat products. However, under the definition of processed foods, it will have some products taxed and some exempt. But the question is: which ones and how does it define it? Mrs Crocket's is already expecting a six-figure compliance cost in the introduction of this tax. Poorly drafted or ill-defined exemptions will cost it even more in terms of market share.Local workers who are employed to process these foods do not stand to win; it is their jobs that this tax will take away. The local producers, our farmers who supply these fresh salad products, will not win either as their market shrinks also under this tax bias. `That's okay,' says Meg Lees, `You have to draw the line somewhere.' Well, Labor did. We drew the line months ago when we told the Australian public that we would not, could not, support the GST in any form, and we stuck to that promise. This is the only line that makes any sense at all. It is the line behind which low and middle income earners and business can stand with confidence. It is the line the Democrats should be behind, but it is a fair distance from where they are standing now.The Democrats cannot justify their exemption of some categories of food from this tax and forcing others to be taxed. If the Democrats believe that taxing processed foods is some sort of luxury tax, then they prove once again how seriously out of touch they really are. It goes beyond the food snobbery and Orwellian pedagogy of the state's authorised brand, the state sanctioned chicken and the new national loaf of bread, although this in itself is taxation gone mad. It goes further than that. It is, I'm afraid, a new and pernicious form of lifestyle snobbery. The concept that the ingredients to make most foods will not be taxed but if you happen to buy the product fully made then it is taxed cannot be supported by any political party that represents the older or poorer in our society or for that matter the ordinary family.A shepherd's pie is a simple meal. It is nutritious and wholesome. It is the sort of budget meal that most families enjoy from time to time. It can hardly be treated as a luxury item or an item that should be taxed. If you go out and buy the potatoes, mince, flour, milk and fat, you can have a tax-free shepherd's pie. Of course, that is if you can make it yourself. It is a simple process of combining the flour, fat and water to make a pastry dough, kneading the pastry until soft, then rolling and folding until you have a thin sheet of pastry that will then be placed in a greased pie dish. After this, you can begin cooking the savoury mince for the filling of your pie. You then boil the potatoes, mash them and put them on the top of your pie. Put all this in a preheated oven and let it cook for 45 minutes. After about 1½ hours of wholesome, Democrat approved, domestic toiling, you can sit down to a scrumptious tax-free feast.But just maybe you are one of the great majority who, for a variety of reasons, does not have the capacity to make your own pie. Perhaps because you are a working couple without the time to make a shepherd's pie from scratch, or perhaps you are a young mum doing it a bit tough and you do not have a rolling pin or a baking dish. Maybe you once spent hours making your own meals but due to poor health this is no longer possible or maybe you just make a lousy pie. So what do you do? You go down to the supermarket and you pick up a frozen pie, a low cost nutritious family meal that is simple to prepare. `Well, bad luck for you,' say the Democrats and the government. Under this GST, you have to cop a tax. Because your pie is classed as processed food, it is taxed. You are penalised but, even worse, you are penalised because of your lifestyle.The distinction between processed foods and unprocessed foods is a value judgment based on out of date values—a fifties notion, that I am sure the government is comfortable in sustaining, of breadwinners, homemakers and white picket fences. If your family does not fit this neat picture, then you cop the tax.If you can, it is a very satisfying thing to bake your children a birthday cake. You make something nice for the kids and save yourself some GST at the same time. But if you are working every day to pay the bills and on the way home from work you pick up a cake, the Meg Lees/John Howard tax man is going to punish you. For busy families, this is a tax on time. If you can, there is nothing nicer than eating homemade pie straight from the oven. You get to enjoy the pie hot and fresh and save yourself some GST at the same time. But if you have arthritis and cannot mix and roll the pastry, you buy pre-made pastry and the Meg Lees tax man will hit you again. For the infirm, this is a tax on incapacity.This is the Democrats' GST. This is a tax on choices and a tax on convenience; a tax imposed on families and individuals who do not share the Democrats' out of touch and arrogant assumptions about what is good and proper in family life, what should be encouraged and what should be punished. Like the Democrats' assumption on what is bread and what is chicken, the distinction between processed and unprocessed food is totally arbitrary. As Meg Lees said on national television, `It is just a case of where you draw the line.' She is wrong. What she really means is: `It is just a case of where I draw the line.'Who decides what is bread and what is not? Not the consumer, not the middle and low income earner; Meg Lees decides. Who decides what is fresh and what is unprocessed and what is a meal rather than part of a meal? Meg Lees does. This is the Meg Lees buffer for low and middle income earners against the GST. She decides where we need exemption from this pervasive tax. Her only answer is to say, `Fresh food.' That is it. Chris Murphy described food exemption as:. . . a blunt instrument for achieving the equity principle. By comparison, increases in social security benefits and income tax cuts for low income earners are sharper instruments.If the Democrats wanted to shield low income earners from the effects of a GST, why did they not secure a decent compensation package? Instead of settling for half of a pathetic and paltry sum, why did the Democrats trade off decent compensation for a food exemption that is arbitrary and totally unworkable? Why not let families have the money they need to buy the food they want in a manner that suits their lifestyle? After all, we have managed for this long without the Democrats' guide to good living. Surely we can manage a bit longer.Why? Because the Democrats know, as we all know, the GST will eventually erode any compensation package provided and, sooner rather than later, low income earners will be back to square one with a GST hanging over their heads forever. But the Democrats should also know this: as surely as the compensation package will be eroded, so too will government support for food exemption. First, they will get their GST with the Democrats' support in the Senate.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—The government will leave the Democrats carrying the can for the compliance costs of the GST. They will tell every confused retailer and consumer that these are the Democrats amendments, this is the Democrats GST and that they created this mess, not the government. Who will support the Democrats on their stance? The minority of Australians who back the GST will support the Democrats. They will be seen only to have corrupted the original tax plan. The vast majority of Australians who oppose the GST will not thank the Democrats for their capitulation. They know that, like Labor, the Greens and Brian Harradine, they could simply have said, `No deal.' The Democrats will find that the ranks of people outside these groups are very thin.In their efforts to become a big-time political party, the Democrats will become a boutique political organisation with no direction on a dwindling support basis. But do not just take my word for it. Small business has been highly critical of this. All the experts and commentators who so readily supported the government in the original package are also highly critical of this deal. While their motives for a change of heart are different in principle to my position, it is the same criticism that the new tax package is unworkable, that it is too complex and that compliance costs are going to be too high.Let me give the chamber a few examples. Terry McCrann—no friend of the Labor Party; a long-suffering colleague of the coalition—had this to say in the Telegraph of 9 June 1999 under the headline `Democrats GST is bad, it's bad, it's really, really bad':So it was comforting to see that some things don't change. The Dems still like to visit and play at the bottom of the garden.I think that sums it up pretty well. Let me go to the Financial Review for a quote which, again, is from a long-time supporter of the GST. It says:Treasury figures indicate a 10 per cent GST would see tourism prices rise by an aggregate 6.7 per cent, dampening demand for domestic tourism, which accounts for 80 per cent of this $61 billion industry.. . . . . . . . .Tourism employs more than a million Australians. It is labour-intensive, one of this country's fastest-growing economic activities and a field of endeavour in which we enjoy clear advantages over competitors.But no longer because, under this tax, they will be losers. This tax is a tax on jobs.What the government have done is a massive con job. In fact, it is the biggest con job ever perpetrated on the Australian public in political history. First, they tell us that a GST or anything like it is completely off the coalition agenda. But, just to be sure, the Prime Minister said these now infamous words: `never, ever'. They then conned the Australian people further by giving no detail of the GST package and the impact it would have until after the election and only after substantial pressure by the opposition for a Senate inquiry. They then convinced business that this was tax reform when it was really just some sort of mere tax change.They said it was a perfect package. They said it was perfectly simple—that is, until you attempt to read all 284 pages of the original bill. Then, of course, there are the 128 amendments the government have tabled to date. In addition to all the amendments of the Democrat deal which are about to be tabled, there are hundreds of pages of transitional provisions and the administration bill provisions as well. Simple, isn't it? Just try to waffle through all those pages and see where you really end up.This deal between the government and their new coalition partner, the Democrats, fails all Australians. It fails business. It fails absolutely everybody. The implications, the cost and the complexity of this GST package may be lost on the government and may be lost on the Democrats, but it is not lost on everybody else. People will not forget what this means. People will have long memories. (Time expired)12:34:006784O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—In the time that has transpired between the introduction of these budget bills in the House, the debate has almost moved on. I feel in some way for government members, having experienced this many times myself in the past. They brought down this budget on budget night and were hailed for all the wonderful things that were in it. Of course, it has sunk beneath the ocean since then. It has been overtaken by the GST debate. It has been overtaken by the proprietary interests of Mr Entsch from North Queensland and so on. The GST debate which my colleague has been so eloquently talking about will go on for the next two years all the way, I believe, to the next federal election.There were a couple of items in the Treasurer's budget speech which I do not want to allow to slip by without further discussion. That is why I have chosen to say a few words about it during my contribution this afternoon. As I sat there listening to the Treasurer's speech, thinking about the different philosophies of those on the government side and the opposition, I was actually more than surprised by the measures announced on budget night relating to education funding and labour market programs. I say `more than surprised' because I was actually quite sickened by the trends that were being espoused in the philosophy being portrayed.The points I want to make about this are these. We saw the government making great play of the fact that it was working on a new plan for the funding of non-government schools in Australia and preaching, in particular, about the plan to move to a fairer needs based system for funding private schools. But what we saw built into those plans was a significant shift away from funding of state schools.It is hugely relevant to this GST debate because I believe the premiers, in their enthusiasm to get hold of the so-called growth tax allocated to them, have been conned. I do not understand why they do not understand that every dollar the federal government makes available to them in future from the proceeds of the GST is a dollar that is currently funded in federal government programs which will not be provided in the future. They will not be getting specific purpose grants for education for their state schools, for their public hospitals and for all the other general purpose funds that are provided at the moment by direct grants from the federal budget.What in fact the premiers will now be told is, `You all get the GST for that.' We are seeing the very first phase of this in this budget in relation to the cutback in funding for public schools and in the shift of funding going on to encourage the development of more and more private schools as direct competitors to state schools in lots of areas. I regard it as quite sick. The next stage of this has now emerged in Victoria with the Kennett government's announcement of its funding assistance for schools for computers.The great headlines are `All schools to get computers' but, when you get to the guts of it, it is a grant of $1 from the state government for each $3 that the school raises. In wealthy suburbs and in wealthy private schools where they will not have the slightest problem raising their three bucks, they will get an extra dollar from the government. What we are seeing unfold here is this whole philosophy of not only pushing resources but also advantage and opportunity to the children of the people who can afford to pay.The other thing I want to expose which was part of the Treasurer's contribution on budget night on this topic is the claim that the government are adjusting in some way the funding for private schools to rebalance a bit the disproportionate amount going to the wealthier schools. They might be doing that, but in the Treasurer's speech was in fact the guarantee that category 1 schools will continue to receive their present funding levels until 2004. So there is a rhetorical claim made that `we are shifting to a needs based Labor style policy in private school funding; oh, by the way, if you are one of the richest schools in Australia don't worry, because it is guaranteed to stay where it is for the next five years'.I believe this is fraudulent. I believe that when you couple it to the plans being implemented, for instance, by the Victorian state government for the targeting of grants to the schools that can raise the most matching capital—rather than the Labor style needs based policy that worked equally for all schools for a period of 15 years in this country—you are getting a sick shift in national education policy very clearly exposed in this budget; and I intend to continue the campaign on this matter.The other issue I want to raise in these few comments about the budget—as I mentioned earlier, a lot of my colleagues will focus on a lot of the tax and other issues and I am happy for the debate to go on, and I will be part of it—is that I was also deeply disappointed in the approach taken in the budget to labour market programs. I had been given some hope from some of the information I had received from officers around the place that the government were beginning to understand that people who do not have a job and who need assistance to get back into the work force were going to have to have more resources spent on them. That means more dollars per person per placement. No matter what the government like to claim, when you talk to practitioners in the field, the fact is that these labour market programs are not working. Work for the Dole, as an example, might be popular among some of the constituencies they are trying to appeal to, but the fact is that there are very few people on that program getting jobs off it.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—It isn't a labour market program.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—As my colleague the member for the Northern Territory says, it is not a labour market program. It is not a program that is leading to anything much for the hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of young people who are not getting genuine opportunities of the kind they were getting. I mentioned that I was disappointed, because the information that I received was that the briefings that were going to the minister and were being accepted within the government showed that they understood they needed to make a higher allocation per placement to fund better training, better supervision and better actual work placements to create genuine opportunities. That did not come. What came instead was the grand announcement, `We're doubling the number of places for Work for the Dole.' But when you go down into the fine detail, you find that, yes, they might be, but they are not making a single extra dollar available per placement, and that means there will not be one extra element of benefit or advance out of that program.Last week we saw the true measure of this—the new term `job snobs'. The very people who dreamed up the term `dole bludgers' in the early 1980s, when their programs were failing to place people who were unemployed, have now started to pin people as `job snobs'—`If you don't want to go to the job we've got for you; you're a job snob.' You can see it evolving as the camouflage for programs that simply are not working. I do not think we can allow this to happen without trying to expose it. So I wanted to take these few minutes to digress a little from the tax debate taking place in the context of the budget bills at the moment and put the government on notice that those two particular areas of the disgraceful and sick shift in funding away from public schools and the fact that the states have been sold the GST pup which will be used to cut back a whole lot of general purpose grants that were used for funding areas like public hospitals and state schools have to be exposed and continue to be talked through; and I am putting the government on notice that there is no way they are going to get away with another `dole bludgers' campaign. These programs do not work; people know they do not work and we are going to force them to apply genuine dollars to those people who need assistance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment6786UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)— I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.678612:46:006786Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I want to raise the question of the future of the ACT Hospice, which is located on the Acton Peninsula and operated by the Little Company of Mary. As members will be aware, the Acton Peninsula is the site for the development of the new National Museum. In fact, construction is now under way for that project. We need to go back a little in time to understand the situation now facing the ACT Hospice and its community. Acton Peninsula was part of a land swap handing the peninsula over to the Commonwealth, in return for the ACT government receiving control of some land on the Kingston foreshores of Lake Burley Griffin. It is worth noting here that the previous ACT Labor government had excised the hospice site from any consideration in that land swap. When the Carnell Liberal government came to power that decision was reversed, with the hospice site included in the land swap arrangements.When it was decided to locate the museum project on the Acton Peninsula, the federal government, as I understand it, agreed to allow the hospice to `temporarily continue in operation', with regard to amendment 20 to the National Capital Plan. The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald, in a letter to the ACT Leader of the Opposition, said:With regard to Amendment 20 of the national capital plan, you should be aware that the exchange of Commonwealth land at Kingston for ACT land on Acton Peninsula is governed by Land Exchange Agreements made on 1 May 1997. This provides, inter alia, for the ACT to have the licence to operate the Hospice.The ACT Chief Minister signed a licence agreement relating to the hospice on that same day. The licence agreement stipulates that the term commences from the declaration of the premises as national land and terminates on 30 June 1999. This is where the current dilemma becomes stark. The minister for territories has now announced that the Commonwealth will be holding to that date of 30 June and that the hospice will have to move. It appears that no arrangement was made by the ACT government to protect itself from that date. Papers available to date show no consideration by the ACT government to the future of the hospice beyond 30 June in the context of that licence agreement.The federal minister recently expressed his view that the date held and that discussions are under way with the ACT government to consider the future of the hospice. It appears that the recent budget brought down by the ACT government had no allocation or future estimate listed for the construction of a new hospice. Investigations to date show no firm plans for the location of land to house a new hospice. To add to the concerns, it appears that, on the plans for the national museum, the area within the site is shown as `for further development of the museum'. Where does this leave the patients, staff and families at the hospice? The ACT opposition has been calling for action and decisions on this matter for well over 12 months. The federal minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, last October preferred to accuse the ACT Labor opposition of mischief-making when it raised concerns in relation to this issue. That attitude will not solve the problem.The general opinion is that ideally the hospice should be allowed to stay where it is permanently—a more ideal location would be hard to find. If, however, the federal government hold firm to their view that the hospice should relocate, then why has a decision been left to this late date? What has the ACT government been doing? Have there been negotiations between the two governments? Where are the forward estimates in the ACT budget to build a new facility? Has land for this facility been identified? What discussions have been held with the ACT Hospice and Palliative Care Society regarding the future of the hospice? In the meantime, the hospice seems to be consigned to at least two years of living in a major construction site, possibly to no avail but to move. It will take at least two years and $3½ million to $4 million to provide a new location and a new building.At this stage, I can do nothing more than condemn both the ACT and federal governments for this current situation. I urge them both to act honestly and expeditiously and to remove the doubts and uncertainties that currently surround this very important issue. I can assure the federal minister concerned that I intend no mischief-making in bringing this to the attention of this chamber. This is an extremely important issue—one that affects a very vulnerable part of our community. I do not need to go into that detail; we know what service a hospice provides.This hospice is of world-class standard. We in the ACT are extremely proud of it, and we waited a long time to get it. Now that it is here, let us get the ACT and federal governments together quickly to come to a solution that will serve all people concerned.678712:51:006787Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to support the Jubilee 2000 program. Some weeks ago I was approached by a group from St Philip's Anglican Church in Caringbah regarding the Jubilee 2000 program, and I was very pleased to hear more about the program. Jubilee 2000 are an international movement in more than 40 countries advocating a debt free start to the millennium for a billion people. Jubilee 2000 in Australia is a coalition of more than 40 NGOs and church organisations. They are calling for a one-off cancellation of the unpayable debts—not all debt—of the world's poorest countries by the year 2000, under a fair and transparent process. The fact is that more than 50 countries in the world have debts that will never be paid back but continue to be paid daily with people's lives. In Zambia every citizen now owes the country's creditors $790—more than twice the average annual income.It is rather horrific to find out that in 1993 rich nations took back $3 in debt repayments for every $1 they gave in aid. We have this great feeling that we are doing worthwhile things when we give our money to the likes of World Vision and Community Aid Abroad, but when we find that, for every $1 that we send $3 is sent back to the Western world in debt repayment, we understand the problem that exists. Every year resources are being diverted away from the basic areas of health, education and sanitation towards unproductive debt service. Economic authorities around the world, including the IMF and the World Bank, have recognised these nations as technically bankrupt. If it were a normal commercial arrangement, debts would be written off, but instead we continue to saddle these countries with debt. It means that they are in a situation that they simply cannot get out of, and that they are worsening their own situation.In 1997 the United Nations Development Program stated that 21 million children's lives could be saved if the money used for debt service was put into health and education. That is an outstanding figure, and it highlights the fact that we are not just talking about some economic factor; we are talking about people's lives. This is a one-off opportunity, at the start of the new millennium, to say, `Let's look at this problem in a serious way.' These countries are the highly indebted poor countries, the HIPC, that have no capacity to get out of this horrendous debt situation and are in a downward spiral. Meanwhile, the basic resources that they have to look after the welfare of the people in those countries, particularly with regard to health, are unable to be provided and children's lives are being lost, as well as those of adults.The World Bank and the IMF established the HIPC Initiative in late 1996 to provide modest debt relief under stringent criteria to the worst affected nations. In setting up the HIPC Initiative, the IMF and World Bank accepted the reality that the world's poorest countries were basically bankrupt and could never repay their outstanding debts. The international financial community acknowledge that they need to take a new approach to this whole area.There are four main areas where the HIPC falls short: the debt sustainability ratios are too high, there is a lack of flexibility for post-conflict countries, the means of determining eligibility for debt reduction are too narrow, and the time frame for debt reduction is far too long. What we are saying in terms of these initiatives is, `Let's take the opportunity; let's remove the debt; let's give these countries the opportunity for a fresh start.' We have the new millennium upon us, and Jubilee 2000 is all about recognising that by clearing the decks. It is more effective to undertake those programs than to give, on a continuing basis, the normal aid funding. Obviously we want that to continue as well, but this is an area that will be much more meaningful.There is significant government involvement. The government of Tony Blair is giving significant support. In March, British Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed Jubilee 2000 leaders to Downing Street and praised them for their great campaign. He agreed that the current form of the HIPC Initiative is not good enough. In a recent speech, Gordon Brown, the Treasurer of Britain, thanked Jubilee 2000 for `the sweep of your achievements so far, and yes, the scale of your ambitions we are summoned to meet'. (Time expired)678912:56:006789Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I would like to raise the issue today of illicit drug use. My electorate includes the suburbs of Footscray and Sunshine. Unfortunately those areas share, in common with some of the other suburbs in Melbourne—probably five or six other hot spots—the infamy of being one of the main street trading and street using areas for heroin. It is a very confronting and unfortunate problem that we face in our community, but it is a problem which is suffered across the wider community. In areas like my electorate, where the street trade and street use is very heavy and apparent, it does cause great grief within our community.Several months ago the Labor Party federally released a drugs discussion paper which has been distributed very widely within my community—to councils, to the Western Region Aids Prevention Service, to health and youth workers, to Open Family, to schools and to a large number of other organisations. We have received many responses dealing with the issue of drug use and some potential ways of solving this very difficult problem. I have been encouraging the community to be actively involved in this debate and will continue to do that while we grapple with the difficult issues that face us.I also had the opportunity several weeks ago to have Labor's Caucus Committee on Government Service Delivery visit in my electorate the needle exchange centre that is not far from my office. It was very important for those Labor members who do not have an electorate similar to mine to be given the opportunity to look at the area, to talk with workers that are constantly involved with this issue and to see some of the devastation that is being caused by drug use in our community.This is all part of a very important process that our community needs to own and be a part of. Since the release of the federal Labor Party's drugs discussion paper, the Carr government has held a very successful drugs summit in New South Wales which had wide-ranging representation from the community, from political leaders, from health workers, from community workers and from church organisations, all of whom had an opportunity to discuss the many and varied views that people in the community hold on this difficult issue. The summit resulted in 172 recommendations, which I think is an indication of how complex this problem is. The Carr government is now considering the appropriate approach it can take to this issue.I congratulate the Carr government for its good work in this area and its recognition that such a complex problem requires a complex range of solutions, not just one single solution, to this difficulty. I would like to call on our Kennett government in Victoria to take the same approach. Mr Kennett has been very active in raising his concerns, particularly the increasing heroin use in our community, but unfortunately we need Mr Kennett to go beyond that. We need him to `walk the talk', not just `talk the talk', and along with a number of my colleagues I will be very active in trying to encourage the state government in Victoria to deal with this issue in a similarly balanced and open way. A large number of members within my community would certainly like to be actively involved in that debate.We need to consider the range of solutions to this problem. We all know this includes education and prevention programs, but we also need to deal with harm minimisation for those people who are already addicted or who are in the unfortunate circumstances of not being able to get themselves out of their difficult circumstances and who see drug use as some way of solving the other social problems that they may be suffering. We need to look at appropriate detoxification. We need to look at whether or not adequate resources are being provided for the many health services that are needed to assist drug users going through rehabilitation programs as well as detoxification.I also would urge the Kennett government to look closely at the issue of supervised injecting areas. I specifically call them `supervised' injecting areas; I think `safe' injecting rooms is a bit of a misnomer. We know that drug use is not safe, but we also know that harm minimisation is an issue which requires us to look a little bit beyond the norms, and maybe supervised injecting rooms will be helpful in saving some people's lives. It is an issue that I have an open mind about, and I think in Victoria we are not doing enough to look at the appropriate solutions.I note that the member for Ballarat is going to be rising after me and I would encourage him not to raise the issue of Tony `Plugger' Lockett again today unless, of course, he is going to bring to the chamber's attention the team that he in fact supports.679013:01:006790Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—We are doing a tag team on this. I know the honourable member wants me to say some more about it, and I will. I was going to mention at the end of my five minutes today that on Monday or Tuesday when I mentioned Plugger's fantastic goal kicking record, I neglected to mention my cousin's wife, Di Nevett, who is Plugger's sister. I would like to congratulate Di. There would have been a significant family problem if I had not mentioned Di's name. Di is a pretty handy sportswoman herself and I know she would be very proud of her brother Tony and that magnificent feat last weekend.I was forced into that by the honourable member. I actually wanted to talk about something which is probably even more special than Tony `Plugger' Lockett's goal kicking record, and that is that a hundred very special people have moved from the school classes at Puckapunyal to school classes at Ballarat today. Robbie Cullenward, whose official title is marketing and media officer at the City of Ballarat, faxed me a press release last night to let me know that 100 Kosovar refugees are in Ballarat today. They will be having a fantastic time. A terrific program has been arranged. They were transported in buses to Ballarat this morning. They have been to see the Australian sheepdogs in action, and I am sure they will remember that. They are having lessons on Australiana and the 1850s gold rush. The program included an official welcome at 11 o'clock this morning by the mayor. The operators at the Australian Woolshed, which is a fantastic tourism venue, have rescheduled their famous ram parade, which has to be seen to be believed, so that these Kosovar refugees can see that in action. At this very minute they are at Sovereign Hill, no doubt Australia's premier tourism venue. They have enjoyed a typical Aussie barbecue. Some local school children welcomed them this morning with a very stirring rendition of Waltzing Matilda. Congratulations to the kids that were involved in that.Sovereign Hill is providing an important element in the students' learning and understanding of Australian history and the story of gold in Australia. While at the tourist park the Kosovar children will try their luck panning for gold, catch a ride on the coach down the main street of Sovereign Hill, go underground on the mine tour and be treated to a special theatre presentation in Sovereign Hill's Victoria Theatre. This is a joint community effort between the City of Ballarat, tourist operators and the Ballarat business community. I congratulate everyone involved.We as a community—and indeed this parliament—can be proud of the way Australia has taken Operation Safe Haven as its own. Governments of all political persuasions can do so much. The fact that we have provided Australia as a safe haven is fantastic. As a nation we should be proud. What makes me really proud—and I am sure I speak for all members—is the fact that so many communities across Australia have got behind this and are doing things like the City of Ballarat and the business community and the tourist operators are doing for these 100 young people. This is an experience for them. They are seeing something new. I think we are all playing our part to try and heal some of the wounds they have suffered. Operation Safe Haven can in no way heal all those wounds. That is going to take a very long time. It is a great tragedy that young children should have been subjected to the trauma that these young children have experienced. But I am proud that our great country is playing its part. The government contribution is very important, but even more important is the fact that the Australian community has got right behind this. Today is just an example of a number of things that have been happening all over Australia, through communities in the north, south, east and west getting behind this and doing something.I welcome the appointment by Senator Kay Patterson of my colleague Fran Bailey as a Safe Haven patron at the Puckapunyal Safe Haven and my colleague Mr Lou Lieberman at the Bandiana Safe Haven. (Time expired)679113:06:006791Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—This year marks the 50th anniversary of the National People's Congress of China. On this occasion an invitation was extended to the Australia-China Parliamentary Friendship Group to visit China and meet with the national and provincial officials of the National People's Congress. In the light of world events during and since the visit, the delegation was able to gain valuable insights into developments in the world's most populous country. Ten members of the House took part in the delegation, led by the honourable member for Aston. The delegation visited Beijing and met with foreign ministry officials and members of the China-Australia Friendship Group of the National People's Congress.A highlight of the visit to Beijing was a frank but friendly meeting with China's Premier Zhu Rongji. The meeting took place the day before the Premier departed for his visit to the United States. The Premier was confident of a positive outcome from his talks in the US concerning China's entry into the World Trade Organisation and other issues. The Premier expressed confidence in continuing good relations between Australia and China. As the delegation was to visit Tibet, the issue of the future status of Tibet and the role of the Dalai Lama was raised by the delegation. Premier Zhu restated the position that Tibet was part of China and pointed to the level of aid provided to the Tibet Autonomous Region by the central government. The Premier disputed statements by the Dalai Lama, suggesting that the Dalai Lama was free to return to Tibet as a religious leader but not as a leader of an independence movement.Extensive discussions were held with the National People's Congress China-Australia Friendship Group on a broad range of issues including the progress being made with the reform of state owned enterprises, environmental issues, the status of Tibet and the Dalai Lama, the process of legislation in the National People's Congress, relations with Taiwan, developments in human rights in China and China's relationship with Australia. The group was particularly interested in the delegation's visit to Tibet, and again stressed China's position that Tibet is the inalienable territory of China and that the government of China is the legitimate government. With regard to reconciliation with the Dalai Lama, the delegation was told that this would require the Dalai Lama to give up any claims for independence for Tibet and to stop separatist activities. As for Tibetans living abroad, the delegation was told that they were free to enter and leave Tibet and that some 10,000 had done so in recent years, with 2,000 resettling in Tibet. En route to Tibet the delegation visited Chengdu, taking the opportunity to meet with representatives of their congress. Chengdu is pursuing the development of high technology industries. The province enjoys some advantages due to its more modern infrastructure and equipment.Finally, the delegation visited Guangzou, where we met with representatives of the Guandong Provincial People's Congress as well as meeting with the Guandong Women's Federation. This meeting was of particular interest to the six women members of the 10-member delegation. The federation had received aid funding from AusAID for a project aimed at protecting the rights of women in the Pearl River Delta. It was interesting to note that issues such as domestic violence and the exploitation of women workers were being addressed by this worthwhile aid program.I would like to thank Mr Graham Meehan and Mr Peter Noonan from the Australian Embassy in Beijing; our Ambassador to China, Mr Ric Smith; Mr You Wenze from the Chinese Embassy in Canberra, who accompanied the delegation; and the Chinese Ambassador to Australia, Mr Zhou, for arranging the delegation. I would also thank my fellow members on the delegation for making the visit an informative and pleasant experience.679213:11:006792Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I have risen in the Main Committee on a number of occasions before to speak of problems concerning Brisbane airport. Within its overall structure, Brisbane airport has a body called the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee. It is the principal body through which the community consults with the airport and relevant government instrumentalities on the management of environmental problems flowing from the airport, including issues such as aircraft noise. The environment committee was in fact established as a result of a recommendation of a 1991 report and has been in continuous existence since then.Since the privatisation of Brisbane airport in about 1996-97, together with other airports around the country, that committee has continued its functions. The practice of the committee, laid down for some time under different governments, has been that it has on it representatives from the affected federal members, state members and of the local council—in the case of Brisbane, the Brisbane City Council. The federal member for Griffith, being one of the seats most affected by Brisbane airport, has in the past been represented by Mr Don Coulam. He was the representative appointed by my predecessor's predecessor, Mr Ben Humphreys, who I think would be known to some of the honourable members here today, fine member that he was.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— A good friend.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—He was a good friend of many of those present. My predecessor, Graham McDougall, also retained Mr Coulam's services. Mr Coulam has just indicated, however, that having been on the committee for some four years now, he wishes to retire. I have nominated as his replacement Ms Jackie Cann, who is the president of a local community organisation particularly concerned about aircraft noise as it affects the southern suburbs of Brisbane.I wrote to Brisbane airport and advised them of Ms Cann's nomination by me to fill this position. However, a letter received by Ms Cann on 2 June from the Brisbane Airport Corporation, copied to Minister John Anderson—a letter similar to the one I received—said that it was impossible to accept Ms Cann's nomination to the BAEC because such representatives are not nominated by the federal member but rather by the federal government. This is an interesting twist on developments as it flies in the face of the history of this committee going back some six years now. It also flies in the face of the minutes of that committee itself, on which the Brisbane Airport Corporation is represented, since the change of government in March 1996. In the minutes of a meeting of 28 August 1996 it is stated:On the issue of method of appointment, it was concluded that the best equipped people to make the selection of community representatives were the local members of parliament/council, who after all, have been elected by their communities to represent them.As a result, the [Brisbane Airport Consultative Committee] agreed that the current method of appointment, whilst not perfect, was still the best method available. It remains open for local members to appoint action group representatives if they believe they are the best people for the job.This matter was further clarified in correspondence to the previous minister for transport, Mr Mark Vaile, by Mr Alexander Zeverijn, Chairman of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee, who is also, I understand, an employee of the Brisbane Airport Corporation. In this letter of 16 February 1998, the chairman of the committee goes on to say that `the essential elements of the revised terms of reference' of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee include, among others `that community members continue to be appointed by the local, state and federal members'. Based on these documents, I would say that there is somewhat incontrovertible proof that the practice adhered to since 1991 has in fact been ratified under the current government as well.I find it therefore passing strange that the Brisbane Airport Corporation could take exception to the current member for Griffith—namely, myself—making a new nomination to that committee. I can only conclude that the Brisbane Airport Corporation has not found me to be their favourite pin-up boy for the simple reason that I have given them such a hard time on their management of environmental questions and aircraft noise, particularly in the southern suburbs of Brisbane.I have therefore written to the current minister for transport, Minister Anderson, seeking his support to simply continue the practice in this area which has occurred under previous members, Labor and Liberal, since 1991.Main Committee adjourned at 1.16 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing6794The following answers to questions were circulated:6794(Question No. 581)5816794Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 487 (Hansard , 31 March 1999, page 4101) concerning the superannuation entitlements of Comcar drivers, did Mr Phil Gouldson, Mr Chris Gabriel and the local management of Comcar, in presenting the current Comcar drivers agreement to drivers for endorsement at a meeting held in Melbourne on 16 December 1997, (a) promise a one-off payment to drivers of approximately $1000 for each year of service as additional superannuation payments and (b) state in response to a driver's question at the meeting that, as an example, a driver with 27 years' experience would receive approximately $27000 as a additional lump sum payment into the drivers superannuation account; if so, did the undertakings by Comcar management play a major role in the drivers' decision to accept the current Comcar agreement.6794Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) No.(b) No.6794(Question No. 608)6086794Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) Under the Regional Assistance Program (RAP), what is the status of the memorandum of understanding between the departments governing the operation of area consultative committees.(2) What is the nature of the (a) planning and funding process, (b) performance assessment and project evaluation tools, (c) simplified RAP guidelines and (d) updated Internet and email facilities relating to the operation of area consultative committees. (3) Will Ministers and Members play a greater role in the announcement of projects funded under the RAP; if so, how.(4) Have guidelines been established for area consultative committees to determine which Members will be consulted and involved in the preparation and announcement of projects funded under the RAP.6794Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on 30 March by the Ministers for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business; Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Transport and Regional Services. It came into operation on that date. A copy of the MOU is attached.(2) (a) Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) are required to develop a three year Strategic Regional Plan and an annual Business Plan. The Strategic Plan outlines the ACC's broad strategy for employment and regional growth and skills development in its particular region. ACCs are encouraged to develop Strategic Plans which provide an analysis of the issues and problems affecting the region, an indication of priorities for the region, a statement of the outcomes the ACC expects to achieve and an indication of the strategies the ACC will follow to achieve these outcomes. The Annual Business Plan is a practical document addressing costings of each ACC's operations and RAP activity for the year for budget administration purposes.The Commonwealth provides funds to support the operation of ACCs. Base funding of $7m was allocated in 1998/99 for ACC operations.Funds are allocated ($33.3m* for this financial year) to State level on the basis of State unemployment levels. Additional allocation is provided to Tasmania and the Northern Territory in recognition of the geographic isolation of their labour markets.(*NB this amount includes funding for business incubators, national emergencies if required or nationally significant projects).State level indicative funding allocations for ACCs are based on their annual Business Plans. In determining an indicative funding allocation, the department may consider such factors as each ACC region's:- unemployment levels;- share of population;- forward project liability from previous financial years;- previous level of RAP activity;- share of youth and indigenous Australian populations;- size of labour force.Both operational and project funding arrangements are under review in consultation with ACC Chairs, with the aim of introducing improved, nationally consistent arrangements for next financial year.(b) To date there has been no formal mechanism through which to assess the performance of an ACC or to evaluate the impact of RAP projects. The department has engaged a consultant to develop an assessment and evaluation tool in consultation with ACCs.(c) A National Policy Framework and Guidelines for RAP are currently being developed in consultation with ACC Chairs and Executive Officers. A guide for applicants is being updated.(d) There is a public web site for ACCs on the Internet. This site provides information on, and contact points for, each ACC. The department has recently instigated a project to update the site on a regular basis, eg remove out of date information, update and correct links to other sites and improve menu access. It is also proposed to establish a secure (private) ACC web site for the purpose of improving communication between the department and ACCs and between ACCs. As an interim measure an email list (or `acclist') has been established which allows secure communication between ACCs and ACCs and the department.(3) All RAP projects will be referred to the Minister for Employment Services for announcement.(4) No.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGBetween: Ministers for. Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Transport and Regional ServicesPurposeThe purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish a cooperative working relationship between the Ministers' portfolio departments in relation to the utilisation of Area Consultative Committees (ACCs). BackgroundACCs bring together key industry, employer, and community representatives to identify priorities and opportunities for employment and economic development as well as linked education and training issues in their region. A network of 58 committees Australia-wide was established to provide regional leadership so regions could make the most of their economic and labour market strengths. The ACC Network is allocated operating funds through the Regional Assistance Program.The Government considers the ACC Network an important element in the achievement of its goals for employment and economic growth in metropolitan, regional and rural Australia. It has a primary communication role within its local community to both promote and disseminate government programs and initiatives; and provide advice and feedback on the impact of those initiatives to better inform implementation of the employment services market reforms.ACCs will continue to be administered by and operate under the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Through that department ACCs will have a strong relationship with the Departments of Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Transport and Regional Services. The Department of Transport and Regional Services has a primary role in coordinating programs and activities that affect rural and regional Australia across a range of portfolios.ResponsibilitiesThe proposed approach for this MOU will bring together the signatories, or their designated representatives, to provide leadership for effective communication, monitor and assess policy implementation issues, address data needs, improve overall management of dissemination and promotion of Government programs and initiatives through the ACC Network.A coordinating group will be established to enable practical implementation of the principles underlying the MOU. The group will be chaired by Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and comprise of representatives from the Departments of Transport and Regional Services and Education, Training and Youth Affairs.. Consultation between the three portfolios, on the Regional Assistance Program, the strategic role, charter and operation of ACCs with a focus on identifying matters for inclusion in the annual statement of priorities issued by Ministers.. The provision of advice and reports on relevant areas of interest to each portfolio will be forwarded to the designated representative. . Access to ACCs, including national meetings/strategic planning sessions of ACC chairs and to appropriate ACCs on regional visits will be facilitated for each portfolio.. The sharing of information on portfolio priorities that may affect ACCs will be undertaken regularly.. The Ministers' offices will confer in advance of any major announcements impacting on regional Australia.. ACC advice and feedback on impact of government programs and initiatives will be provided to the relevant portfolio through appropriate communication mediums.. Each portfolio will give consideration of resource implications where a discrete activity is requested of the ACC Network.. Through consultation, appropriate communication mechanisms will be determined, developed, maintained and, as appropriate, funded.AuthorityThis MOU becomes effective upon its signature by relevant Ministers. The MOU will continue in effect for three years, be reviewed annually and be modified by mutual consent.The Hon Peter Reith, MP The Hon Dr David Kemp, MPMinister for Employment, Minister for Education,Workplace Relations and Small Business Training and Youth AffairsMarch 1999 March 1999The Hon John Anderson, MPMinister for Transport andRegional ServicesMarch 19996796(Question No. 611)6116796Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 551 (Hansard , 12 May 1999, page 4343) about Holsworthy Correctional Centre, was the use of Defence Force Corrective Establishment standing orders as a means of indicating new punishments referred to in the Department of Defence's submission to the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into military justice procedures; if not, why not.(2) What is the head of power in the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 that allows for the development of new punishments. (3) Have the standing orders provided for new punishments.(4) What is the specific standing order covering attitude adjustment training.6796Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The use of the Defence Force Corrective Establishment standing orders as a means of indicating new punishments was not referred to in the Department of Defence's submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Inquiry into Military Justice Procedures in the Australian Defence Force. Punishments that follow from the formal disciplinary process are prescribed in the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 and there is no other source or authority for the imposition of punishments. The Defence Force Corrective Establishment is a military establishment that has a role in the implementation of certain sentences awarded to Australian Defence Force members by Service Tribunals. The Defence Force Corrective Establishment standing orders are not a means of indicating new punishments and have no relevance to the formal disciplinary procedures of sentence established by the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. As the Defence Force Corrective Establishment cannot in itself award sentences to Australian Defence Force members, its standing orders were not referred to in that context in the submission to the Inquiry.(2) Only Service Tribunals under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 may award disciplinary punishments as prescribed by the Act. There is no head of power that permits a Service Tribunal or a Defence entity, such as the Defence Force Corrective Establishment, to develop and impose new punishments. Development of new punishments requires legislative amendment.(3) The Defence Force Corrective Establishment standing orders do not provide for new punishments, nor were they intended to provide for punishments in terms of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. The standing order provision for `Discipline Tours', which over time transformed into `Attitude Adjustment Training', was solely intended to familiarise selected Australian Defence Force members with the procedures involved in serving detention at the Defence Force Corrective Establishment should they later be awarded detention by a Service Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.(4) The Defence Force Corrective Establishment standing orders of June 1996 at Annex B to Chapter 5 included a flow-chart relating to Discipline Tour procedures. In December 1996, the Defence Force Corrective Establishment was subsumed by the Military Police School. The Military Police School standing orders were amended to incorporate the operation of the Defence Force Corrective Establishment, and its standing orders included staff duty statements which detailed instructions for conducting Discipline Tours. Discipline Tours were suspended in July 1997 and all reference to Discipline Tours was deleted from subsequent standing orders. The practice of Discipline Tours or Attitude Adjustment training has not been undertaken since July 1997, nor is there any proposal to reintroduce the practice.